Fordy62 Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 You just have to laugh at this thread. Yes the guy did a stupid and terrible thing however i am sure he had not intent too. That aside getting into a car when you are over the limit is a crazy thing to do. Though but for the graze of God because it was the following morning (early admittedly) and he had been responsible and stayed in a hotel. How many of us have had a fair few on a Saturday night and driven the next day, I think a few of you have been over the limit a few times as well but have not been pulled over or have been lucky enough not to have an accident. You think 2 hours sleep constitutes being responsible? You make it sound like he was just hungover the morning after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 You just have to laugh at this thread. Yes the guy did a stupid and terrible thing however i am sure he had not intent too. That aside getting into a car when you are over the limit is a crazy thing to do. Though but for the graze of God because it was the following morning (early admittedly) and he had been responsible and stayed in a hotel. How many of us have had a fair few on a Saturday night and driven the next day, I think a few of you have been over the limit a few times as well but have not been pulled over or have been lucky enough not to have an accident. I assume you dont know much about this case ? Have a read of this and see if you still think "he had been responsible" For some reason , this report doesn't mention that he was also driving without insuarance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7654430.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I assume you dont know much about this case ? Have a read of this and see if you still think "he had been responsible" For some reason , this report doesn't mention that he was also driving without insuarance. http://news.bbc.co.u...and/7654430.stm in court the driving with out insurence was dropped as he had no case to answer for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 in court the driving with out insurence was dropped as he had no case to answer for Right , didn't realise , Cheers Monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciderhead433 Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 At the risk of giving away my profession, that's definitely not true. And McCormack was drinking until 4am if I remember correctly. Lastly, people seem to think you have to be well behaved to finish your sentence at half way. That's simply not true. The only way you'll ever serve over half is if you commit other crimes while in prison. Given that they never get reported, that's almost never. If you're particularly badly behaved the prison is entitled to keep you for a maximum of 28 days over your half way point. Crazy but true. But then that is the systems fault not Luke McCormack he served his sentence so what else can he do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Lewis Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Is insurance not invalidated by the very act of driving under the influence of drink or drugs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Is insurance not invalidated by the very act of driving under the influence of drink or drugs ? That wouldn't make you guilty of driving without insurance though. Just might mean they don't pay out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy082005 Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Of course he would but that doesn't mean his opinions then would be fair, rational or objective - they clearly wouldn't be and couldn't be. That's the exact reason why the legal system works on the basis justice is dispensed by people independent to the case. ...I've not got sny problem with convicted criminals earning a living....even a rich living by being a footballer. I just cant believe that some people feel justice has been served because he has served 3 years in prison?! He has shown remorse?!?...so he f*cking should. He killed two children...and effectively ended the lives of their parents to, as I have no idea how those two parents will ever recover from losing their kids like that. People play down drink driving...."oh I bet you've all done it...."...whether we have or havent, we all know the risks and we all know the consequences. You get behind that wheel you know you increase the chances of something bad happening. Im sure its ruined Mr McCormacks life to....and his sons, his son has to grow up knowing his dad is a killer. Do I feel sorry Luke McCormack?? do I ****....he may have been the nicest bloke in the world, but the mistake he made was unforgivable and he should have been punished a lot more severly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I just cant believe that some people feel justice has been served because he has served 3 years in prison?! Honestly I don't think there is such a thing as justice in these cases. There's no sentence a judge can impose or measure of reparation that begin to make anything better for the family. It's just utterly, utterly horrible. At the same time, I think a lot of people underestimate how serious a punishment three years in prison actually is. We're not talking a mild inconvenience to someone's life here - it's spending the ages of 24 to 27 locked away and then spending the rest of your life with everyone knowing what you've done and, far worse, you know what you've done yourself. The thing for me is that, if someone's a murderer or armed robber or sex offender and has committed crimes with malice and intent, they're a danger to the public and have to be locked away because, if they aren't, they might well do it again. In this case it's pretty certain that McCormack presents absolutely no danger to the public; he's done something wrong that's rebounded in the worst possible way and he's not going to get behind the wheel drunk again. So, apart from fulfilling some primal desire for 'vengeance' and costing a fortune in tax, I'm not entirely sure what a longer sentence would actually serve. Would it stop him reoffending? No. I'm pretty sure having two dead children on his conscience will have done that. Will it deter others? No. Knowledge you might kill others, kill yourself or spend the rest of your life being fed through a straw doesn't seem to stop people from drinking-driving anyway. Does it undo the crime and work as restorative justice? Absolutely not. What sentence possibly can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Honestly I don't think there is such a thing as justice in these cases. There's no sentence a judge can impose or measure of reparation that begin to make anything better for the family. It's just utterly, utterly horrible. At the same time, I think a lot of people underestimate how serious a punishment three years in prison actually is. We're not talking a mild inconvenience to someone's life here - it's spending the ages of 24 to 27 locked away and then spending the rest of your life with everyone knowing what you've done and, far worse, you know what you've done yourself. The thing for me is that, if someone's a murderer or armed robber or sex offender and has committed crimes with malice and intent, they're a danger to the public and have to be locked away because, if they aren't, they might well do it again. In this case it's pretty certain that McCormack presents absolutely no danger to the public; he's done something wrong that's rebounded in the worst possible way and he's not going to get behind the wheel drunk again. So, apart from fulfilling some primal desire for 'vengeance' and costing a fortune in tax, I'm not entirely sure what a longer sentence would actually serve. Would it stop him reoffending? No. I'm pretty sure having two dead children on his conscience will have done that. Will it deter others? No. Knowledge you might kill others, kill yourself or spend the rest of your life being fed through a straw doesn't seem to stop people from drinking-driving anyway. Does it undo the crime and work as restorative justice? Absolutely not. What sentence possibly can? And the most sensible post of the day goes to... London Bristolian. You're not Micky Maynard's son are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 ...I've not got sny problem with convicted criminals earning a living....even a rich living by being a footballer. I just cant believe that some people feel justice has been served because he has served 3 years in prison?! He has shown remorse?!?...so he f*cking should. He killed two children...and effectively ended the lives of their parents to, as I have no idea how those two parents will ever recover from losing their kids like that. People play down drink driving...."oh I bet you've all done it...."