Kill a squaddie and dont go to jail

#1
From the local Carlisle paper

Hit and run taxi killer walks free
Published on 25/10/2007

A taxi-driver who left a Carlisle soldier to die on a country road just weeks after he had returned from a tour of Iraq walked free from court today.

Michael Dixon had survived six months on the dangerous streets of Basra after being sent to the war-torn city straight after finishing his training.

But just a day after proudly taking part in a passing-out parade back at his UK base the 19-year-old private was run over by Mohammed Razzaq.

He was walking along the A606 near Empingham, Rutland, heading back to his barracks after a night out, when he was hit by Razzaq's cab.

Yesterday magistrates in Melton Mowbray, Leics, sentenced Razzaq to six months' jail but suspended the term for two years, allowing him to walk free.

See tomorrow's Cumberland News for the full story...
 
#3
True but it just reinforces the lack of accountability these days. It seems ridiculously easy to get away with killing anyone except in self defence.
 
#4
Mikal said:
True but it just reinforces the lack of accountability these days. It seems ridiculously easy to get away with killing anyone except in self defence.
Agreed to a point. I don't see the need for "squaddie" in the thread title as this has been an issue fo some time. Killing with a vehicle (even while drunk ffs) seems to earn a much lighter sentence than killing by almost any other meens. Why should this be the situation? Damned if I know.

Now I know there could be cirumstances where a driver kills people through no fault of their own. That should not be considered as murder or manslaughter. But it does apear that killing with a vehicle is almost always treated lighter and that I do not understand.
 
#5
What a load of old bollocks.

We need proffessional jurys in this country and harsher penalties for... Well, everything!

If you kill somebody whilst behind the wheel unless you were doing everything as you should have and this is proved beyond reasonable doubt you should go direct to jail. Now he literally is going to pass go and collect £200 before going to nick.

Squaddy or not a member of the public has been killed!
 
#6
Perturbed said:
Mikal said:
True but it just reinforces the lack of accountability these days. It seems ridiculously easy to get away with killing anyone except in self defence.
Agreed to a point. I don't see the need for "squaddie" in the thread title as this has been an issue fo some time. Killing with a vehicle (even while drunk ffs) seems to earn a much lighter sentence than killing by almost any other meens. Why should this be the situation? Damned if I know.

Now I know there could be cirumstances where a driver kills people through no fault of their own. That should not be considered as murder or manslaughter. But it does apear that killing with a vehicle is almost always treated lighter and that I do not understand.
Unless you drive round the ex wife of a Prince. then you get the death penalty :twisted:

Seriously though, why isn't dangerous driving taken seriously over here?
 
#7
Hmm, in line with my stance on other thread the punishment for this is brutally simple.

The death penalty is not required, unless it was proved the taxi driver deliberately set out to kill the pedestrian (the fact he is a soldiers is irrelevant to this matter).

His licence should be immediately revoked. For life.

He should be given at least 300 hours of community service. Picking up rubbish from the side of the road, or similar.

He should be given a life long liability to educate others in the requirement to drive safely and stop at the scene of an accident.

That is for dangerous driving.

For leaving the scene he should be birched. 300 times.

And have a life time liability for educated people on stopping, manning it up, and phoning for help and taking the consequences.

If it is proved the victim could have survived had he had the ba11s to stop and report, then the birching is doubled.

Seems fair to me.

Any objections?
 
#8
To play devils advocat for a moment.

The soldier was returning to camp after a night on the lash (presumably).

Imagine the following scenario:

You are driving down a road you know well at night. It is a quiet area with no junctions and only a few farms. There are no streelights. The posted speed limit is 60mph.

You are driving slightly below the speed limit (e.g. 55mph) as you crest a small rise which has a gentle corner. You have not seen any oncoming lights to indicate other traffic.

As you crest the rise there is suddenly something in the road. It is too late to avoid and you strike it (whatever 'it' is). Scared, you do a runner.

Nah... no matter how I try and dress it up the driver should have been crucified for fleeing the scene. Accidents happen, especially one of the parties is pissed up and staggering everywhere. But running from the scene? Inexcusable.
 
#9
I don't understand how the lad did a 6 month tour of Basra, and then when he got home, had his passing out parade? Or am I being a mong?
 

Fugly

ADC
DirtyBAT
#10
smudge67 said:
I don't understand how the lad did a 6 month tour of Basra, and then when he got home, had his passing out parade? Or am I being a mong?
For "passing-out parade", probably read "Medal parade", because the civpop mong journo wouln't know the fucking difference, and couldn't be arrsed to research it.
 
#11
smudge67 said:
I don't understand how the lad did a 6 month tour of Basra, and then when he got home, had his passing out parade? Or am I being a mong?
That bit is an obvious mistake. Kinda indicates how much research went into the story.
 
#12
chocolate_frog said:
If it is proved the victim could have survived had he had the ba11s to stop and report, then the birching is doubled.

Seems fair to me.

Any objections?
Yes. If it's proved the victim could have survived if he'd called it in, his choice to flee should automatically make it murder and result in the harshest penalty.

