Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 106 total)
  • 3 years a fair sentence?
  • flanagaj
    Free Member

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692

    She obviously planned to run the cyclist down, so why is it not attempted murder and a much lengthier sentence?

    fifeandy
    Free Member

    Given the cyclist had previously kicked in her wing mirror and antagonised things, then yes 3 years is probably reasonable.

    3 years and 10 year driving ban would have been better.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    About right, though the driving ban should be longer IMO. Perhaps it wasn’t attempted murder because she didn’t set out kill that cyclist that day and the final ramming was the end to a series of events.

    Why the cyclist rode in front of the car I don’t know. I do know I wouldn’t have been there. In a similar incidents I’ve been careful not to put myself in a place where the car could be used as a weapon. I’ve given up chasing cars down after one ran a red light trying to get away and came very close to a collision.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    I’d be willing to bet that if I, for example, were on my way home from a spot of cricket, got in to a heated exchange with a car driver and used my cricket bat to beat the shit out of them I’d get more than three years. Both would be instances of using something not normally considered a weapon. Yet I imagine one would result in a much longer sentence than the other.

    Remember kids, cyclists aren’t people, they’re just cyclists 😐 kicking a wing mirror, whilst daft, is a far cry from ramming somebody with a car IMO

    Klunk
    Free Member

    she should get three years for being on the phone when there’s someone else in the car. There really are some dangerous moronic people around.

    thegreatape
    Free Member

    First thing I did on reading this article was look up the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder. The lowest starting point for spontaneous incidents (which this is) is 9 years. The range for spontaneous incidents is 6-20 years depending on various factors. On that basis, I think 3 years is very lenient, but of course for att murder (unlike successful murder) you have to prove the intent was to kill, which you’d struggle to do here without a confession.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    kicking a wing mirror, whilst daft, is a far cry from ramming somebody with a car IMO

    And everybody else’s.

    Which is why she’s going to prison.

    teasel
    Free Member

    kicking a wing mirror..[is] daft

    It’s just not necessary and if you do that then you have to expect folk to react regardless of who’s in the right. Not defending her actions in the slightest but if I’d booted off someone’s miror I’d expect a come back.

    3 years, though she’ll probably do half that at most, is still a fair chunk of your life. If she’d have killed him it’d be a lot more, I would’ve thought.

    Drac
    Full Member

    Isn’t murder preplanned rather spontaneous killing?

    So this would be closer to manslaughter.

    Rubbish sentence either way.

    convert
    Full Member

    I’d be willing to bet that if I, for example, were on my way home from a spot of cricket, got in to a heated exchange with a car driver and used my cricket bat to beat the shit out of them I’d get more than three years. Both would be instances of using something not normally considered a weapon. Yet I imagine one would result in a much longer sentence than the other.

    I think it would depends how may swipes you took. If one as in this case with the car I suspect not. The 2nd third and forth are increasingly premeditated in action. The driver in this case did not reverse and have a 2nd or 3rd go.

    Agree with Edukator though, infuriating a driver then getting in front of them to receive a red mist payback is almost Darwin award territory.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Isn’t murder preplanned rather spontaneous killing?

    Isn’t that “premeditated murder” (or is that a US thing)? Murder vs manslaughter is all about intent I thought.

    curto80
    Free Member

    Person shoots someone with a shotgun, seriously injuring them.

    3yrs prison and a 4 year ban from owning a shotgun.

    As if.

    This should never have been treated as a driving offence. The sentence is obviously ridiculously lenient and totally disproportionate to the offence which, had the criminal picked any other weapon, would have been far longer.

    The “provocation” is totally irrelevant, morally and legally.

    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    It’s just not necessary and if you do that then you have to expect folk to react regardless of who’s in the right.

    People do daft things when angry or scared. Necessary rarely comes in to it in the heat of the moment. I once, regrettably, kicked a set of rear lights in on a car. This was after the driver had almost run me down, then pretty much said I deserved it for not paying road tax (as a pedestrian). It was his lights or him. He ran back to his car and drove off.

    I called the police, told them what had happened and paid for the damage. Results would have been worse had I not moved as quickly as I did. I’m just glad I broke his lights rather than him.

    I think it would depends how may swipes you took. If one as in this case with the car I suspect not. The 2nd third and forth are increasingly premeditated in action

    Chasing somebody down in s mobile, seriously heavy chunk of metal and then purposefully hitting them with it has to be worth at least six bat hits. Does nobody have a comparison chat e handy? 🙂

    curto80
    Free Member

    Cougar almost right yes.

    Murder is killing someone where you have the intent to kill someone or seriously harm them.

    singletrackmind
    Full Member

    This driver should never be allowed a licence to drive a motorised vehicle in the UK for the rest of their life.
    Send a simple clear message that using your car as 1.2T battering ram simply is not going to be tolerated , no matter what the provacation.

    convert
    Full Member

    Cougar almost right yes.

    Murder is killing someone where you have the intent to kill someone or seriously harm them.

    I think you have successfully undermined your own argument. She intended to knock them off their bike. She successfully managed that. The fact that she is either too stupid, ignorant or in such a red mist that she did not consider knocking someone off their bike might kill them too does not mean she intended to try and murder them.

    I do agree she should never be allowed to drive again however.

    teasel
    Free Member

    funkmasterp wrote lots

    Muchos lolz, especially the comparison chart of harms.

