Driver "assaults" cyclist - gets four months

Padraig Mor

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-driver-assaulted-cyclist-who-held-up-middle-finger-to-him-948094.html

TLDR: alteraction between driver and cyclist, driver pulls bag off cyclist's shoulder who doesn't fall off his bike or get injured; driver gets four months in jail (substituted with 200 hours community service instead) and €500 compo for the cyclist.

Aside from the rights and wrongs of the situation - the driver was clearly in the wrong - is four months jail an excessive sentence for an 'assault' where the injured party didn't even fall off their bike, let alone actually get injured - especially in a country where people routinely walk away with suspended sentences for genuinely violent assaults? Would the €500 compensation have been enough? Compare and contrast with this earlier case where a man knocked a cyclist off his bike and began punching him on the ground - and didn't even get a conviction.

Stevieluvsye

Cyclists will tell you he should have got life.

tigerboon

Yeah, that's fair enough. How many kids cycle to school now? There isn't even bike racks in a lot of schools now. Very few is the answer and it's because of entitled d**kheads who can't lose a few seconds and put cyclists at risk. These "drivers" must be very important people when they can't lose a few seconds of their day.

ednwireland

i think what happened to the cyclist bit is irrelevant, the fact is the driver has been charged with and convicted of assault hence the 4 months.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Cyclist/motorist doesn't matter in the slightest. If someone assaults somebody then 200 hours community service (which is what he ultimately got) is right and proper.

Jelle1880

You don't have to injure someone to get done for assault.

major bill

The chap has previous convictions for assault, harsh if it was a first time offence however have we not being advocating tougher convictions on Boards for ages now?

hollypink

Perhaps his previous convictions were a factor in sentencing?

Inspector Madden said Long had previous convictions including two for assault and six for assault causing harm.

pleasant Co.

hollypink wrote: »

Perhaps his previous convictions were a factor in sentencing?

Inspector Madden said Long had previous convictions including two for assault and six for assault causing harm.

So, the outrage energy is now free to transfer to him getting off far too leniently I suppose.

InTheShadows

Every single GAA player in the country would be getting 12 months or more behind bars if that was deemed to be assault. We seem to be turning into a nation of fairy's

Jelle1880

InTheShadows wrote: »

Every single GAA player in the country would be getting 12 months or more behind bars if that was deemed to be assault. We seem to be turning into a nation of fairy's

If they have a long list of previous convictions and do it in public as opposed to on the pitch then they would yeah.

You think attacking someone on the street shouldn't be punished ?

dubstepper

The article says that he pulled the backpack off the cyclist as the cyclist went past. So in fact he tried to drag him off the bike.

ohnonotgmail

dubstepper wrote: »

The article says that he pulled the backpack off the cyclist as the cyclist went past. So in fact he tried to drag him off the bike.

reading the article before posting is cheating. we are supposed to take the OP at face value and be outraged accordingly.

gifted

Why the need to post this on AH on Boards? People get convicted of assault every day. If it's because it's a cyclist and you feel the urgent need to write something about it then wouldn't you be better off to post it in the cycling forum?

paddy19

The other case is the really interesting one.

"Compare and contrast with this earlier case where a man knocked a cyclist off his bike and began punching him on the ground - and didn't even get a conviction."

"The case was struck out after he complied with a judge's order to pay €3,930 in compensation and to give €2,500 to charity."

So if you have €6,430 you can have your case struck out and leave without a blemish on your character.

You'd wonder if he wasn't a senior company executive, say someone unemployed who doesn't have €6,430 would the sentence have been the same?

paddy19

paddy19 wrote: »

You'd wonder if he wasn't a senior company executive, say someone with 8 previous convictions for aggravated assault would the sentence have been the same?

FYP

riemann

You have no right to put your hands on anyone.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Doubt this will be his last conviction either.

Once a prick always a prick.

