"Cycling Mikey" loses court case.

[Deleted User]

Nonsense. The guy retaliated by driving his penis substitute at him. I don't think Mikey's behaviour is cowardly at all, it takes some nerve to stand in front of a random moton like that. The coward is the one who sits inside the metal box and tries to barge him out of the way.

I'd love to meet this pr*ck without his camera in a dark side street, doubt this would ever happen though.

 

[Deleted User]

plenty of police forces have given their support to people like this. Do you know better than them? Are YOU a policeman Steve?

Are YOU a purple coloured bird?

 

[matticus]

 

[matticus]

 

[Time Waster]

I think the support is in the forces who have set up systems where road users van submit video evidence of traffic offences. No matter how you legally get it I think those forces appreciate the means to an easier prosecution with good video evidence.

I get the idea that he's a dick in the way he's out to catch bad driving, but I do think he's at risk of going too far at times. I also think this guy got a posh guy pass with his acquittal.

 

[Stephenite]

I'd love to meet this pr*ck without his camera in a dark side street, doubt this would ever happen though.

You would run a mile.

You are all mouth.

CM is waiting for you at Gandalfs Corner.

 

[Deleted User]

CM is waiting for you at Gandalfs Corner.

With his camera rolling.

 

[steveindenmark]

I think that there is little doubt that he has problems. When "normal" cyclists see motorists making these manoevres we just assume they are a tosser and move on instantly. We do not go leaping on cars and making it our lifes work.

As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt. Which he did in front of a jury. If a crazy man jumped on the front of my car. I would not stop either.

Mickey needs help imo.

 

[figbat]

As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt.

But in English law, those are different things. ”Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. It just means there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. There are all sorts of ways that a person might have done what they are being accused of but found not guilty.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

But in English law, those are different things. ”Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. It just means there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. There are all sorts of ways that a person might have done what they are being accused of but found not guilty.

In English Law, if you are found not guilty, legally speaking you are innocent. There is no legal grey area as, with a few exceptions, the general under pinning premise is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Scotland has not proven, which is more in line with what you're saying.

 

[figbat]

In English Law, if you are found not guilty, legally speaking you are innocent. There is no legal grey area as, with a few exceptions, the general under pinning premise is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Scotland has not proven, which is more in line with what you're saying.

If you are found not guilty, you are acquitted of the crime. Nobody pronounces you innocent.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

If you are found not guilty, you are acquitted of the crime. Nobody pronounces you innocent.

They don't need to, that's the default position of us all, and the cornerstone of our legal system.

By your argument, if you've never been arrested or convicted you must be guilty.

 

[icowden]

By your argument, if you've never been arrested or convicted you must be guilty.

Nope, because you have nothing to be guilty of. If you are tried at court you can be found Not Guilty, but you are not proven innocent.
For example, lets say you are found not guilty of murder, but in 5 years time crucial new DNA evidence is found suggesting beyond a doubt that you are the murderer. You can then be retried provided the appeal Court allows it. You were never innocent. Just not proven guilty.

If you want to understand this further @barristersecret has something to say about it in her rather excellent books about the law.

 

[icowden]

As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt. Which he did in front of a jury. If a crazy man jumped on the front of my car. I would not stop either.

There is no direct evidence that CyclingMikey jumped on the front of the car. There is just not enough evidence for the Jury to be happy that he *didn't* jump on the front of the car.

 

[classic33]

I think that there is little doubt that he has problems. When "normal" cyclists see motorists making these manoevres we just assume they are a tosser and move on instantly. We do not go leaping on cars and making it our lifes work.

As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt. Which he did in front of a jury. If a crazy man jumped on the front of my car. I would not stop either.

Mickey needs help imo.

Would you also drive into a person more than once?