>> It could be easily rewritten as
>>
>> - A person lost their life due to their aggressive cycling on a pavement
>> , failing to slow down and maintain control of their machine when failing to yield
>> in response to a passive aggressive action from an elderly pedestrian.
I read comments like this and wonder if we're actually seeing the same video. Although we can only see her for a very short time I can see no evidence that the deceased was riding aggressively and she appears to have slowed to walking pace before tumbling into the road. The action of Miss Grey is way beyond passive. She appears to actively seek confrontation and, in some edits with a few more frames than on the BBC, to lunge at the cyclist. The Police say there was a probability of "light contact" between the two women.
>> In my eyes if a shared path - possibly guilty, not shared - not guilty.
>> Based on the the local input above, there seems to be little support for the
>> shared aspect. Would be interesting to know how the defence presented the evidence?
Why does it make any difference? Manslaughter is Manslaughter. Maybe different if you're defending your home against an intruder but defending your patch of the footway?
>> Is there likely to be an appeal?
I think I've seen a suggestion that Grey is appealing the sentence (which may have some merit) but the consensus seems to be that on ALL of the evidence as seen by the Jury the conviction is bombproof.
>>
|