Spook_ie

Padraig Mor wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-driver-assaulted-cyclist-who-held-up-middle-finger-to-him-948094.html

TLDR: alteraction between driver and cyclist, driver pulls bag off cyclist's shoulder who doesn't fall off his bike or get injured; driver gets four months in jail (substituted with 200 hours community service instead) and €500 compo for the cyclist.

Aside from the rights and wrongs of the situation - the driver was clearly in the wrong - is four months jail an excessive sentence for an 'assault' where the injured party didn't even fall off their bike, let alone actually get injured - especially in a country where people routinely walk away with suspended sentences for genuinely violent assaults? Would the €500 compensation have been enough? Compare and contrast with this earlier case where a man knocked a cyclist off his bike and began punching him on the ground - and didn't even get a conviction.

Usual case of if you can afford it you can buy your way out of a conviction.

Potential-Monke

On initial reading it does appear to be too much for a simple assault, but once you realise he has 3 previous convictions for assault and 6 for assault causing harm, it's right on imo.

@paddy19: Yes, the rich can get off sentences by paying money. Always been this way. It's up to the discretion of the judge.

AudreyHepburn

Of course it’s not excessive - does the OP honestly think the motorist should not be punished?

Particularly given that this is not his run in with law for assault.

Balanadan

Bloody cyclists

Balanadan

Balanadan wrote: »

Bloody cyclists

My man Balanadan with another prize offering.

The Tetrarch

riemann wrote: »

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I laughed.

The car driver pleaded guilty.
The only thing to decide then was the sentence.
His next sentence, and there will be a next time, might be more interesting.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

This will be a measured, reasonable thread.

antodeco

To try and play devil's advocate

The driver thought the cyclist damaged his car. He called after the cyclist who gave him the middle finger and tried cycling off. The driver grabbed the cyclist to prevent him from getting away. During this, he pulled the cyclists backpack from him.

This is what is said in the story. If he had had no previous convictions, would his story have held up better in court? Certainly if I felt my car was damaged by someone, I would try and stop them from getting away.

TheChizler

antodeco wrote: »

The driver thought the cyclist damaged his car.

While he was driving past. So he must have though he had hit the other person with his car for this to be true.

If you drive close enough to anything as you're passing and you think damage has been caused, you are in the wrong there.

:pac:

Sorry, Guard, I thought he'd damaged the car with his bike and with his right leg. He then proceeded to damage my knuckles with his nose about 5 or 6 times and maliciously and wantonly rammed his midriff into my size 11 doc martens while he was on the ground.

Ray Palmer

antodeco wrote: »

To try and play devil's advocate

The driver thought the cyclist damaged his car. He called after the cyclist who gave him the middle finger and tried cycling off. The driver grabbed the cyclist to prevent him from getting away. During this, he pulled the cyclists backpack from him.

This is what is said in the story. If he had had no previous convictions, would his story have held up better in court? Certainly if I felt my car was damaged by someone, I would try and stop them from getting away.

He aggressively tailgated the cyclist for a distance. Then pulled along side him to argue with him. Drove up past him and then tried to physically stop him while taking property away from the cyclist. He very easily could have killed the cyclist.

Padraig Mor

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

does the OP honestly think the motorist should not be punished?
.

I didn't say that at all. Hey, driver is obviously a dick but when plenty of people get off with a suspended sentence for vicious assaults, is a four month sentence really appropriate for an incident where no one was actually hurt? 'Handbags' as it used be known? Or is it the sentencing of other assaults that is out of whack?

ohnonotgmail

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I didn't say that at all. Hey, driver is obviously a dick but when plenty of people get off with a suspended sentence for vicious assaults, is a four month sentence really appropriate for an incident where no one was actually hurt? 'Handbags' as it used be known? Or is it the sentencing of other assaults that is out of whack?

well he didnt end up with a four month sentence did? he got community service instead. And it wasnt like it was his first time assaulting somebody. that makes a difference to the sentence.

