Where should the law stand when it comes to personal responsibility?

[John Luxton]

Notwithstanding the fact they were charged with very different offences, I’d say the James Street guard got a very harsh sentence, and being brutally honest this one is certainly on the light side.

mods note, split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/derailment-at-kirkby-merseyside-13-03-2021.215146/

The James Street sentence was excessive. In fact I wonder why there was even a prosecution to be honest.

Just look a to the law. If under the influence and you drive you are guilty. If under the influence when on your own two legs someone else becomes responsible

The brutal fact is in many peoples view including mine is that the victim was responsible for their own demise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The James Street sentence was excessive. In fact I wonder why there was even a prosecution to be honest.

Just look a to the law. If under the influence and you drive you are guilty. If under the influence when on your own two legs someone else becomes responsible

The brutal fact is in many peoples view including mine is that the victim was responsible for their own demise.

Belling a train off when you KNOW someone is leaning on it is grossly and wilfully negligent. It is like deliberately driving a car into someone (drunk or not) because they won't move out of the way. I would hope both of those received a custodial sentence.

The James St incident was not just inattention, it was wilful.

 

[ainsworth74]

The James Street sentence was excessive. In fact I wonder why there was even a prosecution to be honest.

Just look a to the law. If under the influence and you drive you are guilty. If under the influence when on your own two legs someone else becomes responsible

The brutal fact is in many peoples view including mine is that the victim was responsible for their own demise.

He was looking directly at her. He could see her leaning against the train. He knew the dangers of giving the driver the right away when the dispatch corridor was not clear. He acted contrary to his own companies instructions, to common sense. He didn't mean her harm, he didn't mean to kill her but his actions and failures directly caused her death. To suggest otherwise is unsustainable. She died because he failed in his duties. To suggest that that failure wasn't one which should give rise to a prosecution is frankly incredible.

 

[John Luxton]

He was looking directly at her. He could see her leaning against the train. He knew the dangers of giving the driver the right away when the dispatch corridor was not clear. He acted contrary to his own companies instructions, to common sense. He didn't mean her harm, he didn't mean to kill her but his actions and failures directly caused her death. To suggest otherwise is unsustainable. She died because he failed in his duties. To suggest that that failure wasn't one which should give rise to a prosecution is frankly incredible.

One presumes he expected her to stand clear once the doors closed?

Thinking back to the days of the 502s/3son Merseyrail I don't actually recall the guards getting out of the trains at stops back then.

They just closed the doors and people seemed to know when they heard the door mechanism operate they needed to be clear.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One presumes he expected her to stand clear once the doors closed?

Thinking back to the days of the 502s/3son Merseyrail I don't actually recall the guards getting out of the trains at stops back then.

They just closed the doors and people seemed to know when they heard the door mechanism operate they needed to be clear.

My layperson's understanding is that he saw her leaning on the train, but assumed she would have the situational awareness to detect the train was about to move (door sounders, the noise of doors closing) and would stand clear. As we know, unfortunately she did not step away.

I argued upthread that a custodial sentence would not be appropriate in the Kirkby incident. I'm of the mind that the same should have applied to James Street, despite the more serious consequences. But then I'm fairly sceptical of the effectiveness of prison in general, outside of the public protection aspect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My layperson's understanding is that he saw her leaning on the train, but assumed she would have the situational awareness to detect the train was about to move (door sounders, the noise of doors closing) and would stand clear. As we know, unfortunately she did not step away.

And then he pressed the bell twice having actually seen that she had not.

It is just mind boggling that he thought that it was acceptable.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The James Street sentence was excessive. In fact I wonder why there was even a prosecution to be honest.

Just look a to the law. If under the influence and you drive you are guilty. If under the influence when on your own two legs someone else becomes responsible

The brutal fact is in many peoples view including mine is that the victim was responsible for their own demise.

I assume you are trolling.

I cannot believe that you think it acceptable to give the right away in those circumstances.

I sincerely hope that you have no responsibility for the safety of other people in any capacity whatsoever - work colleagues, the general public, elderly parents, a partner or children.

 

[John Luxton]

I assume you are trolling.

