Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had 'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears

On 19/08/2017 21:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:15, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 08:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/17 04:01, JNugent wrote:

Then you changed your mind and said there is a difference.

So quote the part you think says this.

Tell you what: you tell everyone what your current position is, just
in case it's changed again.

My position has not changed. Unless you quote the part that confuses
yoy, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You could have condensed that last attempt at a retort to just its last
eight words, surely?

On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote:

On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the
collision and as he did after it? And then posted on
the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault?

I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash.

It's at the top so* don't claim you don't remember.

His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the
innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour.

Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it
it if you thought it did not.

His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what
he did.

What's your current problem with that,

You haven't answered my question.

I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both
mine. You have quoted no question of yours.

On 19/08/2017 21:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:18, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 08:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/17 04:57, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 00:23, TMS320 wrote:

At the top you made one of your sweeping derogatory statements
about "cyclists".

Ah.... that was a typo.

Doesn't make much difference.

Well spotted.

It should have read just "cyclist". It was about the cyclist on
trial for manslaughter.

Mind you, you ought to have been able to infer from the context...

Interesting how you think others should be able to do that from your
writings but you always fail from others. Except, of course, when you
turn failed telepath and tell people what they have written that they
haven't.

It was a typo.

Get over it.

You should have been able to see that it was simply a typo (especially
from the plentiful context), but you failed to so so.

Don't expect from others what you are rarely able to do. There is enough
backround to know your ideas about the behaviour of "cyclists".

Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"?

On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote:
On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the
collision and as he did after it? And then posted on
the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault?

I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash.

It's at the top so don't claim you don't remember.

His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the
innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour.

Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it
it if you thought it did not.

His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what
he did.

You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of
inconvenience.

What's your current problem with that,

You haven't answered my question.

I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both
mine. You have quoted no question of yours.

A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage,
injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely
irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what it
had to do with the *crash*.

Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot
possibly have altered the *crash*.

On 20/08/17 10:03, JNugent wrote:

Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"?

I do. Of all the posters here, you are unquestionably the one with the
least understanding of how to apply it.

On 20/08/2017 23:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote:
On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the
collision and as he did after it? And then posted on
the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault?

I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash.

It's at the top so* don't claim you don't remember.

His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the
innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour.

Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have mentioned it
it if you thought it did not.

His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with what
he did.

You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of
inconvenience.

That's 99% certain to be the last thing he wanted to cuse.

What's your current problem with that,

You haven't answered my question.

I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both
mine. You have quoted no question of yours.

A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage,
injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely
irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what it
had to do with the *crash*.

Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot
possibly have altered the *crash*.

Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of cross examination?

On 20/08/2017 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

On 20/08/17 10:03, JNugent wrote:

Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"?

I do. Of all the posters here, you are unquestionably the one with the
least understanding of how to apply it.

That's gibberish.

On 21/08/17 01:06, JNugent wrote:
On 20/08/2017 23:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote:
On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the
collision and as he did after it? And then posted on
the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault?

I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash.

It's at the top so don't claim you don't remember.

His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the
innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour.

Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have
mentioned it
it if you thought it did not.

His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with
what he did.

You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of
inconvenience.

That's 99% certain to be the last thing he wanted to cuse.

Good. So we are part way there.

What's your current problem with that,

You haven't answered my question.

I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were both
mine. You have quoted no question of yours.

A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage,
injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely
irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what
it had to do with the *crash*.

Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot
possibly have altered the *crash*.

Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of cross examination?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to do
with the question I asked you.

On 21/08/17 01:06, JNugent wrote:
On 20/08/2017 23:15, TMS320 wrote:

On 20/08/17 10:03, JNugent wrote:

Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "context"?

I do. Of all the posters here, you are unquestionably the one with the
least understanding of how to apply it.

That's gibberish.

Then consider it an opportunity to use your telepathic ability.

On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/17 01:06, JNugent wrote:
On 20/08/2017 23:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 20/08/17 10:02, JNugent wrote:
On 19/08/2017 21:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/08/17 00:17, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2017 08:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the
collision and as he did after it? And then posted on
the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault?

I was asking you why you were making a connection to the crash.

It's at the top so* don't claim you don't remember.

His behaviour before, during and after the running down of the
innocent victim is relevant to his... er... behaviour.

Only if it had any bearing on the crash. You would not have
mentioned it
it if you thought it did not.

His state of mind, and his intentions, are clearly connected with
what he did.

You make it seem as though he set out to cause himself a lot of
inconvenience.

That's 99% certain to be the last thing he wanted to cuse.

Good. So we are part way there.

What's your current problem with that,

You haven't answered my question.

I can see two question marks in the quoted text above. They were
both mine. You have quoted no question of yours.

A *crash* involves two or more bodies colliding and causing damage,
injury or death. I didn't ask about state of mind (it's likely
irrelevant). You made an issue over the noise, so please tell us what
it had to do with the *crash*.

Please also bear in mind that what he said/wrote afterwards cannot
possibly have altered the *crash*.

Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of cross examination?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to do
with the question I asked you.

sigh

A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the defendant
wishes to co-operate.

Part of the truth aimed at consists of the intentions and state of mind,
at the time of the alleged offence, of the defendant.

This is what you need (as a preliminary step):

http://tinyurl.com/ya5zmbpk