[nelson249]

I found an interesting story in our local fishwrap. I am glad to hear that the police here not only found the driver but have also laid an indictable charge.


Pickup driver charged after ramming cyclist


KITCHENER (Apr 30, 2007)

A Kitchener man has been charged after an argument with a cyclist turned into a hit-and-run collision.

Last night, the driver of a pickup truck intentionally swerved into a man on a bicycle along Highland Road West, following a dispute, witnesses said.

The cyclist was knocked off his bicycle and taken to hospital by ambulance. His injuries are minor, police said.

The driver of the truck has been charged with assault with a weapon and leaving the scene of an accident.

[The BikeForums Team]

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

[sauerwald]

The driver of the truck has been charged with assault with a weapon and leaving the scene of an accident.

Interesting that he would be charged with leaving the scene of an accident - from the account, it sounds as though the collision was not the result of an accident, but rather an intentional act.

[WalterMitty]

Interesting that he would be charged with leaving the scene of an accident - from the account, it sounds as though the collision was not the result of an accident, but rather an intentional act.

Right, Shouldn't that read "Leaving the scene of a crime"?

[deputyjones]

Right, Shouldn't that read "Leaving the scene of a crime"?

Only problem is that's not a crime. It might lend itself to his guilt, but not criminal in-and-of-itself.

[WalterMitty]

Only problem is that's not a crime. It might lend itself to his guilt, but not criminal in-and-of-itself.

Well, you're right of course, but if a carjacker takes a car by hitting the driver with a club and the victim is run over in the process, do they charge the carjacker with "Hit-and-Run" on top of the original crime? Seems odd.

It's all semantics of course. We're all pretty well ingrained to call all vehicle crashes "accidents". Most are probably caused by negligence, but I've never heard of anyone reporting a "Negligent" to anybody.

Certainly in this case it was an "intentional". So maybe his lawyer will argue that there's no law against leaving the scene of an intentional. :p

"Yeah, I was drunk, ran a red light and had an accident."

"Officers report that the driver was doing well over 100MPH when the accident occurred" :rolleyes:

Shouldn't it either be "assault with a deadly weapon" or "leaving the scene of an accident"?

[Keith99]

Sounds like a smart D.A. to me. Assume that the little blurb of an article pretty much has it right. A decent lawyer might well be able to assert and at least raise a reasonable doubt that the driver did not intend to actually hit the cyclist. Hm, perhaps a really good lawyer could enve push it into reasonable doubt that he even intended to come close, a jury might buy that the guy was just p*ssed off and leaving in a huff.

Now look at teh leaving teh scene of an accident. Does any of this help the drive on that charge? Nope.

A good D.A. makes sure to have those back-up charges there to make sure if a bad guy gets lucky he still does not walk scott free.

[Golf XRay Tango]

The charge doesn't use the word accident to imply that the collision was unintentional. That's just the wording used in the Highway Traffic Act to describe any collision between a vehicle and anything else. It's perfectly valid to charge the motorist with the crime 'Assault with a weapon' and the HTA offence 'Leaving the scene'.

In any collision, the drivers are required to exchange insurance and identification information. Failing to do so for any reason (including running away from a crime) justifies the charge.

[Falkon]

Assault with a weapon, now THAT is the charge that fits. I hope they nail his ass for it.

[deputyjones]

Well, you're right of course, but if a carjacker takes a car by hitting the driver with a club and the victim is run over in the process, do they charge the carjacker with "Hit-and-Run" on top of the original crime? Seems odd.

Yeah, It does seem odd, but we actually would do that.

It's all semantics of course. We're all pretty well ingrained to call all vehicle crashes "accidents". Most are probably caused by negligence, but I've never heard of anyone reporting a "Negligent" to anybody.

Certainly in this case it was an "intentional". So maybe his lawyer will argue that there's no law against leaving the scene of an intentional. :p

"Yeah, I was drunk, ran a red light and had an accident."

"Officers report that the driver was doing well over 100MPH when the accident occurred" :rolleyes:

Shouldn't it either be "assault with a deadly weapon" or "leaving the scene of an accident"?

Thankfully not. The two crimes are independent of one another and when you have a real jerk like this it is nice to pour on as many charges as you can. If his driver's license was suspended I would charge him with that too ;)