To think this is unreasonable and this judge knowingly scentenced this man to death

[Sootyandsweep2019]

Just read a heartbreaking story in the paper about an 87 year old man, who given a 27 month prison sentence after he killed someone in a car accident. The judge was warned at the time by the man's doctors that this was highly likely to lead to his death; but went ahead and did it anyway. As predicted, he died nine days later. This was not murder, this was not malicious; it was a complete, tragic accident.

By all means ban him from driving if he was a danger, look at tightening the driving regulations around older drivers.

But our obsession with "making people pay," for genuine accidents has led to this utter tragedy .

The poor man must have been terrified. I really think this particular judge/ case needs urgent investigation; and we need a wider look at whether prison is always an appropriate response to car accident s like this.

Sadly I don't expect the judge/ CPS/ solicitors etc. Feel guilty at all.

He killed and maimed because he was in a temper after hitting bollards
and didn't pay enough attention to how he was driving

Most of us think drunk drivers who kill should go to jail
So should angry drivers who kill

The OP seems to be saying that drivers should not face jail because they don't intend to kill

However, that's not the law
and currently most people don't wish to change the law to remove jail as a penalty for killer drivers.

What the OP terms a terrible accident was in fact vehicular manslaughter. This was the right call by the judge and whilst it’s very sad the man died, it’s also incredibly sad that he spoilt the end of his own life by dangerous driving, which lead to the death of another person. Do you not see, OP, how this man made the choices that lead to all this tragedy?

@Sootyandsweep2019

The most depressing thing about this thread, is I suspect most of the people posting with a complete lack of compassion have children. The lack of critical thinking is unreal.

No. The most depressing thing is your utter callousness and disregard for the victims and their families, whilst at the same time completely ignoring the deterrent factor of applying prison sentences for killing people in 'accidents'.

If the old man had known he might well go to prison for 10+ years if he drove badly enough to kill someone, he might not have even been driving.

And as for your nonsense about changing the rules around driving on the right in American airforce bases, it's just that: nonsense, because they don't.

I'm glad he went to prison. Because he killed two people, he was fucking dangerous and could very well have done like that bastard Henry Clark and got back behind the wheel because, well, he already did just that after hitting that bollard.

Good riddance! He didn't give a shit about those people he killed or their families. That type would just the type to keep on driving. Society has a duty to lock up dangerous people.

I have genuine and sincere sympathy with the victim's family. I do not believe that many of the people posting here would voluntarily return from the U.S in her position; and so it's hypocritical to ask her to do so.

You have no sympathy at all and if that bitch Sacoolas had an ounce of integrity she'd never have fled the country after killing that young man in the first place. Hell is too good for her and she merits every ill that can befall a person in this life.

FA sympathy for this scumbag who killed two people with his car going to prison. Boohoo.

he killed someone - how would their family feel if he just carried on merrily living his life....where is the justice for them for the loss of their loved one. Actions have consequences, even at 87.

If more people realise that their obstinate old grandad may go to jail if he hits someone, they would be more likely to stop / shop him before the worst happens

If my kids weren't enough of a reminder certain threads on MN have been a constant acknowledgement that it is the School Holidays.

I wonder if you're confusing advancing years with diminished mental capacity in this case. No-one is saying he lacked mental capacity. Being old doesn't give you a free pass to criminal activity or mean that you never have to say sorry. I fail to see what you are objecting to.

He caused someone's death and will have been strongly advised to show remorse to the victim's family. He refused. I'm not sure what you expected the judge to do in the face of such an event or his attitude towards it.

This was no road accident. This was a man clearly unfit to drive yet doing it. He his a post first, was angry, got back into the car and killed a person and maimed another one because he was doing something he wasn’t supposed to do.

Each driver is responsible for knowing their capability to drive safely before any journey,
wrt alcohol, meds, illness, lack of sleep, failing faculties etc

He killed because he chose to drive when angry
and because he chose to drive for some years after age rendered him unsafe

• he kept gambling with other peoples' lives until finally he lost and so did his innocent victims.

Do you think the ‘accident’ would have happened if he was a competent driver?
He shouldn’t have been behind the wheel, it was dangerous for him to be behind the wheel.
His actions killed and maimed, so yes, prison is the right decision.

@bigchocfrenzy

If more people realise that their obstinate old grandad may go to jail if he hits someone, they would be more likely to stop / shop him before the worst happens

This is what I keep saying that some other posters don't seem to understand.

Deterrent doesn't just mean deterring the perpetrator for reoffending, it means deterring potential future perpetrators to therefore reduce potential future crimes.

