[News] Pedestrian jailed for manslaughter

[Eric the meek]

Hypothetical questions addressed to @Stat Brother, and discussions around dual-use paths both miss the point.

The gravamen of this completely needless death, is that the pedestrian has been convicted of manslaughter. Whether she felt entitled to occupy the width of the path, or suffers from anger issues, or whether her disabilities can/should ameliorate her sentence, are peripheral.

The woman has been convicted of manslaughter. She gave a dishonest account at interview, and showed no remorse at all. She is now considering an appeal.

Having killed somebody, she still believes her actions were justified. She is a danger to the public.

 

[nealrogers]

Question for you Stat:

Imagine a 77yo woman was driving a brand new Range Rover. Someone with learning difficulties steps in front of the Range Rover. Rather than anticipate the hazard and hit the brakes the 77yo female driver panicks and swerves into incoming traffic causing a head on crash. She dies of her injuries.

Would you give a shit if it wasn't a bike?

How are the two situations even remotely comparable?

 

[Weststander]

Hypothetical questions addressed to @Stat Brother, and discussions around dual-use paths both miss the point.

The gravamen of this completely needless death, is that the pedestrian has been convicted of manslaughter. Whether she felt entitled to occupy the width of the path, or suffers from anger issues, or whether her disabilities can/should ameliorate her sentence, are peripheral.

The woman has been convicted of manslaughter. She gave a dishonest account at interview, and showed no remorse at all. She is now considering an appeal.

Having killed somebody, she still believes her actions were justified. She is a danger to the public.

Fact.

The legal system proved that.

 

[Billy the Fish]

You are a monster for even asking that.

Wrong. You know you wouldn't give it a second thought if it was a car driver, that's why the question makes you uncomfortable.

I'm impartial, I see this as an unfortunate accident.

 

[jcdenton08]

Wrong. You know you wouldn't give it a second thought if it was a car driver, that's why the question makes you uncomfortable.

I'm impartial, I see this as an unfortunate accident.

But the police, CPS and jury didn’t. And I don’t either.

 

[Stat Brother]

Wrong. You know you wouldn't give it a second thought if it was a car driver, that's why the question makes you uncomfortable.

I'm impartial, I see this as an unfortunate accident.

Where the hell do you get off telling me what I do and don't think?

 

[spence]

Totally the wrong judgement in my view.. these ruddy shared pathways where you have to run the gauntlet of cyclists are just inviting accidents to happen. If she hadn’t reacted and the cyclist hurt her , would the cyclist be prosecuted?
I doubt this lady who herself suffers cerebral palsey could foresee the cyclist being run over.
Surely if you are cycling on a pavement and a pedestrian is in front of you , why not just stop? If you can’t stop then you are going too fast.
I hope her appeal succeeds

Definitely a good case for an appeal. Disgraceful verdict

 

[Horses Arse]

What if you were driving your car down a path, and a pedestrian decided to scream at you and stand in your way, so you swerved to avoid them and hit a tree, and died in the accident?

For clarity, that is clearly not the same as what happened in this incident (cyclist dying), but then neither is you killing someone on an electric scooter with your car.

Classic example of why this happened.

Stupidity and hate.

 

[Triggaaar]

Classic example of why this happened.

Stupidity and hate.

What are you being stupid about and who do you hate?

 

[Weststander]

But the police, CPS and jury didn’t. And I don’t either.

Yes but, they had full access to all the facts, evidence and relevant law.

 

[jcdenton08]

Yes but, they had full access to all the facts, evidence and relevant law.

You can prove anything with facts. Facts schmacts.

 

[Horses Arse]

What are you being stupid about and who do you hate?

Hahahahaa, that's so clever!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well done the CPS, jury and judge.

Auriol Grey … a bully with anger issues.

And autism is no excuse for being a ****. As I know from life's bitter experience.

 

[Triggaaar]

Hahahahaa, that's so clever!

Well you are being a bit silly. I don't think your comparison with deliberately driving a car at someone on a scooter is a good one, and you think a) I hate someone? and b) that stupidity like that caused this death. That's a bit silly.

 

[Eric the meek]

Yes but, they had full access to all the facts, evidence and relevant law.

My concern is that the sentence is too lenient, and potentially leaves the door open for her to commit the same, or a similar crime, again, when she comes out.
(I'm not privy to any probationary, or social prescribing measures being looked at).

She is already considering an appeal. There is no remorse on her part.

On behalf of anyone seeking to occupy a space on the pavement she happens to be walking down, I would recommend a thorough review before she goes out on parole.

 

[Weststander]

And autism is no excuse for being a ****. As I know from life's bitter experience.

It’s degrees of, isn’t it, is that what the expression “spectrum” means in a SEN context?

My parents had neighbours where their lad had very severe autism, requiring 24-7 care until his early death. Then some of the greatest minds eg eminent scientists are on the spectrum.

One party being sidelined by petrolheads here is the 77 year old lady killed unintentionally but as a result of someone else’s actions. Proven in a court of law.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

"I certainly urge people to think twice about commenting in relation to this case when they're not in possession of all the facts," the detective said.

Your point is ?

 

[Billy the Fish]

Where the hell do you get off telling me what I do and don't think?

Because this is a subject you're obsessed with. You and others on this thread aren't capable of being objective, the default stance is cyclist = victim, everyone else = evil.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Do we know how they've reached that verdict? Were there signs showing that it was a shared path? Because generally you're not allowed to cycle on paths.

In some respects it’s irrelevant whether or not the path is mixed use. Her response wasn’t proportionate and sadly the outcome of her response has consequences.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Hypothetical questions addressed to @Stat Brother, and discussions around dual-use paths both miss the point.

The gravamen of this completely needless death, is that the pedestrian has been convicted of manslaughter. Whether she felt entitled to occupy the width of the path, or suffers from anger issues, or whether her disabilities can/should ameliorate her sentence, are peripheral.

The woman has been convicted of manslaughter. She gave a dishonest account at interview, and showed no remorse at all. She is now considering an appeal.

Having killed somebody, she still believes her actions were justified. She is a danger to the public.

Its possible to believe both. The woman is a menace but shared paths without rules are a load of old shit. You want to throw her in jail and throw away the key? Fine. Doesn't stop it happening again though. That's the real issue.