Glasgow driver goes after a pedestrian who threw a plastic bottle at his car - the wrong way up a busy one way street - hit him, throwing him into the air and causing a fractured skull.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43838348
Charge reduced from attempted murder to dangerous driving, and he got 150 hours community service and a 3 year ban
Seems fair. I mean imagine the damage if the bottle had hit the car - could have written it off the way cars are built these days. And how dare anyone threaten a driver’s pride and joy. 🙄
I once had someone drive me off the road because I threatened him with my bottle, after he almost hit me over-taking on a mini roundabout. As I picked myself up and headed around the car to batter him - pre-mobile phone days and I was very angry - he suddenly seemed to realise what had just happened and started apologising profusely. Reg number was taken, police involved who did nothing, of course.
I was going to say that the guy was probably in the same freemasons team or orange lodge as the judge, then I saw his age - 23 !! Imagine how massive a t**t he is going to be when he becomes middle-aged.
The use of terms to identify the people and their actions is, I’m sure, counterproductive, if not evidently harmful. ‘The driver’ did this; ‘the cyclist’ did that. If the focus would be left of what one individual’s actions were, and the mode of transport incidental, it creates much less opportunity toy for assumption and side-taking, and more potential for more people to see the incident from the victim’s perspective. It’s very irresponsible reporting, and sadly largely typical.
Just playing Devil's advocate here - it would be quite difficult for the police to make a charge of attempted murder stick.
I agree that the sentence is a joke though.
it would be quite difficult for the police to make a charge of attempted murder stick
On the face of it you'd think GBH would be a goer though, given that the victim ended up in hospital with a fractured skull. Proving intent is always the difficult bit, the CPS settling for DD basically means they had to accept he inadvertently struck the victim with his car (while angrily chasing him the wrong way up a one way street).
Agreed Johnners (assault in Scotchland)
Perhaps Bryan McNulty has also now learnt to stop throwing items at other people property?
I was going to say that the guy was probably in the same freemasons team or orange lodge as the judge, then I saw his age – 23 !!
That and the fact that Lady Stacy is the wrong gender to be a freemason!
Imagine how massive a t**t he is going to be when he becomes middle-aged.
Actually young men seem to mature and become less involved with the criminal justice system with age. That may even have been part of the mitigation argued to reduce his sentence.
On the face of it you’d think GBH would be a goer though, given that the victim ended up in hospital with a fractured skull... ...the CPS settling for DD basically means...
Well for a start GBH doesn't exist as an offence in Scotland (and no CPS either!). You'd be looking at Assault to Serious Injury. The mens rea requirement would still give the defence an angle. It appears from reports elsewhere a Jury heard the evidence and decided it didn't meet the requirements for attempted murder rather than the PF deciding not to bother. They heard the evidence, we didn't. They even saw a video. They've had the charge from the judge explaining the law. At least 8 people did that and decided it wasn't attempted murder.
I agree that the sentence is a joke though.
I can't say whether I think it was lenient or not, I didn't hear the evidence, don't know if he has any previous convictions, and haven't heard the mitigation. Lady Stacey did all of that. What sentence would you have imposed from the limited knowledge you have, bearing in mind the conviction is for DD not Attempted Murder? If he had previously offered to plead guilty to the DD charge he'll be entitled to 1/3rd off any sentence. Now I imagine you might consider a custodial sentence would be justified [off top of my head max is 2yrs]. Would locking him up with other criminals make him more or less likely to offend in future? Would it make the public safer? Would it make anyone else less likely to be dick in a car in the future? Would your view be different if he had children? What if he was the only carer for the children? Or the only source of income? Or has just started a new job or training - and a jail sentence might mean he may well spend the rest of his life jumping between the dole and minimum wage temporary work? Was there a possible non-custodial alternative? I think all DD convictions require a mandatory (extended) retest? With a 3yr ban that means he'll be 26/27 by the time he has a full license again. Do you recognise that aggressive 23 yr olds often mature/calm down a bit in that period (hence why car insurance gets cheaper!)? I'm not saying she got it right, if she was miles off the Crown have the right of appeal.
Perhaps Bryan McNulty has also now learnt to stop throwing items at other people property?
Are you the resident troll these days? It's pretty common when driving past schools and such like to get the odd things thrown. Smashing someone's skull in, with the strong potential to kill them, doesn't seem a proportionate response.
It's like taking "an eye for an eye" and expanding it to "minor mark on paintwork for a smashed in skull". Nah, the driver is a dangerous, unstable nobber an should have got jail.
Well for a start GBH doesn’t exist as an offence in Scotland (and no CPS either!). You’d be looking at Assault to Serious Injury.
Guilty as charged of Anglocentrism, aggravated by being Scottish by birth.
Seems to me that driving up a one way street the wrong way is dangerous driving. Doing it in order to run someone over should probably be something a bit more than dangerous driving.
Are you the resident troll these days? It’s pretty common when driving past schools and such like to get the odd things thrown.
I agree entirely that it is not a proportionate or rational response, but in the interests of fact-based-discussion Mr McNulty is 33 not a teenager mucking about, and the location is not near a school or somewhere some bored teenagers might try some target practice. Its the middle of a city centre where most of the time you are lucky to make it out of 2nd gear.
Having been a teenager in Glasgow, one of the objectives of throwing things at drivers was to get chased.
Playing Devil's advocate, which I understand in this circumstance is very hard...
This sounds like an awful crime, but as is always the case I'm loath to make assumptions until I've seen the same evidence that the court has seen.
Three_Fish
The use of terms to identify the people and their actions is, I’m sure, counterproductive, if not evidently harmful. ‘The driver’ did this; ‘the cyclist’ did that. If the focus would be left of what one individual’s actions were, and the mode of transport incidental, it creates much less opportunity toy for assumption and side-taking, and more potential for more people to see the incident from the victim’s perspective. It’s very irresponsible reporting, and sadly largely typical.
I agree with the sentiment you're trying to express but to be honest in this instance it's kind of necessary just to convey the story in clear, easy to understand terms. Also in this instance Driver/Pedestrian doesn't imply (to me at least) the kind of side taking you're alluding to which might be present in a Driver/Cyclist altercation.
He looks like a jakie. Jakies do weird stuff, it' best let them keep on killing themselves!
Poly, you have taken that too far IMO
Missed the original thread, but I saw the Mustang driver report today and was pleasantly surprised at the charge and sentence.
The original Scottish story - based on the limited info we have - seems very lenient in comparison.