Cycle killer walks free from court.

[PaulB]

why so aggressive and abusive?

unlike you I've read more than that single article, try this one for more detail including 'roadside furniture'

I'm not hiding behind anything, there's no suggestion, nuance or opinion in anything I've posted, just plain fact

any use of the word accident in my posts has been strictly in the phrase 'leaving the scene of an accident' as I've already told you

still waiting for anything I've posted to justify your abuse, there won't be anything other than your making things up and taking things utterly out of context though

and as anyone sensible should see, my posts are merely explaining hiow the law and courts have to try people rather than some sort of lynch mob approach based on what someone must have been thinking, seemingly based on a local newspaper report

I won't be taking the lift down to your subterranean levels so stop trying to entice me that to that floor. Face facts; you're wrong and well out of step with every other poster on here and you ARE making excuses for inexcusable behaviour. If you don't like it when others won't bow down to your one-eyed Pablo Picasso-faced way of thinking, tough shoot.

"as anyone sensible should see" should have continued, "and if they don't, I'll throw my dollies out of my pram". And your opinion on this still stinks like a fishes fanny.

 

[400bhp]

I won't be taking the lift down to your subterranean levels so stop trying to entice me that to that floor. Face facts; you're wrong and well out of step with every other poster on here and you ARE making excuses for inexcusable behaviour. If you don't like it when others won't bow down to your one-eyed Pablo Picasso-faced way of thinking, tough shoot.

"as anyone sensible should see" should have continued, "and if they don't, I'll throw my dollies out of my pram". And your opinion on this still stinks like a fishes fanny.

Speak for yourself. He isn't wrong and has merely laid out some of his opinion and some facts.

I think sometimes people need to get a piece of perspective on reading a particular story.

 

[marinyork]

Speak for yourself. He isn't wrong and has merely laid out some of his opinion and some facts.

I think sometimes people need to get a piece of perspective on reading a particular story.

Well he's not explained why he shouldn't be going to prison for leaving the scene. He just said that it was barely a crime in the eyes of the law. Whether or not you believe the case for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving with a very generous interpretation of mitigating circumstances it still leaves leaving the scene which alone he should be going to prison for.

 

[400bhp]

Well he's not explained why he shouldn't be going to prison for leaving the scene. He just said that it was barely a crime in the eyes of the law. Whether or not you believe the case for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving with a very generous interpretation of mitigating circumstances it still leaves leaving the scene which alone he should be going to prison for.

leaving the scene in isolation is, in my eyes, not necessarily a jailable offence.

 

[gaz]

leaving the scene in isolation is, in my eyes, not necessarily a jailable offence.

It could be seen as preventing the course of justice (or w/e it is), which is a very serious offence and is jailable.

 

[marinyork]

leaving the scene in isolation is, in my eyes, not necessarily a jailable offence.

It isn't in isolation, which is the entire point.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

It could be seen as preventing the course of justice (or w/e it is), which is a very serious offence and is jailable.

Perverting I think the term is

 

[John90]

like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true

while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident

I don't really care if he did black out or was under stress. He knew what he had done when the police caught up with him. I don't feel comfortable with a precedent that allows drivers to walk free by claiming 'temporary blackout' and 'stress'. Plenty of murderers claim the same thing and they may well be telling the truth too, but nobody thinks it mitigates their crime. I'm not suggesting he went out of his way to murder the cyclist, but I do agree with the other posters who say that the legal system seems to start with the default position that these are 'accidents' and then works forward from there. Until that changes cars will continue to left hook, right hook and drive too close to cyclists with the inevitable 'accidental' consequences.

 

[marinyork]

I don't really care if he did black out or was under stress. He knew what he had done when the police caught up with him. I don't feel comfortable with a precedent that allows drivers to walk free by claiming 'temporary blackout' and 'stress'. Plenty of murderers claim the same thing and they may well be telling the truth too, but nobody thinks it mitigates their crime. I'm not suggesting he went out of his way to murder the cyclist, but I do agree with the other posters who say that the legal system seems to start with the default position that these are 'accidents' and then works forward from there. Until that changes cars will continue to left hook, right hook and drive too close to cyclists with the inevitable 'accidental' consequences.

I'm not sure whether the judge did think that. He gave the sort of timescales in prison I said if you gave a slightly charitable interpretation of the matter. He just suspended it. He may simply have felt sorry for him and been completely convinced by his narrative.

 

[John90]

I'm not sure whether the judge did think that. He gave the sort of timescales in prison I said if you gave a slightly charitable interpretation of the matter. He just suspended it. He may simply have felt sorry for him and been completely convinced by his narrative.