I'm glad other people like you seem to understand that. OP keeps mentioning critical thinking but hasn't acknowledged this point - the case will have prompted a number of families to discuss with elderly loved ones the issue of when to surrender a license.

The government need to overhaul the laws as a matter of priority, if they had he probably wouldn't have held a licence.

If driving at 85 years old (his age at the date of the offence) warrants being sent to Wormwood Scrubs then 85 year olds should be told that beforehand! It is not, for the moment, enshrined in law so it’s not really sufficient to imply he has only himself to blame and should be in prison just because he was driving when old

What?! @SupportingSally? How on earth is this what you've come to? His killing one woman and maiming another, with no remorse led to his prison sentence.

Would you be saying the same if the only difference was the driver being 34?

If driving at 85 years old (his age at the date of the offence) warrants being sent to Wormwood Scrubs then 85 year olds should be told that beforehand!

So the process you think is fair would be:

Don't commit xxx crime unless you're happy to go to xxx prison.

However yyy crime will only mean you go to yyy prison.

You decide which one you commit.

Because by the way there's a third option... dont break the law by driving dangerously resulting in the death of someone and lifelong injuries of another.

Really?! Do you not see how ridiculous it is to expect him to make the decision to drive dangerously or not based on which specific prison he was at risk of going to?!

"CCTV footage shows Heagren, who was 86 at the time of the fatal collision, looking angry when he crashed into a bollard after attempting to move the vehicle. He got back into the automatic car and reversed it at maximum reverse speed, narrowly missing a dad who had to pull his children out of harm’s way."

After this he hit the two women and travelled a further 100ft (that is a LONG distance anywhere but in a car park, its huge!) before a bollard stopped his car.

THIS WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT. it was DANGEROUS, RECKLESS, ANGRY driving.

He killed someone. He wrecked another's life - forever. He almost killed at least 3 other people.

Should age/medical condition let people off Scott free?

How would you feel if it was your mum/daughter/sister/aunt/friend he killed?

It's sad that he died. That does not detract from the fact that his sentencing to jail time for his recklessness was correct.

If it had been someone I know that had been killed by him, I'd be furious at such a shirt sentence. I wouldn't give a sh*t about his age or medical condition. If he was that frail he shouldn't have been driving in the first place

Personally I think this is very simple.

My personal belief is that when a driver gets behind the wheel they are making a contract with themselves and society that they are both fit to drive AND willing to accept the consequences of poor driving on their part.

Being technically fit to drive but unwilling to accept the consequences, for example by fleeing the country or due to old age is just as bad imho as drivers who are unfit because their expectation is that whatever carnage they cause they should not be held accountable.

Yes, it's a sad end to his life but a result of many poor decisions on his part.

As such my sympathies lie solely with the victims, their families and those people who had to witness (some of whom were children) an absolutely horrific and avoidable occurrence.

'Tragedy' is one of those terms that are used too often, and incorrectly. A death is never pleasant, but I don't see how someone dying of natural causes at an advanced age qualifies as a tragedy.

CCTV footage shows Heagren, who was 86 at the time of the fatal collision, looking angry when he crashed into a bollard after attempting to move the vehicle. He got back into the automatic car and reversed it at maximum reverse speed, narrowly missing a dad who had to pull his children out of harm’s way. After this he hit the two women and travelled a further 100ft (that is a LONG distance anywhere but in a car park, its huge!) before a bollard stopped his car. THIS WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT. it was DANGEROUS, RECKLESS, ANGRY driving.

OP I'm genuinely interested if you really do think this falls under an "accident" and not a conscious decision to drive dangerously causing death, harm and very nearly the risk of death / harm to a father and son too.

Do you really stand by your original post knowing the above?

I am WELL down the rabbit hole now.

It was death by dangerous driving.

"The car was travelling at around 19mph at the point of impact. This was a clearly inappropriate speed in this environment and all the more dangerous because the vehicle was travelling backwards. The vehicle was completely out of control."

He also got back into the vehicle in an angry state.

It's a tragic situation all round and I have empathy for all parties. However there must be a punishment for things like death by dangerous driving surely? It wasn't a complete accident. There were actors that the gentleman in question could have controlled and it may have avoided the death of this lady.

What an awful post Local.

Harry's parents has already said that they didn't want to see her jailed and had she not fled they would has used their victims impact statement to say they did not wish her to go to prison.

It is not at all fame or revenge that is driving them when you see them interviewed but a sense of injustice and a need for the death of their son to legally be acknowledged as to how it happened and who was responsible.

You sound incredibly callous.

seem to be using their son's death to grab their moment of fame.
Terrible thing to say.