Killed for clipping a mirror

MadammeMarie

Somebody has a very short temper. :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7646957/Driver-killed-cyclist-in-revenge-attack.html

bigmat

What a scumbag.

downfader

Has been posted in the Campaign section too.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12698258

gabriel959

MatHammond wrote:

What a scumbag.

+1

Denies murder and dangerous driving too... :evil:

Donnic

MatHammond wrote:

What a scumbag.

+1

cjcp

Jesus. Careful out there, folks.

gb155

MadammeMarie wrote:

Somebody has a very short temper. :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7646957/Driver-killed-cyclist-in-revenge-attack.html

Makes me sick reading that !!!! RIP

downfader

I have to be honest, if thats over a wing mirror what kind of a bloke is he outside the car? He sounds psychopathic.

oscarbudgie

He even looks psychopathic

dodgy

Will be interesting to see if the usual sentencing is brought into play. Kill someone with a car? No problem, have a ban and a suspended sentence sir. kill someone with a gun or knife = custodial sentence.

PBo

dodgy wrote:

Will be interesting to see if the usual sentencing is brought into play. Kill someone with a car? No problem, have a ban and a suspended sentence sir. kill someone with a gun or knife = custodial sentence.

Whilst I understand you cynicism, I think that however bad failing to see cyclists and unintentionally hitting them through carelessness is, chasing them and attacking them is a seriously different kettle of fish.

Obv. we don't know the full facts, but unless anything material is missing from this report here, it looks to me that the debate here will be between the two charges, and that will impact the length of a custodial sentence.

However, In circumstances like this, irrespective of the custodial sentences, I feel that drivers should be permanently banned (not sure if law allows this.) Once again, to me, this is an order of magnitude different to SMIDSY accidents - even ones resulting in deaths, and even if committed by a speeding chav boy racer. However, reckless the driver was in the latter case - and they deserve to be punished for that recklessness - they are not cases were harm was intended.

Salsamander

if the prosecution are using the term "like a weapon" you would think they are going for a custodial sentence. And I hope so too.

He seems to have tried to destroy all the evidence before handing himself in.

Zachariah

The Telegraph article goes into a little detail, though obviously it's all conjecture until the full case is decided. Judging by the events described, the OP and thread title is sensational and misleading. He was not killed for clipping a mirror - he was killed for offending then not placating a violent thug in control of a motor car.

The court heard a brief chase ensued after Mr Webb knocked the wing mirror and Fitzgerald got out of his car to confront him.

Mr Webb cycled off and, the jury was told, when Mr Fitzgerald next caught up with Mr Webb he rammed into the back of his bike.

This is not excusing the driver in the slightest, who should definitely face a custodial sentence of some length for his actions. But this report indicates there was an opportunity for the cyclist to stop, apologise and make good the damage that appeared to be his fault. He chose not to take this opportunity. We don't know why - there could be a good reason.

What we can all agree on is that if it wasn't OK for the driver to flee the scene of an accident, it isn't OK for the cyclist to do so either. I've clipped a mirror myself and stopped to see that it was undamaged, even though I could tell the driver was going to be angry about it.

Eau Rouge

dodgy wrote:

Will be interesting to see if the usual sentencing is brought into play. Kill someone with a car? No problem, have a ban and a suspended sentence sir. kill someone with a gun or knife = custodial sentence.

Salsamander wrote:

if the prosecution are using the term "like a weapon" you would think they are going for a custodial sentence. And I hope so too.

He seems to have tried to destroy all the evidence before handing himself in.

The prosecution doesn't "choose" or recommend a sentence, thats the Judge's job. What that sentence might be will mainly be determined by what he ends up being convicted off. He's charged with murder, if he's found guilty of that he'll be sentenced according to the murder guidelines, which are more severe than those for a driving offence.

BigJimmyB

Zachariah wrote:

...... this report indicates there was an opportunity for the cyclist to stop, apologise and make good the damage that appeared to be his fault. He chose not to take this opportunity. We don't know why - there could be a good reason.

Perhaps the cyclist DID stop and speak to the driver about the mirror.

If the driver is capable of driving into someone as he evidently did, perhaps the conversation was not going in a way that the cyclist felt safe with and he decided to bugger off rather than get a kicking.....resulting in his death :-(

MadammeMarie

Zachariah wrote:

The Telegraph article goes into a little detail, though obviously it's all conjecture until the full case is decided. Judging by the events described, the OP and thread title is sensational and misleading. He was not killed for clipping a mirror - he was killed for offending then not placating a violent thug in control of a motor car.

Not misleading at all. He was killled for a stupid mirror. This is a road rage attack and, like in most of those, the reasons are pretty stupid.

