The Burry case: Dropping and reinstating of charges

[Patchelicious]

Thanks Duane, let us know how we can help get this case to court.

+1

[gummibear]

 

But we will not let the matter be!

 

I can let you have the details of a private accident investigator if you want it.

[Lucky Luke.]

what is the latest with this case?

 

I'd really like to know myself, but can't find anything in the media. I assume nothing will come of it - the rider's family were poor folk from the Eastern Cape. The driver is probably back at work by now.

[Tumbleweed]

 

 

Let us know how we can help.

The other guys on this forum can sit and carry on discussing the letter of the law.

 

The letter of the law is what this has become about. Those who have posted here about legal matters were just as devastated about Burry's death as any other. Let's hope that in some way the letter of the law can be used to sort out the messy story after what was a tragedy.

[SwissVan]

 

 

Thanks Duane, let us know how we can help get this case to court.

 

+1

Duane do you know how the prosecutor is progressing with the case, other than what has happened now is there any sign that they are going to have a problem that might cause the case to be dismissed?

 

[Servetus]

To state my opinion clearly, what I'm saying is that in a just society the onus would be on the driver of the vehicle to prove his innocence. Regardless of where we stand with SA law, which I assume cares zip for cyclist preservation.

 

In the EU there is something called the 5th Directive, implemented in the Netherlands as strict liability. In car-cyclist accidents, the onus falls upon the driver of the car to prove they were not at fault.

 

Link above states charges are provisionally dropped anyway. No surprises there.

What you call 'mob justice' is the letter of the law in Europe and especially the netherlands, where coincidentally, cyclists have a much better life expectancy.

 

The European law that you are referring to deals with civil liability for damages from a road accident, and shifts the onus of proof on to the car driver to show who was at fault in case of a collision with a a cyclist (pedestrian, etc).

 

What you are asking is for a person to be presumed criminally guilty in an accident with a cyclist - that is a draconian exception to the normal principles of law and I don't think you will find it in any civilised country.

[Ham]

This is the biggest crock of **** ever. Can't say I did not expect it though. Where are all the polititions now that promised steps would be taken. So typical.

[Lucky Luke.]

The European law that you are referring to deals with civil liability for damages from a road accident, and shifts the onus of proof on to the car driver to show who was at fault in case of a collision with a a cyclist (pedestrian, etc).

 

What you are asking is for a person to be presumed criminally guilty in an accident with a cyclist - that is a draconian exception to the normal principles of law and I don't think you will find it in any civilised country.

 

Yes you are correct, it appears it's a civil law. However, I would argue that the effect is almost as powerful on the driving public. It's implemented all over Europe - in the majority of EU countries.

 

The UK is one of only five European countries that do not currently have the law, known as "strict liability".

...

Under a strict liability law, motorists would be held responsible in the civil courts for all accidents involving cyclists - unless they can prove they were not to blame.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-22155209

Edited July 2, 2013 by Lucky Luke.

[Servetus]

Yes you are correct, it appears it's a civil law. However, I would argue that the effect is almost as powerful on the driving public. It's implemented all over Europe - in the majority of EU countries.

 

[/size][/font][/color]

...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-22155209

 

Just as I was about to type a lecture on the difference between civil and criminal liability you edited the post

 

I agree that such a change could make a difference to the attitude of the driving public, however I don't think the difference would be huge - greater risk of civil liability is not going to make much of a difference if you have nothing to lose financially - which might well be the case for a 25 yo taxi driver. But every bit helps.

[slowpoke]

The only thing that the taxi driver is being erroneously accused of is "turning across the white line". Those markings in the photo are for no overtaking, so he was legally allowed to turn there (no crossing is a solid double line). What he did do that was illegal and also the direct cause of the crash and the reason we lost our hero was turning across the road when there was an oncoming road user (Burry). For that he must be prosecuted for reckless and negligent driving.

 

Personally I feel that anyone who commits rec and neg resulting in another road users death should be automatically convicted of second degree murder (the one where it is not planned and premeditated).

[gummibear]

 

Personally I feel that anyone who commits rec and neg resulting in another road users death should be automatically convicted of second degree murder (the one where it is not planned and premeditated).

