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

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 mo http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0prLtyOMk

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...te-or-violence

"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.

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'?

I wonder why no-one mentioned this when you reported cars mowing down
cyclists?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On Jun 4, 6:45*am, 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.

There should be a law against it.

On 4 June, 07:36, webreader wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:45*am, 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.



There should be a law against it.

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.

The right to life should be prioritised over the right to drive,
instead of the reverse at present.

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

Doug wrote:

This could happen here.

It just has, in Cumbria.

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.
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 !

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.
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 !

Just to point out that "pavement" in US speak normally refers to the
road, not the sidewalk!!

Jeff

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.

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

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

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On Jun 4, 8:29*am, Doug wrote:
On 4 June, 07:36, webreader wrote:





On Jun 4, 6:45*am, 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.

There should be a law against it.

Yes an appropriate law instead of the ones at present. Something like
'intent to manslaughter'

Oh my God, Gollum, you really haven't got the first clue about law,
have you?

Actually, that sentence still works if you delete the last four words.

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.
--
Richard Miller