Bus driver jailed

[summerdays]

I didn't read lulubel's post as saying that, rather that the cyclist was not completely innocent in the run up to the event - which doesn't give the bus driver the right to use his bus as a weapon.

 

[dawesome]

While I totally accept the bus driver was in the wrong, and I think he should be in prison for a lot longer, and for attempted murder, I also think the cyclist has himself to blame for what happened in the sense that he could have avoided it by not winding up the bus driver in the first place.

 

[Norm]

Which shows, as summerdays said, that lulubel didn't suggest that it was carte blanche the cyclist's fault, but that the cyclist's provocation was a factor in the lead up to the assault.

 

[dawesome]

Which shows, as summerdays said, that lulubel didn't suggest that it was carte blanche the cyclist's fault, but that the cyclist's provocation was a factor in the lead up to the assault.

According to who? It wasn't offered as mitigation, because of course it would be laughed out of court.

 

[slowmotion]

dawesome, I don't think it matters about who is to blame. I think the point that lulubel is making (and one with which I completely agree) is that, on a practical level, it's not a good idea to be combative unless you are some kind of Dirty Harry with the needful "tools". A bike isn't one of them.

 

[Mugshot]

According to who? It wasn't offered as mitigation, because of course it would be laughed out of court.

Serious question, in general terms is provocation considered by a court an acceptable reason to assault someone?

 

[col]

Its similar to what I would term as stirrers.Known a few over the years, they say certain things to get people riled, then stand back as it all erupts. When asked why they did it, the normal reply was nothing to do with me, not my fault. Which brings me to my point, if you say or do something to someone to upset,annoy, or ridicule, then you are responsible in some way if they react in a way you didnt expect.After finding yourself being helped up off the floor, then saying you didnt do anything, doesnt really wash. If you want to be clever with someone, then at least be ready for comebacks. If you cant take the come backs, dont spout off. Now Im not saying this is what happened here, but its a possibility by the looks of it.

 

[slowmotion]

I doubt it would be seen as "an acceptable reason", but it might be considered in mitigation....just my totally ignorant two pennies... Bring on the Legal Eagles...

 

[Crackedheadset]

Serious question, in general terms is provocation considered by a court an acceptable reason to assault someone?

Depends on what you mean by provocation? As I think it's quite broad and is actually the ACT that provocates that needs to be looked at.

Calling someone a rude name designed to cause offence can be seen as provocation but as such may not really be seen as grounds for retaliation ending in some sort of assault.

Having someone in your face though screaming and shouting I think this would be reasonable grounds, as you could argue that such was the abuse and aggression used that you would be defending yourself.

 

[lulubel]

Which shows, as summerdays said, that lulubel didn't suggest that it was carte blanche the cyclist's fault, but that the cyclist's provocation was a factor in the lead up to the assault.

Exactly that. If the cyclist had put a bit more thought into his own self-preservation and not provoked the lunatic with the big metal box on wheels, he wouldn't have ended up injured. So, not his fault, but he could have avoided getting injured by not getting into a confrontational situation in the first place.

 

[MacB]

But then that leaves the 'lunatic in the big metal box' free and roaming as a sort of ticking bomb. Does his stability degrade over time, could it eventually be triggered by the wrong look?

I'm also not sure any self defence, or self preservation, type excuse is ever going to wash from someone in a mahoosive vehicle v cyclist.

The problem here is that we should all be able to have a reasonable expectation that a vehicle will not be used as a weapon. If we can't then they need to be licenced and controlled as such.

 

[dawesome]

Exactly that. If the cyclist had put a bit more thought into his own self-preservation and not provoked the lunatic with the big metal box on wheels, he wouldn't have ended up injured. So, not his fault, but he could have avoided getting injured by not getting into a confrontational situation in the first place.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this.

 

[BentMikey]

She's the only one to make the ridiculous suggestion that this was the cyclist's fault.

Nope, there are a few other victim blamers here, sadly.

 

[BentMikey]

Victim blaming is looking at trigger points. These are notoriously unpredictable things, sometimes drivers will go off like a bomb with the cyclist having done nothing at all, the other with a wave of thanks, or perhaps more.

All this totally ignores the root cause and the real problem - that we have the occasional angry madman who is prepared to use a vehicle as a lethal weapon. This is a much more difficult problem to deal with, so I suppose it's not too surprising that some have taken the lazy option to suggesting solutions.

 

[col]

Nope, there are a few other victim blamers here, sadly.

I think you have to accept the fact that some people can enflame a situation, then suffer because of it. Sometimes what they say is the catalyst to the events that followed .