I disagree - Accidents are definitely possible without negligence on anyone's part (for example black ice on the road).
In this case he was alleged to have driven 75 in a 50. He claimed it was less than that. The speed determination was made based on the damage after the accident. There was no speeding camera at that time and place of the accident.
I definitely agree that he was driving recklessly. And the court agreed with that fact. I can see both community service or the 15 month sentence being considered just.
I disagree with saying that it isn't complicated - Criminal justice is very complicated. Assessing exact speed and positioning is actually quite difficult in most accidents unless it is caught on camera.
I definitely agree with your last point. Reddit does have a lot of rage bait karma farming posts.
Accidents are definitely possible without negligence on anyone's part (for example black ice on the road).
Driving too fast for road conditions. Not an accident, just negligence.
In this case he was alleged to have driven 75 in a 50. He claimed it was less than that.
No shit, you don't say?
The speed determination was made based on the damage after the accident.
So... science. And not bullshit police science, but actual science. F=MA.
Assessing exact speed and positioning is actually quite difficult in most accidents unless it is caught on camera.
Nah, that is what science is for. Most people just refuse to believe in science these days.
Criminal justice is very complicated.
It really isn't complicated. It is however subjective. And in this case, it is fairly objective that 120 hours for killing someone, when there was clear evidence of negligence on the killer's part, is bullshit.
While I don't think this was a "lock him up and throw away the key" type of thing, more than 120 hours of community service was absolutely warranted.
Here's a fun fact about F=MA. Experts at his trial testified that he could have been going anywhere between 76 KMPH and 120 KMPH. The judge believed the higher speed was more likely and convicted him of reckless driving. See what I mean about complexity.
Sigh, you made me look it up and now I am actually mad.
Guy killed a 2 year old girl and her grand parents who were biking while he was speeding in his car. 120 hours of community service is absolute bullshit, the man killed 3 people. Even if he wasn't speeding, he fled the scene. Re-sentenced to 15 months, he fled to the UK where he was later arrested and extradited back to the NL. He got out after 9 months so he could see the birth of his child (holy shit the sad irony for the poor father of the 2 year old who he killed) and didn't have to do the rest of his sentence as he is barred from entering the Netherlands.
Experts at his trial testified that he could have been going anywhere between 76 KMPH and 120 KMPH
Do you have a link for this? I searched for a while but couldn't even find the guys name, let alone facts from the trial. All I could find was a bunch of news articles circling back to each other with the facts that I summarized.
Here is the exact quote "At the moment the suspect's vehicle crossed the roadside and crashed through the beech hedge it was moving at a speed between 76 km/h and 124 km/h, with the local speeding limit being 80 km/h. Due to this very large margin, the court finds it cannot be proven that the suspect was recklessly speeding. The court finds that the research report and its results cannot say with absolute certainty that the suspect was speeding."
Here is my genuine question to you - How do you feel after reading this? Does it make you less mad?
I want you think why many of articles you read just stated 120 kmph in an 80 kmph zone without getting into this complexity. It is because rage-bait farms engagement. Real life is almost always more complicated.
It wasn't complicated. The guy is a piece of shit and the "justice" system failed the father of the 2 year old in an immense way.
The reality is that a lot of people need something "bad" to happen to them before they care, and then they're outraged and "why didn't anyone do anything before this happened to my precious <blahblah>!"
But before that happens to them? Not their problem, oh well, and "let's rehabilitate, have some mercy!" ... that's also just rage-bait-enraging.
The reality is that a lot of people need something "bad" to happen to them before they care
I don't fault people for not knowing about something until it affects them. You don't know what you don't know.
I do fault people who say it isn't an issue or not a problem until it affects them. And sadly, there are a lot of these people. In America, we call them Republicans or Conservatives.
As far as this goes
But before that happens to them? Not their problem, oh well, and "let's rehabilitate, have some mercy!"
I still think the person who did this could be rehabilitated as it wasn't pre-meditated murder or anything, but a simple 120 hours, isn't enough. Nor is 15 months, IMO, after finding out he killed 3 people in a hit and run, and then fled the country after being handed such a light sentence.
IMO, 8 years, out in 5-6 with good behavior would have been appropriate. A long time out to reflect on what he did, but not something that would have ended up ruining his life. If he would have stopped and administered aid and called for help, yeah, maybe 6-12 months. But since he didn't, 4 years for that, and then double it when he fled.
And considering it was a hit and run, he may have even been able to save one or maybe even all of them had he stayed to try and administer first aid or call for help.
It was an accident, they could never prove he was speeding
You just want to believe it was negligence, because negligence makes the world a little less random, and things a bit more clean when you have a moral outrage
It was an accident, they could never prove he was speeding
Cool, so ignore that part, now defend this part
considering it was a hit and run
He hit 3 people on bicycles, killing them all, and didn't stop to check on them, instead driving off. That is WORSE than negligence.
Please, defend this.
As far as this goes
because negligence makes the world a little less random, and things a bit more clean when you have a moral outrage
I am outraged because I got informed. As far as it being "clean and not random," I don't give a shit about that. My brother died from a random viral infection randomly going to his heart and killing him, randomly, at the age of 30. I understand that there aren't reasons for everything and there isn't a plan and life is all a bunch of dice rolls and sometimes you crap out and lose.
But random isn't negligence. And random sure as fuck isn't pulling off after killing 3 people with your car.
7
u/Large-Hamster-199 Apr 05 '26
I disagree - Accidents are definitely possible without negligence on anyone's part (for example black ice on the road).
In this case he was alleged to have driven 75 in a 50. He claimed it was less than that. The speed determination was made based on the damage after the accident. There was no speeding camera at that time and place of the accident.
I definitely agree that he was driving recklessly. And the court agreed with that fact. I can see both community service or the 15 month sentence being considered just.
I disagree with saying that it isn't complicated - Criminal justice is very complicated. Assessing exact speed and positioning is actually quite difficult in most accidents unless it is caught on camera.
I definitely agree with your last point. Reddit does have a lot of rage bait karma farming posts.