Blackbeard

I can't see how you get that. It is accepted widely that justice needs to be seen to be done. A cycling specific sentence following a widely-viewed extremely violent attack by cyclists on a non-cyclist will be seen as a failure of justice by many. The very large anti-cyclist public will be calling for old school punishment in the sense of retribution and a failure to provide it may only cause further resentment towards cyclists in general. Frankly, retributive punishment may well be what cycling itself needs in this instance.

I doubt that sanction would satisfy either the victim or the rabid anti-cycling public.

The speculation of one person concerned about innocent MC2 members does not justify this generalisation.

I have not ignored that thread, but I find that issue too raw to discuss dispassionately.

If it emerges that some incident had occurred some time prior to the assault captured on video, somewhere earlier on the road as has been previously suggested, it places the attackers in a worse position. This means that the attack was not the spur of the moment reaction (as confirmed by Surv0MTB), but that the attackers had time to consider their actions and reconcile themselves to the consequences thereof.

Hearsay of the driver's version that some of the cyclists may have got water sprayed at them while the van's passengers were horsing around does not equate to an acknowledged pelting of cyclists.

Zakkie's sister/brother/cousin?

And hopefully you will exchange a few pleasantries and each go your own way without the inconvenience of a criminal trial.

A bruised ego cannot justify violence.

What did punctuation say?

Its very difficult to argue with that.

Bad news!

A bit off topic, but you are making a lot of assumptions.

No, but you scared me with your uppercase.

Context, yes. I have no difficulty in judging that the conduct I saw on the video as unacceptable and that it has no place on our roads. The context, while it may be of interest and explain much of what we saw, does not excuse their conduct. The posts by the club on FB makes the situation worse. Agree with you regarding the clubs.

Yes, but the point I am making is that it is not a defence to excuse unlawful conduct. There will still be a conviction.

When did this become a murder trial?

Not legally. Can only be used in mitigation of sentence.

Look at situation we saw on the video (and irrespective of what preceded the incident): the occupant of a motor vehicle was physically attacked by a large number of very aggressive cyclists. In the circumstances, the occupant could have legally defended himself forcefully. Had be been armed and inclined to use his firearm, the situation could have been very ugly.

I disagree. Provocation is neither a legal nor moral defence. Have another look at that video and decide whether that is the appropriate response to having a water sachet thrown at you.

Does not justify their behaviour. To placate a few Hubbers: what happened before that? Why would guys in a van pelt a large group of cyclists with "stuff". What is shocking is that the Club is endorsing the unlawful behaviour of its members. From their own communications it is clear that there have been many prior incidents of altercations between club members and motorists.

Take your racist BS elsewhere. Race has nothing to do with their shocking behaviour.

If it comes out that the driver had harassed a lone female cyclist or had tried to run someone off the road THE ACTIONS OF THE CYCLISTS WOULD BE UNLAWFUL AND UNACCEPTABLE and open to legitimate criticism as has happened here.

Surv0MTB gave a clear and concise eye witness account and the video is pretty clear. Your allusions to HUB mob justice are a little misplaced in this instance. Irrespective of what went before, including your example, the conduct of the cyclists is unacceptable. The comments by Hubbers deal with that issue.

Swimming upstream