glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
blassberg said:I think its on topic - the guy was done for dangerous driving.
I understand what your saying, but it would be grossly unfair to comment on something where we do not know the true facts.
My observation about stopping within the distance you can see to be safe is actually a catch all type statement, and 'used' to lead to a lot of prosections when motorists were regularly prosecuted for being involved in an accident.
Shude makes a slightly flawed arguement about not prosecuting anyone for 'just' speeding'. What about if someone swerves to avoid the speeding motorist? It's safe to speed unless you have an accident!!! No sorry, I disagree. I am no saint and like the majority of us, I have broken numerous speed limits, but I have always made a concious decision to break the law, if I get caught then I should accept the consequences.
Quite a lot of people are upset about this Policeman getting away with this motoring incident and say 'one rule for them, and another for the rest of us!' I think that is being silly....
We have just had a driver walk free from court after killing a child. This driver lost control of their car, slid across the road, across a grass embankment and into a car park where he then collided with the child. The judge ORDERED the jury to find the driver not guilty as the prosectution had failed to prove that the driving fell below the standard of the average driver (Not an exact quote) This driver was not a Police Officer, but have you noticed how nobody is screaming one rule for them and one rule for us??? Clearly I do not know the full circumstances of the case, just like I do not know the circumstances of the Police Officers case, but people are being found not guilty of crimes every day of the week.
Regards,
John