"Hit-run driver leaves a trail of terror in S.F"

Richard Miller wrote:
In message Ph2On.36775$8S5.30726@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
Doug wrote:

This could happen here.

It just has, in Cumbria.

Demonstrating the clear difference between using a gun as a weapon and
using a car as a weapon. It seems that the driver utterly failed to
kill even one person.

Errrm. Would that be anyfink to do wiv a gun being designed as a weapon and
a car being designed as a form of transport?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On 4 June, 08:53, "Norman Wells" cut-me-own-thr...@dibblers-
pies.co.am wrote:
Doug wrote:
This could happen here.

It just has, in Cumbria.

Nope different weapon and result. Given the attitude of motorists, and
their hatred of cyclists, shown on these NGs, I am seriously worried
that something similar could happen here and that the law would not
adequately deal with it due to the leniency of the courts where
drivers are concerned.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 4 June, 12:41, ash wrote:
On 4 June, 06:45, Doug wrote:



This could happen here. In the USA use of a car as a 'deadly weapon'
is a named crime. Is it also here or would it have been merely the
usual 'dangerous driving'?

"(06-03) 18:54 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The grim numbers for the car-vs.-
bicycles rampage in San Francisco tell only part of the story.

Three neighborhoods invaded by one car Wednesday night with a driver
bent on mowing people down. Four bicyclists left sprawled on the
pavement. Six minutes from start to finish, from first victim to last.

The rest of the story could be found Thursday in the three victims
still recovering at San Francisco General Hospital, in the manhunt for
the driver, and in the sense of disbelief among residents and workers
that such random hostility could shatter their corners of the city.

Read mohttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...10/06/03/BAE41...

There was also this blog comment on the above article which I think
says it all about how cyclists are treated on these very newsgroups.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/06...deserve-hate-o...

"Today's Chronicle story about an SUV driver purposely running down
four bicyclists in San Francisco last night is disturbing enough, but
the neanderthals who commented on that story to support this murderous
rampage and blame bicyclists' behaviors for encouraging the attack are
truly outrageous and should be universally condemned. Has civil
society broken down to the point where advocating violence against
innocents is acceptable?..."

Erm! Yes.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

*Quoted from the link above - 'even the most obnoxious, red-light-
running, Critical Mass-riding, pedestrian-threatening bicyclist
doesn't deserve to be intentionally run over by an SUV'

What gives any cyclist the right to threaten pedestrians, to run red
lights or to be generally obnoxious whilst riding on the pavements.

Their vulnerability and the serious threat presented to them by
drivers, who also threaten pedestrians. Of course, cyclists do not
kill drivers.

This is a clear admission that many critical mass participants are all
of these things - and this is why the vast majority of people who do
cycle don't actually want to be associated with this selfish bunch of
crusties - you and your kind give cycling a bad name and have hijacked
it with the sole intention of furthering your own political goals -
shame on you Doug - you don't even do CM on a real bike either !

It is mainly motorists, like those here who pretend to cycle, who hate
CM, because it represents a refreshing assertiveness among second-
class, vulnerable road users who are usually dominated and intimidated
by drivers. CM clearly demonstrates that, given enough cyclists at one
time and place, they can assert their right to our roads for a change
without being killed or injured.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 4 June, 14:04, Mike Ross wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:45 am, Doug wrote:

snip

Three neighborhoods invaded by one car Wednesday night with a driver
bent on mowing people down.
Yes an appropriate law instead of the ones at present. Something like
'intent to manslaughter' with life sentencing and of course 'the use
of a car as a deadly weapon' with life sentencing.

1. There's no such thing (IIRC) as 'intent to manslaughter'; if there's intent
to kill, it's attempted murder. If there's intent to seriously injure short of
death, it's GBH with intent. Both can get life.

Yes its a maximum of 'life' that is needed, instead of the more usual
14 years max in worst cases.

2. ISTM that attempted murder would be exactly the right charge in a case like
the one described.

Yes that would be good.

