Burry Stander: Charges to be reinstated

Goverment is not gonna care much for perception...

This might sound racist, this was a cyclist... be that a olympian, struck by a taxi driver.

each of those representing a voter base.

where are they gonna get more votes from next year come elections.

there goes the value of the perception component.

G

..and public perception?

 

 

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/29/2944/JSWRD00Z/posters/hanging-a-pirate-in-a-cage-on-high-ground-overlooking-the-sea.jpg

 

Even IF the taxi was allowed to cross the white line, he cannot turn in front of oncoming traffic

 

[insert Ka dish ding guillotine sound]

 

= GUILTY

the only way this needs to be looked at... brake it into the simplest of actions/results...

 

Guilty or not on these....

what was his actions, what was the outcome.

he turned, accident happened. there is no arguing this. Involuntary manslaughter.

 

what will have impact on sentence, if found guilty, ye, the lines, the visibility, his remorse.

 

G

It's not quite that simply. For a charge of culpable homicide to stick, they have to prove that he was unlawfully negligent. All we have so far if negligence, which, it could well be argued by his lawyer, was accidental.

I commute to work by motorbike on occasion, and sometimes a specific situation arises in traffic not unlike what the road layout is in this case: Car going North is courteous and allows a gap for Car (Taxi?) travelling South waiting to turn into side street on left. Motorcyclist (me) going North doesn't realise this and comes up the inside of car, almost getting flattened by car turning in right in front of me. Cue much braking and hand signals. Strictly speaking though, I *was* in the wrong. I hope this wasn't the case in this situation.......

Goverment is not gonna care much for perception...

 

This might sound racist, this was a cyclist... be that a olympian, struck by a taxi driver.

each of those representing a voter base.

 

where are they gonna get more votes from next year come elections.

 

there goes the value of the perception component.

 

G

What's this got to do with the government? The legislature and the judiciary are not the same thing.

It was my response to the "Perception" component, value question.

Will it have value t any point/phase. I don't see it.

G

What's this got to do with the government? The legislature and the judiciary are not the same thing.

So this potentially comes down to: was the right charges laid, consider what happened, and what can be proven and not.

G

It's not quite that simply. For a charge of culpable homicide to stick, they have to prove that he was unlawfully negligent. All we have so far if negligence, which, it could well be argued by his lawyer, was accidental.

I haven't been following the in and outs of this case. Is the argument whether the taxi driver turned over a solid line? Whether the line is there are not, if Stander was going straight does he not have right of way either way?

Public perception

Sorry, my point being the taxi driver being hanged as an example to motorists in the fight for cycling's acceptance on the road. I distinctly recall the day Burry died, people were calling for an example to show the world. He does not fit the bill IMHO.

It was my response to the "Perception" component, value question.

 

Will it have value t any point/phase. I don't see it.

 

G

My view of public perception though, or make that perception that is transferred to the Taxi industry, motorist industry...

it is that being accountable for actions, this is (what ever the charges)... Taxi driver turned. in front of Burry/cyclist, be that turn as allowed, or not.

his actions was the cause of the accident, and need to be held accountable for that.

The current view by motorist, you can do things, and say, oh damm, sorry... and you're free. Oh damm, sorry I did not see you. The attitude of motorist to other road users.

Point and case... the accident in Tsaneen the past weekend.

G

Public perception

 

Sorry, my point being the taxi driver being hanged as an example to motorists in the fight for cycling's acceptance on the road. I distinctly recall the day Burry died, people were calling for an example to show the world. He does not fit the bill IMHO.

I haven't been following the in and outs of this case. Is the argument whether the taxi driver turned over a solid line? Whether the line is there are not, if Stander was going straight does he not have right of way either way?

Yes, he would. But I don't think that makes the driver immediately guilty of culpable homicide. The traffic officer testified that he checked to see if anything was approaching but didn't see anything.

We've got an issue at work where the wrong set of docs were sent & the result is a loss of USD36k.

The person responsible made a mistake but couldnt foresee that kind of loss. She just gets judged on making the mistake, especially as it's a one-off.

The court has the same type of problem, a taxi turning across oncoming traffic - is it careless, is it reckless, is it homicidal. It must happen 1,000s of times a day with minor consequences, but this time the consequences were huge.

Determining the level of guilt and the right sentence is a difficult job, and has to fit into a consistent pattern to have any legitimacy.

I commute to work by motorbike on occasion, and sometimes a specific situation arises in traffic not unlike what the road layout is in this case: Car going North is courteous and allows a gap for Car (Taxi?) travelling South waiting to turn into side street on left. Motorcyclist (me) going North doesn't realise this and comes up the inside of car, almost getting flattened by car turning in right in front of me. Cue much braking and hand signals. Strictly speaking though, I *was* in the wrong. I hope this wasn't the case in this situation.......

That is quite possible and a serious concern for the prosecution especially if there was a car that Burry overtook on the left.

It's not quite that simply. For a charge of culpable homicide to stick, they have to prove that he was unlawfully negligent. All we have so far if negligence, which, it could well be argued by his lawyer, was accidental.

Bollocks imo

Its against the law and negligent to turn in front of oncoming traffic who has the right of way.

The exception could be if the taxi driver could not see Burry in a situation like Andymann referred to above.

We've got an issue at work where the wrong set of docs were sent & the result is a loss of USD36k.

 

The person responsible made a mistake but couldnt foresee that kind of loss. She just gets judged on making the mistake, especially as it's a one-off.

 

The court has the same type of problem, a taxi turning across oncoming traffic - is it careless, is it reckless, is it homicidal. It must happen 1,000s of times a day with minor consequences, but this time the consequences were huge.

