|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 8, 2023 15:47:34 GMT
Sounds to me like one of life's or in this case death by a tragic accident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:12:26 GMT
Nonsense. Grey's handicaps were completely irrelevant. Just as Pistorious' were. Her real handicap here was her short temper and her 'territorial' attitude. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:13:09 GMT
Sounds to me like one of life's or in this case death by a tragic accident. Death caused by a bad-tempered old bat, more like. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 8, 2023 17:18:05 GMT
Sounds to me like one of life's or in this case death by a tragic accident. Indeed and a custodial 3yr sentence for manslaughter which is excessive. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:20:41 GMT
Sounds to me like one of life's or in this case death by a tragic accident. Indeed and a custodial 3yr sentence for manslaughter which is excessive. Yes, it could be described as excessive. But causing someone's death for a trivial offense is also excessive. Luckily for this ill-tempered woman, she has a chance to appeal. The victim of her excessive behaviour does not have that opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 8, 2023 17:26:06 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. Wouldn’t a condition that affects people’s behaviour be a mitigating factor? The cyclist reaction wasn’t the only one that she could of took. If I was shouted at a bus stop and decided to jump into oncoming traffic would that entirely be the fault of the person who shouted? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 8, 2023 17:35:39 GMT
Sounds to me like one of life's or in this case death by a tragic accident. Death caused by a bad-tempered old bat, more like. You think? normally if you saw somebody coming who might show signs of being disabled would you stop and let them pass? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:37:48 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. Wouldn’t a condition that affects people’s behaviour be a mitigating factor? The cyclist reaction wasn’t the only one that she could of took. If I was mugged at a bus stop and decided to jump into oncoming traffic would that entirely be the fault of the mugger Mitigating factors relate to sentencing. If you mean that her actions were involuntary (the result of muscle spasms, etc.), that is something else. But look at the footage again. It is clear that she intentionally advanced upon the cyclist. That was the jury's finding, and it is quite plain why they made that finding. An aggressor has to take their victim as they find them. If the victim has an eggshell skull, that is irrelevant; likewise, if a more competent victim would have handled the bicycle more skilfully so as to avoid the fatality, that is also irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:38:26 GMT
Death caused by a bad-tempered old bat, more like. You think? normally if you saw somebody coming who might show signs of being disabled would you stop and let them pass? What signs of being disabled did Grey display in the footage that you saw? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 8, 2023 17:41:14 GMT
You think? normally if you saw somebody coming who might show signs of being disabled would you stop and let them pass? What signs of being disabled did Grey display in the footage that you saw? That wasn't the question, we are talking about what you might do. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 8, 2023 17:42:21 GMT
Wouldn’t a condition that affects people’s behaviour be a mitigating factor? The cyclist reaction wasn’t the only one that she could of took. If I was mugged at a bus stop and decided to jump into oncoming traffic would that entirely be the fault of the mugger Mitigating factors relate to sentencing. If you mean that her actions were involuntary (the result of muscle spasms, etc.), that is something else. But look at the footage again. It is clear that she intentionally advanced upon the cyclist. That was the jury's finding, and it is quite plain why they made that finding. An aggressor has to take their victim as they find them. If the victim has an eggshell skull, that is irrelevant; likewise, if a more competent victim would have handled the bicycle more skilfully so as to avoid the fatality, that is also irrelevant. Mental illness is a mitigating factor, right? So it’s not all about involuntary spasms. She was autistic and suffered from CP. This might of been a factor in how she perceived the cyclist and how she reacted . She has the option to appeal afaik so that will be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:44:28 GMT
What signs of being disabled did Grey display in the footage that you saw? That wasn't the question, we are talking about what you might do. I thought we were talking about what the cyclist in this case might have done. There was no visible sign that this woman was handicapped. She was not in a wheelchair. Nor was she was wearing a sign around her neck that said she was handicapped. The only relevant handicap this woman had was a very short temper and a 'territorial' attitude. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:47:16 GMT
Mitigating factors relate to sentencing. If you mean that her actions were involuntary (the result of muscle spasms, etc.), that is something else. But look at the footage again. It is clear that she intentionally advanced upon the cyclist. That was the jury's finding, and it is quite plain why they made that finding. An aggressor has to take their victim as they find them. If the victim has an eggshell skull, that is irrelevant; likewise, if a more competent victim would have handled the bicycle more skilfully so as to avoid the fatality, that is also irrelevant. Mental illness is a mitigating factor, right? So it’s not all about involuntary spasms. She was autistic and suffered from CP. This might of been a factor in how she perceived the cyclist and how she reacted . She has the option to appeal afaik so that will be interesting. If it were a defence, it was the jury's responsibility to decide whether it applied in this case. Her illness was raised in court, and the jury nevertheless went on to find her guilty as charged. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 8, 2023 17:49:46 GMT
That wasn't the question, we are talking about what you might do. I thought we were talking about what the cyclist in this case might have done. There was no visible sign that this woman was handicapped. She was not in a wheelchair. Nor was she was wearing a sign around her neck that said she was handicapped. The only relevant handicap this woman had was a very short temper and a 'territorial' attitude. Which is purely an opinion which doesn't change the fact she set out to harm no one but alas a tragic accident occurred. Which in actual fact asks the question was she at fault or as I said a terrible accident that nobody could have foreseen. So although it has been turned into cyclist versus pedestrian a good Lawyer would make mincemeat of such a conviction. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 8, 2023 17:52:00 GMT
I thought we were talking about what the cyclist in this case might have done. There was no visible sign that this woman was handicapped. She was not in a wheelchair. Nor was she was wearing a sign around her neck that said she was handicapped. The only relevant handicap this woman had was a very short temper and a 'territorial' attitude. Which is purely an opinion which doesn't change the fact she set out to harm no one but alas a tragic accident occurred. Which in actual fact asks the question was she at fault or as I said a terrible accident that nobody could have foreseen. So although it has been turned into cyclist versus pedestrian a good Lawyer would make mincemeat of such a conviction. Many people who are convicted of manslaughter had no intention of hurting anyone. That's why they're charged with manslaughter, not murder. She acted in a manner deemed to be culpable by a jury of her peers. Her culpable behaviour caused the death of an old lady and left a man with post traumatic stress disorder. |
|
