Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Pity your original post is clear as day. I know what you meant, because it is what you said, you also know what you meant, and no amount of backtracking is now going to change your anti-cycling screed.

Of all the derails in this thread, the anti-cycling one is the most odious.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yep.

Again, the whole point is that someone needs to be the final authority on your guilt or innocence. And we say, it shouldn't be a magistrate. It shouldn't be a bureaucrat. It shouldn't be a nepot or a lobbyist or a politician. It should be your fellow citizens, who must live under the same rule of law as you do.

Why would anyone who believes in liberal democracy want any other authority than that? (Forestalling the banal objection: Misanthropes may pay lip service to it, but they do not believe in liberal democracy.)

I think it makes more sense to say we make the court the final arbitrator, in the UK for instance it is less than 1% of criminal cases that are decided by a trial by jury. Jury trials are very much the exception rather than the rule.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think it makes more sense to say we make the court the final arbitrator, in the UK for instance it is less than 1% of criminal cases that are decided by a trial by jury. Jury trials are very much the exception rather than the rule.

Particularly with plea deals becoming more prominent. Statistically most people charged and facing a trial are guilty, so getting an automatic 33% discount (and sometimes more) is very attractive.

Maybe the woman in question was poorly advised. A guilty plea might have got her less than 12 months, or even a suspended sentence. She was probably too stupid to listen.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You can always tell which side is wrong because all they want to argue about is their right to argue.

It is not wrong to argue the verdict, even without all the information the jury had, or else, how do you justify any discussion about verdicts?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think it makes more sense to say we make the court the final arbitrator, in the UK for instance it is less than 1% of criminal cases that are decided by a trial by jury. Jury trials are very much the exception rather than the rule.

I am quite sure every lawyer and the judge in this trial were surprised by the jury's guilty verdict. Certainly the lawyers I follow on twitter were universally surprised.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I am quite sure every lawyer and the judge in this trial were surprised by the jury's guilty verdict. Certainly the lawyers I follow on twitter were universally surprised.

Are you following the same case as the rest of us? The judge's remarks about the defendant were quite scathing.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Are you following the same case as the rest of us? The judge's remarks about the defendant were quite scathing.

The Judge has to accept the verdict of the jury and his remarks, that I linked to, are his reasons for the sentence he passed. If you know about the Sentencing Council guidelines, you will understand why he said what he said, about the incident, remorse, action after the incident etc, all of which are how sentences are determined. He is not passing comment on the verdict. He is not justifying the verdict, he is determining the punishment.

It is different when a verdict is made without a jury. Then the magistrate, sheriff or whoever will give reasons for their verdict and sentence. For many simple cases, that is a one-liner. For more complicated cases, they can go into more detail.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The Judge has to accept the verdict of the jury and his remarks, that I linked to, are his reasons for the sentence he passed. If you know about the Sentencing Council guidelines, you will understand why he said what he said, about the incident, remorse, action after the incident etc, all of which are how sentences are determined. He is not passing comment on the verdict. He is not justifying the verdict, he is determining the punishment.

And there was no obligation for him to make remarks indicating that he agreed with the verdict.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GlennB

And there was no obligation for him to make remarks indicating that he agreed with the verdict.

Do you think he can state he has any doubts whatsoever about the verdict? Of course he has to agree with the verdict! He then makes his remarks about the sentencing.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Particularly with plea deals becoming more prominent. Statistically most people charged and facing a trial are guilty, so getting an automatic 33% discount (and sometimes more) is very attractive.

Maybe the woman in question was poorly advised. A guilty plea might have got her less than 12 months, or even a suspended sentence. She was probably too stupid to listen.

Is this a reference to her learning capabilities, or just an example of focused nastiness?

And you consider criticism of leasure cycling to be odious... good grief.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Is this a reference to her learning capabilities, or just an example of focused nastiness?

And you consider criticism of leasure cycling to be odious... good grief.

You you believe that people with learning difficulties are stupid by definition? Good grief indeed.

And you are the one that needs to own your irrational hatred of cyclists.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Do you think he can state he has any doubts whatsoever about the verdict? Of course he has to agree with the verdict! He then makes his remarks about the sentencing.

I'm saying if you had a valid point you'd be arguing it.

People who think 2+2=4 argue about 2+2 equaling four.

People who think 2+2=5 argue about their right to argue about it.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

You you believe that people with learning difficulties are stupid by definition? Good grief indeed.

No, I was asking if you did.

Presumably you don't so we'll take that as an example of general nastiness on your part then.