I cannot believe that you think it acceptable to give the right away in those circumstances.

I sincerely hope that you have no responsibility for the safety of other people in any capacity whatsoever - work colleagues, the general public, elderly parents, a partner or children.

No not trolling at all. I generally believe people should be responsible for their own dangerous actions. If they behave in a manner that puts their life at risk and injury or death is the result then they are to blame.

The other evening I was watching the latest edition of C5 Traffic Cops.

Policeman pursues a fail to stop into a motorway services. Occupants of car decamp and run into reeds which conceal a deep pond.

PC then speaks to camera (he was aware of the pond the villains obvious were not and apparently it was part of the service station sewage filtering system) anyway he then says he now has a duty of care to ensure they didn't come to any harm in the pond.

In my view if they had an unfortunate demise in the pond that was the villains fault. If they had not refused to stop they would not be in this situation.

I am a great believer in natural justice do something daft be it through intoxicated behaviours / criminality etc and something happens to you only you should be held responsible.

Others should only be responsible if you are conforming to expected standards.

You may feel my views harsh but they are not really.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No not trolling at all. I generally believe people should be responsible for their own dangerous actions. If they behave in a manner that puts their life at risk and injury or death is the result then they are to blame.

Within reason, in my view.

If someone goes and leans on a train after it has been dispatched, and falls under it as a result, their fault. I'd take your line on that. Or if someone sticks their head out of a droplight despite signage and gets their head knocked off, again, I'm with you (though not wanting railway staff to have to clean up dismembered heads is a good reason to do away with them).

But deliberately dispatching a train when you KNOW it is not safe to do so is just wrong. It is analogous to driving into a pedestrian because they won't move out of the road, or to pushing over a ladder because a trespasser shouldn't have gone up it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

You may feel my views harsh but they are not really.

It's not so much that they're harsh, as they're rather black and white, whereas a lot of the world is actually various shades of grey.

So taking the James Street incident: obviously had the girl involved been sober, the accident wouldn't have happened. So she was at fault.

But had the train guard followed his work instructions, then the accident wouldn't have happened either. So he was at fault as well.

We don't have one person who was fully to blame: we have (at least) two people who were each partially to blame. And it doesn't seem right to me that either of those parties should have been able to deny their responsibility just because someone else was at fault as well.

 

[John Luxton]

Within reason, in my view.

It is analogous to driving into a pedestrian because they won't move out of the road, or to pushing over a ladder because a trespasser shouldn't have gone up it.

Well I would not see any problem knocking a trespasser off a ladder.

As for pedestrians if we get situations where people deliberately block roads, recent climate protests come to mind, I would not see any problem with a motorist using their vehicle to get them to move.

In both cases the ladder climber and the deliberate road blocker are the ones not conforming to normal standards of behaviour and potentially causing problems for other who are conforming.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

It's not so much that they're harsh, as they're rather black and white, whereas a lot of the world is actually various shades of grey.

So taking the James Street incident: obviously had the girl involved been sober, the accident wouldn't have happened. So she was at fault.

But had the train guard followed his work instructions, then the accident wouldn't have happened either. So he was at fault as well.

We don't have one person who was fully to blame: we have (at least) two people who were each partially to blame. And it doesn't seem right to me that either of those parties should have been able to deny their responsibility just because someone else was at fault as well.

I would still see the victim in this case as having the greater responsibility.

Despatching the train would probably have been an incentive for her to move. Most people would stand clear once the doors closed.

 

[ainsworth74]

In both cases the ladder climber and the deliberate road blocker are the ones not conforming to normal standards of behaviour and potentially causing problems for other who are conforming.

I would consider it to be a "normal standard of behaviour" not to dispatch a train whilst someone was leaning on it. By doing so he was grossly negligent and found guilty by a jury, who had to be sure, of the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well I would not see any problem knocking a trespasser off a ladder.

As for pedestrians if we get situations where people deliberately block roads, recent climate protests come to mind, I would not see any problem with a motorist using their vehicle to get them to move.

We won't agree, then. I don't fundamentally agree with wilfully taking an action that will be likely to cause injury or death to another person unless that person is plausibly threatening to cause injury or death to me, regardless of whether they should be somewhere or not.

