Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National [USA] Driver charged with attempted murder

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Heli, May 21, 2013.

  1. 2 injured in apparent road rage crash on Coronado Bridge: Police say driver hit motorcycle

    Handy having an off duty cop around just at the right time!

  2. The rider was on a K1600 (GT?), apparently:


    Let's see her repeat that in a court under oath.
  3. Doubt she will have to. Also not sure of US laws regarding spouse as involuntary witness.
  4. #4 Bjpitt, May 21, 2013
    Last edited: May 21, 2013
    I assume you have mistaken the women as the driver, she wasn't. Otherwise as has been mentioned, I think she can choose not to testify against her husband according to US law.
  5. I need to move to California. If that happened here the police would be going on about how it's important for motorcycles to take responsibility for their own safety, and the BMW driver would be the victim, unable to see a crazy motorbike.
  6. It's damn lucky the police officer was there. Now there is some chance that justice will be done.
  7. More realistically, he wouldn't be charged with attempted murder, rather it would just be a Neg Drive ticket.

    In NSW at least, cops seem to have the attitude that if it happens on the road, only road rules apply.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. It was rhetorical on my part. The article makes it clear she wasn't driving.
  9. Because that's the law. If the same thing happened here they'd have to be charged with something like dangerous or culpable driving causing GBH/death, and maybe something like act endangering life. They simply can't be charged with attempted murder as the law doesn't allow that.
  10. OK which law prevents them from being charged with Aggravated Assault Occasioning Actually Bodily harm?

    Dangerous driving, Culpable Driving, vehicular manslaughter, etc vary a great deal from state to state in Australia.

    In NSW Culpable may be the only one that exists (above neg drive). Trying to remember the requirements for that. Something about alcohol and/or death. Basically there is a gap in NSW law, but I can't see why it can't be filled with an assault charge, just because it happened on the road.
  11. Police have to charge with the most appropriate offence in the circumstances.

    Murder, manslaughter etc are in the Crimes Act 1900 as is culpable driving. Culpable driving is a specific offence for killing someone (or causing GBH) whilst driving, and as such it is the most appropriate offence.

    The is ACT, but it will be similar elsewhere.

    "A person who, by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle, causes the death of another person is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 7 years."

    "offence of culpable driving, for a person, means—
    (a) an offence against the Crimes Act 1900, section 29 (Culpable driving); or
    (b) any other offence against the Crimes Act 1900 if a necessary fact to constitute the offence is that someone dies or is injured because of, or as a result of, the way a person drove a motor vehicle."
  12. So in this case it may be GBH or it may be just Actual Bodily Harm (broken bones-depends whether the damage is permanent). If it's only Actual Bodily Harm then Culpable driving doesn't apply.

    So then the default in NSW would just be Neg Drive, but in fact the crimes act would be more appropriate in this case (Aggravated assault occasioning Actual Bodily harm).

    I believe in some states they have a Dangerous driving offense (or similar), which I believe fills the gap between Culpable Driving and Neg Driving, but it never used to exist in NSW. May well do now, in which case it would be more appropriate.
  13. There are a number of driving offences, in order of severity:


    The problem is not all of them allow from ABH, GBH or death which probably does need correcting, but it's a common problem across all states.
  14. Do any of those driving offences include an element of intent to kill someone? An attempted murder charge captures the element of intent. Of course it makes it harder to prove, which is perhaps why the cops prefer to use driving offences
  15. No intent.

    *sigh* it's already been answered. It's because they can't, not because they won't.
  16. *sigh* it's just been shown that there are circumstances where the crimes act is more appropriate, so there they can. They don't, because they are lazy, not because they can't.
  17. Wrong. Last post in this thread by me seeing as you can't understand the simple fact that they can't.
  18. #18 smileedude, May 23, 2013
    Last edited: May 23, 2013
  19. Ok I was wrong. I've never heard of it happening before and was under the belief you couldn't. Having said that it would be nigh on impossible to prove except in very extenuating circumstances due to the burden of proof required for a successful murder conviction.
  20. I agree it wouldn't be an easy conviction, hence my lazy comment. But culpable driving isn't an easy conviction either.

    Overworked cops will mostly take the easiest route, even if a more appropriate offence exists.