Manslaughter, for shouting at a cyclist

[I Am The Scum]

No she thought the cyclist was a bear and she had to make herself look bigger to scare it off.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

No she thought the cyclist was a bear and she had to make herself look bigger to scare it off.

The 2A right to straight arm bears. If she was American, they'd have t-shirts with her likeness by now.

[JoeMorgue]

We're back in the same apologetic space of "I was totally scared but I didn't in anyway try to avoid or lessen the situation or do anything that a person who was scared would actually do" space we were in with Officer Oopsie Doodle Wrong Apartment.

Yet another person who was only "scared" in the context of "I don't want to be held responsible for my actions" and in literally no other context.

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Why does it matter? Chances are the cops made some kind of general crowd control announcement like "Move along. Nothing to see..." without realizing her particular role. The point is that the judge took note of the fact that she didn't flee the scene and tried to help. He didn't say "... but you should have stayed anyway."

Yes he did actually…

“You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping.”

[Nessie]

"District Judge Leo Pyle said: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-64892358

The pedestrian died after a collision with a youth on an electric scooter.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Nessie

"District Judge Leo Pyle said: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-64892358

The pedestrian died after a collision with a youth on an electric scooter.

Note that the scooter operator who killed her was sentenced to a "12-month referral order," which appears to be a kind of probation.

[JoeMorgue]

Is a totally different set of events meant to prove something about this case?

We might as well be discussing how Isadora Duncan got her neck snapped by a scarf while driving.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

Yes he did actually…

“You offered assistance at the scene, but you were turned away by others. But, on the other hand, you then left before police arrived and went off to do shopping.”

Exactly. There's a very big difference between a) assisting the victim and b) waiting for law enforcement to arrive at the scene so that you can be questioned about the event.

The (apparent) fact that the culprit was waved away from assisting the victim (and I can well imagine that her help was neither welcome nor of any real use) is entirely separate from the fact that she chose to leave the scene before the police arrived. And that, without a shadow of a doubt, is an aggravating factor here.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Note that the scooter operator who killed her was sentenced to a "12-month referral order," which appears to be a kind of probation.

Are you failing to understand that the particulars of that case were different from the particulars in the case we're discussing in this thread?

Some people in England & Wales get 17 years' imprisonment for manslaughter (for example); while other people in E&W get 6 months' imprisonment for manslaughter. It depends on the particulars of the case, whether or not remorse was genuinely shown by the offender, whether an early guilty plea was entered, and myriad other factors.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Is a totally different set of events meant to prove something about this case?

We might as well be discussing how Isadora Duncan got her neck snapped by a scarf while driving.

Yes, this exactly.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

....
It depends on the particulars of the case, whether or not remorse was genuinely shown by the offender, whether an early guilty plea was entered, and myriad other factors.

Remorse is a tricky concept. It basically means "I'm sorry I did it." In this case, the pedestrian apparently contended that she did nothing wrong. If she had expressed remorse, it would have undercut her defense. (In retrospect it might have been smarter to make a deal, but that's a different issue.)

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Remorse is a tricky concept. It basically means "I'm sorry I did it." In this case, the pedestrian apparently contended that she did nothing wrong. If she had expressed remorse, it would have undercut her defense. (In retrospect it might have been smarter to make a deal, but that's a different issue.)

I agree with you on the issue of remorse. But even when one is professing innocence of criminal charges, it's still possible to be remorseful. This woman, for example, could have held the position that her actions did not amount to the criminal act of manslaughter, but that she was genuinely sorry that her interaction with the cyclist had played any part in the cyclist's death.

But sentencing judges react favourably - and are required in the sentencing guidelines to react favourably - if a convicted person expresses culpability and remorse in the period between conviction and sentencing. It should also be noted that any such remorse would not in any way adversely affect any appeal (short of the person making a detailed confession).

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Is a totally different set of events meant to prove something about this case?

We might as well be discussing how Isadora Duncan got her neck snapped by a scarf while driving.

If DB Cooper got away with hijacking a plane, then you just have to empty the prisons. I don't make the rules.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Neither.

Well then stop posting stuff for which the only possible conclusions are what I posted up thread.