3. Use of anything as a deadly weapon is already thoroughly illegal, except in
self-defence!

Problem is, while a car can be called a 'dangerous weapon' in the USA,
over here the authorities seem reluctant to do so.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

In message 66gOn.53385$hx1.10526@hurricane, The Medway Handyman
writes
Richard Miller wrote:
In message Ph2On.36775$8S5.30726@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
Doug wrote:

This could happen here.

It just has, in Cumbria.

Demonstrating the clear difference between using a gun as a weapon and
using a car as a weapon. It seems that the driver utterly failed to
kill even one person.

Errrm. Would that be anyfink to do wiv a gun being designed as a weapon and
a car being designed as a form of transport?


Yes it would. That is my point. Here on uk.legal we have been discussing
the Cumbria shooting, and several people have suggested that if he
hadn't had access to a gun, he could just have killed as many people by
driving into them. For the reason you state, and as the SF case
illustrates, that is nonsense.
--
Richard Miller

Doug wrote:

Mike Ross wrote:
Doug wrote:
Doug wrote:
snip

Three neighborhoods invaded by one car Wednesday night with a driver
bent on mowing people down.

Yes an appropriate law instead of the ones at present. Something like
'intent to manslaughter' with life sentencing and of course 'the use
of a car as a deadly weapon' with life sentencing.

1. There's no such thing (IIRC) as 'intent to manslaughter'; if there's intent
to kill, it's attempted murder. If there's intent to seriously injure short of
death, it's GBH with intent. Both can get life.

Yes its a maximum of 'life' that is needed, instead of the more usual
14 years max in worst cases.

IF - and only IF - you are suggesting more appropriate punishment for the
heinous offences of murder and attempted murder, I am with you. But a
vanishingly small number of such cases feature a motor vehicle as the weapon,
and it is as well to keep that fact in view.

FWIW, in my opinion, life imprisonment for most murder is an inadequate
punishment. We used to treat innocent human life as too important to treat a
murderer as someone involved in a cry for help, rehabilitation and a few quid
out of the poor box on release.

2. ISTM that attempted murder would be exactly the right charge in a case like
the one described.

Yes that would be good.

Be careful what you wish for. Murder is deliberate killing with death as the
objective. Attempted murder is the correct charge where there has been an
intention to kill carried through into an action, albeit unsuccessful. If
ever the authorities were silly enough to charge those involved in traffic
*accidents* with either offence, that would be a recipe for routine acquittal
by juries, since most people would be rightly opposed to such draconian
attempts at oppression.

3. Use of anything as a deadly weapon is already thoroughly illegal, except in
self-defence!

Problem is, while a car can be called a 'dangerous weapon' in the USA,
over here the authorities seem reluctant to do so.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Doug wrote:
On 4 June, 08:53, "Norman Wells" cut-me-own-thr...@dibblers-
pies.co.am wrote:
Doug wrote:
This could happen here.

It just has, in Cumbria.

Nope different weapon and result.

But he was using a car! He was a motorist! If he'd been on a bike, he
wouldn't have got nearly as far.

Doug wrote:

On 4 June, 12:41, ash wrote:
On 4 June, 06:45, Doug wrote:



This could happen here. In the USA use of a car as a 'deadly weapon'
is a named crime. Is it also here or would it have been merely the
usual 'dangerous driving'?

"(06-03) 18:54 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The grim numbers for the car-vs.-
bicycles rampage in San Francisco tell only part of the story.

Three neighborhoods invaded by one car Wednesday night with a driver
bent on mowing people down. Four bicyclists left sprawled on the
pavement. Six minutes from start to finish, from first victim to last.

The rest of the story could be found Thursday in the three victims
still recovering at San Francisco General Hospital, in the manhunt for
the driver, and in the sense of disbelief among residents and workers
that such random hostility could shatter their corners of the city.

Read mohttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...10/06/03/BAE41...

There was also this blog comment on the above article which I think
says it all about how cyclists are treated on these very newsgroups.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/06...deserve-hate-o...

"Today's Chronicle story about an SUV driver purposely running down
four bicyclists in San Francisco last night is disturbing enough, but
the neanderthals who commented on that story to support this murderous
rampage and blame bicyclists' behaviors for encouraging the attack are
truly outrageous and should be universally condemned. Has civil
society broken down to the point where advocating violence against
innocents is acceptable?..."

