View Single Post
  #36  
Old October 4th 18, 12:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 28/09/18 21:02, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 20:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/18 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2018 00:30, TMS320 wrote:

He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone. He
complained: “Everyone is quick to judge and help the so-called victim
but not the other person in the situation.
ENDQUOTE

The mobile phone fabrication was shown to be an absolute lie.


It depends on whether he pursued this, knowing it was false or whether
it was just a best assessment made in 3.8 seconds until shown the
evidence.


He was reported to have said it in his sworn or affirmed testimony in
court.


You accused him of lying. I expect he would have been asked to describe
the situation as he saw it.

Apart from that, the only problem is saying a victim "deserves" it.
But then, it is not an uncommon for motorists to say this.

I hope this helps you.


In other words your earlier post was the result of the usual Nugent
mangling.


Whatever you mean by that.

BTW: You started on about the Alliston case. I only mentioned it in
passing.


Only as far as wondering how *grovelling* affects a sentence. You
expanded on it.

but it is worth a reminder that the victim created the conditions
that demanded avoiding action. In normal circumstances, that
wouldn't require remorse.

I don't agree at all with that remark. But either way, Alliston
showed no remorse. He blamed the victim for his offences.


I very much doubt he blamed her for making him use a bike without a
front brake.


He didn't even accept that that was an offence.


I expect defendants often don't understand the laws they are accused of
breaking. It's not relevant to your demand that he should have shown
remorse over the victim's behaviour.

So you prefer the word legal people use. Whatever. A road traffic
collision is caused by behaviour before the collision, so it is hard
to see how behaviour afterwards should have any bearing on the case.

It speaks to the attitude of the cyclist towards other people, of
course.


Yes, it helps to fuel your prejudice.

They're his words.

What do they tell you about him? Nothing at all?


Almost nothing. Your reaction tells us more about you.

Oh, and about your suggestion that they might have wanted to test
the law. If so, do you think they would have told the defendant what
their game was? Plead guilty and get it over with; plead not guilty
and sit through the whole trial go through cross-examination.


Testing the meaning and interpretation of new law (whether criminal
or administrative law) is par for the course. You know that.


I asked for your opinion on whether the defendant would have gone
through it voluntarily.


Which one are we talking about? The coach driver or the cyclist?


For goodness' sake, don't be so thick. You raised the idea that the law
likes to test a new law in court. To follow on I asked you whether the
defendant would know about their involvement.

Possible answers are yes, no, don't know. If the answer is no, further
expansion would be useful.


I am not interested in the personality of criminals. As long as they
stay on the right side of the law, they can pretend to be as damaged
mentally as they like.


Would you like to have some of your previous posts dredged up?


Do as you like. I have nothing in particular against mentally-ill people
as long as they don't ride their bikes into other people.


Some of us have something against those that only ever travel by car but
try to be the "pedestrian's friend", constantly pointing their finger at
anybody using a bicycle. I think Doug used to be fond of the word
"hypocrite".
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home