Yet another tragic loss.

[Ozzie NL]

Just yesterday on HP

 

Is why I use hole in one road

[Pikey]

I'm close to someone who had a very similar thing happen. She found herself widowed and her children fatherless out of the blue. The children were a bit older than in this case but not much.

There is nothing anyone can say or do that will help. It takes time to heal and ten years later issues still sneak up on the three of them.

The driver who did this has changed the families lives for the worse, forever. No matter whatever they do or wherever they go, he has stained their lives - For Ever.

Thats so sad & tragic. I have no words ????....

 

Am heart sore for Nino’s wife & children. So much senseless pain & heartache.

[Mudsimus]

Prosecuting this wont be easy. There is no way to proove that he was drunk. He can claim that the cyclist wasn’t visible, probably no lights and it was still dark. And leaving the scene of an accident is a minor offense.

[Prince Albert Cycles]

If the driver felt he did nothing wrong ( the cyclists fault ) why did he hide the vehicle ?

[Sitting@89]

Not quite accurate. I personally know of someone in SA who got drunk, killed a pedestrian, then fled the scene of the accident and hid for 2 days. He was convicted of multiple charges, one of which was DUI. The prosecutor used video evidence and witness statements to prove he had consumed way too much to be driving.

Then he had a sh@t attorney, if I order 10 beers, unless there is video evidence of me drinking every single one, saying that I drank every drop of every one is speculation and/or hearsay, which according to the law of evidence is inadmissible in a trail.

[Vetplant]

Then he had a sh@t attorney, if I order 10 beers, unless there is video evidence of me drinking every single one, saying that I drank every drop of every one is speculation and/or hearsay, which according to the law of evidence is inadmissible in a trail.

Sometimes the law sucks in that regard. It is better to not convict a criminal than to convict an innocent person when you are unsure it seems.

[Sitting@89]

Sometimes the law sucks in that regard. It is better to not convict a criminal than to convict an innocent person when you are unsure it seems.

Tough, thought provoking and very philosophical question you pose there. In an ideal world neither, but let's take the world as it is, there is a reason that legal systems that have been shaped by centuries of thought, philosophy and A LOT of trail and error favour the approach of innocent until proven guilty and beyond a reasonable doubt.