Bad_Crow said:
Seriously though, why isn't dangerous driving taken seriously over here?
Because Joe Public is addicted to his car and sees any infringement of his 'right to drive' as a more serious crime than killing through stupidity, selfishness or carelessness. It would be political suicide for any government to take the effective steps needed to curtail dangerous driving. Most people I see on the roads are dangerous without realising it, so a zero tolerance policy would effectively clear the roads.
 
#13
TOUGH ON CRIME, AND TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME

Do not be 'tough' if the perpetrator is a 'visitor', and especially if the victim is a soldier!

I am beginning to loathe this sad country and to despise and, I use the word with reluctance, hate its government.
 
#14
Fair one Carrots, I have been thoroughly breifed up and change my opinion to....

"He chose to leave the scene, the victim died, if the victim could have survived with prompt emergency response then the driver should be topped too."

His choice to leave, so his fault.

I disagree on the roads though. With a proper and harsh enforcement of such laws the roads would simply become safer for all.
 
#15
I'm totally in support of harsher sentences, for all crimes, not just hit and run, but with the prison system in this country, where are they going to put them? The prisons are full as it is. Its not only the justice system that's at fault, its the country as a whole.

Too many skum-bags out there, mugging old ladies, robbing pensioners, burglary, stealing cars, you name it, they're at it, and the reason they do it is that they know that even if they do get caught, they're just going to get a slap on the wrist and told by some magistrate not to do it again, and they walk. And half of them are probably under 20... ok I may be generalising, but you know what I mean. Kids these days don't have any respect for anything. If I'd done something like that when I was 16, my dad would have beat ten bales of sh*t out of me. I learned respect at a very early age, but seeing the kids hanging around where I live, they obviously didn't.
 
#16
Perturbed said:
Mikal said:
True but it just reinforces the lack of accountability these days. It seems ridiculously easy to get away with killing anyone except in self defence.
Agreed to a point. I don't see the need for "squaddie" in the thread title as this has been an issue fo some time. Killing with a vehicle (even while drunk ffs) seems to earn a much lighter sentence than killing by almost any other meens. Why should this be the situation? Damned if I know.

Now I know there could be cirumstances where a driver kills people through no fault of their own. That should not be considered as murder or manslaughter. But it does apear that killing with a vehicle is almost always treated lighter and that I do not understand.
For practical reasons (imo) there is a seperate offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

I think the reason is that it would be difficult to prove the intent necessary to support a murder charge.

The same reasoning might apply to manslaughter charges too.
 
#18
wicked_witch_of_the_west said:
I'm totally in support of harsher sentences, for all crimes, not just hit and run, but with the prison system in this country, where are they going to put them? The prisons are full as it is. Its not only the justice system that's at fault, its the country as a whole.
Why just jail as a punishment? I don't pay good money in taxes so convicts can lounge around inside 4 walls.

I am thinking. Grass field, barbed wire, mines, more barbed wire, 12 x 12 as accodation blocks, field kitchens and other canvass accomodation. Bunk beds in the tents of the old barrack room stack type.

That is for the convicts who are a danger to society. They get to sort out refuse in to piles for recycling. And breaking rocks. And anything else we can think off. 16 hours days, 8 hours in bed. 3 cons to a bed, two up and one in the rack.

For those who aren't a menace to society. Bail hostels. They move in on sentancing. Pay food and accomodation for Sparse barrack type amneities, go to work normally and push out a couple of extra hours a day community service. Picking up rubbish, collecting recycling bins daily (not annually like some councils seem to believe is acceptable) and all that good wholesome stuff. No alchol allowed, or tele.

Failure to comply with the stated rules (ie late for work, either enforced or their own, would result in transfer to a real prison.

For others, the birch. A couple of strokes from the birch and they will be re-educated.

Foreigners could be shipped back to their own countries.
 
#19
Right, trust me, I care as much as anyone about either serving or ex squaddies health. Why is it so important that it was an ex squaddie killed?? A human is a human! A life is a life! Why are you only worried becauser it was a squaddie? He breathed the same air as me! There are more than ex mil dying in RTA's get a grip!
 
#20
TAcont said:
To be fair the squadie was proberly excessivly drunk.
That makes it perfectly acceptable, then does it?

How about the driver: Mohammed Razzaq having moral relativism of what is right and wrong.

Lets play devils advocat for a moment.

Just supposing the driver was Michael Dixon?

How do you think the courts would have reacted ?

How do you think his CO would have reacted - charged?

Michael Dixon - no matter what, was run over and LEFT. Mohammed Razzaq drove off.

Lets play eye-for-an-eye, that would be so much better. Perhaps, if Mohammed Razzaq thought his legs were going to be cut off he would be driving with a lot more care and attention............That's if he has a license - at all!

What would the sentence be if Michael Dixon was a police-officer?

Then before l forget to mention.

lf after how many hours/days Mohammed Razzaq came forward - maybe the drink/substance would have been well and truly out of his system.

Just a thought!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top