Use of a car as a weapon

alan_sherman

Interesting language in this article about a car colliding with a scooter. The outcome of the trial may set a precedent for bicycle related crashes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... er-18.html

Ben6899

Sorry Alan, not clicking on that sh1t website. Can you copy and paste the guts of the article?

cooldad

There's a fancier site you can register for.

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/mustang-car-us ... al-weapon/

Wouldn't want you associating with the hoi polloi would we?

john80

If he was smarter then he would have waited a week and done it in broad day light and then claimed he did not see the moped in front of him. Following cycling logic with a good sob story the CPS might not even bother prosecuting.

capt_slog

Use of car as a weapon has long been a sore point for me.

I have a shot gun. The procedure I have to go through to get a licence and keep that gun is amazing. If I take it to a gunsmith for any work to be done, I have to register that exchange with the constabulary. The same constabulary checks with my doctor to make sure that I'm the full shilling (ha ha, got you there coppers! ). This is all to make sure that one day I won't go out and start shooting people, two at a time whilst fishing about in pockets for cartridges.

However, I can get a car licence with no trouble, and even without a licence, any tw@t and his brother could get hold of a car and drive it down a busy shopping precinct killing/maiming hundreds.

But my gun is dangerous, and even a kitchen knife is now a weapon if it leaves your house. Go figure

Ben6899

cooldad wrote:

There's a fancier site you can register for.

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/mustang-car-us ... al-weapon/

Wouldn't want you associating with the hoi polloi would we?

Thanks dad.

webboo

Capt Slog wrote:

Use of car as a weapon has long been a sore point for me.

I have a shot gun. The procedure I have to go through to get a licence and keep that gun is amazing. If I take it to a gunsmith for any work to be done, I have to register that exchange with the constabulary. The same constabulary checks with my doctor to make sure that I'm the full shilling (ha ha, got you there coppers! ). This is all to make sure that one day I won't go out and start shooting people, two at a time whilst fishing about in pockets for cartridges.

However, I can get a car licence with no trouble, and even without a licence, any tw@t and his brother could get hold of a car and drive it down a busy shopping precinct killing/maiming hundreds.

But my gun is dangerous, and even a kitchen knife is now a weapon if it leaves your house. Go figure

I guess it comes from what else can you use a gun for other than to kill something. Where using a car as a weapon is not using it for the purpose it is intended for.

ben@31

cooldad wrote:

There's a fancier site you can register for.

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/mustang-car-us ... al-weapon/

Wouldn't want you associating with the hoi polloi would we?

It's just that the Daily heil is utter f*cking garbage, they don't do journalism just tabloid trash for the lowest common denominator. And extreme hatred for against any minority.
Nothing the Daily hate mail writes can be taken seriously.

Matthewfalle

Capt Slog wrote:

Use of car as a weapon has long been a sore point for me.

I have a shot gun. The procedure I have to go through to get a licence and keep that gun is amazing. If I take it to a gunsmith for any work to be done, I have to register that exchange with the constabulary. The same constabulary checks with my doctor to make sure that I'm the full shilling (ha ha, got you there coppers! ). This is all to make sure that one day I won't go out and start shooting people, two at a time whilst fishing about in pockets for cartridges.

However, I can get a car licence with no trouble, and even without a licence, any tw@t and his brother could get hold of a car and drive it down a busy shopping precinct killing/maiming hundreds.

But my gun is dangerous, and even a kitchen knife is now a weapon if it leaves your house. Go figure

why do you want/need a gun?

cooldad

ben@31 wrote:

cooldad wrote:

There's a fancier site you can register for.

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/mustang-car-us ... al-weapon/

Wouldn't want you associating with the hoi polloi would we?

It's just that the Daily heil is utter f*cking garbage, they don't do journalism just tabloid trash for the lowest common denominator. And extreme hatred for against any minority.
Nothing the Daily hate mail writes can be taken seriously.