This is not excusing the driver in the slightest, who should definitely face a custodial sentence of some length for his actions. But this report indicates there was an opportunity for the cyclist to stop, apologise and make good the damage that appeared to be his fault. He chose not to take this opportunity. We don't know why - there could be a good reason.

:?

DevUK

Posted this the other week -

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12698110

Scary thing is it's my home town

Kieran_Burns

The way I read it was that there was an altercation where the cyclist then hit the wing mirror (supposedly in anger) and cycled off. (supposition is that cyclist and driver had a disagreement in the road and stopped to argue)

The driver then gave chase and rammed him, causing the death of the cyclist.

If I remember rightly, life sentences have been handed out for this kind of behaviour

The Rookie

You and me both Dev, there was a lot of stuff in the Courier when it first happened.

I see a custodial sentance heading his way.....

Simon

Zachariah

Not misleading at all. He was killled for a stupid mirror. This is a road rage attack and, like in most of those, the reasons are pretty stupid.

Firstly, I want to make it clear I'm not arguing with you about the severity of this case or the culpability of the accused. I'm sure we agree this was a horrendous attack that should never have happened.

What I'd like to put to you is another way of looking at it - shifting your perspective a notch closer to the root behaviour.

Saying Paul Webb was killed for a stupid mirror does him a great disservice, as does calling it a 'road rage attack'. 'Road rage' is a newspaper term created to sell more papers. It has no basis in fact or law. Sean Fitzgerald is a violent thug who happened to use a car to commit his crime. It was the wing mirror that instigated it, but it could have been a scratch, a broken aerial or just looking at him the wrong way. The wing mirror itself is incidental.

The 'reason' was in Mr Fitzgerald's head. We can't truly know it. We can make a reasonable guess that it was not a stupid reason, but an exagerrated sense of basic human emotions we all feel - anger, resentment, hate, among others. Labelling it using terms like 'road rage caused by a wing mirror' does a great job of boxing it up so we can forget about it. Or worse, use it to justify a knee-jerk reaction in the same way that knife crime leads to the banning of knives. Except, of course, banning cars is never an option.

thistle_

PBo wrote:

Whilst I understand you cynicism, I think that however bad failing to see cyclists and unintentionally hitting them through carelessness is, chasing them and attacking them is a seriously different kettle of fish.

Can you tell North Wales Police that?.

I was (nearly) hit last week, the driver then waited for me around a bend, when I clocked him he reversed down the road after me.
Luckily nothing happened, as I found a field to hide in and they got bored looking.

I've still not heard anything back from NWP.

Next time might not be so lucky...

Eau Rouge

thistle (MBNW) wrote:

PBo wrote:

Whilst I understand you cynicism, I think that however bad failing to see cyclists and unintentionally hitting them through carelessness is, chasing them and attacking them is a seriously different kettle of fish.

Can you tell North Wales Police that?.

I was (nearly) hit last week, the driver then waited for me around a bend, when I clocked him he reversed down the road after me.
Luckily nothing happened, as I found a field to hide in and they got bored looking.

I've still not heard anything back from NWP.

Next time might not be so lucky...

North Wales Police eh...
Should have told them he was speeding in reverse after you.

MadammeMarie

There's more here:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/05/04/keresley-driver-accused-of-road-rage-murder-blames-cyclist-92746-26372978/2/

dodgy

The driver got life, which is nice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

downfader

dodgy wrote:

The driver got life, which is nice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

13 years is not life. Its a p*** take. Someone should do the Courts under the trade descriptions act :?

Kieran_Burns

MINIMUM of 13 years, and it was MURDER he was convicted of.

It's an important message - no hiding behind the weapon being a car this time.

prj45

downfader wrote:

dodgy wrote:

The driver got life, which is nice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

13 years is not life. Its a p*** take. Someone should do the Courts under the trade descriptions act :?

It is life, he's got a life sentence.

He's open to consideration for parole (i.e. release from incarceration) after 13 years. He might not get a hearing for 20 years though, or ever.

Even then, if he ever gets out he's on a life licence which means he can be recalled to prison at any time, for no reason.

He's not a free man any more, for the rest of his life.

You're confusing a life sentence, which this man got (automatic for murder) with a whole life tariff. What this man did was terrible, but not of the order of a whole life tarrif:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_impri ... _and_Wales)#Crimes_where_whole_life_order_are_recommended

CyclingBantam

dodgy wrote:

The driver got life, which is nice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

why oh why do i read the comments on the mail website! Incredibly, one person has used it as an opportunity to call cyclists a menice and say we need tax etc. How can someone be so disrespectful and ignorant when someone has been killed. I know it shouldn't but it really angers me!