Crimewatch - Madeleine McCann

[Old Greg]

If I choose to go to the pub and knowingly leave my electric fire on in the house and it causes a fire because I was not there to look after it, would you consider me to be in any way responsible for the damage caused to my neighbours house?

I'm asking the questions.

[MyUserName]

I'm asking the questions.

Why?

(Previous one was a cross post, was not ignoring your question).

[Old Greg]

Why?

(Previous one was a cross post, was not ignoring your question).

Just the way it is.

[mudskipper]

Many years ago, I overtook a lorry, panicked, braked, skidded, hit the lorry, bounced across the oncoming carriageway hitting an oncoming car, which lost it's wheel which in turn hit another car before I ended up upside down in a ditch. Two cars were written off, and the lorry and another car were damaged. The other car (the one I hit) had a mother and small child in it. Fortunately neither was hurt. However, that was luck rather than judgement. I got a fine and lost my licence for three months. If the mother or child had been killed, I would have probably been in prison (as well as still beating myself up about it). To add to the dilemma, the child wasn't strapped in - would that have mitigated my responsibility if he'd been hurt, and does the fact that he wasn't hurt make the mother any less negligent for not strapping him in?

[original PM]

Many years ago, I overtook a lorry, panicked, braked, skidded, hit the lorry, bounced across the oncoming carriageway hitting an oncoming car, which lost it's wheel which in turn hit another car before I ended up upside down in a ditch. Two cars were written off, and the lorry and another car were damaged. The other car (the one I hit) had a mother and small child in it. Fortunately neither was hurt. However, that was luck rather than judgement. I got a fine and lost my licence for three months. If the mother or child had been killed, I would have probably been in prison (as well as still beating myself up about it). To add to the dilemma, the child wasn't strapped in - would that have mitigated my responsibility if he'd been hurt, and does the fact that he wasn't hurt make the mother any less negligent for not strapping him in?

Jeez - you do not do things by half do you! most women just reverse into some one in the car park.

On another note stop beating yourself up - you made a bad decision and got lucky.

But on the child strapping thing the mother is negligent and if the child had been killed there would be two of you beating yourselves up.

[speling bee]

Many years ago, I overtook a lorry, panicked, braked, skidded, hit the lorry, bounced across the oncoming carriageway hitting an oncoming car, which lost it's wheel which in turn hit another car before I ended up upside down in a ditch. Two cars were written off, and the lorry and another car were damaged. The other car (the one I hit) had a mother and small child in it. Fortunately neither was hurt. However, that was luck rather than judgement. I got a fine and lost my licence for three months. If the mother or child had been killed, I would have probably been in prison (as well as still beating myself up about it). To add to the dilemma, the child wasn't strapped in - would that have mitigated my responsibility if he'd been hurt, and does the fact that he wasn't hurt make the mother any less negligent for not strapping him in?

its

Terrible as that tale is, it hardly excuses misuse of the apostrophe.

[Old Greg]

Many years ago, I overtook a lorry, panicked, braked, skidded, hit the lorry, bounced across the oncoming carriageway hitting an oncoming car, which lost it's wheel which in turn hit another car before I ended up upside down in a ditch. Two cars were written off, and the lorry and another car were damaged. The other car (the one I hit) had a mother and small child in it. Fortunately neither was hurt. However, that was luck rather than judgement. I got a fine and lost my licence for three months. If the mother or child had been killed, I would have probably been in prison (as well as still beating myself up about it). To add to the dilemma, the child wasn't strapped in - would that have mitigated my responsibility if he'd been hurt, and does the fact that he wasn't hurt make the mother any less negligent for not strapping him in?

The moral of this story is that sins of commission and omission are so complex to unravel, that the only sane response for us as human beings is to sling mud at parents who've had their child abducted and probably murdered.

[MarillionFan]

Many years ago, I overtook a lorry, panicked, braked, skidded, hit the lorry, bounced across the oncoming carriageway hitting an oncoming car, which lost it's wheel which in turn hit another car before I ended up upside down in a ditch. Two cars were written off, and the lorry and another car were damaged. The other car (the one I hit) had a mother and small child in it. Fortunately neither was hurt. However, that was luck rather than judgement. I got a fine and lost my licence for three months. If the mother or child had been killed, I would have probably been in prison (as well as still beating myself up about it). To add to the dilemma, the child wasn't strapped in - would that have mitigated my responsibility if he'd been hurt, and does the fact that he wasn't hurt make the mother any less negligent for not strapping him in?

Remind me never to accept a lift off you.

[Old Greg]

Remind me never to accept a lift off you.

I'm not sure there was much hope of you being offered one.

[MyUserName]

Person A is not driving carefully on main road in town because he's adjusting his sunglasses in the rear view mirror. Nobody walks out in front of him and no harm done.

Person B is not driving carefully on main road in town because he's adjusting his sunglasses in the rear view mirror and a child walks out in front of him and because he is not looking properly he does not break in time and kills the child.

I would say they are equally responsible but due to bad luck Person B has committed a far more serious crime (there but for the grace of God etc.).

However, it would be a more similar analogy if it were as below:

Person A is not driving carefully on main road in town because he's been adjusting his sunglasses in the rear view mirror for almost 30 seconds whilst not even glancing at the road and swerving violently at full speed. Nobody walks out in front of him and no harm done.

Person B is not driving carefully on main road in town because he's been adjusting his sunglasses in the rear view mirror for almost 30 seconds whilst not even glancing at the road and swerving violently at full speed when a child walks out in front of him and because he is not looking properly he does not break in time and kills the child.

Equally guilty of careless driving imho but Person A was lucky that day.