Bolton Abbey car key snatcher gives his version of events

alansmurphy wrote:

Sswindells

 

"Id love to clear up some beliefs that armchair investigators have but alas, it falls on deaf ears. Ultimately it's not as simple as everyone seems to think, pulling up at the side of a cyclist, well they do that in pro racing. Shouting at someone through a window causing him to fear for his life, the mens reas would be to make that cyclist fear for his life. Words and actions. Any solicitor with any legal knowledge would tell their client " say you didn't intend to make him fear for his life ". Now prove he had the intent, prove his actions without any witness was as described. It's just not easy."

 

Though I can see the point that you are making in terms of legality - let's face it the average driver murdering a cyclist gets off with a 6 month ban - I'm not sure how you could advocate someone driving on the wrong side of the road engaging in a conversation with somebody. And be fair, comparing it to a pro cyclist having a conversation with a team car on a closed road is just silly - even more so when you consider recent clashes with team cars, motos et al.

 

 

I'm not trying to be the enemy or on the side of the driver at all. My personal views are there should be more protection for cyclists, after all I've been in my fair few near misses (including one whereby a bus driver ended up being disciplined because he lied about how close he was to nearly getting me stuck under his wheel). 

Please remember the legal distinctions between murder and manslaughter/death by dangerous or careless driving. Murder the intent is always to kill. I could easily argue the average motorist that is involved in these tragic incidents are nothing more than impatient or have a bad lapse of judgement with a fatal consequence, but are not murderers in that they went out to kill someone that day. Would you feel happy if your family member were named a murderer and went to prison for the rest of their life when they genuinely made a bad mistake? This is the reason the cyclist them years ago who killed a child when cycling like a lunatic only received a paltry sentence (was it wanton and furious cycling he was charged with? I've forgotten). It works both ways anyway.

The law is an a$$, I know this and I despair. If you think of all the times you have seen what you think should have been a conviction, think how many times Police Officers have seen it? I'd point out it's not even the law that is the toughest to tackle, it's the extremely high bar set by the Criminal Justice system (beyond all reasonable doubt) which makes prosecution incredibly difficult.

saintbob wrote:

You took his keys, that was wrong, no excuses. You lost or threw away his keys, this is wrong. It would cost any of us a lot of money to replace a set of keys, not to mention the stress and upset. My keys are personel to me and important to my work, even have a memory stick with important info on there.

Regardless of whatever excuses we can all have there can no justification for taking someone elses property and causing considerable upset and cost. Criminal I would imagine. 

You make other cyclists look bad.

 

 

Nah he's a hero. 

Driver couldn't be trusted with keys to a vehicle. Interestingly, key snatching from dangerous drivers is popular New Zealand. 

Next time just post the keys to the police station with an explanation of the driver's dangerous conduct. We should have a law protecting citizens from temporarily confiscating property where not to do so may lead to harm. 

saintbob wrote:

You make other cyclists look bad.

Oh FFS, can we do away with the collective responsibility bollocks. Nothing that Key Snatcher did makes "other cyclists" look bad. Nothing that Nick Ahad did makes "other drivers" look bad.

It was an argument between 2 people, none of which translates into making anyone or anything in the wider world "look bad".

crazy-legs wrote:

 

Nothing that Key Snatcher did makes "other cyclists" look bad. Nothing that Nick Ahad did makes "other drivers" look bad.

It was an argument between 2 people, none of which translates into making anyone or anything in the wider world "look bad".

It would be nice if that were true, but I don't think it is. I think stories like this can and do reinforce the prejudices of people who already take a dim view of cyclists. 

Like you, I think the "collective responsibility" thing is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in some people's minds.  

DaveE128 wrote:

To those insulting all Christians, I would piint out that this guy appears to only have been going to church as it's a requirement of his choice of location for wedding. I think there's some gross "tarring with the same brush" here, and people are revealing their own prejudices.

No-one's insulting Christians. They don't actually exist.

unconstituted wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

To those insulting all Christians, I would piint out that this guy appears to only have been going to church as it's a requirement of his choice of location for wedding. I think there's some gross "tarring with the same brush" here, and people are revealing their own prejudices.

 

No-one's insulting Christians. They don't actually exist.

 

All these may disagree with you :

http://www.biography.com/people/groups/famous-named-christian

unconstituted wrote:

No-one's insulting Christians. They don't actually exist.

No-one doesn't exist ?
That got metaphysical really fast!

