That about sums it up, Coyote. End of thread.
Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver.
Indeed. And on a cycling forum.
Injury in a criminal case is not subjective 'He had a wound to the back of his head which required gluing,' a wound is a legal term for a break to the whole skin strictly the driver could have faced a more serious charge than ABH but current charging standards go against that.
I am staggered that any one can seek to minimise driving a car into someone and or accelerating with them on the bonnet. With an unlucky landing that would have been a clear manslaughter conviction.
[quote=stevextc ]I'm just pointing out that the whole incident was exaggerated.
None actually got really hurt, or was thrown OVER a bonnet or Run over..... and the action the driver took wasn't meant to kill or seriously hurt him...
I'm not arguing with the actual sentencing.... in fact if the driver did what the press claims then he should have been given 10 years..... but the reporting and inaccurate and deliberately emotional statements do not match the video.
Actually I feel a need to pick up on this again, as it seems to be the crux of your argument. What you appear to have an issue with is the [b]headlines[/b] used on these articles. I agree with you, some of them are inaccurate and exaggerated, but that's what headlines are - I CBA searching, but I'm sure I could find similar exaggeration in headlines on lots of other news stories. Do you seriously take headlines as the gospel truth - do you think other people do? Surely they're well known to often be works of fiction.
As for the articles themselves, could you please point out to me the inaccurate statements in those - from what I can see most of the more comprehensive ones are simply reporting what was said in court.
[quote=crankboy ]With an unlucky landing that would have been a clear manslaughter conviction.
Thanks for making that point - I thought about suggesting it earlier, but it carries more weight coming from you 😉
I am once again (as you might have noticed) drawn to the comparison with the Charlie Alliston case, and how significant a part luck has in the sentence you might get. Though it should also be pointed out how luck resulted in significantly different outcomes for Gareth McCarthy and Kim Briggs 🙁
Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver.
Pfft.. some of the online comments I've read not only backed the driver but said that the teacher should be prosecuted for obstructing the highway 😯
Which is unlikely to happen between 2 hot headed people seeing red mist
You talk about inaccurate news and then busily spread what is liable to be inaccurate information yourself.
Unless you were there I am not sure how you can tell the teacher was being hotheaded. Even with your conclusion he deliberately sat down on the car given the actions of the driver it really does count as being hot headed.
[quote=GrahamS ]Pfft.. some of the online comments I've read not only backed the driver but said that the teacher should be prosecuted for obstructing the highway
😯 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯
Where was that - I feel irresistibly drawn to see such levels of stupidity and driver entitlement?
Actually given the context, I should probably make an admission here. I have stood in front of an artic lorry in order to prevent it driving where I was. Though there were several other people around and I never seriously thought the driver was likely to drive into me. Driver got out and threatened to call the police because I was obstructing him. I laughed - I was standing on the pavement.
GrahamS -Pfft.. some of the online comments I've read not only backed the driver but said that the teacher should be prosecuted for obstructing the highway
Some (not all) drivers believe that anything you can drive on is "the highway" and that they have right of way. I had to clarify this for a lovely gentleman in an Audi who was doing about 50mph through Tesco's car park and was forced to stop because I was "walking in the middle of the *ing road".
When I pointed out to him that we weren't on a road he screamed "what do you call that black stuff you * *?" to which I replied "car park". He then informed me that if I didn't get out of the "road" he was going to murder me and cut my **** head off, and that I was a *.
I had a bit of a sore knee that day and strangling a grown man unconscious infront of children and old ladies seemed bad form so I moved out of his way and he sped off to park across two bays.
Where was that - I feel irresistibly drawn to see such levels of stupidity and driver entitlement?
A few places.
[url= http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/we-know-school-car-parking-13672749 ]GetSurrey[/url] had this: "The teacher was standing the street not on the roadway that is enclosed by gates. They were thus obstructing the highway as per s137 Highways Act 1980 "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding..." The teacher should therefore be prosecuted."