We have a legal system for punishing people for committing crimes.

If someone runs in the road in front of my car so close I can't possibly avoid hitting them, that's their fault if I do. But if someone is already in the road, and I can see them, and I can easily stop, driving my car into them on purpose is not OK. Belling a train off with someone leaning on it is the latter.

 

[RT4038]

You may feel my views harsh but they are not really.

Well they are really. Maybe you can reflect on the next time you do something wrong it is then open season for others around to harm you by their actions. I am with @Bletchleyite on this.

 

[Efini92]

Well I would not see any problem knocking a trespasser off a ladder.

As for pedestrians if we get situations where people deliberately block roads, recent climate protests come to mind, I would not see any problem with a motorist using their vehicle to get them to move.

In both cases the ladder climber and the deliberate road blocker are the ones not conforming to normal standards of behaviour and potentially causing problems for other who are conforming.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==


I would still see the victim in this case as having the greater responsibility.

Despatching the train would probably have been an incentive for her to move. Most people would stand clear once the doors closed.

But despatching a train with someone leaning against it isn’t conforming to normal behaviour so you’re contradicting your own post.
Had the guard not seen her then it would’ve been a different outcome.
The fact is he made a conscious decision to despatch the train in a hope she would move. It’s gross negligence that resulted in someone’s death, it was always going to be a custodial sentence.

 

[GB]

No not trolling at all. I generally believe people should be responsible for their own dangerous actions. If they behave in a manner that puts their life at risk and injury or death is the result then they are to blame.

I don‘t think being young and under the influence should be a death sentence.

 

[John Luxton]

We have a legal system for punishing people for committing crimes.

Problem is it can be slow, cranky and unpredictable at times.

I think there are a good few people in this country who think likewise hence the support for the farmer who despatched an intruder some years back after he was initially jailed for life for defending his property, later reduced to manslaughter.

Fact is if the intruder had not been there they would not have been shot.

In reality the only crime he had committed was not holding a licence for the fire arm.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But despatching a train with someone leaning against it isn’t conforming to normal behaviour so you’re contradicting your own post.
Had the guard not seen her then it would’ve been a different outcome.
The fact is he made a conscious decision to despatch the train in a hope she would move. It’s gross negligence that resulted in someone’s death, it was always going to be a custodial sentence.

Exactly. It was wilful and deliberate. It wasn't an accident.

Arguably it's worse than the Kirkby incident, because that was just plain gross negligence. He wilfully used his phone, but mostly fiddling with your phone wouldn't cause a train crash (that doesn't make it OK, but I'm sure you get what I mean) - if he did it this time, it's quite likely he's done it before on many occasions with no ill outcome. Whereas dispatching a train with someone leaning on it is very likely to directly cause them to fall.

I don‘t think being young and under the influence should be a death sentence.

It can be, e.g. if you fell off a platform right in front of a passing train. But it shouldn't wilfully be.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

Problem is it can be slow, cranky and unpredictable at times.

It can, but it's better than the way vigilanteism takes it.

 

[Efini92]

Problem is it can be slow, cranky and unpredictable at times.

I think there are a good few people in this country who think likewise hence the support for the farmer who despatched an intruder some years back after he was punished for defending his property.

He was punished because he shot the guy in the back. You can’t claim self defence when they are running away.

 

[stuu]

In both cases the ladder climber and the deliberate road blocker are the ones not conforming to normal standards of behaviour and potentially causing problems for other who are conforming.

So using your logic that minor inconveniences can be dealt with by whatever means available, what would be appropriate if someone saw you speeding in your car? Shooting the tyres out and sod the consequences? You are in the wrong after all

Let he who is without sin etc..

 

[ainsworth74]

I think there are a good few people in this country who think likewise hence the support for the farmer who despatched an intruder some years back after he was punished for defending his property.

You mean the farmer who lay in wait and then killed them with a firearm rather than calling the police and telling the burger to f off? The farmer who owned an illegal shotgun? Who had previously opened fire at a vehicle? Who shot them in the back whilst they were fleeing? The one who the prosecution was able to persuade a jury that they could be sure he had murdered the burglar? That farmer?

