Do you agree with this...

[gruntygiggles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/8262581.stm

So, he lied about his epilepsy in order to get a commercial driving license, he is on record as saying he stopped taking his meds as they interfered with the effects of alcohol and is also charged with one count of assault, so not a glowing character reference there!

Now, I totally agree with the decision to charge him with second degree murder as opposed to manslaughter and my question is, is there anyone that thinks that this charge is too tough?

I am glad to see that the New York courts are taking such a strict line with this case. He's proven to be dishonest and reckless at the very least. IMO, when you get behind the wheel of a car, get on a bike etc, you ear essentially getting into/onto a potentially deadly weapon. A strong way to put it but it gets my point across. AN accident is an accident, but where a driver has made a concious decision, in the knowledge of the potential consequences, the harshest penalties should be given.

yes, he was deliberately negligent and caused two deaths, he deserves what's coming,

[Bluepete]

I think that the law in USA is so different to ours that in these circumstances, it's hard to comment on the type of charge.

Odd though that the article says there is no blood alcohol test, a standard proceedure in the UK.

[ophic]

From the way the article is written, it appears he was either honest enough to admit his mistakes with the drugs, or too stupid to realise the implications.

This is the only good thing I can say about him. He should have the book thrown at him - but someone who lies throughout the whole legal process should have the book thrown harder.

It doesn't change the outcome, but there has to be some incentive for honesty.

[Biker Biggles]

I doubt if he would have had a licence to drive anything here in UK.But I dont agree with the charge of murder.That should be reserved for proper murderers or it gets devalued.Plenty of sanctions available if other charges are made,at least here there would be.

What a plonker. As Bluepete says, their laws are different but yeah, I would agree with it in principle.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

I doubt if he would have had a licence to drive anything here in UK.But I dont agree with the charge of murder.That should be reserved for proper murderers or it gets devalued.Plenty of sanctions available if other charges are made,at least here there would be.

mrs giggles has epilepsy which is controlled by tablets and has a full driving licence and is due to do her bike test soon
she had to be fit free for 3 years before getting a licence which is reviewed (medically) every 3 years, thankfully gemma hasnt had a seizure in may years and would never or any reason stop useing her medication,
as for this chap well he knowingly if stupidly knew he was taking a risk by not using meds so yes he should be done to the highest standard possible, gemma drinks, socialises, and does everything i do on her meds so not taking them is unnessary and pointless

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

I doubt if he would have had a licence to drive anything here in UK.But I dont agree with the charge of murder.That should be reserved for proper murderers or it gets devalued.Plenty of sanctions available if other charges are made,at least here there would be.

I have to agree that the second degree murder charge in this case is justified and correct. He was originallt facing a charge of manslaughter. However, in light of the evidence that he lied about his epilepsy condition to his employers and willfully chose to stop medication while continuing to drive, the charge was increased. This is not a man who was ill and forgot to take his meds. He is a man who knowingly decieved his employers and the state in order to obtain a commercial license and he also knowingly put others at risk by continuing to drive whilst not medicated.

You have the lives of others in your hands when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle. You have a legal (not to mention moral) responsibility NOT to drive should you not be fit to drive. He was not only not fit to drive, but he had actively hidden the fact and still continued.

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

I suppose I see where they got the grounds to increase the charge from, I mean the guy had an fit so it's an accident.
However he had the fit because he wasn't taking his meds because it stopped him getting drunk...ok Manslaughter.
He lied about this to get the job in the first place, I suppose it's harsh but fair to a point, I think the difference is about 12 years on the sentence, and they do things consecutivly in the states so if he gets any additional charges (very possable) he could be in for a very very long time.
Personally I would of said his attitude before and after would be a big factor in if it's deserved or not.

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by PsychoCannon

Personally I would of said his attitude before and after would be a big factor in if it's deserved or not.

+1

He is also up on a charge of assault connected with the offence so his character is not looking like it's going to help him out much!