Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[Profpointy]

5 kids at 30 isn't particularly exceptional, one ever


How can you know any more than I can or anyone else on here about her intent? Yes you have expressed an opinion on her intent. You are claiming that she didn't or couldn't have had intent to grievously injure or kill the cyclist as the cyclist is or was not seriously injured or killed. She still could have had intent and her actions could still be consistent with intending to seriously injure or kill, like driving her two tonnes of tank car at the cyclist. You are making some pretty big assumptions for the benefit of the driver. You may be a lawyer, and a defence lawyer at that, but you still only have the same information as we have i.e. newspaper reports. Have you not read properly anything I and others have written? Yes I am fully aware of the "legal position" you refer to. Your comments that I am ranting is incorrect and secondly suggests to me you know you lost this argument.

ummm - Spen's explaining the legal position not defending the woman's actions. no need to have a pop at the messenger if you don't like the law

 

[spen666]

5 kids at 30 isn't particularly exceptional, one ever


How can you know any more than I can or anyone else on here about her intent? Yes you have expressed an opinion on her intent. You are claiming that she didn't or couldn't have had intent to grievously injure or kill the cyclist as the cyclist is or was not seriously injured or killed. She still could have had intent and her actions could still be consistent with intending to seriously injure or kill, like driving her two tonnes of tank car at the cyclist. You are making some pretty big assumptions for the benefit of the driver. You may be a lawyer, and a defence lawyer at that, but you still only have the same information as we have i.e. newspaper reports. Have you not read properly anything I and others have written? Yes I am fully aware of the "legal position" you refer to. Your comments that I am ranting is incorrect and secondly suggests to me you know you lost this argument.

You need to take a step back.

I have not expressed a view on what her intent was.
I have no idea what it was.

I have said that in the information available publically there is no evidence of her intewnt to kill or cause serious harm.



fortunately for society, and unfortunately for some on here, we have a judicial process where people are innocent until proven guilty. IE there needs to be evidence to convict someone. An internet rant is not evidence. Personal prejudices are not evidence. Revulsion at horrific injuries / damage are not evidence that will convict someone

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah I wouldn't want to be her if she's a nanny..

you do realise that a normal human pregnancy is around nine months... one child a year is entirely possible.

I know just seems unlikely, entirely possible of course. We shall see.

 

[spen666]

5 kids at 30 isn't particularly exceptional, one ever


How can you know any more than I can or anyone else on here about her intent? Yes you have expressed an opinion on her intent. You are claiming that she didn't or couldn't have had intent to grievously injure or kill the cyclist as the cyclist is or was not seriously injured or killed. She still could have had intent and her actions could still be consistent with intending to seriously injure or kill, like driving her two tonnes of tank car at the cyclist. You are making some pretty big assumptions for the benefit of the driver. You may be a lawyer, and a defence lawyer at that, but you still only have the same information as we have i.e. newspaper reports. Have you not read properly anything I and others have written? Yes I am fully aware of the "legal position" you refer to. Your comments that I am ranting is incorrect and secondly suggests to me you know you lost this argument.

I'm so much of a defence lawyer that I work for a prosecuting authority, but please don't let that stop you in your confusing the statement of the law I make with your own personal opinions

 

[Markymark]

Doesn't make the consequences legal or acceptable though.

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 3126052, member: 30090"]If you want to kick out at a car then prepare for the consequences. Simples.[/QUOTE]

Interesting choice of words, considering the alleged victim had - again, allegedly - a serious enough mental disability to have to wear a badge. As he does not seem to be a danger to anyone, he should be able to go about his business without anyone attempting to kill him because he over-reacts to a situation.

(It's also a sobering reminder to me that getting in a row with a driver does not prove I am clever.)

 

[cisamcgu]

We have no idea at all what the altercation was about - for all we know the cyclist leaned into the car, smiled and whispered "I'm going to kill you all, slowly, one by one...every time I kick the car, one of you will die ..."

OK - unlikely verging on the ludicrous, but until we know what happened I don't think we can attribute blame, cause or anything.

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE 3126052, member: 30090"]If you want to kick out at a car then prepare for the consequences. Simples.[/QUOTE]

Really? Is that how it works in your world?

 

[glenn forger]

We have no idea at all what the altercation was about - for all we know the cyclist leaned into the car, smiled and whispered "I'm going to kill you all, slowly, one by one...every time I kick the car, one of you will die ..."

OK - unlikely verging on the ludicrous, but until we know what happened I don't think we can attribute blame, cause or anything.

Ok, we'll go with that, so the driver then how she has to explain why, if she felt the children were in danger, she thought the best option was to drive off the road and into a house. When transporting children it's best to keep the smashing of buildings with your vehicle to an absolute minimum.

 

[Crankarm]

Ok, we'll go with that, so the driver then how she has to explain why, if she felt the children were in danger, she thought the best option was to drive off the road and into a house. When transporting children it's best to keep the smashing of buildings with your vehicle to an absolute minimum.

Yes one would have thought so ….

