An animal rights activist who killed a fox hunt supporter by driving a gyrocopter at his head walked free from court today after being cleared of manslaughter.Yup, it's this case. And if you thought that showed the animal rights loony-tunes for what they were...
During the trial, Mr Griffiths told the court he did not feel responsible for the death.And now a court of law has decided that you aren't. But there are other courts. There's the court of public opinion, for instance, which has seen your incredibly blase attitude to the consequences of your insane actions.
He said: 'I feel regretful about what happened. I obviously feel regret and sadness for Mr Morse's family.
'In my opinion this was something that could have definitely been avoided but given the fact he had been told several times to move out of the way, not only by myself and others, and had clearly been told the aircraft was going to take off, I feel that all the things that could have been done were done.
'I do not actually feel responsible.'
I think that, at least, will treat you as you deserve...
And let's hope the Civil Aviation Authority takes a long, hard look at the actions of someone who has decided that, as long as the proper warnings are given, he's free to do as he likes, no matter the obstacles in his path.
8 comments:
Presumably,a huntsman is entitled to ride over a hunt saboteur provided that he warns of his intended direction of travel first.
Apparently, the demise of the victim courtesy of the spinning blades of the gyrocopter was caught on video....
Pat,
A huntsman shouldn't need to give a warning, If you are too fucking stupid to stand in the path of a galloping destrier, then a good kicking from the horses hooves is well-deserved.
I can imagine the IRA using the defence;
"Yous'e can not send me to the "H" block, cus I phoned a warning that the bomb was going to go off, so I did."
I don't understand this verdict.
If the victim had been threatening or intimidating the defendant, then I would consider what he did defensible on the grounds of self-preservation.
But the defendants own testimony seems to debunk that. He felt he had a right to mow down someone who was obstructing his path. That is a very dangerous precedent to set.
Anyone who runs over a pedestrian who is incapable of getting out of his way, now has a defence.
Anonymous said...
If the victim had been threatening or intimidating the defendant, then I would consider what he did defensible on the grounds of self-preservation.
I find it hard to imagine how cutting someones head off with an aircraft propeller can be counted as "Reasonable force".
This was reported at the time in my local paper. Nowhere since have I seen it reported that the two in the gyrocopter (one a known criminal) were operating under the direction of the police who had provided training on reporting violations. All kept nice and quiet.
"Presumably,a huntsman is entitled to ride over a hunt saboteur provided that he warns of his intended direction of travel first."
They've now got legal precedent! Tally ho! ;)
"Apparently, the demise of the victim courtesy of the spinning blades of the gyrocopter was caught on video...."
We can only thank the lord it isn't on YouTube - yet...
"I can imagine the IRA using the defence..."
They must be kicking themselves...
"Anyone who runs over a pedestrian who is incapable of getting out of his way, now has a defence."
Insurance claims are going to get even more interesting than in Jasper Carrot's day too...
"Nowhere since have I seen it reported that the two in the gyrocopter (one a known criminal) were operating under the direction of the police who had provided training on reporting violations. All kept nice and quiet."
I wondered at that, as a few magazines had articles mentioning police co-operation with the animal-rights loons as the ban started to come into force...
Post a Comment