Edit: I'm sure someone will remind us of the classical story

"What's your name?" "Nobody"
"Nobody hit me"
"Stop complaining, then!"

Peeler wrote:

Neither would be charged due to lack of evidence. One persons word vs the other.

No, the driver has admitted the offence of dangerous driving and a prosecution should be simple as guilt is undeniable.

Peeler wrote:

Theft: the dishonest apprehension of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. A crime would be recorded if reported. It would not get charged due to lack of evidence and the reasonable argument that essential legal elements are missing. (dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive - the act was done in self defence) An assault does not need there to be physical contact, if there is physical contact it is a battery. Dangerous driving is driving that falls so far below the standard expected of a competent and careless driver and is inherently dangerous. If reported the driving would be both dangerous and an assault. Both are offences but under National Crime Recording Standards only the assault would be recorded with the dangerous driving being incorporated in the MO. Neither would be charged due to lack of evidence. One persons word vs the other. Lastly, this would not be a police priority. Yes it would be recorded but in my Force I would file both crimes without investigation. The prospect of either party ever meeting one another again is virtually nil and they both need to learn from the experience. We have insufficient resources and have to say we aren't doing things. This means we can focus on offences such as Domestic Abuse. You'll note the deliberate lack of opinion.

As plod too I agree.

I could investigate til the cows come home, but is there a Realistic prospect of conviction? Am I going to be able to convince a jury of peers, beyond all reasonable doubt, that one was right and the other was wrong. 

Perhaps the strength in this case may be nobody else complained, however that could be negated by the fact they may not have been late so didn't care either way. Lack of evidence can sometimes be evidence, but it's a bit shaky. 

May the same time though, nobody complained they thought anyone was about to have a fight in the road, which again, perhaps both parties are playing the big I am card but in reality it was nothing more than a couple of verbal exchanges. 

It's a tough call, and sadly most police forces would say it's not on the public interest to use public money to investigate it. At the same time, people will say can't you go and have a word? No, because that's not what the police are for. 

The idea that taking someone's keys is a good idea, theft act or not, you would have to have an honest held belief that someone would be in immediate danger. If the only person who is in danger is you and that's because you've got your head stuck in someone's car having an argument, maybe you need to take a step back and think about what's going on. He might drive off and kill someone is a poor argument, your wound up you might ride off and being wound up miss the kid that runs out in front of you. The argument works both ways and you'd be annoyed if he got out and put your bike in his car because he thought you might ride into someone. 

Sswindells wrote:

Peeler wrote:

Theft: the dishonest apprehension of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. A crime would be recorded if reported. It would not get charged due to lack of evidence and the reasonable argument that essential legal elements are missing. (dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive - the act was done in self defence) An assault does not need there to be physical contact, if there is physical contact it is a battery. Dangerous driving is driving that falls so far below the standard expected of a competent and careless driver and is inherently dangerous. If reported the driving would be both dangerous and an assault. Both are offences but under National Crime Recording Standards only the assault would be recorded with the dangerous driving being incorporated in the MO. Neither would be charged due to lack of evidence. One persons word vs the other. Lastly, this would not be a police priority. Yes it would be recorded but in my Force I would file both crimes without investigation. The prospect of either party ever meeting one another again is virtually nil and they both need to learn from the experience. We have insufficient resources and have to say we aren't doing things. This means we can focus on offences such as Domestic Abuse. You'll note the deliberate lack of opinion.

As plod too I agree.

I could investigate til the cows come home, but is there a Realistic prospect of conviction? Am I going to be able to convince a jury of peers, beyond all reasonable doubt, that one was right and the other was wrong. 

Perhaps the strength in this case may be nobody else complained, however that could be negated by the fact they may not have been late so didn't care either way. Lack of evidence can sometimes be evidence, but it's a bit shaky. 

May the same time though, nobody complained they thought anyone was about to have a fight in the road, which again, perhaps both parties are playing the big I am card but in reality it was nothing more than a couple of verbal exchanges. 

It's a tough call, and sadly most police forces would say it's not on the public interest to use public money to investigate it. At the same time, people will say can't you go and have a word? No, because that's not what the police are for. 

The idea that taking someone's keys is a good idea, theft act or not, you would have to have an honest held belief that someone would be in immediate danger. If the only person who is in danger is you and that's because you've got your head stuck in someone's car having an argument, maybe you need to take a step back and think about what's going on. He might drive off and kill someone is a poor argument, your wound up you might ride off and being wound up miss the kid that runs out in front of you. The argument works both ways and you'd be annoyed if he got out and put your bike in his car because he thought you might ride into someone. 

