Lamborgini Supercar Killer Is Jailed

[Jabba]

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2005331361,00.jpg

FULL STORY

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005330910,,00.html

[dingo]

Why does it seem its always the innocent people are killed, when the guy doing the crime gets out alive.... :?

At least he can think about it in jail for a bit now, not that he'll do all 9 yrs. :|

[jamberl]

Obviously thats terrible, but 9 years does seem a little high... especially if it was an accident. People get less time for much more intentional and cold blooded crimes.

[dingo]

Obviously thats terrible, but 9 years does seem a little high... especially if it was an accident. People get less time for much more intentional and cold blooded crimes.

it was obviously an accident since he didn't go out to kill the guy - but he was doing 120mph so he could have avoided it by not driving so fast. The fact he lied about who was driving surely didn't help his cause either.....deserves what he got IMO.

[jamberl]

Obviously thats terrible, but 9 years does seem a little high... especially if it was an accident. People get less time for much more intentional and cold blooded crimes.

it was obviously an accident since he didn't go out to kill the guy - but he was doing 120mph so he could have avoided it by not driving so fast. The fact he lied about who was driving surely didn't help his cause either.....deserves what he got IMO.

Thats true, but in comparison to other sentences it seems harsh. Its almost a decade!! I would imagine that if anyone here at JW had a lambo, they wouldnt be doing the speed limit either- all it takes is some bad luck and you're suddenly a murderer.

Anyway, its probably a bit hard to judge properly, as we dont know all the facts of this particular case.

[sikx5]

That is a sad accident indeed, and a very young lambo owner.....

[Ghostbat]

Obviously thats terrible, but 9 years does seem a little high... especially if it was an accident. People get less time for much more intentional and cold blooded crimes.

IMO that's not harsh at all. When your reckless driving is costing innocent people their lives you deserve to be punished severly. If you were a relative of the killed driver you would definetely change your mind if you had to live the rest of your life without a loved one, just because of some dumbass.

Now don't get me wrong. I like speed as much as you guys but one should always calculate the risks before going fast.

[Anonymous]

he'll only serve 4 and a half or less with good behaviour due to the joke that is our legal system. Whatever sentance people get they only seem to serve half or less with all the schemes in place for parole. As far as i'm concerned this sounds like a case of inappropriate speed for the conditions and perhaps his own driving ability.



He sped at up to 120mph on the dark, wet A7 at Blackford, near Carlisle, the city’s crown court heard.

Now i don't have first hand experience of the road but dark and wet= don't do probably double the limit. :roll: Now just about nobody sticks to the limits over here, but you do have to adapt to what the conditions are.

Also he didn't do himself any favours by claiming his passenger was driving, fucking low life :roll: i bet that didn't go down well with the Judge in this case.

[jakaracman]

Too harsh. Compare that to punishments for pedophiles and such (they should be at least 10 times that, but they are not).
2-3 yrs would be OK, + monthly payments of at least dead man's wages prior to his deatth times 5 to familly of deceased util any of them (or lambo driver) live. They'll have nothing of him inn jail, it's better that he pays ...

[BADMIHAI]

2-3 yrs would be OK, + monthly payments of at least dead man's wages prior to his deatth times 5 to familly of deceased util any of them (or lambo driver) live. They'll have nothing of him inn jail, it's better that he pays ...

But that would only be more incentive for the rich who could possibly afford to pay that money. It'd be like buying your way out.

120 mph isn't THAT fast, but on a wet, dark road it must be pretty crazy.

[jaime_25]

I cant believe you pussies saying his sentence is harsh..

this fucking maniac was doing at least twice the speed limit at night in the wet, which seriously reduces visibility and grip - a damn good reason not to go too fast, and because of that he killed an innocent guy and ruined the lives of his victims family including 3 young children...

then he lied and tried to deny he was even driving, pushing the blame onto a friend who was in his car... as for it being an accident.. yeh an accident caused by his recklessness, stupidity and lack of consideration for others

the cunt deserves 9 years and then some, even if it wont undo the damage he has caused to others

[Toronto]

^^^ also he was "was banned from driving at the time." so he isn't a 1st time offender (he must of done somthing bad to loose his licence) and I have no sympathy as result of his sentence, 2nd time offenders should get extra time in jail with a big cell made named "big happy bubba" :twisted:

[jakaracman]

All I say is tha the family should be provided by him for the rest of their life. Jail sentence is just to "equalize" things for rich & poor ...

[ARMAN]

:shock: 200km/h on any road (excluding german Autobahn maybe) in wet + in the night is for a jail already! :roll:
As Jakaracman said him paying his family for the rest of his life is useful and responsible after he get out.

[a007apl]

:shock:

[dingo]

:shock: 200km/h on any road (excluding german Autobahn maybe) in wet + in the night is for a jail already! :roll:

Hey, you forgot the Stuart Hwy in Australia which also has no speed limit. :wink:

[dingo]

taking into consideration that people do worse shit and doing it on purpose, 9 years is a bit tough here.

the legal system is a joke. is and always will be.

how much worse then killing an innocent father-of-three does it get, intentional or not?

