More evidence the law is an ass

[AronSearle]

Guard plays a minor role and is 20% culpable.

The difference is the Guards role was set in contract, he was specifically trained "what not to do", his prime reason for employment in such a job was to give the all clear when safe to do so.

He was the one specifically trained, and aware of the reasons for the regulations HE WAS CONTRACTED TO ENFORCE.

Or do you people that think he wasn't responsible think you can take the proverbial kings shilling, but shirk the responsibility

The mother and girl were responsible in their own ways, but the guard was the only one who broke a specific duty and law.

How was the guard to know the girl was on her last legs and the train was holding her up?
Crystal ball time I suppose..

How is that relevant to his job role.

He has a choice, do the job as entailed, or execute his own judgement.

He chose to execute his own judgement that she would move, his choice, face the consequences.

Or do you not believe in personal responsibility.

 

[Bosswhite]

Guard had one and only one thing to check before he told the driver that it was safe to leave. He saw that the girl was still too close to the train and decided to ignore this information, in spite of his training and guidelines. He thus killed her through wilful neglect. The state she was in is of no relevance - the guard would have done exactly the same if she was stone cold sober and an adult.

Driver with ee on underside if vehicle is unaware of potential danger and is therefore not culpable.

What do you suggest the Guard Should have done then ?

 

[calorific]

Checked that she was well clear of the carriage for a start.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Her state is not relevant when considering his innocence or guilt.

Yes it is. A death would have been avoided. No ridiculous manslaughter charge.

Millions of people a year are touching trains as they move off. Have done for years.
The whole rail system would come to a complete standstill if every train was stopped from running purely because someones hands were on it.

Had she not been off her nut, this whole sad tragic accident wouldn't have happened.

 

[Norcon]

Her state is not relevant when considering his innocence or guilt.

Yes it is. A death would have been avoided. No ridiculous manslaughter charge.

Millions of people a year are touching trains as they move off. Have done for years.
The whole rail system would come to a complete standstill if every train was stopped from running purely because someones hands were on it.

Had she not been off her nut, this whole sad tragic accident wouldn't have happened.

Very good point. Though I can't see these other idiots accepting it.

 

[calorific]

Had he done his job properly then this whole sad and tragic event would not have happened. Pity that the idiots on here can't see that At least the jury, who saw the evidence and thought about it long and hard came to the correct conclusion. I suppose those among you think they were idiots too

 

[calorific]

Millions of people a year are touching trains as they move off.

No they don't

 

[chapeau]

What I don't get is the five years.

If you cause death by dangerous driving and it's not a particularly aggravated offence you can be looking at a starting point of three years. A speeding cyclist killed a pedestrian on the bleeding pavement a few years back and he got seven months. This guy made a mistake which lasted a few seconds after years of good service and he gets five years in jail.

So why when you kill somebody by dangerous driving/cycling is it treated a lot less seriously than killing somebody by complete accident?

 

[Bosswhite]

Checked that she was well clear of the carriage for a start.

How would he do that then,
and as she was in a Drunken/drugged state what would stop her going back to the side of the train ?

 

[chapeau]

Nah, he obviously screwed up. The jury said so unanimously and the judge also had harsh words to say. We have to accept the guard stuffed up.

 

[Bosswhite]

Nah, he obviously screwed up. The jury said so unanimously and the judge also had harsh words to say. We have to accept the guard stuffed up.

That dosent explain how the Guard would have moved the girl away from the train and stopped her from returning to the side of the train before he got back into his cab.

 

[sooey]

Anyone who thinks the guard didn't f*ck up ask yourself one question.
Would he have blown that whistle if the drunken girl by the train had been his daughter?
Not in a million years.

 

[Norcon]

Anyone who thinks the guard didn't f*ck up ask yourself one question.
Would he have blown that whistle if the drunken girl by the train had been his daughter?
Not in a million years.

Of course he would. The victim was clear of the train in his mind when he blew the whistle. Same goes for his daughter.

 

[Norcon]

Nah, he obviously screwed up. The jury said so unanimously and the judge also had harsh words to say. We have to accept the guard stuffed up.

He made a mistake yes. Just as anyone can. But screwed up? Nope.
Two people screwed up big time. The mother and the daughter.

 

[Norcon]

Millions of people a year are touching trains as they move off.

No they don't

Of course they do. There's millions in India alone doing it.
No one "touching" the train here I suppose?