Potential-Monke

TheChizler wrote: »

While he was driving past. So he must have though he had hit the other person with his car for this to be true.

If you drive close enough to anything as you're passing and you think damage has been caused, you are in the wrong there.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He aggressively tailgated the cyclist for a distance. Then pulled along side him to argue with him. Drove up past him and then tried to physically stop him while taking property away from the cyclist. He very easily could have killed the cyclist.

I'm not sure where ye are getting the information from, but there's no mention of what happened before the tailgating. It literally starts when the cyclist noticed the car behind him. Going by what's in the article from the OP, we don't know what happened prior to that, only that the defendant (car driver) said he thought the cyclist hit is car and that's why he was following.

If there's another article that explains it more, please link it. But to assume anything before the cyclist noticed the car behind him is wrong. I'm not defending him by the way, just don't like speculation in legal cases.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I didn't say that at all. Hey, driver is obviously a dick but when plenty of people get off with a suspended sentence for vicious assaults, is a four month sentence really appropriate for an incident where no one was actually hurt? 'Handbags' as it used be known? Or is it the sentencing of other assaults that is out of whack?

It's all down to the judge. He saw a minor assault (keep in mind, you can be assaulted without being physically touched, Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act), but due to 3 assault and 6 assault causing harm previous convictions, it was a larger sentence than someone up for the first time. And rightly so.

Other assaults, again it's hard to decide what is right or wrong without seeing the facts of the individual cases. You may be referring to previous assaults discussed here, but I have a very short memory for these types of things!

YFlyer

Padraig Mor wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-driver-assaulted-cyclist-who-held-up-middle-finger-to-him-948094.html

TLDR: alteraction between driver and cyclist, driver pulls bag off cyclist's shoulder who doesn't fall off his bike or get injured; driver gets four months in jail (substituted with 200 hours community service instead) and €500 compo for the cyclist.

Aside from the rights and wrongs of the situation - the driver was clearly in the wrong - is four months jail an excessive sentence for an 'assault' where the injured party didn't even fall off their bike, let alone actually get injured - especially in a country where people routinely walk away with suspended sentences for genuinely violent assaults? Would the €500 compensation have been enough? Compare and contrast with this earlier case where a man knocked a cyclist off his bike and began punching him on the ground - and didn't even get a conviction.

Interesting to hear about the €500 compensation. I be thinking if someone stole your phone. They are later caught . Get fined by putting money in the poor box. Yet the victim doesn't get their phone back or compensated.

weldoninhio

The Tetrarch wrote: »

I laughed.

The car driver pleaded guilty.
The only thing to decide then was the sentence.
His next sentence, and there will be a next time, might be more interesting.

Sounds like he was a hothead as a kid and got into trouble years ago.

"Mr Hyde said many of these offences were historical and that Sergeant Robbie Stone would confirm that the change in the defendant’s behaviour from when he was getting into trouble years ago to the present was miraculous."

Somedaythefire

antodeco wrote: »

To try and play devil's advocate

The driver thought the cyclist damaged his car. He called after the cyclist who gave him the middle finger and tried cycling off. The driver grabbed the cyclist to prevent him from getting away. During this, he pulled the cyclists backpack from him.

This is what is said in the story. If he had had no previous convictions, would his story have held up better in court? Certainly if I felt my car was damaged by someone, I would try and stop them from getting away.

and you would be in the wrong if you did try and do that by grabbing someone's backpack too. I'm not sure what the point of playing devil's advocate is here.

Fr_Dougal

The cyclist was probably cycling in the fast lane, then don’t even pay road tax for starters.

💣

jam_mac_jam

I think its fair enough, he tried to grab the cyclist off his bike and he has previous convictions. I am not really seeing the issue here. Its assault.