[url= http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/26/father-jailed-for-knocking-down-teacher-for-blocking-school-entrance-6955636/ ]The Metro[/url] had:
"I think, if a person is going out of their way to obstruct you and cause you inconvenience, you should be lawfully allowed to continue on your day whether that means stepping around the person getting in your way, pushing them out of your way or merrily asking you to move.
In the instance of someone deliberately blocking traffic, should they then get run over... It's their own fault. Forcing a motorist to stop on a corner outside school gates is far more dangerous for children and the driver than moving the teacher out of the way with your car."
and
"The teacher eas out of order he stops a car turning and blocks a main rd up and for what the entrance was clear if i was driving that car a would have got out moved the teacher and caried on why the hell was he standing in the rd blocking traffic"
and
"Why is the teacher blocking the drivers way!!He or she is getttung late to pick their child up!!!! I would ran him over!!!"
As well as about 50% of the comments being something along the lines of "Tcha shudunt have sat on car. Tcha make Grog mad"
I had to clarify this for a lovely gentleman in an Audi who was doing about 50mph through Tesco's car park
Did you find out what his login on here was jimjam? 😉
Did you find out what his login on here was jimjam?
It was an S3 so I knew not to bother. If it had been a diesel A4 Avant (S Line) I might thought it thread worthy.
Honestly dumbfounded by those defending this driver
The real worry is that they no doubt drive themselves and make their everyday driving judgements in a similar way.
[quote=GrahamS ]A few places.
Oh FFS I should't have asked should I? Need to find where I keep my anti-boiling pills for my blood. So, so many entitled drivers - I note several others citing obstruction and suggesting prosecution of the teacher (and that not doing so sets a bad example 🙄 ). There isn't even any point engaging with these people is there?
The Metro article is usefully comprehensive though, hadn't seen some of those details before. So the driver still feels entitled and also thinks the teacher was partly to blame? I'm now amazed at how light his sentence was with attitudes like that (attitudes mentioned by his defence no less!)
More needs to be made of fining/punishing parents who attempt to get around the rules like this person did (in an extreme way!). I am a parent and I understand the issues with driving children to/from school but rules are rules.
You would think that this sort of thing needs to be publicized more in [u]national press[/u] (in an unbiased way, with less sensational headlines), so that the message gets out that driving is not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE that can be taken away if/when you break the rules then ALL road users would be safer.
I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?
I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?
I'm guessing that at least a few of those commenters would be saying it was the teachers fault for obscuring his windscreen.
I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?
well they werent wearing helmets and high vis and were also on the road (using the special interpretation of road some of those who support the nutter have used) so basically they would have deserved it.
Plus it was the evil teachers fault for forcing the poor driver to be an idiot.
[quote=GrahamS ]
I wonder how many would still be defending the driver if he had hit the kids on bikes as well?
I'm guessing that at least a few of those commenters would be saying it was the teachers fault for obscuring his windscreen.
No helmets or hi-viz - actually it's probably their fault the teacher got hurt.
(doh - cross-posted, but I'll leave mine up as nobody else has yet blamed the kids like that)
Well hopefully they'll get buggered senseless when inside, but it's only a short stretch so it's not a certainty.
This is what's needed
[img] 
[/img]
Funnily enough, I came up with those 'excuses' myself once I posed the question!
I never ever get tired of saying this... (the vast amount of, before anyone complains of sweeping generalisations) [b]people are selfish and stupid.[/b]
I cannot fathom why anyone would defend the driver, and I'm a driver! Attack the situation, yes, but defend the actions of that c0ckwomble? Unbelievable.
As already pointed out, those people making comments are a sample of people who will serve on a jury when a driver runs into a cyclist. I do always hope that it's only a tiny minority making comments like that, but when it comes to entitlement and cars I'm not so sure.
I'm guessing that at least a few of those commenters would be saying it was the teachers fault for obscuring his windscreen.
genuine lol
Just imagine what a driver who thinks he can do something like that has got away with in the past or is likely to do in the future.
Anyone driving like that or thinks it is ok to drive like that should not be allowed a driving licence.
And the moment you use any object to project force, it is a weapon and a car is a pretty lethal one.
