The solution to (drunk) motorists killing other road users? Opinions/Suggestions:

[NeutralThinking]

With the high road accident numbers we have in SA we all know at speeding, jumping lights, driving drunk, driving high, dicing and jumping railway crossings will MOST likely result in death. As such behaving in such a manner IS premeditated with the motive being personal convenience.

 

Precendence is being set,mnot just in this case, but in others. So far 2 cases have resulted in murder convictions. Precedence is a legal concepts. So this case is not "making a martyr" out of your friend, it is simply following the precedent set where others have been found guilty.

 

Mr Gouws' parents should have thought about the consequences of raising a miscreant a long time ago and taught him from a young age to take responsibility. A simple "oh, it was an accident" DOES NOT cut it when you have taken deliberate action which has caused harm (in this case death) to others.

 

He must man up and take his punishment, which will hopefully be a very lengthy prison term.

 

 

hes not my friend.. as stated.

The martyr statement wasn't neccesarily pointed at him but to the topic in general. The punishment and law needs to be more clear on drunk driving etc. right now its a bit confusing and unclear. Make it less confusing and clearer and people will have a better understanding and more reason not to go and get pissed and climb in their car

[fabes]

 

The point i was making was to try and get people to discuss a solution to a problem instead of just going on about how badly this guy should get thrown in jail or executed or sodomized.

this is the solution!!!

[fabes]

I'm not sure if I've said it here before, but I do have a small measure*** of sympathy for the driver.

 

before you read on, realise you fall into one of two categories:

*people who have driven whilst over the limit

 

*people who have NEVER driven whilst over the limit

 

I say this because I've driven on our roads over the limit before, I was young and silly - but it wasn't really a socially unacceptable practice. I thought it was ok because it was normally short distances and I tended to drive way slower than normal.

We have a culture of drink driving in this country, and whilst it is getting MUCH better enforced it is still a massive problem. Goodfellas, drivebuddies etc. are probably the best thing to happen recently. In fact a huge majority of our crime is alcohol related.

 

I don't condone the actions of the driver, but he is the scapegoat for the thousands of other drink drivers who got home safely that morning. All the other thousands were lucky, this time. If you've ever driven a car whilst over the limit you can thank your lucky stars this never happened to you.

 

***I guess an acceptable jail term would be 10 years. It's hard to put yourself in anyone's shoes here but I don't think putting him away for life actually helps anyone. The whole point of jail is to find the balance between punishing people for wrong actions, a deterrent for others considering these actions and allowing offenders time to change their ways.

i agree with what you have said

 

However everything is corrupt and backwards here do you honestly think he is going to sit 10 years?

 

And because its so corrupt people carrying on drinking and driving because they know they going to get off every time

[NeutralThinking]

Love the way your neutral thinking has come here only to defend one person

 

My F@&king logic a problem here because I'm looking at this from and emotional view and not a legal point of view??????

 

What are you actually smoking. You come here and tell us we all wrong because of how we view this situation as cyclists and try bull***t us with legal views( which you also seem to know f@&k all about).

 

I highly doubt this would be your reaction if you lost someone close to you because of a drunk driver.

 

Ill ask you what you asked me. Cant you read?

 

You getting angry. yay.. Good for you

 

My point of view was from a legal standpoint. You then want to throw an emotional view onto that which causes the entire topic to go out the window.

 

I did not come here to tell anyone they are wrong. I wanted people to be a bit more open minded. A lot of people seem to go into tunnel vision mode and just say stone the f%$ker. Does not help the issue and doesn't even help the topic set by this thread. but well done to South African people for always missing the bigger picture. WELL ******* DONE

 

I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore. Your lack of insight and overly defensive manner causes you to not see what im trying to say. I understand what you are trying to point out but that has NO bearing on the point I was trying to make.

[Patensie]

Problem with your logic is that I am looking at this from a legal point of view where you now want to bring in the emotional distress caused to the family...

 

Whats fair as a judgement on Andre Gouws for his actions. Who knows. But according to law and how law describes murder I find it to be weird that people can slap the murder charge on him.

 

Let's try to look at this from a legal point of view in a neutral fasion...

 

They are charging him with murder because the prosecutor will try to prove intent to kill on Gouws's part. There are different forms of intent (dolus): Dolus directus, dolus indirectus, dolus determinatus, dolus inditerminatus and (the one I think the prosecutor will go for) dolus eventualis.

