|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 18:45:21 GMT
What's the point of being correct about an irrelevant point? Even if the cyclist was breaking every single provision of the Highway Code, members of the public are still required to respond to those breaches in a proportionate manner. A jury of her peers found that Grey did not respond in a proportionate manner. The Jury were obviously not given the facts of the matter as just pointed out for you. Which makes it a null and void case. I refer you to my earlier post. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 8, 2023 20:25:22 GMT
Which means if you are riding a cycle on a footpath and you see a pedestrian you stop. You do realise they fit brakes to cycles for a reason don't you? You do realise a cycle on a footpath is a potential lethal weapon don't you? You do realise that this woman acted disproportionately, don't you? You do realise the jury had access to all the facts, don't you? No I do not realise that. Without access to the transcript of the evidence given I don't know how multiple reports say the judge said that path is 2.4 metres wide and a shared pathway. I suspect the police gave evidence that way, I also suspect the judge made same sus statements when instructing the jury in his summing up If either is the case she should appeal conviction and sentence but we do not know exactly what she is appealing |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 8, 2023 20:57:49 GMT
Darling will just ignore that In Darling's world the nearest person to any accidental death is guilty of at least manslaughter. If a bank robber trips over a pedestrian while running out of the bank and falls into the road and under a bus then said pedestrian is guilty of manslaughter in Darling's distorted world. I notice Darling has no explanation why the cyclist didn't stop as the law requires and just carried on. if you look at the video and advance it as as slow as possible at impact the cyclist is at moving R-L at ~ twice the pedestrian's L-R walking speed (count vertical railings passed between freeze frames). www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k But hey ho seems we now live in times where we have to accept that cyclists are the superior master race, us non cyclists must defer to their every whim and accept blame and punishment for every stupid accident they inflict on themselves. They drive through red traffic lights and if a car hits them it's the car drivers fault, this case is just the latest extension of that tyranny. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Mar 8, 2023 21:11:18 GMT
Disabled woman, 49, who gestured for a cyclist to move off the pavement and onto road seconds before she was hit and killed by a car is jailed for three years for MANSLAUGHTER I know the law is a bit of a prick at times, and funeral costs are outrageous but reading that i have to say jailing the dead, bloody hell thats a new one. That's just what I was thinking! |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 8, 2023 21:18:37 GMT
Darling will just ignore that In Darling's world the nearest person to any accidental death is guilty of at least manslaughter. If a bank robber trips over a pedestrian while running out of the bank and falls into the road and under a bus then said pedestrian is guilty of manslaughter in Darling's distorted world. I notice Darling has no explanation why the cyclist didn't stop as the law requires and just carried on. if you look at the video and advance it as as slow as possible at impact the cyclist is at moving R-L at ~ twice the pedestrian's L-R walking speed (count vertical railings passed between freeze frames). www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4eIjOFTB6k But hey ho seems we now live in times where we have to accept that cyclists are the superior master race, us non cyclists must defer to their every whim and accept blame and punishment for every stupid accident they inflict on themselves. They drive through red traffic lights and if a car hits them it's the car drivers fault, this case is just the latest extension of that tyranny. I wonder how this stacks up: Teenager avoids custody for causing death of pensioner in e-scooter collision
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/teenager-nottinghamshire-department-for-transport-nottingham-nottinghamshire-police-b2296685.html |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 8, 2023 21:29:47 GMT
Not good is it, us pedestrians (and car drivers) need to get used to the all new 2 wheel based apartheid
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 8, 2023 21:35:53 GMT