I obviously didn’t read the full detail and facts, no insurance nor MOT it seems.
The sentence is too lenient... 2 years and a 5 year driving ban, and an asbo tracker to make sure the nutcase is kept off the road.
IMO.
Ghastly fella.
Actually I feel a need to pick up on this again, as it seems to be the crux of your argument. What you appear to have an issue with is the headlines used on these articles. I agree with you, some of them are inaccurate and exaggerated, but that's what headlines are - I CBA searching, but I'm sure I could find similar exaggeration in headlines on lots of other news stories. Do you seriously take headlines as the gospel truth - do you think other people do? Surely they're well known to often be works of fiction.As for the articles themselves, could you please point out to me the inaccurate statements in those - from what I can see most of the more comprehensive ones are simply reporting what was said in court.
You're entirely correct .... except you uncovered my larger worry ....
Frankly I don't think the video is proof one way or another .. we have both watched it several times...
However I think that the power of suggestion is also playing a role.
What bothers me to the core is I don'y think the now famous nationally judge believed it either.
He seems to have chosen a populist stance that everything the teacher say's is true and everything the driver say's is a lie.
His summing up was chock full of soundbites and I wouldn't be surprised to find these were supplied directly to the press... and the sentencing seems more in tune with what I see happen than what the judge describes.
The driver is definitely guilty .. but my feeling is there is an aspect of then "so he's guilty how can I better my career".
We disagree on the video... for me I'm concerned that what I see is simply ignored... and I absolutely can't say the video shows beyond reasonable doubt that he drove into him causing him to fall onto the bonnet or not but there is a concern for me that this obviously gilt bloke has been used as a springboard to several careers and by press omission the defence don't seem to have really challenged the "take the teachers story as 100% true"
Mr Schoeman is a bit stupid and given to fits of temper, something I suspect Mr McCarthy knew all to well. I don't think he set out to kill Mr McCarthy or even to injure him in a way I don't injure myself on a monthly basis.
To answer an earlier question: Coming off a bonnet or bike at 10mph is completely different to being hit by a car or bike at 10 mph. The former I wouldn't expect to cause serious injury (though they could with bad luck) whereas the latter I'd expect to cause serious injury.
but my feeling is there is an aspect of then "so he's guilty how can I better my career".
Whose careers are you speaking about here?
He seems to have chosen a populist stance that everything the teacher say's is true and everything the driver say's is a lie.
It was the jury that found the driver guilty, not the judge.
I don't think he set out to kill Mr McCarthy or even to injure him in a way I don't injure myself on a monthly basis.
Of course! He was merely trying to brighten an otherwise mundane day by giving the teacher a bit of a thrill. How thoughtful. He drove the car intentionally at the teacher thereby setting out to injure him by default. If someone sits on your car, you ask them to get off, you don't accelerate at them!
Why are you fighting his corner?
It was the jury that found the driver guilty, not the judge.
He pleaded guilty, there was no jury. Though even his defence barrister seems to admit stuff that Steve seems unable to.
I can't address Steves post on my phone, I'll do it later - that and I'm still laughing too much when I read it.
Why are you fighting his corner?
Because automatically despising entitled car drivers is as bad as automatically despising entitled cyclists?
Because shoddy reporting leads to shoddy thinking and shoddy justice?
It's not the car driver I'd be trying to defend, just the importance of dispassionate assessment of the evidence, which in this case, as this thread proves, is more than slightly ambiguous at best. All the 'he drove his car at him' braying is kind of scary in a way, because that's not what happened, to my eyes.
evidence, which in this case, as this thread proves, is more than slightly ambiguous at best
Can you give us more details of the evidence then as you were presumably in court? I'm still having to rely on reports of what the judge said about the evidence.
He pleaded guilty, there was no jury.
Sorry, yes. It's a bit puzzling that people on here seem to want to defend the driver when he has already admitted his guilt.
It was the jury that found the driver guilty, not the judge.
There is a video ... it's not hard to decide the driver is guilty (you'd need to be completely blind) ... it's a question of what and what the judges summing up say's...
