A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Car deliberately used as a weapon.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old April 8th 11, 08:11 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:54 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:07 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:
Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years.
How often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?


You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge
for motorists when a suitable one already exists?


So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought
if it was actually dangerous.


Speed limits are specific to using a road


No they're not, you see. As I think you very well know, speed
limits do not apply to cyclists. They apply specifically to
motorists.


Speed limits only apply to roads.


So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists
when a suitable one already exists", which is just what you were
criticising. So, why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?


Who said they should be and how is it relevant?


The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would
have been quite adequate


So too, exactly, is speeding as an offence. Don't you think
therefore that all speed limits should be abolished as being 'soft'.
Other existing laws like those against murder or GBH are quite
adequate surely?

Stop evading the point.

Your point is nuts. If speed limits are soft then they need to be
enforced more, not abolished. Obviously, if a driver is speeding close
to people they are putting lives at risk and a suitable law should be
applied, something along the lines of...

""Terrorizing" generally means to cause alarm, fright, or dread in
another person or inducing apprehension of violence from a hostile or
threatening event, person or object. “It is not requisite, in order to
constitute this crime, that personal violence should be committed.”"


and terrorists on cycles frequent the pavements, when will sanctions be used
aginst them?


Ads
  #42  
Old April 8th 11, 08:14 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:18 am, BrianW wrote:
On Apr 7, 7:33 am, Doug wrote:



On Apr 6, 9:07 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:


Doug wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:03 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:
Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years.
How often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?


You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge
for motorists when a suitable one already exists?


So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be
brought if it was actually dangerous.


Speed limits are specific to using a road


No they're not, you see. As I think you very well know, speed
limits do not apply to cyclists. They apply specifically to
motorists.


Speed limits only apply to roads.


So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists
when a suitable one already exists", which is just what you were
criticising. So, why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?


Who said they should be and how is it relevant?


The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would
have been quite adequate and where the use of a car as a weapon
would be recognised instead of being ignored.


Doug, even if abolishing "causing death by dangerous driving", in
favour of manslaughter, didn't lead to an increase in killer drivers
walking away scot-free (which it would, as has been explained to you
many times),

Not if juries were screened for motorist majority bias, as they should
be with cases involving cars.

it is by no means clear that they'd be given longer
sentences if convicted of manslaughter. See, for example:

A law which has a longer maximum sentence suggests that it is more
serious than one with a shorter maximum. Anyway if the 'soft' motoring
laws were abolished there would be no choice but to try for
manslaughter but with a purged jury of course.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...voluntary_mans...

"Appellant, having been indicted for murder, pleaded guilty to
manslaughter. Within a block of flats, the deceased challenged the
appellant to fight. Having pulled the deceased down some stairs, the
appellant kicked or stamped on him several times. The deceased died a
month later due to severing of the end of the pancreas caused by a
single blow to the abdomen crushing the pancreas against the spine.
Sentence of six years imprisonment reduced to four years."

"R v Furby [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 8 - guideline case
Appellant and deceased were good friends. For a reason that the court
regarded as an explicable reaction, the appellant struck a single
punch of moderate force to the right cheek, the deceased collapsed to
the ground and died due to a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Appellant of
good character. Sentence reduced to 12 months imprisonment. Case law
cited confirms that if there are aggravating circumstances the
sentence could be as high as four years."

"Attorney General's Reference (No.111 of 2006) (Hussain) [2007]
Cr.App.R.(S.) 26 - guideline case
The offender, a taxi driver, was flagged down by the deceased and his
friends during the early hours of the morning. The deceased walked in
front of the vehicle, placed his hands on the bonnet and moved
backwards with the taxi, which continued to move forward slowly. The
deceased lost his footing and fell underneath the vehicle. The
offender panicked and accelerated, dragging the deceased for about a
mile before he became dislodged at a roundabout. He then drove away
without stopping. The offender felt someone under his car and heard
screams. Guilty plea to manslaughter accepted on the second day of
murder trial. The offender was aged 44 and of previous good
character. The Court of Appeal observed that the range of first
instance decisions for similar offences suggested a range between
four and seven years imprisonment. Sentence increased to five years
imprisonment bearing in mind double jeopardy."

Note that the above are not cherry-picked examples, they are cited in
the CPS's sentencing guidelines.