No they’re not irrelevant and comparing her to Pistorius is a diversion. A person with cerebral palsy and mental health problems in a small safe space can feel threatened, especially and as the judge admits there was no evidence showing that the footpath was a shared space Retreat where to? in to the road perhaps the onus was on the cyclist to stop and let her pass. Please explain how her cerebral palsey was relevant. Is someone with CP allowed to cause the death of other people as a compensation for being born with that disease? And the Oscar Pistorius mention was not a diversion. It was intended to make the very obvious point that handicapped people do not have a special dispensation to kill or harm others. As to the 'retreat' point: take a look at the footage again. This woman had ample time to step to one side; instead, she advanced determinedly on the cyclist, where she suddenly and unexpectedly screamed a profanity, startling the cyclist onto a busy road. That's what I see when I look at the footage. It is obviously what the jury saw also. It's fine if you feel that people should pay with their life for minor offenses like dropping litter or riding a bicycle on a footpath; however, should you ever find yourself on a jury deciding such issues, you can expect to be outvoted. I’m not saying people should pay with their life nor can you justify that there was any intention to kill which is exactly why your comparison to Pistorius was nothing other than a diversion. When I look at the footage. I see someone alarmed at someone approaching on a bike,the sensible choice and in this case lawful as has been demonstrated would be to give way. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 23:25:32 GMT
You do realise that this woman acted disproportionately, don't you? You do realise the jury had access to all the facts, don't you? No I do not realise that. Without access to the transcript of the evidence given I don't know how multiple reports say the judge said that path is 2.4 metres wide and a shared pathway. I suspect the police gave evidence that way, I also suspect the judge made same sus statements when instructing the jury in his summing up If either is the case she should appeal conviction and sentence but we do not know exactly what she is appealing Would you mind explaining why you think the width of the path is relevant? What sort of 'sus statements' are you talking about? Here is another article (dated yesterday) that says that Grey is only appealing her sentence, not her conviction. Of course, it could be incorrect, but given that all reports are that she is only appealing the sentence, we can at least assume this is the case: metro.co.uk/2023/03/08/auriol-grey-huntingdon-woman-jailed-for-killing-cyclist-lodges-appeal-18404163/ |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 23:27:51 GMT
Please explain how her cerebral palsey was relevant. Is someone with CP allowed to cause the death of other people as a compensation for being born with that disease? And the Oscar Pistorius mention was not a diversion. It was intended to make the very obvious point that handicapped people do not have a special dispensation to kill or harm others. As to the 'retreat' point: take a look at the footage again. This woman had ample time to step to one side; instead, she advanced determinedly on the cyclist, where she suddenly and unexpectedly screamed a profanity, startling the cyclist onto a busy road. That's what I see when I look at the footage. It is obviously what the jury saw also. It's fine if you feel that people should pay with their life for minor offenses like dropping litter or riding a bicycle on a footpath; however, should you ever find yourself on a jury deciding such issues, you can expect to be outvoted. I’m not saying people should pay with their life nor can you justify that there was any intention to kill which is exactly why your comparison to Pistorius was nothing other than a diversion. When I look at the footage. I see someone alarmed at someone approaching on a bike,the sensible choice and in this case lawful as has been demonstrated would be to give way. Pistorius was a disabled man whose disability had nothing at all to do with his case. This woman also has disabilities. They also have nothing to do with the case. Her disabilities are as relevant as the colour of her eyes. And nobody said there was any intention to kill. That's why she was charged with manslaughter, not murder. If she had intended to kill that woman, she would have been given a life sentence. And when the jurors looked at that footage, they did not see an alarmed woman. They saw an angry woman bearing down on a cyclist, to shout profanities at her. Accept that a jury of Grey's peers did not share your view of the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 8, 2023 23:34:40 GMT
I’m not saying people should pay with their life nor can you justify that there was any intention to kill which is exactly why your comparison to Pistorius was nothing other than a diversion. When I look at the footage. I see someone alarmed at someone approaching on a bike,the sensible choice and in this case lawful as has been demonstrated would be to give way. Pistorius was a disabled man whose disability had nothing at all to do with his case. This woman has disabilities. They also have nothing to do with the case. Her disabilities are as relevant as the colour of her eyes. And nobody said there was any intention to kill. That's why she was charged with manslaughter, not murder. If she had intended to kill that woman, she would have been given a life sentence. It is you who quoted kill or harm,I see no intention to do either but she made clear why are you cycling toward me on a footpath. Effing at someone doesn’t show intent to cause physical harm else half the posters on here would be in the dock. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 8, 2023 23:38:00 GMT
