Interesting legal point

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7394355.stm
A man was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a police officer was injured trying to stop a stolen vehicle in East Yorkshire.

• Police spotted a stolen minibus being driven in a "dangerous and reckless" manner in Beverley. The officer suffered nose and face injuries as the driver twice refused to stop before a stinger device was used. *
  
• Chief Superintendent Paul Davison, of Humberside Police, said: "Driving of this type in such a large vehicle can be more lethal than carrying a weapon."*
  
  

So why, when a cyclist is the victim of a hit-and-run, does the driver get charged with 'careless driving' or somesuch? Why when a driver hits a policeman does it get bumped up to attempted murder?

Perhaps Vinz (or anyone else) can directly quote Ch. Supt. Davison when they discuss any future action against drivers that run cyclists over.

Because all fuzz are bent, ego-tripping , lying arseholes who won't do anything about crimes that they deem beneath them to investigate, yet are quite willing to fuck you over on jumped up charges if it's an easy collar with little effort from themselves.

I don't have much regard for our police force....

Not that I necessarily disagree with the points about the inefficiencies of our police forces in this country, but I think here the salient point is the criminals intent to use the motor vehicle as a device to evade capture regardless of potential injuries those trying to impede his flight might sustain.

I think if some dozer knocked you off your bike accidentally and then you confronted them by standing bodily in front of their vehicle and they drove through you to leave the scene it would be a different matter.

I do believe that there should be much stronger penalties against drivers who leave the scene of an accident and a automatic shift in the presumption of guilt upon them being brought before the courts.

Ma3k i think Turpe was talking about when a driver intentionally runs into a cyclist, and then fleas the scene. i think this should be treated as attempted murder/ murder. and more so if the driver is drunk.

I agree with that totally, dude.

Ma3k i think Turpe was talking about when a driver intentionally runs into a cyclist, and then fleas the scene. i think this should be treated as attempted murder/ murder. and more so if the driver is drunk.

A Tesco van did just that to me in April 2006, not that it has much to do with this thread but whenever I get the chance I like to get the whole 'Tesco delivery van willfully attempting to cause injury to a cyclist' count up on Google.

Ma3k i think Turpe was talking about when a driver intentionally runs into a cyclist, and then fleas the scene. i think this should be treated as attempted murder/ murder. and more so if the driver is drunk.

Exactly my point, although I disagree that the sentence should be any more lenient if a driver is sober.

Exactly my point, although I disagree that the sentence should be any more lenient if a driver is sober.

I would not say less sever for a sober driver, just different punishment for different crimes, if a driver sees a cyclist on the road, and decides to hit them with his car, kills the cyclist and runs that should be Murder 2 (us law, don't know uk equivalent) + reckless endangerment + causing a traffic accident + fleeing the scene of a crime + fleeing the scene of an RTA

same thing but drunk should get added charges for drunk driving

Woohoo! I'm a human rights lawyer and sue the police for a living- bring on the ill-feeling!

The fact is that pretty much anything can be a weapon and the comment in this case was just about the potential danger posed by something huge, mobile and, er, white- and driven recklessly, or with the intent to damage.

Charges do seem lenient when cyclists or peds are killed by drivers (sober or drunk) but intent is an issue and the sentence needs to be proportionate when baring in mind murder, etc. If someone deliberately kills someone else then the method is irrelevant. The difficulty in an RTA situation would be proof.

Anyway, my first proper post and I'm talking shop...

Woohoo! I'm a human rights lawyer and sue the police for a living- bring on the ill-feeling!

The fact is that pretty much anything can be a weapon and the comment in this case was just about the potential danger posed by something huge, mobile and, er, white- and driven recklessly, or with the intent to damage.

Charges do seem lenient when cyclists or peds are killed by drivers (sober or drunk) but intent is an issue and the sentence needs to be proportionate when baring in mind murder, etc. If someone deliberately kills someone else then the method is irrelevant. The difficulty in an RTA situation would be proof.

Anyway, my first proper post and I'm talking shop...

You're spot on though, it's so hard to prove, that's why so many people get charged with much less severe crimes when it comes to motoring offences, the CPS want to use something that they know they can convict on.

or they plead it out, though that usually only happens to innocent people.

Lorenzo, can I be your friend? :-)

me too.