Quote:

And you are the one that needs to own your irrational hatred of cyclists.

And my dislike of leasure cyclists on the vehicular highway is entirely rational.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Lplus

And my dislike of leasure cyclists on the vehicular highway is entirely rational.

And completely irrelevant to this thread, yet you brought it up. Loudly.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Do you think he can state he has any doubts whatsoever about the verdict? Of course he has to agree with the verdict! He then makes his remarks about the sentencing.

But he wasn't obliged to comment at all in the way he did. He could simply have announced a sentence. Anything beyond that is an expression of his personal views on the case.

[GlennB]

Interesting:

"Separately, the Attorney General's Office confirmed it had received a request for Grey's three-year imprisonment to be reconsidered under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme."

bbc today

And, to repeat :

"Judge Sean Enright, sentencing, said Grey was "territorial about the pavement" and "resented" the cyclist being there.

He added: "These actions are not explained by disability."

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And completely irrelevant to this thread, yet you brought it up. Loudly.

Nope. I was responding to Thermal who was responding to Novaphile.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Quote:

Maybe the woman in question was poorly advised. A guilty plea might have got her less than 12 months, or even a suspended sentence. She was probably too stupid to listen.

Is this a reference to her learning capabilities, or just an example of focused nastiness?

As I pointed out before...

Do we have any evidence that she has any sort of mental/learning disability?

She has cerebral palsy. That is primarily a condition that affects the motor functions. (Thus her inability to control one of her arms.) It does not necessarily affect learning or other mental faculties.

There was a chance that she was quite capable of learning, but just chose to be an entitled jerk.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm saying if you had a valid point you'd be arguing it.

People who think 2+2=4 argue about 2+2 equaling four.

People who think 2+2=5 argue about their right to argue about it.

Why are you here, when you are arguing we should not be disagreeing with a verdict?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GlennB

But he wasn't obliged to comment at all in the way he did. He could simply have announced a sentence. Anything beyond that is an expression of his personal views on the case.

No, in Crown Court trial sentencing, when the Judge passes sentence, he/she explains why they have imposed the sentence being passed. You can look them up for each case here;

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/

They have recently started to televise sentencing remarks;

"Since July 2022, it has been possible to broadcast the sentencing remarks of judges in the Crown Court.....If a jury finds the defendant guilty then the judge will decide on an appropriate sentence...."

They do not just announce, 2 years, they explain why they have imposed 2 years. Here is an example, all 15 pages of it;

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/s...alex-belfield/

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Why are you here, when you are arguing we should not be disagreeing with a verdict?

I'm not arguing that we should not be disagreeing with a verdict.

I'm saying YOU haven't put up a non-stupid reason we should be and are falling back on arguing what you're arguing now, the unrelated meta-argument about your right to be wrong.

Wrong people always pretend like the difference between being told you are wrong and being told you aren't allowed to hold an opinion is super-difficult to keep distinct.

Nobody is telling you that you can't disagree with the verdict. We're just telling the reasons you are disagreeing with the verdict are wrong.

Keep pretending to not get the difference. It's a great look.

[Thermal]

It's a fair point. The theoretical Right of Way here should be trumped by this wild concept of "not behaving in a way that puts others at risk of actual harm".

If someone jumps a stop sign in front of me while I'm driving, I don't plow ahead singing "you got another thing coming". You brake and flip them off like everyone else. Because first and foremost, everyone needs to stay alive. Act in a way that's prohibitive of that end, and you are directly contributing to their harm.

[JoeMorgue]

Well yes which is why so much of this thread being a debate about traffic right of way is such a red herring.

Someone not yielding the proper right of way is a factor in guilt if an accident then happens. It's not a case of "You didn't yield, now I get to kill you."

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

It's a fair point. The theoretical Right of Way here should be trumped by this wild concept of "not behaving in a way that puts others at risk of actual harm".

If someone jumps a stop sign in front of me while I'm driving, I don't plow ahead singing "you got another thing coming". You brake and flip them off like everyone else. Because first and foremost, everyone needs to stay alive. Act in a way that's prohibitive of that end, and you are directly contributing to their harm.

No you cannot as a motorist gun it and intentionally ram someone if they run a stop sign/red... but in this case she wasn't convicted for hitting someone. So I don't see how your analogy applies. It'd be as if a cyclist runs a red, you flip them off, honk your horn that distracts them, they fall over into a traffic lane and die. Are you guilty of manslaughter?