PS being honest we both know exactly what you meant and it was not neither nor option 1.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Exactly. There's a very big difference between a) assisting the victim and b) waiting for law enforcement to arrive at the scene so that you can be questioned about the event.

The (apparent) fact that the culprit was waved away from assisting the victim (and I can well imagine that her help was neither welcome nor of any real use) is entirely separate from the fact that she chose to leave the scene before the police arrived. And that, without a shadow of a doubt, is an aggravating factor here.

Without doubt. I would have thought that it’s common knowledge that you do not leave the scene of an accident you were involved in until seen by the police. This would have doubled her sentence.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Is a totally different set of events meant to prove something about this case?

We might as well be discussing how Isadora Duncan got her neck snapped by a scarf while driving.

There was doubt that the pavement in the cyclist incident was a shared space and in the incident with the e-scooter, the ruling was pavements are for pedestrians.

To meet targets for cycle lanes, councils make inappropriate places, such as narrow pavements, shared cycle lanes. They also had to make many pavements shared cycle lanes, when cycling was banned from pavements. That is bringing pedestrians and cyclists into conflict. Add in the new two wheeled transport, the e-scooter and we have a mess, which will affect court verdicts.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

court
/kɔːt/

1.
a body of people presided over by a judge, judges, or magistrate, and acting as a tribunal in civil and criminal cases.


(Oxford Languages)

This was a jury trial. The jury decided it was manslaughter. You said "the court in this case understands the test for manslaughter", court, as you have shown, includes the Judge, but at a jury trial, the Judge does not decide on the verdict. The court, the Judge and the lawyers may all understand manslaughter, but does the jury?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Well then stop posting stuff for which the only possible conclusions are what I posted up thread.

PS being honest we both know exactly what you meant and it was not neither nor option 1.

Pity you didn't read my post #278 which states an answer which is neither of the options you proposed.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Nessie

This was a jury trial. The jury decided it was manslaughter. You said "the court in this case understands the test for manslaughter", court, as you have shown, includes the Judge, but at a jury trial, the Judge does not decide on the verdict. The court, the Judge and the lawyers may all understand manslaughter, but does the jury?

Yes, I know it was a jury trial. The point is that the term "the court" incudes the jury (if a jury is adjudicating the trial).

So when I said "the court understands the test for manslaughter", this meant that the judge and the jury understands the test for manslaughter.

Incidentally, one of the roles of the judge in a jury trial is to ensure that the jury understands the test for each charge on the indictment. And in this case, we can be confident that the judge issued the jury with correct instructions on this matter, that the jury correctly understood the judge's instructions, and that the jury acted in accordance with those instructions when they found the defendant guilty of manslaughter.

[JoeMorgue]

So we've moved on from arguing if it was a path or path-path and are now clarifying what is and isn't a court.

I can't wait to argue the definition of bicycle, pedestrian, and the color blue.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

This was a jury trial. The jury decided it was manslaughter. You said "the court in this case understands the test for manslaughter", court, as you have shown, includes the Judge, but at a jury trial, the Judge does not decide on the verdict. The court, the Judge and the lawyers may all understand manslaughter, but does the jury?

It is a fundamental principle of a trial by jury of your peers that the law is scrutable to the citizenry, and that any group of citizenry is competent to reach a consensus agreeable to the citizenry in general.

A jury verdict is one of the things that keeps the law human, and keeps the law close to the values of the society it serves.

There is also the not much talked about, but to me equally fundamental principle of jury nullification. The most dramatic form of this, the one we commonly call by the name of jury nullification, is when the jury returns an acquittal in a case of obvious guilt. But the principle can be applied in more subtle ways as well.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes, I know it was a jury trial. The point is that the term "the court" incudes the jury (if a jury is adjudicating the trial).

So when I said "the court understands the test for manslaughter", this meant that the judge and the jury understands the test for manslaughter.

Incidentally, one of the roles of the judge in a jury trial is to ensure that the jury understands the test for each charge on the indictment. And in this case, we can be confident that the judge issued the jury with correct instructions on this matter, that the jury correctly understood the judge's instructions, and that the jury acted in accordance with those instructions when they found the defendant guilty of manslaughter.

I can confidently assert that in this case, the jury got it wrong.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So we've moved on from arguing if it was a path or path-path and are now clarifying what is and isn't a court.