[ZfrkS62]

taking into consideration that people do worse shit and doing it on purpose, 9 years is a bit tough here.

the legal system is a joke. is and always will be.

how much worse then killing an innocent father-of-three does it get, intentional or not?

its not premeditated, and thats what it usually comes down to in alot of court case's and the determining factor as to how much time someone will serve.

yes, he wasnt suppose to be out driving
yes, he shouldnt of been doing that speed

but 9 years give me a break.

Did he get combined sentences or was the 9 years just for the guy's death?

Frankly i think you should all stfu for comparing this sentence to others. His sentence is fine and all the premeditated murders that you guys are comparing it to are too low.

I would expect a sentence like that if that was one of my family members that got killed.

[Robbo]

Hardly harsh he cost a 30 year old a good percentage of his life and now his 3 kids don't have a father. Accident or not he shouldn't have been doin 120 on wet roads. If my father was killed by this idiot I'd be saying the idiot got off lightly. He should be made to serve every one of those 9 years and then pay the family plenty of compensation.

[jakaracman]

taking into consideration that people do worse shit and doing it on purpose, 9 years is a bit tough here.

the legal system is a joke. is and always will be.

how much worse then killing an innocent father-of-three does it get, intentional or not?
So basically you say that if I drop bottle of oil in supermarket (I'm not supposed to, right?) and father of 3 slip, falls and dies I should get 9 years?
There are diffrent degrees of resaposibility and diffrent degrees od intentional/unitentional. You have to judge that before thinking about sentencing ...

[dingo]

taking into consideration that people do worse shit and doing it on purpose, 9 years is a bit tough here.

the legal system is a joke. is and always will be.

how much worse then killing an innocent father-of-three does it get, intentional or not?
So basically you say that if I drop bottle of oil in supermarket (I'm not supposed to, right?) and father of 3 slip, falls and dies I should get 9 years?
There are diffrent degrees of resaposibility and diffrent degrees od intentional/unitentional. You have to judge that before thinking about sentencing ...

Dropping oil at the supermarket is not illegal (and you would clean it up anyway) - but doing twice the speed limit on a wet road at night and not actually being allowed to drive at the time is definately illegal.

If this happened while the guy was doing 60mph (or whatever the limit is) and actually had a license then of course it would be a different story....

[JaguarEtype]

dingo wrote

Hey, you forgot the Stuart Hwy in Australia which also has no speed limit.


4 simple Questions
1: Which state?
2: how long is the highway
3: How good is the road surface (i definately dont want gravel or worse)
4: how far is it from Brisbane :D :twisted: :D

oh and back to the original topic....
the guys a moron: driving whilst banned is simply arrogant, obviously he didnt learn his lesson from prior convictions so now he has to learn the hard way. which he was certainly forwarned of if he kept driving, and probably would of had a year or 2 in jail anyway if he were to have been caught driving without a licence.. killing someone in the process of stupid antics on a public roads under those driving conditions is pretty much hammering in the last nail to his own coffin. im suprised he didnt get more...
im also impressed by the fact the lambo wasnt completely and utterly demolished (as well as the survival of the lunartic), it didnt look like a head on collision... ( the driver was increadibly lucky if it was head on), obviously the Audi influence on Lamborghini has added some remarkable built quility and strength.. too bad the same couldnt be said for the old Audi 80, poor bugger

[dingo]

dingo wrote

Hey, you forgot the Stuart Hwy in Australia which also has no speed limit.


4 simple Questions
1: Which state?
2: how long is the highway
3: How good is the road surface (i definately dont want gravel or worse)
4: how far is it from Brisbane :D :twisted: :D



1. It covers 2 states - South Australia and the Northern Territory (from Adelaide to Darwin).

2. It is about 2700km in length, though not all of it is limit-free.

3. "first class, two-lane sealed road" - and fairly wide to allow for the huge trucks.

4. Not sure the exact distance - and it depends to which part of the Hwy you are going.

Do you remember the Peter Falconio (the English tourist murdered here)case? Well, that happened on the Stuart Hwy. :wink:

BTW, I will actually be going to the Stuart Hwy in about 2 weeks :D - more news on the full story later (keep an eye on the travel section on JW). :wink:

[JaguarEtype]

dingo wrote


1. It covers 2 states - South Australia and the Northern Territory (from Adelaide to Darwin).

2. It is about 2700km in length, though not all of it is limit-free.

3. "first class, two-lane sealed road" - and fairly wide to allow for the huge trucks.

4. Not sure the exact distance - and it depends to which part of the Hwy you are going.

Do you remember the Peter Falconio (the English tourist murdered here)case? Well, that happened on the Stuart Hwy.

BTW, I will actually be going to the Stuart Hwy in about 2 weeks - more news on the full story later (keep an eye on the travel section on JW).



lol well its about 2000 km from bris to adelaide (done the trip before... long haul.. unless you travel at 130-180kph then its not too bad), so i can assume about the same distance to the highway itself, but it does depend on how it connects up with other major roads.... *gets out road atlas*

then again... i am an englishman.. out-look not too good :? :| ....solution: dont stop for no-one