 

Dolus eventualis: The person who acted foresaw the outcome (killing somebody) as possibilty from his actions (driving drunk), accepted the possibility (yes I know I may kill somebody while driving drunk) and still acted accordingly (gentlemen, hou vas my bier ek start die engine, let's go). [Losely translated from an Afrikaans textbook (Deliktereg - Neethling, Potgieter, Visser from 1996), factual setting my addition].

 

This is what I believe the prosecutor successfully did in the Jub-Jub case. Thus there is legal precedent to charge Gouws with murder. But what do I know - my legal knowledge (mainly commercial law) is 15 years old and very rusty...

[NeutralThinking]

Let's try to look at this from a legal point of view in a neutral fasion...

 

They are charging him with murder because the prosecutor will try to prove intent to kill on Gouws's part. There are different forms of intent (dolus): Dolus directus, dolus indirectus, dolus determinatus, dolus inditerminatus and (the one I think the prosecutor will go for) dolus eventualis.

 

Dolus eventualis: The person who acted foresaw the outcome (killing somebody) as possibilty from his actions (driving drunk), accepted the possibility (yes I know I may kill somebody while driving drunk) and still acted accordingly (gentlemen, hou vas my bier ek start die engine, let's go). [Losely translated from an Afrikaans textbook (Deliktereg - Neethling, Potgieter, Visser from 1996), factual setting my addition].

 

This is what I believe the prosecutor successfully did in the Jub-Jub case. Thus there is legal precedent to charge Gouws with murder. But what do I know - my legal knowledge (mainly commercial law) is 15 years old and very rusty...

 

Yes. manslaughter with recklessness (dolus eventualis)

 

Now take the average person who does not know law. You tell him if you make an accident and kill someone while drunk ITS MURDER and it doesnt make sense to that person. What im suggesting is that the law be made a little more clearer. Saying murder just doesnt seem to fit. And I have actually spoken to people and they see him as a murderer. They completely forget that he was drunk. So the real issue of drunken driving is forgotten and now murder is the issue. I have actually had conversations with people who think like this. Thats my issue

 

Im not arguing that the law behind the name murder is wrong. Im saying make people understand it better instead of confusing it

[fabes]

you join this forum to tell us we all wrong( I know you said you didn't say that but go read your first post) you from Pe and you say you used to know Andre

What is your agenda here? Are you just googling Andre Gouws and trying to defend him as much as you can?

 

And I am the second or third person who is so called lacking insight?

How narrow minded are you and short sighted are you to think the correct law is going to be applied to Andre Gouws.

[MTBc]

involuntary manslaughter is not enough, culpable homicide is the way. He chose to drink and drive and killed someone as a result, same reason the Jub Jub was charged for - it was not involuntary. he should get the sentence he deserved, and be held responsible for his decisions!

[Hairy]

 

Yes. manslaughter with recklessness (dolus eventualis)

 

Now take the average person who does not know law. You tell him if you make an accident and kill someone while drunk ITS MURDER and it doesnt make sense to that person. What im suggesting is that the law be made a little more clearer. Saying murder just doesnt seem to fit. And I have actually spoken to people and they see him as a murderer. They completely forget that he was drunk. So the real issue of drunken driving is forgotten and now murder is the issue. I have actually had conversations with people who think like this. Thats my issue

 

Im not arguing that the law behind the name murder is wrong. Im saying make people understand it better instead of confusing it

 

Simply put.

 

If you take a loaded gun into a public and start shooting in every which direction without aiming at anyone or intending to kill anyone, but you do .... is this murder or are you just being unlucky that the other person was there at that time and if he was walking on the other side of the pavement that person would still be alive and therefore it is really not your fault.

 

Hell, while we are at it .... why not ban pedestrians from walking in public spaces too.

[NeutralThinking]

you join this forum to tell us we all wrong( I know you said you didn't say that but go read your first post) you from Pe and you say you used to know Andre

What is your agenda here? Are you just googling Andre Gouws and trying to defend him as much as you can?

 

And I am the second or third person who is so called lacking insight?

How narrow minded are you and short sighted are you to think the correct law is going to be applied to Andre Gouws.

 

 

My agenda. Ive pointed it out a few times. I said I had issues with people saying he should be killed and sodomized and i have an issue with the murder charge. Even if it was someone else I would have had the same argument.