Whose careers are you speaking about here?
The judge...
Of course! He was merely trying to brighten an otherwise mundane day by giving the teacher a bit of a thrill. How thoughtful. He drove the car intentionally at the teacher thereby setting out to injure him by default. If someone sits on your car, you ask them to get off, you don't accelerate at them!
He was IMHO showing Mr McCarthy he was willing to respond to his challenge.... that's not the same as setting out to hurt someone seriously. It's still bloody stupid ... and can result in them getting hurt but the intent is different.
Why are you fighting his corner?
Depends what you mean by fighting his corner....
I think he deserves the sentencing* from what is provable in the video and beyond reasonable doubt... however I don't think the judge should be getting celeb judge status based on this or that the carefully worded soundbites released and then made bigger by the press are actually appropriate.
Can anybody here name this celebrity judge?
[img] 
[/img]
He was IMHO showing Mr McCarthy he was willing to respond to his challenge
It's worrying that see thing.s in such a binary manner , there was no challenge as has been pointed out the teacher "sat" on the car post being nudged. The teacher was going about his lawful business and carrying out his duties. I'm sure the judge will be a shoe in for the next job at the High Court based on this one. You do know that judges aren't promoted based on the press cuttings?
'he drove his car at him' braying is kind of scary in a way, because that's not what happened, to my eyes.
What did happen in your eyes then if he did not drive his car at him?
He clearly hits him first - whether he chose to sit down or was forced to no one is saying he was not hit first so this clearly happened.
He then drove off with him on the car and then admitted his guilt.
What exactly is your account of this then ?
not reading 9 pages, did we get many stwers agreeing with the many, many idiots on social media that the teacher had it coming?
<sounds like steve may be apportioning a small amount of blame on teach, which isn't quite the same>
Can anybody here name this celebrity judge?
once that is done can someone explain how exactly their career will be boosted. I wasnt aware of joe public getting a say on judges careers in the UK.
Ok I'll kinda give you
.. it's a question of what and what the judges summing up say's...
But can't give you
He was IMHO showing Mr McCarthy he was willing to respond to his challenge...
What ******* challenge. Attempting to ensure the driver followed instructions is not, and should und not be seen, as a challenge to any rational person.
And I've no idea how you think this will happen
however I don't think the judge should be getting celeb judge status
What do celebrity judges do anyway? Is there some reality TV programme I've missed here (I don't watch much celebrity or reality TV)?
I wasnt aware of joe public getting a say on judges careers in the UK.
Have you never seen The eX parte Factor?
Poor legal joke, IGMC
not reading 9 pages, did we get many stwers agreeing with the many, many idiots on social media that the teacher had it coming?
Steve is trying really hard, but I don't think he's capable of abandoning rational thought to quite that level 😉 No, some very mild victim blaming, but compared to wider social media people here seem to accept he was doing a valid job.
that's not the same as setting out to hurt someone seriously
Yeah, presumably he didn't set out of the house thinking [i]"Right I'm going to attack a teacher with my partner's uninsured, un-motted car while her young daughter sits in the back"[/i]
But he made the decision to nudge him with his car and then accelerate forward with him on the bonnet. At those points he decided to take reckless actions that could easily have hurt someone seriously or worse.
I think he deserves the sentencing* from what is provable in the video and beyond reasonable doubt...
I think he got that! He plead guilty to actual bodily harm, dangerous driving, driving without insurance and having no MOT. Not sure which of those you think is made up?
I don't think the judge should be getting celeb judge status based on this
Eh???? What's the judges name? I've read multiple accounts and I have no idea.
I don't think he'll be get a slot on Strictly or I'm A Celebrity based on this case.
carefully worded soundbites released and then made bigger by the press
Surrey Police released the video.
As far as I know the defence & prosecution statements, plus the judges somethingion and court proceedings are a matter of public record (crankboy can probably clarify).
It was held at Guildford Crown Court if that makes any difference.
Such a celeb that Graham didn't realise it was a woman judge IIRC!