Erm! Yes.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Quoted from the link above - 'even the most obnoxious, red-light-
running, Critical Mass-riding, pedestrian-threatening bicyclist
doesn't deserve to be intentionally run over by an SUV'

What gives any cyclist the right to threaten pedestrians, to run red
lights or to be generally obnoxious whilst riding on the pavements.

Their vulnerability and the serious threat presented to them by
drivers, who also threaten pedestrians. Of course, cyclists do not
kill drivers.

This is a clear admission that many critical mass participants are all
of these things - and this is why the vast majority of people who do
cycle don't actually want to be associated with this selfish bunch of
crusties - you and your kind give cycling a bad name and have hijacked
it with the sole intention of furthering your own political goals -
shame on you Doug - you don't even do CM on a real bike either !

It is mainly motorists, like those here who pretend to cycle, who hate
CM, because it represents a refreshing assertiveness among second-
class, vulnerable road users who are usually dominated and intimidated
by drivers. CM clearly demonstrates that, given enough cyclists at one
time and place, they can assert their right to our roads for a change
without being killed or injured.

Your CM is beyond stupid! Yes I'm a cyclist and a motorist when I need
to cycle or to motor to somewhere. Then I'm a vehicle road user and don't
want to interfere or engage with or provoke or enrage any other vehicle
road user other than by following standard traffic rules.

Other vehicle road users are nether my enemies or my friends; they're
just part of the furniture. The purpose of my road journey is to
arrive at my destination.

Richard Miller wrote:

In message 66gOn.53385$hx1.10526@hurricane, The Medway Handyman
writes
Richard Miller wrote:
In message Ph2On.36775$8S5.30726@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
Doug wrote:

This could happen here.

It just has, in Cumbria.

Demonstrating the clear difference between using a gun as a weapon and
using a car as a weapon. It seems that the driver utterly failed to
kill even one person.

Errrm. Would that be anyfink to do wiv a gun being designed as a weapon and
a car being designed as a form of transport?


Yes it would. That is my point. Here on uk.legal we have been discussing
the Cumbria shooting, and several people have suggested that if he
hadn't had access to a gun, he could just have killed as many people by
driving into them. For the reason you state, and as the SF case
illustrates, that is nonsense.
--

Hmmm. The word for a car bumper in Danish language translates to: "cow-catcher".
But I suppose that would not be PC.

johannes wrote:

Richard Miller wrote:
In message 66gOn.53385$hx1.10526@hurricane, The Medway Handyman
writes
Richard Miller wrote:
In message Ph2On.36775$8S5.30726@hurricane, Norman Wells
writes
Doug wrote:

This could happen here.
It just has, in Cumbria.
Demonstrating the clear difference between using a gun as a weapon and
using a car as a weapon. It seems that the driver utterly failed to
kill even one person.
Errrm. Would that be anyfink to do wiv a gun being designed as a weapon and
a car being designed as a form of transport?


Yes it would. That is my point. Here on uk.legal we have been discussing
the Cumbria shooting, and several people have suggested that if he
hadn't had access to a gun, he could just have killed as many people by
driving into them. For the reason you state, and as the SF case
illustrates, that is nonsense.
--

Hmmm. The word for a car bumper in Danish language translates to: "cow-catcher".
But I suppose that would not be PC.



Derrick Bird obviously lost it,he stalked and targetted his twin
bruv/a solicitor dealing with his mothers will and specific taxi
drivers, then decided to take it out on anyone.
Initially, it's plain that he bore grudges against the first ones he
killed.
If the *weapon* had been a car, he couldn't have driven up the stairs
to kill his bruv,then the solicitor, similarly he couldn't have been
able to kill the taxi drivers who were sitting in a row of cabs.

'No'! it's the posession and easy availability of the gun that was the
main reason he killed so many. If there was no gun, he would probably
have grabbed a knife. I doubt that as many would have been stabbed.

You can't equate a gun with a car as a weapon, in this instance.

Bod