“Following extensive inquiries today, we believe the car was deliberately driven at the victim and succeeded in colliding with him at the third attempt.

No….really?

Di don’t do dat der do dey?

Dey do doh don’t di do?

If you use a metal bar or lump of wood to deliberately batter someone, then provided they’ve not attacked you, it is murder.

Why should using a car as a weapon be any different?

This area of Law really, really does need sorting out. I’ve read about drivers deliberately knocking cyclists/pedestrians over getting away with driving without due care or something else daft. it’s just ridiculous.

Deliberately drive at someone- Murder/Attempted Murder.

Kill someone due to a lack of care and attention for their safety- Manslaughter.

Why isn’t it like that? It is in some other countries I’m sure.

I don’t really understand the problem with that story. What do mean by “No….really?” Was it that obvious that the car had been deliberately driven at the victim ? Is there no chance it was an accident ? Are the witnesses completely reliable ? Is there no need for a trial ?

😕

I think it was this bit ernie;

succeeded in colliding with him at the third attempt

Edit;

Are the witnesses completely reliable ? Is there no need for a trial ?

don’t dissagree about that bit though.

Its all to do with the ‘afore thought’ isn’t it?

I did GSCE Law therefore I’m qualified *sic*