Two arrested on suspicion of attempted murder as London bike cop run over

ironmancole wrote:

Clearly a two tier system that should be challenged on equality grounds. What if men were treated differently to women in the same situation, black and white, homo and heterosexual etc? 

Playing devils advocate I can understand the need to offer officers an extra level of protection but fundamentally and irrespective of rank, class, status, age or any other factor all are made equal and should be recognised as such by the law.

As for intent that needs to be gotten rid of where a vehicle is concerned. Why?

In no other scenario would a court accept that causing injury or death with a weapon was an accident, therefore lesser punishment but the car, not recognised as a weapon but a shiny essential utility that can do no wrong somehow escapes the weapon category so intent, unless plainly premeditated and evidenced beforehand, will always be considered as lacking.

Somehow where a police officer is involved intent is automatically assumed but for a civilian intent is automatically removed. It is utterly chaotic.

What it should simply come down to is did this individual take a life or not. Circumstances and other technicalities aside a life has been stolen or damaged, in the majority of cases for no good reason at all.

It should be challenged though, either take road crime seriously or declare open season but this mixed messaging and two tier inequality is bullshit.

In that context, would you be happy to see cyclists colliding with pedestrians, with no intent, be charged with various degrees of assault? 

If you read the article, the copper was trying to stop a vehicle on foot. In the execution of his duty. 

If you remove the very little protection we get from the Courts whilst trying to do the job, a job which quite a few of us would leave tomorrow by the way, then the game is really up.

DivineChorus wrote:

ironmancole wrote:

Clearly a two tier system that should be challenged on equality grounds. What if men were treated differently to women in the same situation, black and white, homo and heterosexual etc? 

Playing devils advocate I can understand the need to offer officers an extra level of protection but fundamentally and irrespective of rank, class, status, age or any other factor all are made equal and should be recognised as such by the law.

As for intent that needs to be gotten rid of where a vehicle is concerned. Why?

In no other scenario would a court accept that causing injury or death with a weapon was an accident, therefore lesser punishment but the car, not recognised as a weapon but a shiny essential utility that can do no wrong somehow escapes the weapon category so intent, unless plainly premeditated and evidenced beforehand, will always be considered as lacking.

Somehow where a police officer is involved intent is automatically assumed but for a civilian intent is automatically removed. It is utterly chaotic.

What it should simply come down to is did this individual take a life or not. Circumstances and other technicalities aside a life has been stolen or damaged, in the majority of cases for no good reason at 

In that context, would you be happy to see cyclists colliding with pedestrians, with no intent, be charged with various degrees of assault? 

If they did so as a result of breaking the law, then yes, of course. Although a car is likely to be a rather more effective weapon, and safer for the user.

You keep talking about motorists hitting people 'without intent', but very often it's  because they were speeding, usung a mobile, 'taking the racing line' or other such things, all of which require a deliberate, presumably voluntary,  action. How such things can be 'without intent' baffles me.

oldstrath wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

ironmancole wrote:

Clearly a two tier system that should be challenged on equality grounds. What if men were treated differently to women in the same situation, black and white, homo and heterosexual etc? 

Playing devils advocate I can understand the need to offer officers an extra level of protection but fundamentally and irrespective of rank, class, status, age or any other factor all are made equal and should be recognised as such by the law.

As for intent that needs to be gotten rid of where a vehicle is concerned. Why?

In no other scenario would a court accept that causing injury or death with a weapon was an accident, therefore lesser punishment but the car, not recognised as a weapon but a shiny essential utility that can do no wrong somehow escapes the weapon category so intent, unless plainly premeditated and evidenced beforehand, will always be considered as lacking.

Somehow where a police officer is involved intent is automatically assumed but for a civilian intent is automatically removed. It is utterly chaotic.

What it should simply come down to is did this individual take a life or not. Circumstances and other technicalities aside a life has been stolen or damaged, in the majority of cases for no good reason at 

In that context, would you be happy to see cyclists colliding with pedestrians, with no intent, be charged with various degrees of assault? 

If they did so as a result of breaking the law, then yes, of course. Although a car is likely to be a rather more effective weapon, and safer for the user.

You keep talking about motorists hitting people 'without intent', but very often it's  because they were speeding, usung a mobile, 'taking the racing line' or other such things, all of which require a deliberate, presumably voluntary,  action. How such things can be 'without intent' baffles me.

Agreed: society, 'we', most individuals(?) accept the effects of 'dangerous driving' as 'accidents', because while they were sexting at the wheel they didn't intend to endanger anyone else. We need to view it as antisocial behaviour, like we now do with drink driving.

Housecathst wrote:

I'm sure it'll be down graded to careless driving once his solicitor has told him what to say, perhaps it was sun got in his eyes. 

That decision would be made by the CPS. 

Bill H wrote:

I really hope that the officer makes a complete recovery,  but I would be a liar not to say that part of me wants to compare and contrast incidents involving police versus the rest of us!

 

 

If I'm riding my bike at home and involved in a Road Traffic Collision - same as everyone else

If I'm riding my bike at work as part of my duty and involved in a Road Traffic Collision - same as everyone else.

