Cyclist deliberately killed

fucking hell.. im sorry but murder is murder, he persued him! is that not that with intent? I mean he chased him, had a few words with him then chased him again and killed him?
I hope some of the law minds on here can explain but I thought if he had chased and rammed him the first time that could be heat of the moment/manslaughter but to have time to think about it, chase him twice and mount the pavement with the clear thought out plan of what you were going to do? if thats not murder..

(not to mention fleeing the scene and destroying evidence)

if he chased him with a hammer and killed him would it be a different story?

("sorry your Honour - you see, I chased him with my hammer and hit him on the head, I didnt mean to kill him...")

He'll probably claim he was depressed or some bollox and get away with a holiday and a box of pills. Cunt

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I look back over 20-odd years of cycling as an adult, there have been at least half a dozen occasions when I've found myself in similar situations - although they've not been for clipping vehicles, but have been due to asserting my rights as a road user by taking primary position, or in more heated moments, doing it verbally.

Each time, there's been that rush of adrenalin you'd expect when you're being hunted. It's primal. And hunted seems to be the apt word. It's not being overly dramatic to envision death at the hands of a crazed loon as a possible outcome. The media provides us with proof at depressingly regular intervals.

Sometimes I wish driving tests included a rigorous psychometric profiling component.

Thats murder. And it's totally fucked. I can't believe stories like this, damn scary. It certainly makes me think twice before approaching a driver in any incident. If there are that many witnesses surely he will be convicted?

Just 2 days ago I had a guy (not dissimilar to this guy, but older) yell out the window at me "I should fucking knock you off your bike I should) All because I was approaching a right hand turn and in the middle of "his" lane. I'm thinking I was a bit lucky that when I approached to discuss his rage the was a police van right opposite watching. Lucky this time. Be careful out there!

The law is very odd once you're behind the wheel of a car; I used to work with a lad who had 'upset' a group of other lads who were after him. My co-worker was in his car, the lads on foot and, feeling threatened for his life, proceeded not only to run one of the lads over, but to reverse over him too, killing him outright.

Now because he was in a car, he only did 3 years, whereas had he, for example, shot at the lad (twice, just to make sure), he'd have done a hell of a longer stretch, which goes to show that the law is wrongly slanted once a car becomes involved.

what a waste of a life. I hope the driver gets what he deserves.

Doesn't assault that result in death automatically qualify for murder? Like the bouncer that punched a bloke who fell down, hit his head a carked it.

Jesus, what a fucking psycho though.

[Edit] And if he isn't a psychopath, then it's even worse, as it means that his actions were within the expected parameters of normal behaviour.

No, thats why all those happy slapper kids get away with it, Sorry your honour we only wanted to see what happened if we kicked a man in the head for an hour.

Laws need to be changed.

Seriously frightening.

Homicide is the killing of a human being, by a human being. It is either:

(a) lawful; or
(b) unlawful.

If it is unlawful, it may be:

(a) murder;
(b) manslaughter;
(c) infanticide;
(d) causing death by dangerous drivingor
(e) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult.

**
Murder** is defined at Common Law as.

*"Where a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the Queen's peace, with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.*"

The definition of “intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm” was traditionally referred to as "malice aforethought". The meaning of the term is very important as its presence or absence determines whether an unlawful killing is murder or manslaughter.

"Murder is unlawful homicide with malice aforethought. Manslaughter is an unlawful homicide without malice aforethought". As stated as long ago as 1887.

Whereas, Voluntary Manslaughter is defined at Common Law as.

"Voluntary manslaughter, occurs when all the elements of murder are present, including the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, but the crime is reduced to voluntary manslaughter by reason of one of the following defences being successful:"

(a) provocation;
(b) diminished responsibility; and
(c) death caused in pursuance of a suicide pact.

Unless the accused was suffering some form of illness or impairment of development, the only cause for diminished responsibility would be provocation. And…

"Provocation* is only available in the case of a sudden and temporary loss of self-control of such a kind as to make the accused not master of his mind. Circumstances which induce a desire for revenge are inconsistent with provocation, since the conscious formulation of a desire for revenge means that a person has had time to think, to reflect and that would negative a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, which is the essence of provocation."

*

What a waste of life..... RIP

As for the alleged perp. - here's hoping (however unlikely) that justice is served.

He's already been charged with murder whuich is more serious than manslaughter.

All apologies Clive. That'll reach me to read things quickly and therefore inaccurately!

I still hope he gets a lengthy custodial sentence.

Now I've checked the wording, as I see it this looks pretty clear. There is no option for suggesting there was any accident - he mounted the pavement to get the man.

His only out is if he can convince the jury that he only meant to bump the cyclist off his bike to get him to stop, so that he could argue with him, rather than intend to actually run him over. "My foot slipped off the brake and onto the accelerator Your Honour..."

Sean Fitzgerald, please kill yourself. Thanks.

He clearly dressed in a manner which would encourage the judge to assume that he's an upstanding member of the community.

Sean Fitzgerald, please kill yourself. Thanks.

If he gets off somehow, I'll fucking kill him myself.

Fingers crossed they don't appoint a judge who hates cyclists like the 1983 case with the baseball bat. I am poised and ready:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/AboutUs/uls/Pages/default.aspx

He will live to regret this. Look at the aura of the guy in the photo. He's fucked. He will be made to feel shame. He will be made to stop driving. He will serve time in prison. He will lose his job. He may try to blame the cyclist, but in the end, in the middle of sleepless nights, going over what happened in his mind, replaying the rage, he will come to know the true fact: He is to blame. He killed another person over some undisclosed and probably accidental damage to a wing mirror. Have faith people, that your actions have consequences!

I agree with Skully, there is no way that this won't deestroy the perp from the inside out.

Regardless of how long he's locked up, he certainly needs to be banned from driving for life, a punishment that's available but seemingly never used.

I can't see his guilt. I'd rather see his body fished out of a canal.

I say fair call, Skully. Whatever the outcome he has to live with his actions.

Seeking revenge and death is exactly what he did. He wanted revenge and death and he got it. And then what?

Oh what have I started!?

Don't hate him! He already has enough hate for us all.

Sorry to get all Bhudda on yo asses.

Very disturbing story to read, I trust that justice is seen....

I hope everyone stays safe and avoids trouble if they can!

Oh what have I started!?

Don't hate him! He already has enough hate for us all.

Sorry to get all Bhudda on yo asses.

You started shit and you are going to pay!
;) and xoxox and all that