I'm not sure that's the miscarriage of justice you, or the tabloids, like to think it is.

 

[John Luxton]

You mean the farmer who lay in wait and then killed them with a firearm rather than calling the police and telling the burger to f off? The farmer who owned an illegal shotgun? Who had previously opened fire at a vehicle? Who shot them in the back whilst they were fleeing? The one who the prosecution was able to persuade a jury that they could be sure he had murdered the burglar? That farmer?

I'm not sure that's the miscarriage of justice you, or the tabloids, like to think it is.

Yes one and the same.
Well the simple fact is if the intruders had not been there they would not have been shot.
One has to ask who started this chain of events. The farmer or the intruders?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

So using your logic that minor inconveniences can be dealt with by whatever means available, what would be appropriate if someone saw you speeding in your car? Shooting the tyres out and sod the consequences? You are in the wrong after all

Let he who is without sin etc..

I really don't think it is the same logic at all.

 

[XAM2175]

Yes one and the same.
Well the simple fact is if the intruders had not been there they would not have been shot.
One has to ask who started this chain of events. The farmer or the intruders?

So, in your mind, it's perfectly okay for trespassers to be punished with death?

 

[stuu]

I really don't think it is the same logic at all.

Surely the punishment has to fit the crime? You have suggested that pushing a ladder away from under a trespasser is acceptable. Most people would have little sympathy with a trespasser falling off a ladder, but I really don't think many would find deliberately injuring someone for a minor transgression acceptable

 

[John Luxton]

So, in your mind, it's perfectly okay for trespassers to be punished with death?

Once upon a time there was a long list of crimes which could result in the death penalty. Over the years it was whittled down to murder and finally treason before being abolished.

However, I often wonder if this had not been done if the country would have been a better place for the law abiding. Theft of a horse could result in execution - now if theft of a motor vehicle - the modern equivalent resulted in a similar punishment it would act as a disincentive?

Anyway this is all wandering a long way from the original topic.

 

[Dai Corner]

To attempt an analogy with the James St. incident.

Suppose @John Luxton was parked in his car and about to drive off when a girl walks into the road in front of him. Should he wait until she moves? If she doesn't move and he drives off anyway and kills her should he be prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving and would a jury find him guilty?

 

[John Luxton]

To attempt an analogy with the James St. incident.

Suppose @John Luxton was parked in his car and about to drive off when a girl walks into the road in front of him. Should he wait until she moves? If she doesn't move and he drives off anyway and kills her should he be prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving and would a jury find him guilty?

That is a strange question.

There is no context as to why she has walked into the road in your comment.

If she is deliberately trying to stop me moving the car I would probably gently use it to push her out of the way as she is causing an obstruction if there was no way to get past and she would not move.

On the other hand if she was crossing the road one waits.

 

[GB]

If she is deliberately trying to stop me moving the car I would probably gently use it to push her out of the way as she is causing an obstruction if there was no way to get past and she would not move.

...and she falls, hits her head and then dies?

 

[Dai Corner]

That is a strange question.

There is no context as to why she has walked into the road in your comment.

If she is deliberately trying to stop me moving the car I would probably gently use it to push her out of the way as she is causing an obstruction if there was no way to get past and she would not move.

On the other hand if she was crossing the road one waits.

You wouldn't call out to her or get out and ask her to move?

If you pushing her out of the way with your car caused her to fall and sustain an injury would that be her fault or yours?

 

[John Luxton]

...and she falls, hits her head and then dies?

But then she placed herself in danger by causing an obstruction - thus she would be to blame in my view. Whether it would be a court's view is a different matter. But in my world such a situation should not reach court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

You wouldn't call out to her or get out and ask her to move?

If you pushing her out of the way with your car caused her to fall and sustain an injury would that be her fault or yours?

Well of course you would ask her to move. Pushing would be a last resort. Now I have a feeling where this is going to lead to the question why didn't the guard ask the girl in question to move?
Now in my view hearing the door mechanism operate would / should have the same effect and basically send a "stand clear" message.