If I'm targeted/assaulted whilst in the execution of my duty, whilst on a bike, differently. The offender is then Assaulting a Constable in the Execution of their Duty. 

But once again, intent has to be proven. 

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

bendertherobot:

It depends on the circumstances doesn't it.

Bill H:

"but I would be a liar not to say that part of me wants to compare and contrast incidents involving police versus the rest of us!"

Feel free to state and compare the us and them scenario's.

stumps wrote:

bendertherobot:

 

It depends on the circumstances doesn't it.

Bill H:

"but I would be a liar not to say that part of me wants to compare and contrast incidents involving police versus the rest of us!"

 

Feel free to state and compare the us and them scenario's.

It does, but I read on there the other day that you couldn't assault someone with a motor vehicle. Can we accept that's incorrect now?

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

If you go out with 'mens rea' or intent to cause harm to a person using a motor vehicle as a weapon, then that is an murder/attempt murder/GBH/ABH

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Vehicles can be used as a weapon, as in offensive weapon 'made, used or adapted'.

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

 

If you go out with 'mens rea' or intent to cause harm to a person using a motor vehicle as a weapon, then that is an murder/attempt murder/GBH/ABH

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Vehicles can can be used as a weapon. 

Indeed. And I don't need it explaining to me. You might like to explain it to someone else though. 

I'd not agree with "going out with" though. You can form intent at any part of your journey depending on the offence.

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

stumps wrote:

As a fellow colleague i hope he's ok. Slight difference though, he wasn't knocked off his bike, he was on foot trying to stop a car which drove straight at him.

As for extra protection dont make me laugh, we are expected to be able to take more because we wear a uniform - as one judge stated "you wear a uniform and should accept this sort of treatment".

 

So, had he been on his bike it would have been a traffic incident?

 

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence. 

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this. 

 

Don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. I'm trying to get an answer into a claim made a few weeks back that you couldn't have an assault using a vehicle at all.

 

If you go out with 'mens rea' or intent to cause harm to a person using a motor vehicle as a weapon, then that is an murder/attempt murder/GBH/ABH

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Vehicles can can be used as a weapon. 

Indeed. And I don't need it explaining to me. You might like to explain it to someone else though. 

I'd not agree with "going out with" though. You can form intent at any part of your journey depending on the offence.

Fair point, I should have used the correct terminology rather than 'going out' especially involving a journey, I meant it in the respect of 'prior to the offence taking place'

DivineChorus wrote:

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

http://road.cc/content/news/182921-italy-gets-tough-killer-drivers-how-d...
We regularly report on cases where motorists convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving have been handed a community order or suspended prison sentence, rather than a custodial one. In Italy the driver would be jailed for at least two years.

Ush][quote=DivineChorus wrote:

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

road.cc some time earlier wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/182921-italy-gets-tough-killer-drivers-how-d... We regularly report on cases where motorists convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving have been handed a community order or suspended prison sentence, rather than a custodial one. In Italy the driver would be jailed for at least two years.

I was quoting a comparable incident. Intent and using the vehicle as a weapon would be murder.

Driving dangerously and causing death but without intent, death by dangerous driving. If the evidence points towards dangerous rather than than careless. 

CPS decide the charge. 

Believe it or not, we are on the same side. I ride bikes, I see shocking driving, I get passed close. 

Im just pointing out the difference between the intent of a pre determined assault versus poor quality or dangerous driving.

DivineChorus wrote:

Ush wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

CPS decide the charge.

I'm just pointing out that you left out one of the most common charges laid against car drivers that have caused the death of a cyclist. Why you did that I really don't know. It could be due to simple ignorance. I don't see you on any side. Just pointing out that you've left out what is, for most cycling deaths a likely possibility.

Ush wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

Ush wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

 

If you kill someone by driving dangerously but did not have the intent to do so, you would be charged with the offence of Death by Dangerous Driving. 

Why do you assume that it would not be Death by Careless Driving?

CPS decide the charge.

I'm just pointing out that you left out one of the most common charges laid against car drivers that have caused the death of a cyclist. Why you did that I really don't know. It could be due to simple ignorance. I don't see you on any side. Just pointing out that you've left out what is, for most cycling deaths a likely possibility.

As I said, CPS will decide the charge, dependant on evidence and the likelihood of a successful condition.  

Someone who has caused in what a Police Officer deemed to be an instance of dangerous driving, the death of a cyclist or any other road user, would be arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. 

Read the various reports on here regarding arrests at the scene or later after statements from witnesses have been taken, most will say as above. 

After that it's down to the CPS to decide the charge if any, if that is Careless then they deem that to be the one that is most likely to succeed at Court. 

Happens in every aspect of the law, the adage is 'Arrest high, they will charge low' 

DivineChorus wrote:

All depends on the intent. If the driver saw there was a copper on a bike and intended to cause him harm, assault.

If the driver collided with the copper due to careless/dangerous driving, traffic offence.

Proving 'intent' is the key in every case like this.

That's not quite right - an assault can be proved by showing recklessness on the part of the accsued (unless, of course, it's a charge of murder or a section 18 GBH, both of which require proof of a specific intent).