FGW driver injured as window hit

[crewmeal]

Originally Posted by ralphchadkirk View Post
How do you know it was premeditated?

Plus the fact he would have to wait for a train armed with said concrete or brick or whatever the 'weapon' was ready to throw. If that isn't premeditated I don't know what is!

 

[jon0844]

Was the brick thrown at random and fate saw it hit a train or did the kid wait until the train was coming and try hard to time the drop to hit the front?

Also, nobody has said the kid can't mount a defence and be represented. Just that some have predicted the likely mitigating circumstances and the chance of being given a lenient punishment for spurious reasons. I hope that won't happen here.

 

[TDK]

No it isn't. There has to be an intent to commit murder (or an intent to commit GBH).

What is the intent of someone throwing a brick at a train windscreen then? Please let me know as in my eyes if someone threw a brick at you from a catapult at 60mph would they just be doing it to make you happy :roll::roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Was the brick thrown at random and fate saw it hit a train or did the kid wait until the train was coming and try hard to time the drop to hit the front?

That is down to probability, how many millions to one is it that someone accidently threw a brick and it accidently hit a train windscree - it is like the joke about the daughter boyfriend explaing to her dad that he fell - remember the joke?

Probabability wise it was a pre-meditated attack

 

[158747]

Maybe in the eyes of the law it is difficult to prove this idiot's intent. Even if they have the smallest amount of common sense, then surely they must have realised that by throwing a brick at a speeding train they could have caused serious harm to the driver.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What is the intent of someone throwing a brick at a train windscreen then? Please let me know as in my eyes if someone threw a brick at you from a catapult at 60mph would they just be doing it to make you happy :roll::roll:k

You clearly don't understand law. It is what the person who threw the brick intended on doing, not what a lot of train drivers think they intended on doing.

 

[O L Leigh]

I understand what you are saying however if someone throws a brick at a moving train or any vehicle it is attempted murder - whether the defendant will get that charge is another story.

No it isn't for the reasons I have already explained. Simply tossing a brick at a train, whether deliberate or not, does not mean that there was an intent to kill. And that is what you need to prove in order to secure a conviction for attempted murder.

The defendants defence (and they will have a defence if they get caught) will try their hardest to get the minimal possible so it will be down to the judge, CPS, solicitors etc and historically unfortunately this happens time and time again.

You say this like it's a failing.

I have said before that you have to prosecute people within the law and not based on what you feel about something. I would prefer a realistic prosecution that secures a conviction that an unrealistic ambitious one that has it's roots in fantasy and no hope of succeeding.

If I was the driver I would take the defendant to the high court for a damages claim! What to you think? Would you do the same?

That's up to you, as it is up to me.

O L Leigh