Diddums. I followed the original link. If you wanted to vet the accuracy you could Google an more suitable source like I did - a few of them.

green_mark

alan sherman wrote:

Interesting language in this article about a car colliding with a scooter. The outcome of the trial may set a precedent for bicycle related crashes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... er-18.html

I don't see it as a precedent. It's already established that if you deliberately try to hit someone with a car then you're liable for conviction.

The different relevant crimes of murder, attempted murder, grevious bodily harm, actual bodily harm, assault don't distinguish between any weapons. "Murder" is a crime. There aren't different crimes such as "murder with a knife", "murder with a car", "murder with an octopus".

Hence this driver was convicted of ABH and given a sentence appropriate for ABH:
http://road.cc/content/news/237865-driv ... nths-video
Actually he got a relatively long sentence for ABH.

pblakeney

green_mark wrote:

alan sherman wrote:

Interesting language in this article about a car colliding with a scooter. The outcome of the trial may set a precedent for bicycle related crashes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... er-18.html

I don't see it as a precedent. It's already established that if you deliberately try to hit someone with a car then you're liable for conviction.

The different relevant crimes of murder, attempted murder, grevious bodily harm, actual bodily harm, assault don't distinguish between any weapons. "Murder" is a crime. There aren't different crimes such as "murder with a knife", "murder with a car", "murder with an octopus".

Hence this driver was convicted of ABH and given a sentence appropriate for ABH:
http://road.cc/content/news/237865-driv ... nths-video
Actually he got a relatively long sentence for ABH.

That is the point though. He should have been done for murder.
This was no accident and what outcome do you expect from being hit by 2 tonnes of metal?
It would have been murder if he had used a hammer.

green_mark

PBlakeney wrote:

green_mark wrote:

alan sherman wrote:

Interesting language in this article about a car colliding with a scooter. The outcome of the trial may set a precedent for bicycle related crashes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... er-18.html

I don't see it as a precedent. It's already established that if you deliberately try to hit someone with a car then you're liable for conviction.

The different relevant crimes of murder, attempted murder, grevious bodily harm, actual bodily harm, assault don't distinguish between any weapons. "Murder" is a crime. There aren't different crimes such as "murder with a knife", "murder with a car", "murder with an octopus".

Hence this driver was convicted of ABH and given a sentence appropriate for ABH:
http://road.cc/content/news/237865-driv ... nths-video
Actually he got a relatively long sentence for ABH.

That is the point though. He should have been done for murder.
This was no accident and what outcome do you expect from being hit by 2 tonnes of metal?
It would have been murder if he had used a hammer.

I'm not sure which "he" you are referring to - the man in the OP or the man I mentioned convicted of ABH?
People have already been convicted or murder because they purposefully drove into people to kill them. So this case is not a precedent.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/new ... ark-attack

The man I mentioned in the post was convicted of Actual Bodily Harm - that is because that is what was done to the victim. He didn't murder the victim. He didn't cause Grevious Bodily Harm as the injuries were minor. There was no proof he tried to kill the cyclist (hence it was not attempted murder).
If someone hits you with a hammer it it is only attempted murder if it can be proven the person deliberately tried to kill you. Same with a car.

pblakeney

Confusion between the OP and the later example.
Anyone deliberately driving a car at a person/people should be done for attempted murder, or murder if successful.
What other outcome do they expect?

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

Confusion between the OP and the later example.
Anyone deliberately driving a car at a person/people should be done for attempted murder, or murder if successful.
What other outcome do they expect?

Not that anyone is thinking rationally in that situation, but I think some people think that a close pass or 'just a nudge' is fair game; roughly on a par with shoving someone out of the way because they spilt your pint. Obviously the tonne of metal bit is overlooked.

rick_chasey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ca ... e-43698892

The police do it too, so I wouldn't expect any favourable treatment from them.

