- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 26,995
- Reaction score
- 22,046
Apparently London just has a ton of shitty drivers.
Asians?!
Apparently London just has a ton of shitty drivers.
I think they said its not terrorism, not that its not a crime. He could be a drunk or negligent driver which I'd imagine would still make him culpable.If it's a legit accident (not culpable for any crime whatsoever) like the police are adamant it is, how long does this guy have to remain in custody?
Usually they release people and it becomes a insurance thing. "Don't ask questions". . .
Asians?!
Did he run over the mayor?<{monica}>Just part of living in a big city.
Did he run over the mayor?<{monica}>
Then he should logically be able to walk free today. Cops face as he walks because it's "not terrorism" and just a regular "car collision". . .I think they said its not terrorism, not that its not a crime. He could be a drunk or negligent driver which I'd imagine would still make him culpable.
So what's your angle here? You think its a terrorist cover up or something? Just come out and say it if so.Then he should logically be able to walk free today. Cops face as he walks because it's "not terrorism" and just a regular "car collision". . .
Regular drunks who cause minor injuries are let go and put on bail or whatever so should this guy. Cops only have about 8 hours left to charge him if it's not terrorism. Let's see where this goes.
Atheists are just as stupid.Ain't me saying that!
I'm an atheist by lack of faith but a Christian by philosophy.
If they don't release him and still are quiet about what he's charged with 24 hours later then it's suspicious since cops real quick to rule out terrorism, but very slow to let us know what he's been charged with.So what's your angle here? You think its a terrorist cover up or something? Just come out and say it if so.
as soon as CNN knew (at least 30 minutes ago) that at least one component of this was a Car ramming into a crowd of pedestrians, that is how they should have reported it.
So they're saying that it wasn't terrorism....so what's the deal? Was this guy drunk and just fuckin plowed into a bunch of people on the street? This guy needs to do some serious time for this shit, whatever the hell his deal is. If he's DUI give him the same sentence you would give a terrorist.
So manslaughter should get the same as murder?
I am not saying go soft on dui but surely intent should be a factor.
If it's a legit accident (not culpable for any crime whatsoever) like the police are adamant it is, how long does this guy have to remain in custody?
Not charged with anything and released.When you run multiple people down, unless you had a heart attack, I'm pretty sure you're going to be charged with something.
All they're really saying is that it wasn't intentional in any way.
Lol wut...If it's a legit accident (not culpable for any crime whatsoever) like the police are adamant it is, how long does this guy have to remain in custody?
Usually they release people and it becomes a insurance thing. "Don't ask questions". . .
Tottaly agree with this postI don't think that it's a matter of manslaughter vs murder in this particular case because I don't think anyone died, unless someone has since passed away from their injuries. But yea, I think that a certain level of negligence/recklessness should be considered just as bad as ill intent. After all, the result is the same. We had a pos here a couple of years ago who was driving around blind stinking drunk at like 2 pm and smashed into another vehicle, killing 3 kids under the age of 10 and their grandfather. He got 10 years, which means he'll only end up serving about 3. Imo he should have gotten a life sentence. I'd hang the fucker if we could.