...whether we have or havent, we all know the risks and we all know the consequences. You get behind that wheel you know you increase the chances of something bad happening. Im sure its ruined Mr McCormacks life to....and his sons, his son has to grow up knowing his dad is a killer. Do I feel sorry Luke McCormack?? do I ****....he may have been the nicest bloke in the world, but the mistake he made was unforgivable and he should have been punished a lot more severly I don't think anyone has said they feel sorry for him, far from it. But whether justice has been served or not isn't for you or me to decide it's for a judge in a crown court. You can choose to agree or disagree with it, but despite glaring examples to the contrary (perhaps thisay even be one), it's arguably the fairest system of law in the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 no one is feeling sorry or is saying justice is done people are saying he's served his time as deemed by a court of law and he is now free (under conditions) to get on with his life and proffession, Don't blame the person for the justice system blame the govenment for that, a drug dealer gets less time a effects far more peoples lifes, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 If he done that to my kid I would not rest until he was dead, 3 years ffs for murder and ruining those poor parents lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcherryberry Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 If he done that to my kid I would not rest until he was dead, 3 years ffs for murder and ruining those poor parents lives. Completely agree. Eye for an eye in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Completely agree. Eye for an eye in my book. That means one of his family would come and kill you for killing him. Where does it end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 If he done that to my kid I would not rest until he was dead, 3 years ffs for murder and ruining those poor parents lives. Completely agree. Eye for an eye in my book. Point 1 he didn't murder anyone point 2 revenge doesn't bring anyone back it only makes matters worse Point 3 as TRL says where does it stop? He served his time layed down by the law in this country he's free to do what every he wants now with in the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Point 1 he didn't murder anyone point 2 revenge doesn't bring anyone back it only makes matters worse Point 3 as TRL says where does it stop? He served his time layed down by the law in this country he's free to do what every he wants now with in the law Say what you like mate, murder in my eyes, knowingly got in a motor and killed 2 innocent kids, as said, if he had done it to mine I would rightly or wrongly want revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 No morals in football whatsoever, it's disgusting. Lee Hughes kills Marlon King rapist Now a child killer gets a path back into football, disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Say what you like mate, murder in my eyes, knowingly got in a motor and killed 2 innocent kids, as said, if he had done it to mine I would rightly or wrongly want revenge. Can't agree with you because I'm not that sort of person, but I can respect where your coming from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich-TWSC- Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 McCormick probably won't be offered a deal at Swindon. They will assist with his rehabilitation, 'playing a community role'. http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/9725824.Wray__Swindon_playing_the_community_role/?ref=rss Make of that what you will. It's a debate where you cannot shift anyone's stance on the matter. The debate on here is almost identical to those on Swindon's and every other football clubs fan forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 McCormick probably won't be offered a deal at Swindon. They will assist with his rehabilitation, 'playing a community role'. http://www.thisisswi...y_role/?ref=rss Make of that what you will. It's a debate where you cannot shift anyone's stance on the matter. The debate on here is almost identical to those on Swindon's and every other football clubs fan forums. Your chairman is on talksport in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich-TWSC- Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I'll give it a listen. Mind you, I think I've read/listened every possible opinion and explanation possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Say what you like mate, murder in my eyes, knowingly got in a motor and killed 2 innocent kids, as said, if he had done it to mine I would rightly or wrongly want revenge. I think the actual law is far more relevant here than "your eyes". It didn't fit the legal definition of murder and to call him a murderer is factually inaccurate, irrespective of your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich-TWSC- Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Jeremy Wray was articulate and rational in his TalkSport interview. Wray's focus was on community work whereas Durham seemed adamant on pursuing the notion of the possibility that Swindon were going to sign him as a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I think the actual law is far more relevant here than "your eyes". It didn't fit the legal definition of murder and to call him a murderer is factually inaccurate, irrespective of your opinion. As said I don't particularly care about the law when a bloke who kills 2 kids through his own actions gets the sentence he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 As said I don't particularly care about the law when a bloke who kills 2 kids through his own actions gets the sentence he did. You can not care as much as you like. He still isn't a murderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 You can not care as much as you like. He still isn't a murderer. In my eyes he is and you can't change that so stop trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmissionImpossible Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 This is an emotive topic. I think we should end it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 In my eyes he is and you can't change that so stop trying. I don't know what you mean. Its got nothing to do with opinion or not. The definition of murder is: noun 1the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another The killings were not premeditated. He is a child-killer but not a murderer. Sorry but this is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 This is an emotive topic. I think we should end it here. Agreed, we all have differing opinions regardless of what the law says. That's me done on the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.