"The officer said, 'That's how you deal with that'."

lostboysaint

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/13950300._Out_of_control__New_Malden_mum_of_six_jailed_for_three_years_after_driving_into_autistic_cyclist_and_crashing_into_Kingston_salon/ - this is the one I always end up coming back to as the reference. It ended up being a GBH and 3 year prison sentence (which means you need to be very wary around New Malden again now as undoubtedly she's out by now!)

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Confusion between the OP and the later example.
Anyone deliberately driving a car at a person/people should be done for attempted murder, or murder if successful.
What other outcome do they expect?

Not that anyone is thinking rationally in that situation, but I think some people think that a close pass or 'just a nudge' is fair game; roughly on a par with shoving someone out of the way because they spilt your pint. Obviously the tonne of metal bit is overlooked.

And that is precisely the mindset that needs to change.

haydenm

Webboo wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

Use of car as a weapon has long been a sore point for me.

I have a shot gun. The procedure I have to go through to get a licence and keep that gun is amazing. If I take it to a gunsmith for any work to be done, I have to register that exchange with the constabulary. The same constabulary checks with my doctor to make sure that I'm the full shilling (ha ha, got you there coppers! ). This is all to make sure that one day I won't go out and start shooting people, two at a time whilst fishing about in pockets for cartridges.

However, I can get a car licence with no trouble, and even without a licence, any tw@t and his brother could get hold of a car and drive it down a busy shopping precinct killing/maiming hundreds.

But my gun is dangerous, and even a kitchen knife is now a weapon if it leaves your house. Go figure

I guess it comes from what else can you use a gun for other than to kill something. Where using a car as a weapon is not using it for the purpose it is intended for.

I partly agree but there are many legitimate reasons for owning a gun as there are a car, it just happens that the side effect of misuse of both can kill. (Although I'd argue that a run of the mill shotgun would be less effective than a car but that's not really the point). I think a lot of it is perception, the US makes responsible gun owners look bad and that seeps into UK views. If you were caught treating a gun in the same level of mindlessness as a lot of people jump in their cars you would lose your licence straight away, there's no scope for the odd 'near miss' or 'bumclencher moment' as there seems to be with cars and rightfully so.

On a similar note, it's easier and cheaper for me to get a 1000cc sports bike than a chainsaw licence. Admittedly both can be dangerous but I'm much more likely to c0ck about with a bike than a saw. I do think there is a bit of a disparity between car/bike licensing and other dangerous activities in this country.

I am also skeptical of 'death by dangerous driving' type offences, would manslaughter not do? I'm sure there are reasons why that doesn't make sense but it does seem that cars are a special case where there is a lot more tolerance for ineptitude

capt_slog

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

Use of car as a weapon has long been a sore point for me.

I have a shot gun. The procedure I have to go through to get a licence and keep that gun is amazing. If I take it to a gunsmith for any work to be done, I have to register that exchange with the constabulary. The same constabulary checks with my doctor to make sure that I'm the full shilling (ha ha, got you there coppers! ). This is all to make sure that one day I won't go out and start shooting people, two at a time whilst fishing about in pockets for cartridges.

However, I can get a car licence with no trouble, and even without a licence, any tw@t and his brother could get hold of a car and drive it down a busy shopping precinct killing/maiming hundreds.

But my gun is dangerous, and even a kitchen knife is now a weapon if it leaves your house. Go figure

why do you want/need a gun?

Clay shooting.

Ben6899

cooldad wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

cooldad wrote:

There's a fancier site you can register for.

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/mustang-car-us ... al-weapon/

Wouldn't want you associating with the hoi polloi would we?

It's just that the Daily heil is utter f*cking garbage, they don't do journalism just tabloid trash for the lowest common denominator. And extreme hatred for against any minority.
Nothing the Daily hate mail writes can be taken seriously.

Diddums. I followed the original link. If you wanted to vet the accuracy you could Google an more suitable source like I did - a few of them.

Cool. But with no chill.