Surely intent would only be relevant for a murder charge, not manslaughter?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 23:41:25 GMT
Pistorius was a disabled man whose disability had nothing at all to do with his case. This woman has disabilities. They also have nothing to do with the case. Her disabilities are as relevant as the colour of her eyes. And nobody said there was any intention to kill. That's why she was charged with manslaughter, not murder. If she had intended to kill that woman, she would have been given a life sentence. It is you who quoted kill or harm,I see no intention to do either but she made clear why are you cycling toward me on a footpath. Effing at someone doesn’t show intent to cause physical harm else half the posters on here would be in the dock. Wapentake, you simply don't understand the issues here. The cyclist may very well have committed an offense by riding on the footpath. In these circumstances, the law expects bystanders to act reasonably. This woman should have stood to one side and allowed the cylist to pass if there was no room on the path even if she had a right of way, or she should have taken out her phone and called the police. Those are two safe and proportionate ways of dealing with the situation even if the cyclist was 100% in the wrong. Bearing down on someone and screaming at them, particularly when they are elderly, is an extremely dangerous thing to do when that person is literally only feet away from a busy highway. The jury thought her actions were dangerous and stupid. The elderly cyclist should have received a minor fine for her actions at the most; in the event, she lost her life and an innocent man's life has been ruined by PTSD, all because a woman simply couldn't control her temper. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 23:41:47 GMT
Surely intent would only be relevant for a murder charge, not manslaughter? Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 8, 2023 23:53:04 GMT
It is you who quoted kill or harm,I see no intention to do either but she made clear why are you cycling toward me on a footpath. Effing at someone doesn’t show intent to cause physical harm else half the posters on here would be in the dock. Wapentake, you simply don't understand the issues here. The cyclist may very well have committed an offense by riding on the footpath. In these circumstances, the law expects bystanders to act reasonably. This woman should have stood to one side and allowed the cylist to pass if there was no room on the path even if she had a right of way, or she should have taken out her phone and called the police. Those are two safe and proportionate ways of dealing with the situation even if the cyclist was 100% in the wrong. Bearing down on someone and screaming at them, particularly when they are elderly, is an extremely dangerous thing to do when that person is literally only feet away from a busy highway. The jury thought her actions were dangerous and stupid. The elderly cyclist should have received a minor fine for her actions at the most; in the event, she lost her life and an innocent man's life has been ruined by PTSD, all because a woman simply couldn't control her temper. I don’t understand? So the fact the woman has a physical and mental disability is an irrelevance but the fact the cyclist is elderly is relevant,really? Double standards methinks. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 23:56:47 GMT
Wapentake, you simply don't understand the issues here. The cyclist may very well have committed an offense by riding on the footpath. In these circumstances, the law expects bystanders to act reasonably. This woman should have stood to one side and allowed the cylist to pass if there was no room on the path even if she had a right of way, or she should have taken out her phone and called the police. Those are two safe and proportionate ways of dealing with the situation even if the cyclist was 100% in the wrong. Bearing down on someone and screaming at them, particularly when they are elderly, is an extremely dangerous thing to do when that person is literally only feet away from a busy highway. The jury thought her actions were dangerous and stupid. The elderly cyclist should have received a minor fine for her actions at the most; in the event, she lost her life and an innocent man's life has been ruined by PTSD, all because a woman simply couldn't control her temper. I don’t understand? So the fact the woman has a physical and mental disability is an irrelevance but the fact the cyclist is elderly is relevant,really? Double standards methinks. Yes. Grey's disabilities have absolutely no bearing on the case. Whereas, the elderly ladies' age will have had a bearing because it was relevant to her ability to respond swiftly to Grey's aggression. You weren't on the jury. The jury was asked to assess the reasonableness of Grey's actions. At least 10 of them decided her actions were stupid and dangerous. Even if Grey appeals her conviction, as opposed to the sentence, the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to overrule a jury's assessment of whether the accused acted reasonably. |
|
