|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 9, 2023 0:00:13 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. Darling is trying to argue as a juror on behalf of the cyclist who actually was in the wrong according to the law, as it is in black and white. Darling has taken a tyrannical approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 9, 2023 0:04:25 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. Darling is trying to argue as a juror on behalf of the cyclist who actually was in the wrong according to the law, as it is in black and white. Darling has taken a tyrannical approach. up The arguments have already been made. A fair and impartial jury found that Grey acted dangerously and stupidly. The court then went on to impose a harsh sentence because Grey continued on to the shops to pick up her groceries completely indifferent to what had happened and showed no remorse up to the time of trial (though, this is disputed). |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 9, 2023 0:06:57 GMT
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 they relate to her ability to respond swiftly to Grey's aggression. You weren't on the jury. What! still double standards,the cyclist bearing down (much faster) than the speed of a pedestrian who is hampered by how fast she can react to that by her cerebral palsy figures not according to you. And no I wasn’t on the jury and neither were you so your argument carries no more weight either. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 9, 2023 0:10:58 GMT
Darling is trying to argue as a juror on behalf of the cyclist who actually was in the wrong according to the law, as it is in black and white. Darling has taken a tyrannical approach. up The arguments have already been made. A fair and impartial jury found that Grey acted dangerously and stupidly. The court then went on to impose a harsh sentence because the defendant continued on to the shops to pick up her groceries completely indifferent to what had happened (though, this is disputed). It wasn't fair or impartial it wasn't based on the law. However you try and make out it was. You have tried to spin it around just by using non sequitur argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 9, 2023 0:11:17 GMT
Yes. Grey's disabilities have absolutely no bearing on the case. Whereas, the elderly ladies' age will have had a bearing because they relate to her ability to respond swiftly to Grey's aggression. You weren't on the jury. And no I wasn’t on the jury and neither were you so your argument carries no more weight either. At least, I understand the law. You might think it's fine for people to take the law into their own hands and respond to breaches of the law as they see fit; thankfully, the law doesn't. Have you ever rode a bike on a footpath? Have you ever urinated in public? How about your children? How would you feel if some angry bystander took it upon themselves to endanger your or your loved one's lives for a minor offense? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 9, 2023 0:14:35 GMT
The arguments have already been made. A fair and impartial jury found that Grey acted dangerously and stupidly. The court then went on to impose a harsh sentence because the defendant continued on to the shops to pick up her groceries completely indifferent to what had happened (though, this is disputed). it wasn't based on the law. How would you know? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 9, 2023 0:22:08 GMT
it wasn't based on the law. How would you know? Because it is written in black and white and I have seen no evidence that it was a shared footpath, that is how I know and I will repeat even if it was a pedestrian has precedence on a footpath the clue is in footpath, you are getting desperate because now you have moved to urinating in public as though that is somehow logical. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 9, 2023 0:23:41 GMT
Because it is written in black and white and I have seen no evidence that it was a shared footpath, that is how I know and I will repeat even if it was a pedestrian has precedence on a footpath the clue is in footpath, you are getting desperate because now you have moved to urinating in public as though that is somehow logical. Fine. I don't have particularly high standards when it comes to who I'll debate with, but I draw the line at you, Sheepy. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 9, 2023 0:27:31 GMT
Because it is written in black and white and I have seen no evidence that it was a shared footpath, that is how I know and I will repeat even if it was a pedestrian has precedence on a footpath the clue is in footpath, you are getting desperate because now you have moved to urinating in public as though that is somehow logical. Fine. I don't have particularly high standards when it comes to who I'll debate with, but I draw the line at you, Sheepy. Because you have no way out unless i decide so, or you run from the facts as stated.I am not trying to agitate you but you refuse to educate yourself. This not some black and white case closed because you believed it so. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 9, 2023 0:32:36 GMT
And no I wasn’t on the jury and neither were you so your argument carries no more weight either. At least, I understand the law. You might think it's fine for people to take the law into their own hands and respond to breaches of the law as they see fit; thankfully, the law doesn't. Have you ever rode a bike on a footpath? Have you ever urinated in public? How about your children? How would you feel if some angry bystander took it upon themselves to endanger your or your loved one's lives for a minor offense? No I don’t think it fine for people to take the law in to their own hands neither do I believe this anything other than an unfortunate accident and not a case of manslaughter. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 9, 2023 0:34:55 GMT
At least, I understand the law. You might think it's fine for people to take the law into their own hands and respond to breaches of the law as they see fit; thankfully, the law doesn't. Have you ever rode a bike on a footpath? Have you ever urinated in public? How about your children? How would you feel if some angry bystander took it upon themselves to endanger your or your loved one's lives for a minor offense? No I don’t think it fine for people to take the law in to their own hands neither do I believe this anything other than an unfortunate accident and not a case of manslaughter. It wasn't your decision. That decision fell to others, who decided Grey had acted disproportionately, and that her bad temper was the cause of an old lady's death. In other circumstances, that old lady would have received a very small fine; in the event, she died because she had the misfortune to cross paths with an aggressive and 'territorial' woman. Nobody's asking you to agree with the jury's decision. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 9, 2023 0:40:15 GMT
At least, I understand the law.
Which you obviously didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 9, 2023 0:44:29 GMT
No I don’t think it fine for people to take the law in to their own hands neither do I believe this anything other than an unfortunate accident and not a case of manslaughter. It wasn't your decision. That decision fell to others, who decided Grey had acted disproportionately, and that her intemperate actions were the cause of an old lady's death. You don't have to agree with the decision. No I don’t but since this is a debating forum I don’t have to accept your take on this either and am free to continue to say so. Jury systems are not infallible and it is perfectly acceptable to dispute their findings. And I do. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 9, 2023 0:45:27 GMT
It wasn't your decision. That decision fell to others, who decided Grey had acted disproportionately, and that her intemperate actions were the cause of an old lady's death. You don't have to agree with the decision. No I don’t but since this is a debating forum I don’t have to accept your take on this either and am free to continue to say so. Jury systems are not infallible and it is perfectly acceptable to dispute their findings. And I do. That much of what you've said is true, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 9, 2023 6:11:35 GMT
No I don’t think it fine for people to take the law in to their own hands neither do I believe this anything other than an unfortunate accident and not a case of manslaughter. It wasn't your decision. That decision fell to others, who decided Grey had acted disproportionately, and that her bad temper was the cause of an old lady's death. In other circumstances, that old lady would have received a very small fine; in the event, she died because she had the misfortune to cross paths with an aggressive and 'territorial' woman. Nobody's asking you to agree with the jury's decision. It was the pedestrian's territory, she had a right to issue warnings to someone who was breaking the law and endangering her life; poor defence and poor judgement. |
|
