Driver "assaults" cyclist - gets four months

YFlyer · 06-09-2019 03:17PM

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 · 06-09-2019 03:26PM

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 · 06-09-2019 03:31PM

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 · 06-09-2019 03:38PM

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

💣

jam_mac_jam · 06-09-2019 03:47PM

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 · 06-09-2019 04:51PM

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 · 06-09-2019 04:55PM

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 · 06-09-2019 05:31PM

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 · 06-09-2019 05:37PM

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 · 06-09-2019 06:28PM

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 · 06-09-2019 06:40PM

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 · 06-09-2019 06:46PM

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 · 07-09-2019 09:07PM

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.

Driver "assaults" cyclist - gets four months

Comments