Thomk
Guru
- Location
- Warwickshire
Or perhaps 3 moments of madness.It would only elicit the widely accepted excuse of it being "a moment of madness".
GC
Or perhaps 3 moments of madness.It would only elicit the widely accepted excuse of it being "a moment of madness".
GC
Wouldn't attempted murder have been more of an appropriate charge?
No it wouldnt.
For murder or attempted murder you need to prove that he " Intended" to kill them. The fact that they were likely to be killed is not enough to convict, you hve to have the Intent part. Proving intent is notoriously difficult.
It is why these types of cases are not tried under murder or attempted murder.
from an earlier exchange on this forum, i understand "intention to seriously injure" is sufficient for murder (victim must be dead obviously) but a higher burden of " intent to kill" for attempted murder
Many of the diseases of old age include symptoms like major sudden mood swings, loss of social inhibitions, sudden violent rage, &c, &c.That's kind of what I'm getting at Thomk. Presumably there isn't a virus going round that turns harmless pensioners into Zombie Attack Ragers, so why were no questions asked about where this poisonous nonsense comes from?
from an earlier exchange on this forum, i understand "intention to seriously injure" is sufficient for murder (victim must be dead obviously) but a higher burden of " intent to kill" for attempted murder
There is still the Intent element and intent is very difficult to prove unless they confess to it.
Possibly why death by dangerous driving was added to the statue books. In that case you dont need to prove intent. The fact that someone was killed is enough. Providing the manner of driving is dermed to be dangerous. Much easier than proving what someone intended to do.
intent to harm should be pretty clear after taking 3 attempts to hit someone
I intended to frighten them. Prove me wrong.
Have to agree. A longer ban would have much more of an effect than the fine issued here. Total joke that he's told to pay the victim 1k when the bike was worth 1.5k, where the sense in that?He is clearly totally unsuited to the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle. A ten year ban and no fine would have been much better for everyone.
Still open for the victim to make a civil claim for damages/injuries.Have to agree. A longer ban would have much more of an effect than the fine issued here. Total joke that he's told to pay the victim 1k when the bike was worth 1.5k, where the sense in that?
I sincerely hope this happens.Still open for the victim to make a civil claim for damages/injuries.
Have to agree. A longer ban would have much more of an effect than the fine issued here. Total joke that he's told to pay the victim 1k when the bike was worth 1.5k, where the sense in that?