tderias wrote:Why are you mixing two different law dimensions into one? I didn't say Grosjean should be accused of attempted murder of Fernando Alonso, because he came pretty close, or DC for attempted murder on Wurz. I didn't say that. Racing regulations and the penalties they come with are one thing, and real life law and the penalties that come with that are another. A football player doesn't get 6 months of prison time for breaking another one's leg with a dangerous tackle; he gets a red card.
I only used a real life scenario to better explain an equivalent situation in the sport's scenario. These two should be separated, simply because F1 is a dangerous sport, and any severe injuries or even fatalities cannot possibly be judged in a real life court, however they can certainly be judged within the sports law (racing regulations).
My point is, the accident that was triggered by Grosjean is the equivalent of Grosjean going out and hitting Perez, Hamilton, Alonso and Kobayashi individually, each in its own separate incident. Because, at the end of the day, if you ask any of these unlucky drivers why they didn't finish the race, they'll tell you its because someone made a mistake and my car got hit. Even Perez said that they had to pay the price of one driver's mistake, or something along those lines.
... you mean the kind of real life where hitmen accidentally shoot fire extinguishers through their target's bodies, and they explode and splatter innocent civilians' brains all over the place?
I don't know what crack you're on but ok. Are you making a parallel between an accidental motorsport crash AND attempted murder with collateral damage? Not only silly but entirely meaningless, unless you can somehow prove that Grosjean had planned and deliberately attempted to take Hamilton out of the race. There's a difference between making a mistake and purposely breaking the law (or sporting regulations for that matter). Consequently, you don't judge the consequences of an accident and that of a criminal act the same way.
Lastly, you say F1 is a dangerous sport and severe injuries/fatalities cannot possibly be judged in a "real life court". Hello? Law isn't abolished on the race track. Senna's death in 1994 prompted a lenghty legal process in Italy about liabilities (Williams and Newey were sued, possibly the track officials as well). Massa's family would've been well within their right to sue Brawn GP for compensation following his 2009 accident. Grand Prix circuits aren't areas of lawlessness.
I never said Grosjean's move was made on purpose. Tell me this, did Maldonado jump back on track in Valencia to purposely put Lewis into the wall? Did he hold his inside position in Silverstone to purposely DNF Sergio Perez? The answer to both these questions is No, yet they are still acts that got him penalised. My comparison was to demonstrate punishable acts in both spectrums, real life and F1.
If it makes you sleep, think of it as 4 good college friends; Checo, KayKay, Nando and Rogro in a car. Rogro, who's driving down the highway at speeds of 120km/h, is a bit hungover and sleepy after partying hard with his mates last night, and accidentally allows the car to sway to the left into the path of a fast approaching Porsche, driven by a man called Hammy. The two cars make contact, and due to high speeds, their car gets flipped and tumbles across the road, killing all the passengers along with Hammy. Miraculously, Rogro escapes unscathed, but gets set for a date in court. What will the charges against him look like?
Moral of the story; the consequences of any incident must be taken into account in order for justice to be served in the eyes of all the affected parties. On another day, the same thing might have happened down his local neighborhood street, resulting in only a small scratch on the Porsche's paint job. In this case, a certain paycheck would resolve the matter, and the word 'court' wouldn't be mentioned for the whole day. Now, is that story a better resemblance of real life, because I'm starting to run of plots here lol.