Suspended sentence for Bristol driver who punched cyclist unconscious

[Brandane]

Sure, we can all improve how we behave on the roads in every circumstance.

But I'm *really* struggling to see how this is relevant to a brutal and deliberate assault.

What next? If I fail to set off immediately at the lights I've brought on being rear ended then assaulted?

It's classic victim blaming.

Re my post in which words failed you.....

You didn't read the last line of my post then, where I said "It doesn't excuse what follows though", did you?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Re my post in which words failed you.....

You didn't read the last line of my post then, where I said "It doesn't excuse what follows though", did you?

I did read that, and my reply was in the light of it.

 

[Alex321]

I did read that, and my reply was in the light of it.

"In light of" by asking why it wasn't the case?

Me no understandy.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

"In light of" by asking why it wasn't the case?

Me no understandy.

I disagree that it's of any relevance for a deliberate assault.

 

[Alex321]

Sure, we can all improve how we behave on the roads in every circumstance.

But I'm *really* struggling to see how this is relevant to a brutal and deliberate assault.

What next? If I fail to set off immediately at the lights I've brought on being rear ended then assaulted?

It's classic victim blaming.

It is not in the slightest relevant to the assault, and nobody has suggested it might be.

It is relevant to the original "clipping" of/by the wing mirror - which could easily have resulted in injury in itself.

 

[Alex321]

I disagree that it's of any relevance for a deliberate assault.

It isn't possible for you to disagree with that, since NOBODY has suggested it might be, so there is nothing for you to disagree with.

 

[mjr]

Lots of fans of the "might is right"alternative highway code here. Must be real fun riding in the gutter and stopping whenever an arrogant driver fails to give way(!) And never mind that control position is safer than cowering.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

It isn't possible for you to disagree with that, since NOBODY has suggested it might be, so there is nothing for you to disagree with.

I disagree. And capitalising does not make you right.

 

[Alex321]

I disagree. And capitalising does not make you right.

Who do you think has suggested it then?

Because I can't find any post which suggests it to me.

 

[Badger_Boom]

Nobody is "calling you ignorant".

Stating that you are ignorant of the facts (as am I) is not in any way similar to generally calling you ignorant.

While this is factually correct, the choice of words can speak volumes about the writer and their intent. I'm sure we all know that the written word can lack nuance, and in this case 'uninformed' (as was pointed out earlier) would have been a less provocative option.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Who do you think has suggested it then?

Because I can't find any post which suggests it to me.

I only responded to one post

 

[Alex321]

I only responded to one post

Which most certainly suggested no such thing - if you think you only responded to one post, it was T4Tomo's post here.

But I suspect you actually mean the Brandane post here. And I still fail to see any suggestion there that there was any relevance to the assault - which he specifically stated was not excusable.

It may be a different one of the variety of posts you have responded to in this chain though.

The closest I can come to reading any relevance to the assault into it was the post that T4Tomo was responding to, by Matticus.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Which most certainly suggested no such thing - if you think you only responded to one post, it was T4Tomo's post here.

But I suspect you actually mean the Brandane post here. And I still fail to see any suggestion there that there was any relevance to the assault - which he specifically stated was not excusable.

It may be a different one of the variety of posts you have responded to in this chain though.

The closest I can come to reading any relevance to the assault into it was the post that T4Tomo was responding to, by Matticus.

It was literally stated that

" the whole incident could have easily been avoided if the cyclist had moved to his left and slowed down a little"

which certainly reads to me like the cyclist's behaviour was very relevant.

We later learn that the cyclist was one of two "entitled nobbers".

Later caveating this as "Doesn't excuse what followed" butters no parsnips.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I agree with your first paragraph. Contributors to this thread are entitled to be concerned given the information available.

However, it is certainly not obvious that the judge made assumptions to convict the perpetrator. A judge will make a judgement based on evidence formally presented by both sides. The evidence is then cross examined. Guilt is determined by a jury using the beyond reasonable doubt test. The judge will then decide the sentence/punishment based on any mitigating or aggravating factors relevant to the case. Assumptions shouldn’t come into it. So while people are entitled to have an opinion on a court case based on a newspaper article, that opinion is without all the facts and could be described as uninformed (maybe “ignorant” is a bit harsh).

I badly phrased the part about the judge. It is not about this case or this particular judge. I was citing an example where a judge or any judge can claim they were not present so they cannot pass a sentence. An extension of the logic where you were not present in the court to hear the evidence so you cannot form an opinion.

 

[Lozz360]

I badly phrased the part about the judge. It is not about this case or this particular judge. I was citing an example where a judge or any judge can claim they were not present so they cannot pass a sentence. An extension of the logic where you were not present in the court to hear the evidence so you cannot form an opinion.

But people offer opinions on news reports all the time. To state that unless someone hears all the evidence presented in court they “...cannot form an opinion” is a bit odd. If I say that I believe that the sentence of the perpetrator is much too lenient and this opinion is based purely on the newspaper article. Surely, I am entitled to this opinion even though I was not in court? People are then entitled to agree or disagree as is their right.