I'm sure he did feel sorry for him and I'm sure he was convinced by his narrative. My point is even if the narrative is true and however stressed the driver was, it is insufficient, in my view, and I suspect (can't prove, obviously) that the judge's charitable interpretation is based on the default assumption that 'accidents will happen' and the driver is more a contributory factor rather than the instigator.

 

[skudupnorth]

Stunned ! I really feel for the family of the cyclist,lets hope they get proper justice.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I ask again. I wonder if he is a member of the funny handshake brigade?

 

[fossyant]

Watch out locals, we do know where he lives ?

Here !

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

It seems to be a problem that the law has with "vehicular manslaughter" (is that an american term?) but you can read about a case most weeks where a motorist has got a lenient sentence for maiming or killing someone. serious jail time is the exception rather than the rule.

Yes, that's the term that generally gets applied. Sadly, that happens way too often all around the world. And I agree that all too often that the motorist getting a lenient sentence for maiming or killing someone is the norm not the exception. It takes a case like that of the "good doctor out in LA" who swooped around a pair of cyclists and proceeded to brake check them. Resulting in one clearing the car, but ending up with considerable road rash, and the other flying through the rear window almost loosing his nose and loosing several teeth.

It was a combination of enough cyclists filing reports against him as well as him making a statement to the 911 operator that he "wanted to teach them a lesson." As well as repeating it to the first officer on the scene. He was also "surprised" when the cyclists refused to allow him to treat their injuries.

Hmm, why in the world would anyone refuse to allow the "doctor" who just caused their injuries to treat or evaluate them? Maybe because they could see that he was probably planning on using whatever knowledge gained to mitigate their claims against him? I mean does it really take a rocket scientist to determine that it was in his best interests to examine them?

He'd also told either the 911 operator or the first and subsequent officers on the scene that even though they were going to say so, that their injuries and "not life threatening." Even though they had refused to allow him to treat them, and basing it on his experience as an ER doctor. Basically saying IIRC that in the ER that they have a "different" way of classifying injuries.

Also over here such sentences have been "justified" as "most" judges, juries, LEOs also drive. And as such they can see themselves in such a circumstance. Maybe, just maybe if they drove more carefully they wouldn't have to worry about seeing themselves in a similar set of circumstances?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true

while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident

should we ever be in court facing a serious charge and looking at a lot of circumstantial evidence you'd be glad of a god barrister and a judge that upholds the law demonstrating that although it does look poor, nothing more than that can be proved

better that 10 guilty men go free and all that

I agree with just about everything that you just wrote. If a person confess to the LEOs/bobbies and pleds guilty in open court than that should be the end of it.

Over here as I am sure most/all of you know we have recently had a high profile case of a mother who was accused of having killed her very young daughter. She was tried on several charges starting at murder and going down to manslaughter, as well as 4 misdemeanor charges of lying to the police during an official investigation. She was acquitted of the three more serious charges and found guilty of the misdemeanor charges. Each carrying a year in jail and a $1,000.00 fine. The judge hearing the case sentenced her to all four years with each sentence to run consecutively. With time served it was speculated that she'd be released today, but she'll be getting out on the 13th instead.

The jury members that have spoken so far have have indicated that the state didn't prove their case on the more serious charges. One of the "worst" witnesses for the state was the coroner who was unable to determine a cause of death. If the coroner cannot say that a person was the victim of a homicide how can the state prove that the accused "killed" the victim? Despite that someone in the house had looked up chloroform, the coroner couldn't find any drugs in the child's body.

The only facts that were truly known about the case are as follows:

1. Caylee Anthony was missing
2. Casey Anthony lied
3. Caylee Anthony at some point died
4. Someone in the Anthony household looked up chloroform

At no point was there any evidence presented to who killed her, when or how. Her body was even found by a man who's own son had "sold him out" and reported that his father had planned on making money on the situation. He had also found her body in an area that had reportedly already been searched.


Now because of the nature of the crime a lot of people who were not on the jury are coming forward and condemning the jury for their verdict. Given that none of those people sat on the jury who are they to play armchair quarterback and say how the jury should have found? The jury can only go by the evidence in front of them. As one of their instructions is not to allow their emotions to color their findings.

Of course as a result of this finding lawyers are now correct to be concerned as to whether or not a future jury can can return a verdict based on the facts alone or will they "punish" another person for what happened in the Casey Anthony case.

It had been suggested in Casey's lawyer's opening statements that Little Caylee accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool. And that in a fit of panic they inappropriately disposed of her body. It had also been suggested that her father had sexually abused her (Casey) as a child, it had also come out during the course of the trail that the Anthony suffered from some dysfunction, but can't that be said about most families?