Apart from the last horrendous example, which should have had a much
longer sentence but of course it involved a driver just like most of
the others on a jury, no weapons were involved. If they had been the
sentences would have been longer.


when a jury trial is starting, either side can ask for the removal of any
jury member for any reason, so there is no need for any bias on the jury in
favour of a motorist, just keep changing jurors till you get 12 gonks
dressed in lycra.


  #43  
Old April 8th 11, 08:17 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public


You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona fide
reason for doing so.


Can you spot the difference between those two statements of yours?
  #44  
Old April 8th 11, 08:18 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon


Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.


but it should be.


Should they be, too?


The difference being that most of those on a jury also possess and use a
car weapon themselves and are therefore naturally biased in favour of a
fellow motorist.


I'd suggest that just as high a proportion own kitchen knives,
screwdrivers, hammers...
  #45  
Old April 8th 11, 08:22 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Steve O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

On 08/04/2011 08:10, Mrcheerful wrote:
Steve O wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:00 am, "Norman wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised
as a weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. Why don't you go away and actually read the
Criminal Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?

Which part? Relevant quote?

You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona
fide reason for doing so.

It follows then, with weapon laws, if a driver does not have a bone
fide reason for having a car in a public place, such as no licence or
insurance, he should be tried for possessing a dangerous weapon.


Oh FFS, are you for real?
An offensive weapon is any article made or adapted for use for causing
injury to a person, or *intended"* by the person having it with him
for such use.
The car becomes a weapon when the person using the car decides to use
it as such.


as does a bicycle


Or a cucumber.
How far do you want to go with this?
;-)

  #46  
Old April 8th 11, 08:33 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,736
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:58:57 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:


You have just shot yourself in the foot again idiot.


It really is a great honour to be idiotted by the Meds.
Next in line is the award of having the personality of wallpaper



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.
  #47  
Old April 8th 11, 09:07 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
BrianW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

On Apr 8, 7:25*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:00*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:



Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:


The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon


Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.


but it should be.


Should they be, too?


They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.


Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public


Absolute nonsense. *Why don't you go away and actually read the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?


Which part? Relevant quote?

You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona
fide reason for doing so.


Bzzzt, wrong.

If you were to break the habit of a lifetime and actually *learn*
something before spouting, you'd see that s. 139(2) and (3) of the CJA
1988 say:

(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any
article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding
pocketknife.
(3)This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge
of its blade exceeds 3 inches..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ensive-weapons

So you are allowed to carry a folding pocketknife with a blade less
than 3 inches long, without having to show a reason for carrying it.
And I'm pretty sure that a folding pocketknife with a blade of, say,
2.5 inches could be used to kill someone.

It follows then, with weapon laws, if a driver does not have a bone
fide reason for having a car in a public place, such as no licence or
insurance, *he should be tried for possessing a dangerous weapon.


No it doesn't. I could carry a big lump of wood without breaking the
law. Yet I could use that lump of wood to kill someone.

You really are a useless old loon, aren't you Gollum?

  #48  
Old April 8th 11, 09:12 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
BrianW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

On Apr 8, 7:38*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:18*am, BrianW wrote:



On Apr 7, 7:33*am, Doug wrote:


On Apr 6, 9:07*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:


Doug wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:03 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:
Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years. How
often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?


You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge for
motorists when a suitable one already exists?


So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought if
it was actually dangerous.


Speed limits are specific to using a road


No they're not, you see. *As I think you very well know, speed limits do not
apply to cyclists. *They apply specifically to motorists.


Speed limits only apply to roads.


So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when a
suitable one already exists", which is just what you were criticising. *So,
why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?


Who said they should be and how is it relevant?


The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have
been quite adequate and where the use of a car as a weapon would be
recognised instead of being ignored.


Doug, even if abolishing "causing death by dangerous driving", in
favour of manslaughter, didn't lead to an increase in killer drivers
walking away scot-free (which it would, as has been explained to you
many times),


Not if juries were screened for motorist majority bias, as they should
be with cases involving cars.

it is by no means clear that they'd be given longer
sentences if convicted of manslaughter. *See, for example:


A law which has a longer maximum sentence suggests that it is more
serious than one with a shorter maximum. Anyway if the 'soft' motoring
laws were abolished there would be no choice but to try for
manslaughter but with a purged jury of course.





http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...voluntary_mans...


