I read this piece many times over which appeared in the today's
STAR , yet I still don't know whether I understand or not.
Under the headline' Man gets two years for killing child
by driving dangerously'
A former lorry driver was found guilty for
causing the death of an eight-year-old boy seven
years ago when he drove dangerously, and rammed
the child against a wall.
Okay the above statement well taken and understood. Good.
Now read the following and please tell me does it make sense
or not.
In her ruling, Nik Haslinie (magistrate) said Murugan could
not control the vehicle since he did not have a
valid licence.
Is like saying without a valid licence that caused the
accident! Either the STAR reporter heard wrongly or the
magistrate need to reexamine! Or it's my poor grasp in English,
I don't know.
If the driver could not control the vehicle, what has it
gotta do with the driving license? Either the guy was incompetence
to drive or negligence not something gotta do with driving license la.
Yes, another offence he committed was driving without a valid licence!
DAMMIT! If only someone can clear my 'pusing' head.
No comments:
Post a Comment