Is this all a cyclists life is worth

[Alex321]

Sure could have been an accident (negligence). However , only when the weapon is an automobile do the courts feel any need to prove intent.
You've definately got the legaleese down but clearly there is almost no concern over the killing of people not in cars. This exists in the UK and US very similarly.

This is just complete and utter rubbish.

Intent ALWAYS has to be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) for a charge of murder to stick.

 

[Alex321]

People have been convicted of murder without a body (possibly not in the UK recently). Yet, if you go 'mall sniping' it is pretty much assumed that you meant to kill the people you shot.

And?

I don't know what point you think that makes, but you are wrong, it is making no point at all.

If all the evidence suggests that there is no reasonable doubt that you intentionally killed somebody, then you can be convicted of their murder, regardless of whether a body has actually been found.

 

[brommieinkorea]

And?

I don't know what point you think that makes, but you are wrong, it is making no point at all.

If all the evidence suggests that there is no reasonable doubt that you intentionally killed somebody, then you can be convicted of their murder, regardless of whether a body has actually been found.

No body = reasonable doubt. And the whole argument isn't about the law, it's about the mindset that establishes a dual standard that excuses all kind of horrible actions by people riding in cars.

 

[Alex321]

No body = reasonable doubt.

Absolutely not true. Not even close.

And the whole argument isn't about the law, it's about the mindset that establishes a dual standard that excuses all kind of horrible actions by people riding in cars.

False.

You started this whole subthread by saying "yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence, so killers who use a car get a pass. " and that was in regard to the legal consequences of killing somebody.

You may believe in that "mindset", but the facts say otherwise, and it has bveen getting more so with the introduction of more severe penalties, and new offences such as causing death by careless driving. Which is a situation where you would NOT get charged with manslaughter - mere carelessness is not enough for that, it has to be gross negligence - which would result in "causing death by dangerous driving" if it were in a car.

I would agree that the situation 20 years ago was largely as you suggest, motorists were treated far more leniently than those causing death in other ways. But it is just not true any more.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

No body = reasonable doubt.

Citation needed (and an episode of Perry Mason doesn’t count).

And the whole argument isn't about the law

I’m afraid it is.

 

[boydj]

No body = reasonable doubt.

There is now plenty of case law to show that this is not the case and several killers in jail where the body has never been found. In the papers recently was a story about a killer applying for parole and one of the arguments against approval was that he never revealed the location of the body.

 

[simongt]

Homicide is murder, yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence,

Interesting point. Many years ago, my late ex said that if she wanted to kill someone, all she had to do was run them down / over in a car and she'd get off with a light setence as oppose to 'sorting' said victim with say, a gun or knife.