[JoeMorgue]

You're guilty of manslaughter if a jury decides your actions would reasonably put the other person in a level of danger that would result in their death.

Yes it's a looser, more "real world in the moment" definition than murder, but that's sort of the point.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think it makes more sense to say we make the court the final arbitrator, in the UK for instance it is less than 1% of criminal cases that are decided by a trial by jury. Jury trials are very much the exception rather than the rule.

Thanks for the correction. Clearly I overshot my mark by a large bit.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What? Where are you? The prosecution may not appeal a verdict of "not guilty." It is final. But the defense may appeal a guilty verdict through multiple levels of courts for years, even decades. Inmates are routinely released from prison, even death row, after many years when their convictions are ultimately proven to be unjust. Why would you imagine there is no appeal?

I think we might be talking past each other.

The verdict can be appealed, yes. I apologize for using language that suggested otherwise.

However, the verdict cannot be appealed on the grounds that the jury was wrong. It can only be appealed on the grounds that due process was not followed.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

No you cannot as a motorist gun it and intentionally ram someone if they run a stop sign/red... but in this case she wasn't convicted for hitting someone. So I don't see how your analogy applies. It'd be as if a cyclist runs a red, you flip them off, honk your horn that distracts them, they fall over into a traffic lane and die. Are you guilty of manslaughter?

I'd argue that your analogy doesn't apply either. The operative factor in the OP was not honking, yelling or otherwise making a noise. It was the refusal to simply take a step to the side to avoid a collision, believing her highly disputable right of way allows her to cause someone else to be harmed. A sound is a sound. Standing needlessly to block a vehicle (even a pedacycle) is a physical obstruction, before we even get into "well you know I might have made some physical contact while I belligerently blocked the cyclist".

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I'd argue that your analogy doesn't apply either. The operative factor in the OP was not honking, yelling or otherwise making a noise. It was the refusal to simply take a step to the side to avoid a collision, believing her highly disputable right of way allows her to cause someone else to be harmed. A sound is a sound. Standing needlessly to block a vehicle (even a pedacycle) is a physical obstruction, before we even get into "well you know I might have made some physical contact while I belligerently blocked the cyclist".

Was she not though, on the correct side of the pavement? Would she not have expected the cyclist to go left.... remember everything is backwards in the UK. It'd be as if you were walking on the right side in America (by that I mean physically right, not "correct") side of the pavement. Plus by staying on the street side of the pavement, wouldn't it have been safer for the cyclist to move to the inside? Expecting a pedestrian, especially one with physical difficulties, to move over at the last second to the wrong side of the pavement under penalty of manslaughter is just bizzaro IMO. So we're left with she was convicted for gesticulating as reason for manslaughter... also bizzaro IMO. OR, its because the jury thought she actually pushed her. Which doesn't seem to be conclusive on the video.

[JoeMorgue]

It's hard to put into a legal definition but the biggest monkey wrench that can be thrown into "right of way" is unpredictablity.

I think most people will get at least the vague gist of what I'm saying when I say that the most dangerous driver on the road isn't necessarily the person doing something "wrong" but the person whom you can't figure out what the hell they are doing.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think we might be talking past each other.

The verdict can be appealed, yes. I apologize for using language that suggested otherwise.

However, the verdict cannot be appealed on the grounds that the jury was wrong. It can only be appealed on the grounds that due process was not followed.

In the USA, I think you are generally correct... UK not sure

https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-crown-court-verdict

[JoeMorgue]

1. The lady could not be MORE in the dead center of the path.
2. The lady had a history of being a problem on this particular sidewalk.
3. Her "physical difficulty" seemed to turn on (or at least get dialed up) when she saw the cyclist approach.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Was she not though, on the correct side of the pavement? Would she not have expected the cyclist to go left.... remember everything is backwards in the UK. It'd be as if you were walking on the right side in America (by that I mean physically right, not "correct") side of the pavement. Plus by staying on the street side of the pavement, wouldn't it have been safer for the cyclist to move to the inside?

That's half what I mean about a theoretical Right of Way. Which way someone should be expected to detour is loosely goosey at best. But pedestrians have the unique ability to turn on a dime. That's partially why they ordinarily have the onus to yeild.

I don't see the cyclist as swerving last second to hit the walker. On the contrary, it looks like the pedestrian is moving towards her from beginning to end, and very intentionally steps over to push the cyclist. Disputable, I know.