 

 

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

 

He did not have malice aforethought. He screwed up by making a dumbass choice and should be met with the same charge. Sure. If there are less people like him on the streets then by all means. But Malice aforethought. Some people actually have that towards him. Thats an issue i pointed out. They post their anger on the thread and it doesnt really help the issue which is" THE SOLUTION TO (DRUNK) motorists killing other road users? Opinions/Suggestions:"

And understandable because he did kill someone. trust me I know the feeling. I live in the same country as you.

 

The tone of my original post wasnt seen. You feel that i am here to tell you you are wrong. What I am saying is that the murder charge is wrong. Ffs charge him with something that makes sense from a legal point of view and make that LAW KNOWN. Put that law on billboards and make people see it. Call the law the "kill the drunk driving idiot law" . Dont care what you call it. Just make law easier to understand and make it focus on the real big issue. Drunken driving. the death of the victim was a result of that. It was not the primary crime or problem or issue. You find the solution to a problem by looking at the cause. Not the effects

 

I see crap like this on a daily basis

[Patensie]

Yes. manslaughter with recklessness (dolus eventualis)

 

Now take the average person who does not know law. You tell him if you make an accident and kill someone while drunk ITS MURDER and it doesnt make sense to that person. What im suggesting is that the law be made a little more clearer. Saying murder just doesnt seem to fit. And I have actually spoken to people and they see him as a murderer. They completely forget that he was drunk. So the real issue of drunken driving is forgotten and now murder is the issue. I have actually had conversations with people who think like this. Thats my issue

 

Im not arguing that the law behind the name murder is wrong. Im saying make people understand it better instead of confusing it

Recklessness = culpa lata (a form of negligence (gross negligence), not intent). Difference is a subjective test (intent - did Gouws foresee) vs objective test (negligence - would the reasonable person have foreseen)

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse = claiming ignorance will get you nowhere.

[nickc]

 

Ill ask you what you asked me. Cant you read?

 

You getting angry. yay.. Good for you

 

My point of view was from a legal standpoint. You then want to throw an emotional view onto that which causes the entire topic to go out the window.

 

I did not come here to tell anyone they are wrong. I wanted people to be a bit more open minded. A lot of people seem to go into tunnel vision mode and just say stone the f%$ker. Does not help the issue and doesn't even help the topic set by this thread. but well done to South African people for always missing the bigger picture. WELL ******* DONE

 

I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore. Your lack of insight and overly defensive manner causes you to not see what im trying to say. I understand what you are trying to point out but that has NO bearing on the point I was trying to make.

 

 

Have you considered profesional help?

[NeutralThinking]

Have you considered profesional help?

 

 

a few times

[fabes]

Ok I'll ask again. WHAT IS YOUR AGENDA HERE???

 

You from Pe

You didn't join a cycling forum then come across this thread

You clearly defending him

 

Please explain

[sluiper]

 

 

a few times

 

 

My agenda. Ive pointed it out a few times. I said I had issues with people saying he should be killed and sodomized and i have an issue with the murder charge. Even if it was someone else I would have had the same argument.

 

 

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

 

 

Quoting the definition of murder from Wikipedia just shows you have no knowledge of South African law. Murder is defined differently from country to country and our definition of murder includes the concept of dolus eventualis.

 

If you don't like the law or the definition, go get your LLB, practice for many years, write a few textbooks on criminal law, become a judge and then try to change it. Don't come to a cycling forum and try and defend someone by pretending to have knowledge of something you don't.

[NeutralThinking]

Ok I'll ask again. WHAT IS YOUR AGENDA HERE???

 

You from Pe

You didn't join a cycling forum then come across this thread

You clearly defending him

 

Please explain

 

A cyclist was killed by a drunk driver. Most cyclists like on this forum just get angry and show their anger.

 

My agenda is the topic of the thread.

 

A solution to problem.. instead of not helping the topic at all in any way.

 

Its like the slogan (if thats what its called) drinking and driving kills (something like that)

Doesnt help. More and more people do it.

 

More and more people drive without a license. If you make an accident and kill someone and you have no license its murder too i think.

 

Doesnt stop people...

 

 

So my agenda. Get people to actually think of what they are saying. Think of the actual law revolving around the issue and then maybe discuss an actual solution that will work. Cos nothing seems to work and all the law and crap just confuses the topic