Surely mens rea is central to criminal law. Circumstances change case to case, some will pass the test, others won't. Some will find your behaviour contributory.

Either way, your argument for not legislating on the basis you described would mean we wouldn't have any laws full stop. Quite an odd view, worrying as it's from someone who works in the enforcement side. 

unconstituted wrote:

Sswindells wrote:

Peeler wrote:

Theft: the dishonest apprehension of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. A crime would be recorded if reported. It would not get charged due to lack of evidence and the reasonable argument that essential legal elements are missing. (dishonesty and the intention to permanently deprive - the act was done in self defence) An assault does not need there to be physical contact, if there is physical contact it is a battery. Dangerous driving is driving that falls so far below the standard expected of a competent and careless driver and is inherently dangerous. If reported the driving would be both dangerous and an assault. Both are offences but under National Crime Recording Standards only the assault would be recorded with the dangerous driving being incorporated in the MO. Neither would be charged due to lack of evidence. One persons word vs the other. Lastly, this would not be a police priority. Yes it would be recorded but in my Force I would file both crimes without investigation. The prospect of either party ever meeting one another again is virtually nil and they both need to learn from the experience. We have insufficient resources and have to say we aren't doing things. This means we can focus on offences such as Domestic Abuse. You'll note the deliberate lack of opinion.

As plod too I agree.

I could investigate til the cows come home, but is there a Realistic prospect of conviction? Am I going to be able to convince a jury of peers, beyond all reasonable doubt, that one was right and the other was wrong. 

Perhaps the strength in this case may be nobody else complained, however that could be negated by the fact they may not have been late so didn't care either way. Lack of evidence can sometimes be evidence, but it's a bit shaky. 

May the same time though, nobody complained they thought anyone was about to have a fight in the road, which again, perhaps both parties are playing the big I am card but in reality it was nothing more than a couple of verbal exchanges. 

It's a tough call, and sadly most police forces would say it's not on the public interest to use public money to investigate it. At the same time, people will say can't you go and have a word? No, because that's not what the police are for. 

The idea that taking someone's keys is a good idea, theft act or not, you would have to have an honest held belief that someone would be in immediate danger. If the only person who is in danger is you and that's because you've got your head stuck in someone's car having an argument, maybe you need to take a step back and think about what's going on. He might drive off and kill someone is a poor argument, your wound up you might ride off and being wound up miss the kid that runs out in front of you. The argument works both ways and you'd be annoyed if he got out and put your bike in his car because he thought you might ride into someone. 

 

Surely mens rea is central to criminal law. Circumstances change case to case, some will pass the test, others won't. Some will find your behaviour contributory.

 

Either way, your argument for not legislating on the basis you described would mean we wouldn't have any laws full stop. Quite an odd view, worrying as it's from someone who works in the enforcement side. 

circumstances do change case to case and mens reas is key, but proving the mens reas is the toughest part. 

Id love to clear up some beliefs that armchair investigators have but alas, it falls on deaf ears. Ultimately it's not as simple as everyone seems to think, pulling up at the side of a cyclist, well they do that in pro racing. Shouting at someone through a window causing him to fear for his life, the mens reas would be to make that cyclist fear for his life. Words and actions. Any solicitor with any legal knowledge would tell their client " say you didn't intend to make him fear for his life ". Now prove he had the intent, prove his actions without any witness was as described. It's just not easy.

By all accounts laws are open to interpretation and change over time. Just because they are in place now doesn't mean they always will be or they won't be changed. There has to be some practical application. And ultimately, as public money, it should be spent on what is in the publics/political interest, which sadly, as a keen cyclist, I know it isn't us. 

Sswindells]</p>

<p>[quote=Peeler wrote:

I could investigate til the cows come home, but is there a Realistic prospect of conviction? Am I going to be able to convince a jury of peers, beyond all reasonable doubt, that one was right and the other was wrong.

The investigation would only need to be very brief, as the driver has admitted driving alongside the cyclist and shouting at him through the window, putting the cyclist in reasonable fear for his life.  Case proved.

I'd say lock him up and throw away the keys, but that would be cruel.

Sswindells wrote:

As plod too I agree.

...

The argument works both ways and you'd be annoyed if he got out and put your bike in his car because he thought you might ride into someone. 

So how many people get killed or seriously injured each year by inconsiderate or incompetent drivers, and how many by cyclists?