Ray Palmer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'm not sure where ye are getting the information from, but there's no mention of what happened before the tailgating. It literally starts when the cyclist noticed the car behind him. Going by what's in the article from the OP, we don't know what happened prior to that, only that the defendant (car driver) said he thought the cyclist hit is car and that's why he was following.

If there's another article that explains it more, please link it. But to assume anything before the cyclist noticed the car behind him is wrong. I'm not defending him by the way, just don't like speculation in legal cases.

Not what the article says, go reread. The first incident was the tailgating that lead to an argument at which point the driver then believed the cyclists damaged his car. To do so the driver could have been too close to the cyclist unless he threw something. If he was able to do it by reaching out the driver was too close. The driver did this because the cyclists gave him the figure for tailgating.

So the driver was aggressive in 3 different ways tailgating, driving along side him shouting then trying to grab him off the bike.

There was no incident beforehand it starts with the aggressive driver and escalated by him.

Potential-Monke

It's still not clear. There's no indication that the defendant thought the damage happened during what is reported. So it could have happened before. It's not clear.

Ray Palmer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It's still not clear. There's no indication that the defendant thought the damage happened during what is reported. So it could have happened before. It's not clear.

If it was alleged to have happened before the tailgating it would have been mentioned. Given the details you are deciding to add that narrative into the story. Absolutely no suggestion he was tailgating because of alleged damage.

Why you think it is unclear is bizzar. He mentioned he stopped because he thought there was damage but never said he was tailgating for that reason so why are you saying that is why?

Potential-Monke

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If it was alleged to have happened before the tailgating it would have been mentioned. Given the details you are deciding to add that narrative into the story. Absolutely no suggestion he was tailgating because of alleged damage.

Why you think it is unclear is bizzar. He mentioned he stopped because he thought there was damage but never said he was tailgating for that reason so why are you saying that is why?

Because it's not clear it didn't happen before. No where in the article does it indicate when he believes the damage was caused, only that it was caused. Not saying it didn't happen before doesn't mean it happened during. Maybe getting hit was the reason he was tailgating in the first place. It seems to give all the evidence of the cyclist and barely any defence from the defendant.

I'm just saying, if that was the evidence present in court (of which we know it's not, it's a very basic breakdown), it leaves too much to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I would like to read the court transcript of this incident.

Either way, what he got he deserved.

Ray Palmer

Nonsense he gave a reason for stopping but never said that was why he was tailgating. If it was because of believed damage it would have helped his defence to say so. Just because it isn't specifically said doesn't mean you get to add extra details.

dotsman

Can people at least compare like with like. The only thing these 2 assaults have in common is the fact that a a "cyclist" was involved.

Case 1: Cyclist mounts footpath endangering pedestrian. Regularly happens and extremely frustrating and dangerous. Pedestrian overreacts and assaults cyclist. Lived a relatively long life with no previous bad behaviour , apologies and offers to pay for damages and contributes to charity.

Case 2. Cyclist flips scumbag driver the bird. Driver gets out and assaults cyclist. Driver has long history of violent assaults and still thinks he is free to attack whoever he wants. Driver gets 4 months.

The punishment in the first case was appropriate. The punishment in the second case was not. He should have got a lot longer than a 4 month holiday with his pals.

Potential-Monke

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Nonsense he gave a reason for stopping but never said that was why he was tailgating. If it was because of believed damage it would have helped his defence to say so. Just because it isn't specifically said doesn't mean you get to add extra details.

And likewise, just because it doesn't specifically say, you can't come to the conclusion that it happened during the tailgating. There is a lack of information, that's all I'm saying. Just like 99% of articles on judgements.

antodeco

Somedaythefire wrote: »

and you would be in the wrong if you did try and do that by grabbing someone's backpack too. I'm not sure what the point of playing devil's advocate is here.

So are you saying that if someone damaged your property and went to leave, you wouldn't try and stop them?

Also, for my post earlier, I'm not defending the motorist in the slightest. I'm literally trying to logically think towards bthe incident.