CogitoErgoSum Posted January 18, 2018 Share From the photos isetech shared previously - that section of the road is as straight and open as it comes. If this guy didn't see the cyclists he was speeding and wasn't looking where he was going. Drunk/on his cell phone/getting some favours from his passenger.... whatever.... he hit them, he KILLED them. How can anyone try to lessen what happened. He did it. But he will not man-up. He and his lawyer is your typical "slapgat" Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk Bateleur1, GrahamS2 and Sepia 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Stewart Posted January 19, 2018 Share https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/blood-sample-of-motorist-in-cyclists-death-case-taken-too-late-court-hears-20180118 Words fail me... nathrix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKaiser Posted January 19, 2018 Share Shocking beyond words. nathrix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted January 19, 2018 Share https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/blood-sample-of-motorist-in-cyclists-death-case-taken-too-late-court-hears-20180118 Words fail me...This is why people resort to mob justice. TheJ, Cafe Racer, Robbie Stewart and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napalm Posted January 19, 2018 Share Surely the alcohol levels drop at a predictable rate, so it should be possible to extrapolate his levels at the time of the accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKaiser Posted January 19, 2018 Share Surely the alcohol levels drop at a predictable rate, so it should be possible to extrapolate his levels at the time of the accident?I reckon its not very reliable, as each person's body processes alcohol and other substances differently. There are too many factors that play a role for it to be, even when considering only one person. I'm afraid this is a lost "opportunity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cafe Racer Posted January 19, 2018 Share Zero tolerance, the fact that you can still drink and drive is beyond me, if we gave out 15 year prison sentences for driving while under the influence of alcohol, the numbers would drop fast. if you drink and drive you are basically a murderer end of story ZERO TOLERANCE EmJayZA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKaiser Posted January 19, 2018 Share Zero tolerance, the fact that you can still drink and drive is beyond me, if we gave out 15 year prison sentences for driving while under the influence of alcohol, the numbers would drop fast. if you drink and drive you are basically a murderer end of story ZERO TOLERANCEA 15 year sentence means nothing if we cannot even get to the point of prosecution because of sloppy police work like this. But yes, being caught driving under the influence does deserve a more fitting punishment, maybe not 15 years, but at least something significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmJayZA Posted January 19, 2018 Share https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/blood-sample-of-motorist-in-cyclists-death-case-taken-too-late-court-hears-20180118 Words fail me... So, was he over the limit, even after 2.5 hours from the test? Grayskull 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddaman Posted January 19, 2018 Share The law is a funny thing. My older brother was out cycling and got killed by a drunk driver (many many years ago) and he received a reduced sentence because he was "impared" by alcohol so not fully aware of his actions.This is rather strange. I remember the first lesson in Criminal Law 101 was the case involving drunken driving. In South African Law, intoxication cannot be used to negate intent. It is an anomaly, created by precedence. If you commit a crime while drunk, you thus cannot say "I was so drunk I did not intend to........" However, it might be used in mitigation. In the case of the two KZN cyclists, driving under the influence is a separate offence to manslaughter, or murder. The prosecution may be banking on this, and thus is not too concerned on whether the accused was drunk or not as it is immaterial to the case of manslaughter. However, it may enable him to push for murder, which could be one of the reasons why the defence is attempting to deny their client was drunk. This may create a new problem when it comes to sentencing, as it (intoxication) then cannot be used in mitigation of the sentence nathrix and Bateleur1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur1 Posted January 19, 2018 Share This is rather strange. I remember the first lesson in Criminal Law 101 was the case involving drunken driving. In South African Law, intoxication cannot be used to negate intent. It is an anomaly, created by precedence. If you commit a crime while drunk, you thus cannot say "I was so drunk I did not intend to........" However, it might be used in mitigation. In the case of the two KZN cyclists, driving under the influence is a separate offence to manslaughter, or murder. The prosecution may be banking on this, and thus is not too concerned on whether the accused was drunk or not as it is immaterial to the case of manslaughter. However, it may enable him to push for murder, which could be one of the reasons why the defence is attempting to deny their client was drunk. This may create a new problem when it comes to sentencing, as it (intoxication) then cannot be used in mitigation of the sentence It would be sweet if that is their plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted January 19, 2018 Share So if he was moderately drunk after 2h30. He was sh#tfaced when he was beyond the wheel. Coz he sure as f@ck would of sobered up after he hit the cyclists. Mob justice never seems right. Until it’s close to home. My blood is boiling ???? Edited January 19, 2018 by Pikey Sepia 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted January 19, 2018 Share This is rather strange. I remember the first lesson in Criminal Law 101 was the case involving drunken driving. In South African Law, intoxication cannot be used to negate intent. It is an anomaly, created by precedence. If you commit a crime while drunk, you thus cannot say "I was so drunk I did not intend to........" However, it might be used in mitigation. In the case of the two KZN cyclists, driving under the influence is a separate offence to manslaughter, or murder. The prosecution may be banking on this, and thus is not too concerned on whether the accused was drunk or not as it is immaterial to the case of manslaughter. However, it may enable him to push for murder, which could be one of the reasons why the defence is attempting to deny their client was drunk. This may create a new problem when it comes to sentencing, as it (intoxication) then cannot be used in mitigation of the sentenceIt was 45 years ago so all bets are off I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edition 507 Posted January 19, 2018 Share https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/blood-sample-of-motorist-in-cyclists-death-case-taken-too-late-court-hears-20180118 Words fail me...Yep, and here goes the prosecutions case down the toilet! Unfortunately you can't measure things like 'He smelled of alcohol' or 'His speech was slurred' or even the doctor saying that he was 'moderately drunk'. This f*cker is going to walk free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edition 507 Posted January 19, 2018 Share This is why people resort to mob justice.Give the word and I am sure you will have a mob of volunteers eagerly queuing to serve a bit of 'justice' on this b@st@rd. Pikey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddaman Posted January 19, 2018 Share The problem with following a trial is that the defence has the right to question every fact and obscure every argument in order to create doubt about the guilt of his client.However, as the audience we are never sure if his BS is working on the judge until the judge reads his findings. So the defence may look all confident and seem to be discrediting the witnesses but in the end the judge rules for the prosecution because the evidence stands. Also there are a number of technicalities about due process that the defence cannot escape.I hope the judge and the prosecution are awake and on the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now