 

Determining the level of guilt and the right sentence is a difficult job, and has to fit into a consistent pattern to have any legitimacy.

..and if the driver get's off on a light sentencing the public will rebuke the judicial system. It's a tough one, it is.

We've got an issue at work where the wrong set of docs were sent & the result is a loss of USD36k.

 

The person responsible made a mistake but couldnt foresee that kind of loss. She just gets judged on making the mistake, especially as it's a one-off.

 

The court has the same type of problem, a taxi turning across oncoming traffic - is it careless, is it reckless, is it homicidal. It must happen 1,000s of times a day with minor consequences, but this time the consequences were huge.

 

Determining the level of guilt and the right sentence is a difficult job, and has to fit into a consistent pattern to have any legitimacy.

This will be an interesting one. The issue of the interest of society may be used in arguing for aggravation of sentence should he be found guilty. That pressure from the family and public led to the charges being revived points to this.

Yes, he would. But I don't think that makes the driver immediately guilty of culpable homicide. The traffic officer testified that he checked to see if anything was approaching but didn't see anything.

If that is the case, the driver was unlawfully negligent. (you said the requirements for a guilty charge)

The driver failed to check his blind spot before turning. Checking a blind spot is an integral (lawful) part of turning left or right, the current drivers license tests insist on it. He neglected to do so.

We've got an issue at work where the wrong set of docs were sent & the result is a loss of USD36k.

 

The person responsible made a mistake but couldnt foresee that kind of loss. She just gets judged on making the mistake, especially as it's a one-off.

 

The court has the same type of problem, a taxi turning across oncoming traffic - is it careless, is it reckless, is it homicidal. It must happen 1,000s of times a day with minor consequences, but this time the consequences were huge.

 

Determining the level of guilt and the right sentence is a difficult job, and has to fit into a consistent pattern to have any legitimacy.

I think that is the exact point....just like when a car skips a traffic light..you will find very few cases where a ruling of culpable homicide has been awarded...and that's why I say they should be taking the Shelly Beach Traffic police to court

If that is the case, the driver was unlawfully negligent. (you said the requirements for a guilty charge)

The driver failed to check his blind spot before turning. Checking a blind spot is an integral (lawful) part of turning left or right, the current drivers license tests insist on it. He neglected to do so.

Aren't blind spots behind a driver?

 

The court has the same type of problem, a taxi turning across oncoming traffic - is it careless, is it reckless, is it homicidal. It must happen 1,000s of times a day with minor consequences, but this time the consequences were huge.

 

There's the problem.

Its against the law, finished and klaar...JA!

No if's and buts

The law (Thou shalt not turn across oncoming traffic) is there to prevent vehicles collisions ect....and should not be diluted with possibilities (careless, reckless, homicidal...etc....)

Yes I know its not that simple, but if people simply followed the law a lot of stuff like this would not happen.

My view

It's not the traffic police's job to make sure we abide, it is our own responsibility.

We have to take ownership ourself, Traffic police is there to educate us, advise us, (in a good society) and then issue fines where we don't.

G

I think that is the exact point....just like when a car skips a traffic light..you will find very few cases where a ruling of culpable homicide has been awarded...and that's why I say they should be taking the Shelly Beach Traffic police to court

Blind spots can be behind the A 'n C pillar too, just that it is not taught in the K53 that it obstructs vision. (Geez, double meaning!)

On that.. I have once had a car move at the same pace as me moving my head to look behind the A pillar. I saw nothing and entered the traffic circle. It was @!&*^ close!

Blind spots can be behind the A 'n C pillar too, just that it is not taught in the K53 that it obstructs vision. (Geez, double meaning!)

 

On that.. I have once had a car move at the same pace as me moving my head to look behind the A pillar. I saw nothing and entered the traffic circle. It was @!&*^ close!

That's okay…I don't think anyone in Cape Town knows how to use traffic circles…

That's okay…I don't think anyone in Cape Town knows how to use traffic circles…

Ja, she had no clue.. aren't you supposed to hoot or something?!

My view

 

It's not the traffic police's job to make sure we abide, it is our own responsibility.

We have to take ownership ourself, Traffic police is there to educate us, advise us, (in a good society) and then issue fines where we don't.

 

G

I think...Stretches point was that if law enforcement was strictly and constantly applied with zero tolerance, we would be less inclined to take those little indiscretions (not stopping, driving thru red lights, turning in front of traffic, pushing bikes off the road, talking / texting on phones whilst driving, .etc..etc...).

In turn someone has to put pressure on the traffic police to make sure they don't become fat and lazy....

Oops to late she screamed...

and I won't disagree,

If law's were better enforced, with better sentences then the deterrent would be there, people will realise there are consequences for their actions.

Thats partly why I don't believe the new 1.5m law will help in any way, since the law's already there are not being enforced anyhow, so what difference is another law going to make.

G

I think...Stretches point was that if law enforcement was strictly and constantly applied with zero tolerance, we would be less inclined to take those little indiscretions (not stopping, driving thru red lights, turning in front of traffic, pushing bikes off the road, talking / texting on phones whilst driving, .etc..etc...).

 

In turn someone has to put pressure on the traffic police to make sure they don't become fat and lazy....

 

Oops to late she screamed...

and I won't disagree,

 

If law's were better enforced, with better sentences then the deterrent would be there, people will realise there are consequences for their actions.

 

Thats partly why I don't believe the new 1.5m law will help in any way, since the law's already there are not being enforced anyhow, so what difference is another law going to make.

 

G

yes - that is what I am saying. I am talking about law enforcement here. With proper law enforcement people will think twice about indiscretions. Right now it is the wild west. Sure it is our responsibility, but it is evident that the moral standards have dropped significantly, and that is a result of the zero consequences