"Appellant, having been indicted for murder, pleaded guilty to
manslaughter. *Within a block of flats, the deceased challenged the
appellant to fight. *Having pulled the deceased down some stairs, the
appellant kicked or stamped on him several times. The deceased died a
month later due to severing of the end of the pancreas caused by a
single blow to the abdomen crushing the pancreas against the spine.
Sentence of six years imprisonment reduced to four years."


"R v Furby [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 8 - guideline case
Appellant and deceased were good friends. *For a reason that the court
regarded as an explicable reaction, the appellant struck a single
punch of moderate force to the right cheek, the deceased collapsed to
the ground and died due to a subarachnoid haemorrhage. *Appellant of
good character. *Sentence reduced to 12 months imprisonment. *Case law
cited confirms that if there are aggravating circumstances the
sentence could be as high as four years."


"Attorney General's Reference (No.111 of 2006) (Hussain) [2007]
Cr.App.R.(S.) 26 - guideline case
The offender, a taxi driver, was flagged down by the deceased and his
friends during the early hours of the morning. *The deceased walked in
front of the vehicle, placed his hands on the bonnet and moved
backwards with the taxi, which continued to move forward slowly. *The
deceased lost his footing and fell underneath the vehicle. *The
offender panicked and accelerated, dragging the deceased for about a
mile before he became dislodged at a roundabout. *He then drove away
without stopping. *The offender felt someone under his car and heard
screams. *Guilty plea to manslaughter accepted on the second day of
murder trial. *The offender was aged 44 and of previous good
character. *The Court of Appeal observed that the range of first
instance decisions for similar offences suggested a range between four
and seven years imprisonment. *Sentence increased to five years
imprisonment bearing in mind double jeopardy."


Note that the above are not cherry-picked examples, they are cited in
the CPS's sentencing guidelines.


Apart from the last horrendous example, which should have had a much
longer sentence but of course it involved a driver just like most of
the others on a jury, no weapons were involved. If they had been the
sentences would have been longer.


The first example involves kicking or stamping on someone several
times. Result - 4 years. What difference does it make whether or not
a weapon is used? Kicking or stamping on someone several times can be
just as dangerous as, say, stabbing them, or hitting them with a
baseball bat.

If 4 years is the appropriate sentence for *deliberately* attacking
someone (albeit without intention to kill or cause GBH), what would be
the appropriate sentence for killing someone with car, where the
driver is driving dangerously but didn't deliberately set out to hit
anyone?
  #49  
Old April 8th 11, 09:32 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Ian Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

In message
,
BrianW writes

I could carry a big lump of wood without breaking the
law. Yet I could use that lump of wood to kill someone.

Just make sure that wood is not the shape of a table leg, or you might
get killed yourself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/29/ukcrime1
etc.
--
Ian
  #50  
Old April 8th 11, 09:56 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Norman Wells[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Car deliberately used as a weapon.

Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:54 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:


Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years.
How often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?


You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge
for motorists when a suitable one already exists?


So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought
if it was actually dangerous.


Speed limits are specific to using a road


No they're not, you see. As I think you very well know, speed
limits do not apply to cyclists. They apply specifically to
motorists.


Speed limits only apply to roads.


So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists
when a suitable one already exists", which is just what you were
criticising. So, why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?


Who said they should be and how is it relevant?


The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would
have been quite adequate


So too, exactly, is speeding as an offence. Don't you think
therefore that all speed limits should be abolished as being 'soft'.
Other existing laws like those against murder or GBH are quite
adequate surely?

Stop evading the point.

Your point is nuts. If speed limits are soft then they need to be
enforced more, not abolished. Obviously, if a driver is speeding close
to people they are putting lives at risk and a suitable law should be
applied, something along the lines of...


Look, if you're objecting that "special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for
the punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have
been quite adequate", you must therefore be objecting to speed limits too,
which are exactly that.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Motorist rammer deliberately injures 13 year old girl. Doug[_3_] UK 1 December 23rd 10 11:19 AM
While I was cycling this morning I saw a car deliberately driventhrough a red light. Doug[_3_] UK 9 September 9th 10 02:52 PM
Car deliberately used as a weapon on pavement. Doug[_3_] UK 23 August 3rd 10 07:45 AM
DELIBERATELY INADEQUATE PARKING Nuxx Bar UK 14 March 22nd 09 09:19 PM
Homos Looking to Deliberately Be Infected With HIV Gay Rights! IN YOUR FACE Social Issues 0 December 14th 04 07:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.