    But seriously, I’ve done very similar on more than one occasion. How I ever got away with it I’ll never know. As previously claimed, I’m quite lucky.

    I have the ability to think before I act now so just shrug or at worst glare. Just not worth the potential consequences for either party, even with just fists it can go very wrong.

    curto80
    Free Member

    Convert I don’t know what you are talking about.

    Nowhere did I say that she should have been tried for attempted murder. That said a decent prosecution could have put together a case, but the risk of acquittal would probabaly have been high.

    What I said is this should never have been treated as a driving offence. GBH is an obvious option.

    My point is driving offences should be reserved for cases where the standard of driving is the relevant factor. This was a person using a car as a weapon because it was the most convenient weapon to hand. Whether it was a car or a knife or a gun is irrelevant to the offence and so the Offences Against the Person Act would have been far more appropriate prosecuting legislation.

    thegreatape
    Free Member

    So this would be closer to manslaughter.

    You can’t attempt manslaughter though.

    flanagaj
    Free Member

    Would be interesting to know whether she turned the corner and veered off her journey path to purposely follow the cyclist. Could you not argue that at the moment she made the turn the intent was there and therefore premeditated?

    curto80
    Free Member

    The trouble is proving intent in a World which is so tolerant generally of the utter feckwittery of the average motorist.

    That she wasn’t banned from driving for life (in the way that a firearm licence would be revoked for a comparable gun offence) is greatly troubling but also indicative of how society has learnt to trivialise driving-related crime no matter how callous the actions of the driver.

    fifeandy
    Free Member

    Life is a very long time to be banned for. 3 years in prison and 10 years trying to find work with a criminal record and no driving license is plenty of time to realise the error of your ways.

    curto80
    Free Member

    Only luck separated this driver and her being a murderer. Wouldn’t want her driving anywhere near me, ever.

    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    The trouble is proving intent in a World which is so tolerant generally of the utter feckwittery of the average motorist.

    This pretty much sums it up for me. Three year sentence and a lifetime driving ban would seem like a better punishment.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    What purpose would a longer sentence serve?

    Would anyone else be deterred? does she need to be punished more? does she need longer to be rehabilitated?

    Drac
    Full Member

    You can’t attempt manslaughter though.

    Well there is that.

    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    What purpose would a longer sentence serve?

    None really. I think a lifetime ban would serve more purpose by removing a clearly volatile individual from the road. People, including me, seem to be bothered by the fact that a similarly serious incident committed with something other than a car would result in harsher measures. I could be wrong though.

    howsyourdad1
    Free Member

    I think i’ll leave it to the experts. 3 years it is then

    curto80
    Free Member

    Yeah I’m with you Funk

    n0b0dy0ftheg0at
    Free Member

    Once again, a lenient conviction to someone using their motor vehicle as a weapon against a cyclist, IMO.

    The sentence given here is the minimum I would like that van driver to get, from that recent publicised incident, where the cyclist was forced off the road during a wreckless overtake.

    I think this case should have been more prison time and a longer, perhaps even lifetime, driving ban.

    The courts need to show drivers that using their vehicles aggressively against other vulnerable road users will not be tolerated. I should not have to spend ~£200 on a front and rear video camera to record every road ride a take, on the off-chance some twonk tries to mame me.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    People, including me, seem to be bothered by the fact that a similarly serious incident committed with something other than a car would result in harsher measures.

    Isn’t that just a guess though ?

    Nobody seems to have come up with a suitable example where that was the case.

    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    Section 18 and 20

    I think it should fall under the section 18 category in the link. Chasing somebody down and purposefully hitting them with a car. They must have a good idea of the damage that’s going to cause and it’s not going to be minimal. Only my opinion of course

    curto80
    Free Member

    Neal there’s a million examples. Here’s one:

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2017/01/28/thug-who-left-man-needing-life-saving-surgery-is-jailed-for-ten-years/

    10 years for GBH

    That plus a lifetime driving ban and I’d have been content.

    jonnyboi
    Full Member

    Based on some recent cases I’m amazed she got three years. An acquittal or suspended sentence would be more likely

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Apparently you can now get ten years in the slammer for downloading a film.

    So it is about in line with the current craziness.

    pondo
    Full Member

    She intended to knock them off their bike.

    I don’t how you can prove what she intended either way, including that she ‘only’ intended to knock him off.

    Rich_s
    Full Member

    Nobody seems to have come up with a suitable example where that was the case.

    Quite interesting to compare the case to this one:
    Tony Martin

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    i think if i had used a disproportionately large object to ram a cyclist into a tree causing a three day stay in hospital the GBH charge would get me more than the 3 years she got

    It is not just a driving offence its just a a common assault with a vehicle as the weapon of choice. Clearly she must have realised it stood a good chance of serious harm section 18 offence IMHO

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    I don’t how you can prove what she intended either way

    Its pretty hard to argue the offence was not a deliberate hitting of him with the car;actually its impossible…she did not even deny it she said her BF did it not that she never meant to do it it was just a swerve to avoid a ???? and i drove off because??

    Honestly she clearly rammed them
    WHy or what damage she wanted to inflict is conjecture [ without a confession] but that she did it intentionally is not in question

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    It’s assault with a deadly weapon, let’s not mince words here.

    Manslaughter at best.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 106 total)

The topic ‘3 years a fair sentence?’ is closed to new replies.