 

[Markymark]

...actually, the times I want to smash the car into a building is WHEN I have children inside.

Sorry, flipant.

 

[procel]

You are confusing opinion and law.

I have not expressed an opinion on her intent or lack of it.

I have said she did or did not have intent.

I am talking of what the legal position is rather than ranting about my personal opinions or views of her

It isn't coming across as that, by the way. I think most people who have read the thread have grasped the basics of the position the law takes, including @jarlrmai who asked the initial question which this sub bit of the thread has sprung from (which you didn't really answer, just saying "you understand where s/he's coming from").

What your writing suggests is that rather than explaining the law, you are defending the position the law takes. Other people are suggesting that if this is the position the law takes, then (not to put too fine a point on it) then the law is an ass.

I have some sympathy with the latter. Let's take some problem examples:
• If Alice lunges at Betty with a knife and kills her (then in the absence of premediation or self-defence etc) she is guilty of voluntary manslaughter if she intended to harm, whether or not that intent went so far as to intend killing.
• If Alice lunges at Betty with a knife and fails to kill her then (in the absence of any evidence of intent) she is guilty of (attempted) GBH.
• The extent of the intent being irrelevant to guilt or innocence depending on - essentially - luck means the law fails to be consistent.

• Of course, the injury caused may itself be evidence of intent: if Alice stabbed Betty in the arm, it would be more difficult to prove intent than if the injury was in the upper torso and Betty was medically lucky to survive.
• Then the weapon used may also be evidence of intent. Use of a gun (ignoring the illegalities around carrying one for the moment) would strongly suggest intent unless Alice could prove she was a crack shot who was supremely confident of her ability only to wound, even while extremely emotional.
• Or perhaps Alice and Betty have an argument on the edge of a precipice. Alice pushes Betty off. The drop is 180m (the same as the height of The Gherkin) so Betty hits the ground after 6 seconds at 215kph. She weighs 70kg so she hits the ground with approx kinetic energy of (70 x 215sq) 3200 kJ. What jury in their right mind is going to think that Alice did not have intent to kill?
• Betty and Alice are working on a demolition site and communicating via radio. Alice is in control of a 2000kg wrecking ball. They have an argument over the radio and Alice deliberately releases the wrecking ball in Betty's direction. The ball travels from stationary to 40kph in under 2 seconds and hits Betty's arm with a kinetic energy of (2000 x 40sq) 3200 kJ. I suppose Alice can claim to the jury she only intended to hurt or scare Betty but I would have my doubts about the success of that strategy.

So in the case of a defendant who drives a motor vehicle directly at another person, it should be shown how a 3200 kJ impact with a motor vehicle is safer than the same impact with a wrecking ball. How undertaking that deliberate act is lesser evidence of intent to kill than pushing someone off The Gherkin. And how operating a bulky motor vehicle while under the influence of the red mist, in order to deliberately injure, takes less skill than firing a gun to wound in the same state of mind.

 

[procel]

...fortunately for society, and unfortunately for some on here, we have a judicial process where people are innocent until proven guilty...

Except what we're talking about is mens rea, which many jurisprudential scholars do not consider a essential part of the principle. Innocent until proven guilty is about proving that the defendant did the action they were claimed to have done. Otherwise, in the absence of declarations (such as "die you bastard, die") from the defendant it would never be possible to infer intent - and courts which currently do would be engaging in outrageous evidence constructions. Also, Parliament would be perfectly entitled to create a strict liability offence for situations like this with no interference from Article 6 of the ECHR (not that I'm suggesting it does).

 

[spen666]

Except what we're talking about is mens rea, which many jurisprudential scholars do not consider a essential part of the principle.

Sadly for you, mens rea is an essential part of the offence of attempted murder, so it is irrelevant what scholars think. The law is as it is until it is changed.

Innocent until proven guilty is about proving that the defendant did the action they were claimed to have done. Otherwise, in the absence of declarations (such as "die you *******, die") from the defendant it would never be possible to infer intent -

Complete nonsense. How do you think people get convicted of theft, which requires the mental element of dishonesty above and beyond merely taking an item.

For example, if I pick up your pink jacket, and taker it home, thinking it is mine, I have not committed the offence of theft as I was not acting dishonestly. Hence there is a mental element in that offence and most offences

To suggest otherwise is simply wrong

and courts which currently do would be engaging in outrageous evidence constructions. Also, Parliament would be perfectly entitled to create a strict liability offence for situations like this with no interference from Article 6 of the ECHR (not that I'm suggesting it does).

 

[spen666]

It isn't coming across as that, by the way. I think most people who have read the thread have grasped the basics of the position the law takes, including @jarlrmai who asked the initial question which this sub bit of the thread has sprung from (which you didn't really answer, just saying "you understand where s/he's coming from").

What your writing suggests is that rather than explaining the law, you are defending the position the law takes. ....

If you want to import that into an explanation of what the current law is, then that is up to you.

I have merely stated what the law is. If you do not like the law, then campaign to get it changed.