I can't wait to argue the definition of bicycle, pedestrian, and the color blue.

It's pretty clear that Nessie is trying to formulate a criminal justice system in which someone reading media reports and watching videos online is better equipped to render a verdict than an actual court of law.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I can confidently assert that in this case, the jury got it wrong.

The jury can't get it wrong. That's almost definitional.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I can confidently assert that in this case, the jury got it wrong.

I can confidently assert that in this case, the jury got it right.

[JoeMorgue]

Whoa there sure we want to jump right in to making those kind of statements without arguing about what is and isn't a jury for 3 pages?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The jury can't get it wrong. That's almost definitional.

So no one ever successfully appealed a jury decision in a higher court?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Lplus

So no one ever successfully appealed a jury decision in a higher court?

You don't appeal based on the decision, but based on alleged errors in the trial, or mistakes in the judge's instructions or prosecutorial misconduct. You cannot appeal on the basis that the jury came up with the wrong verdict.

[JoeMorgue]

That's how jury nullification works. It doesn't exist a singular concept but as the inevitable outcome of two other concepts; that you can't be tried for the same crime twice and that juries can't be "wrong."

Juries can DO wrong on a procedural level, but they can't BE wrong in their verdict in the sense we're talking.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Brainster

You don't appeal based on the decision, but based on alleged errors in the trial, or mistakes in the judge's instructions or prosecutorial misconduct. You cannot appeal on the basis that the jury came up with the wrong verdict.

Very true, and it’s amazing people often do not get this.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lplus

So no one ever successfully appealed a jury decision in a higher court?

"No one" and "never" are big words. My understanding is that in the US at least, a jury's verdict is not appealable.

That's kind of the whole point of a trial by jury. A panel of your fellow citizens, having been apprised of the facts of the case according to due process, renders a final judgement on whether you have sinned against the community.

Appeals are made when one party or the other believes that due process was not followed.

If you believe that the jury is not the highest authority when deciding guilt or innocence, then why bother with a jury trial? And what would be the highest authority, in your view?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That's how jury nullification works. It doesn't exist a singular concept but as the inevitable outcome of two other concepts; that you can't be tried for the same crime twice and that juries can't be "wrong."

Juries can DO wrong on a procedural level, but they can't BE wrong in their verdict in the sense we're talking.

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.)

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's pretty clear that Nessie is trying to formulate a criminal justice system in which someone reading media reports and watching videos online is better equipped to render a verdict than an actual court of law.

In that case, close down this section of the forum, because according to you, we cannot discuss and have an opinion on court verdicts.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"No one" and "never" are big words. My understanding is that in the US at least, a jury's verdict is not appealable.
.....

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?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Brainster

You don't appeal based on the decision, but based on alleged errors in the trial, or mistakes in the judge's instructions or prosecutorial misconduct. You cannot appeal on the basis that the jury came up with the wrong verdict.

Fair enough - the jury can't be wrong on the basis of the evidence, instructions etc etc, however the material (evidence, instructions etc etc) the jury works with may be appealed in a higher court.

[Nessie]

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. Prisoners 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 the issue is, what is appealable? As said before, there needs to be a reason to appeal that is a fault in the procedure, or new usually exculpatory evidence, or evidence someone lied or an expert witness gave faulty evidence, not just disagreeing with the verdict.

[JoeMorgue]

You can appeal if procedures weren't followed, you can't appeal because you don't like the verdict. This is exactly 0% complicated.

Now on a functional level the law is such a *********** that a lawyer can always find something to appeal on, so this is (somewhat) a distinction without difference.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Nessie

In that case, close down this section of the forum, because according to you, we cannot discuss and have an opinion on court verdicts.

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

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That's how jury nullification works. It doesn't exist a singular concept but as the inevitable outcome of two other concepts; that you can't be tried for the same crime twice and that juries can't be "wrong."

Juries can be wrong in just about any sense of the word you can bring to bear.

Jury nullification does not rely upon the fact that juries are incapable of getting things wrong, or "wrong", but on the fact that jurors cannot be held liable for an incorrect verdict.

The idea that juries are right by definition is dogmatic nonsense.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Pity you didn't read my post #278 which states an answer which is neither of the options you proposed.

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.