Quote:

Expecting a pedestrian, especially one with physical difficulties, to move over at the last second to the wrong side of the pavement under penalty of manslaughter is just bizzaro IMO. So we're left with she was convicted for gesticulating as reason for manslaughter... also bizzaro IMO. OR, its because the jury thought she actually pushed her. Which doesn't seem to be conclusive on the video.

Two points on this: if she couldn't move well, perhaps she should be making earlier active efforts to avoid collision? Second, she looks mighty spritey when she is cursing the cyclist out and steps over to shove her.

[Thermal]

An interesting variant here might be"would you feel the same if the cyclist was a child? A teen? A geriatric? How about someone in a wheelchair? How righteous is our pedestrian looking?"

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That's half what I mean about a theoretical Right of Way. Which way someone should be expected to detour is loosely goosey at best. But pedestrians have the unique ability to turn on a dime. That's partially why they ordinarily have the onus to yeild.

I don't see the cyclist as swerving last second to hit the walker. On the contrary, it looks like the pedestrian is moving towards her from beginning to end, and very intentionally steps over to push the cyclist. Disputable, I know.



Two points on this: if she couldn't move well, perhaps she should be making earlier active efforts to avoid collision? Second, she looks mighty spritey when she is cursing the cyclist out and steps over to shove her.

I'm re-watching the video, where they actually are closest, or possibly collide, it looks to me like a lamp post/streetlight makes it almost impossible for two people to cross each other. I dunno, the pedestrian could've done more, and the cyclist could've also done more to avoid an accident... so <shrug>. I just don't feel like manslaughter has been proven.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Was she not though, on the correct side of the pavement? Would she not have expected the cyclist to go left.... remember everything is backwards in the UK. It'd be as if you were walking on the right side in America (by that I mean physically right, not "correct") side of the pavement. Plus by staying on the street side of the pavement, wouldn't it have been safer for the cyclist to move to the inside?

She was dead centre of the pavement, and there is no 'correct' side to walk or cycle.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Expecting a pedestrian, especially one with physical difficulties, to move over at the last second to the wrong side of the pavement under penalty of manslaughter is just bizzaro IMO. So we're left with she was convicted for gesticulating as reason for manslaughter... also bizzaro IMO. OR, its because the jury thought she actually pushed her. Which doesn't seem to be conclusive on the video.

She had loads of time to move over and chose not to. As for the possible shove, we'd need a transcript of court proceedings. All we know is that Grey admitted to her hand making light contact. Other people were in the area and might have taken a different view.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by GlennB

She was dead centre of the pavement, and there is no 'correct' side to walk or cycle.



She had loads of time to move over and chose not to. As for the possible shove, we'd need a transcript of court proceedings. All we know is that Grey admitted to her hand making light contact. Other people were in the area and might have taken a different view.

Theres always a "correct" side for any shared usage paths here. You keep right except when passing.

The cyclist also had ample time to move over did she not?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I'm re-watching the video, where they actually are closest, or possibly collide, it looks to me like a lamp post/streetlight makes it almost impossible for two people to cross each other. I dunno, the pedestrian could've done more, and the cyclist could've also done more to avoid an accident... so <shrug>. I just don't feel like manslaughter has been proven.

Haven't rewstched lately, but I recall the pedestrian as walking down the middle, then swinging her arm to her left (the cyclist's right) which the cyclist seemed to be complying with. That forced the corralling against the lamppost, where the pedestrian continues to move towards her. I am not seeing anything but the cyclist trying to avoid and get by, and the pedestrian trying to stop her.

When your willful and unnecessary actions cause a death, intentional or not, it falls under manslaughter.

ETA: Just rewatched the OP vid. Yes, she waves the cyclist to her own left (opposite the way UK traffic flows) and IMMHO takes a step towards her and pushes her. If I was the zookeeper, I'd be calling that straight up assault.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Theres always a "correct" side for any shared usage paths here. You keep right except when passing.

The cyclist also had ample time to move over did she not?

Not really. She'd just ridden across a side road, the entry to the car park. The pavement slopes down on the main road side to make life easy for prams, disability aids and the like. She would have used that, leaving her on the right with very little distance to the oncoming pedestrian. Added image below -

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Not really. She'd just ridden across a side road, the entry to the car park. The pavement slopes down on the main road side to make life easy for prams, disability aids and the like. She would have used that, leaving her on the right with very little distance to the oncoming pedestrian. Added image below -

You are not really supporting the cyclist if you contend she was riding too fast on the sidewalk to avoid a pedestrian. It's a cyclist's basic responsibility to always be in control of their bicycle.