"Murder charge"

[Tynan]

deedy, I did mean to add that I agreed entirely with your clarification, there must be some very compelling evidence

 

[Crankarm]

It always puzzles me that to satisfy the requisite intent for murder the courts seem to require a long premeditated state of mind prior to the events of an individual dying. But when drivers are behind the wheel .............. when the red mist comes down, some drivers can turn into total pyshcos in an instant who clearly have the intent to kill IMHO. What if they thought "I'll kill that f*****g cyclist by driving into or over them!" As the courts are basically car biased do gooders who you often hear state "no one gets in their car with the intent to kill some one". No, but they can subsequently in a split second still form the requisite intent. The law as it stands is far too lenient toward killer drivers. If they deliberately drive at a cyclist(s) at speed, when they collide with the cyclist, there is only going to be one likely outcome - a dead cyclist. They might be lucky and not kill them merely severely injuring them, but then the charge should still be attempted murder, not a driving charge which is based upon negligence. The law still has a long long way to go in my view. Unfortunately the CPS/Government won't get very strict with drivers as 1) the prisons are full and 2) they are so up the car industry's backside they need a torch.

As so often said, if you want to kill some one, do so using a car.

But in the instant case the police and CPS must feel that they have compelling evidence to charge the driver with murder. Still there could still be bargaining and a CDBCD charge accepted ..........

 

[PK99]

when the red mist comes down, some drivers can turn into total pyshcos in an instant who clearly have the intent to kill IMHO. What if they thought "I'll kill that f*****g cyclist by driving into or over them!"...

fortunately it is not your opinion that matters - as you are responding with the same red mist you accuse said driver of acting under

 

[Tynan]

motor offence certainly satisfy all the usual test of a crime being committed, but cars always seem to escape the law largely, a bit like white collar crime

murder doesn't need long premeditation, but it's easier to prove when there is, with it being a life sentence, the evidence has to be compelling

 

[Crankarm]

fortunately it is not your opinion that matters - as you are responding with the same red mist you accuse said driver of acting under

Is that so ........... are both your brain cells having some well earned RnR over Easter ? And neither does your opinion matter fortunately ....... .

You obviously didn't do too well at comprehension in school, do they even still teach comprehension? I have not accused the defendant driver in the instant case as you suggest I have. I was commenting generally, re-read .

 

[Arch]

You obviously didn't do too well at comprehension in school, do they even still teach comprehension? I have not accused the defendant driver in the instant case as you suggest I have. I was commenting generally, re-read .

I read PK99 as commenting generally too, perhaps you need to re-read as well... 'said driver' is the hypothetical driver you describe as having the red mist, not the defendent in this particular case.

 

[Crankarm]

I read PK99 as commenting generally too, perhaps you need to re-read as well... 'said driver' is the hypothetical driver you describe as having the red mist, not the defendent in this particular case.

Errrr .......... I don't hink so. Might have known that you would wade in .

PK99's response to me states:

fortunately it is not your opinion that matters - as you are responding with the same red mist you accuse said driver of acting under

No hypotheticals or gerneralisations in the response as far as I can see. Pointedly directed at me. I have dealt with why it is wrong. See above.

 

[PK99]

Is that so ........... are both your brain cells having some well earned RnR over Easter ? And neither does your opinion matter fortunately ....... .

You obviously didn't do too well at comprehension in school, do they even still teach comprehension? I have not accused the defendant driver in the instant case as you suggest I have. I was commenting generally, re-read .

you referred to drivers with a red mist influencing their driving, i pointed out that your post seem to show elements of red mist in its construction, and implied that fortunately the people whose opinion matters take a considered view without a re mist influence

 

[Crankarm]

you referred to drivers with a red mist influencing their driving, i pointed out that your post seem to show elements of red mist in its construction, and implied that fortunately the people whose opinion matters take a considered view without a re mist influence

You want to get out more if you think my post was contructed in "red mist" . So what evidence do you have for your assertion? Do you have anything constructive to add? No, I didn't think so. You are merely being provocative. Do you understand the concepts of mens rae, actus rae and negligence in criminal law? No, I didn't think so .