 

In SA it's culpable homicide.Many guys pay a admission of guilt fine so that they don't go to court.Ranges from R3000 to R50k.

They should make them work in the mortuaries to do some civil service.

[Harryn]

I want justice for Burry, damn it. By that I mean I want the driver to face a trial. Prosecuted by a competent lawyer. Armed with a proper investigation by the cops. Adjudicated upon by an impartial, skilled and experienced judge. With effective representation for the accused. And yes, after all that I do indeed hope that he is convicted.

 

What I don't want is prosecutorial screw-up. The very fact that Cherise has to tweet a journalist to try and find out what is going on, speaks volumes to me.

 

In October last year, I T-boned a Hyndai Getz after the nice lady driver turned right in front of me, not seeing me or the entire bunch I was riding at the front of. 9 of us could have been killed that day. I sustained multiple fractures to my pelvis. I was lucky. Anyway, I gave the investigating oficer the names and nos of all 9 Of us. He took statements from me and one other. Too lazy to even interview the rest, all of whom were eye witnesses. Suffice it to say, no charges have even been laid against the driver, despite the prosecutor having assured me that she would be charged. I am therefore a tad cynical when it comes to our criminal justice system.

 

If the family of Burry Stander, champion,hero, true South African icon, cannot get justice, then what chance do the rest of us have??

 

 

 

[gummibear]

I was a cop when i was hit by a taxi.After the accident a nice lady stopped and the first thing i asked her was to fetch a friend that stayed close by. He was also a cop and brought his camera and spray paint.He marked the road and the cops sat waiting for the ambulance for me.

After 3 weeks the cops hadn't visited any witnesses.The investigator said he couldn't find the taxi driver.He also said it had been raining so the road wasn't marked out.

I had a cop friend draw up the scene and plans for me.

I made copies of the docket and i went and arrested the taxi driver as he had warrants out on other cases.

My partner and i went and took the witness statements.

For 4 years i did the work of the investigator.

Eventually the taxi driver was found guilty of reckless and neg driving and had to pay a R3000 fine or 120 days in prison.He couldn't pay and went to prison.

 

You need to keep pressure on the investigator to get a success at the end of the day......or do it yourself

[urbanroyal]

In SA it's culpable homicide.Many guys pay a admission of guilt fine so that they don't go to court.Ranges from R3000 to R50k.

They should make them work in the mortuaries to do some civil service.

 

Jip.....like that lady in George....25k...that was all.

[urbanroyal]

The only thing that the taxi driver is being erroneously accused of is "turning across the white line". Those markings in the photo are for no overtaking, so he was legally allowed to turn there (no crossing is a solid double line). What he did do that was illegal and also the direct cause of the crash and the reason we lost our hero was turning across the road when there was an oncoming road user (Burry). For that he must be prosecuted for reckless and negligent driving.

 

Personally I feel that anyone who commits rec and neg resulting in another road users death should be automatically convicted of second degree murder (the one where it is not planned and premeditated).

 

+1

[Ham]

I want justice for Burry, damn it. By that I mean I want the driver to face a trial. Prosecuted by a competent lawyer. Armed with a proper investigation by the cops. Adjudicated upon by an impartial, skilled and experienced judge. With effective representation for the accused. And yes, after all that I do indeed hope that he is convicted.

 

What I don't want is prosecutorial screw-up. The very fact that Cherise has to tweet a journalist to try and find out what is going on, speaks volumes to me.

 

In October last year, I T-boned a Hyndai Getz after the nice lady driver turned right in front of me, not seeing me or the entire bunch I was riding at the front of. 9 of us could have been killed that day. I sustained multiple fractures to my pelvis. I was lucky. Anyway, I gave the investigating oficer the names and nos of all 9 Of us. He took statements from me and one other. Too lazy to even interview the rest, all of whom were eye witnesses. Suffice it to say, no charges have even been laid against the driver, despite the prosecutor having assured me that she would be charged. I am therefore a tad cynical when it comes to our criminal justice system.

 

If the family of Burry Stander, champion,hero, true South African icon, cannot get justice, then what chance do the rest of us have??

 

ZERO