David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:35:41 GMT someone who may be
> "Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>As you decline to give any further explanation of your meaning regarding
>>this matter,
>
>
> Incorrect.
>
> As I said, "While we cannot know, I suspect that had this person not
> been a motorist at the time of passing the skateboarders then there
> would have been no murder."
>
>
That is not an explanation of your meaning. You might just as well say
if he had not been armed he would not have committed the crime.
Let us return to the beginning.
1) Your title is: "Those caring sharing motorists again" - A plurative
and all inclusive statement referring to all motorists.
2) Your original posting:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3759692.stm has an article on
> another example of childish stupidity from a motorist, this time
> towards someone on a skateboard.
>
> ==================================================================
>
> The court heard that he stabbed the teenager in the heart during a
> confrontation on Dundonald Road.
>
> Johnson, a father of two with convictions stretching back to 1995,
> was driving with his girlfriend when they passed Mr Jones and a
> group of friends.
>
> He leapt out of the car to threaten the group, two of whom were on
> skateboards including Mr Jones, after nearly hitting one of them.
>
> =================================================================
Is a subjective clausative IE a plural and as such is still inclusive of
all motorists.
3) The article referred to in your text states that the cause of the
assault was secondary to the original incident.
> Robert Trevor-Jones, prosecuting, said:
> As the defendant passed in his car at a modest speed, he came very close to touching one of the group.
> The defendant then parked up at the end of the road while the other group carried on walking.
> The defendant got out of his car and threatened to assault him.
> His girlfriend told him to leave it and the group turned their back
> on him and carried on, although there may have been sniggering or laughing.
> That appears to have irritated the defendant who then asked provocatively: 'Which of you is the ********?'
> That prompted Ben Jones to turn round and ask: 'Who are you calling a ********?'
> That was a comment which cost him his life.
> The defendant then went up to him fumbling for something in his pocket and placed his left hand on Ben Jones's chest.
> With his right arm he stabbed him in the chest.
Thus the connection between Christopher Johnson and being a motorist is
broken. Mr Johnson did not attack the victim because of the original
incident but because Mr Jones challenged his perceived dignity. This
was something which Mr Johnson could not allow to go unchallenged. He
then murdered Mr Jones.
As I stated earlier in this series of posts,
>> I have often attended incidents where the actual outcome was far in excess
>> of the normal response to the incident, in almost every case there has been
>> another reason for the escalation of the incident into a violent attack
>> other than the orginal incident itself.
This is now clearly the case and was demonstrated as such in court.
4) Your assertion is the crime was committed as a direct result of Mr
Johnson being a motorist,
> While we cannot know, I suspect that had this person not been a
> motorist at the time of passing the skateboarders then there would
> have been no murder.
Again an inclusive subjective clause suggesting Mr Johnson is a member
of a group.
And that had Mr Johnson been a cyclist then more would have been made of
the incident by the press.
> You can be sure that if a cyclist was responsible the mass media
> would have made a lot more of it though.
The facts show that there is no cause to link the violent behavior of Mr
Johnson with car drivers as the fatal incident was secondary and not
initiative of the murder.
The fact that there is no case in linking the murder of Mr Jones to the
incidental fact that Mr Johnson was driving a motor vehicle prior to the
murder does not show a disproportion in the reporting of driver related
incidents over cyclist related incidents. Just that it was not
integrally relevant to the crime.
Once again we return to the point that your original post was clearly
worded as an attack not on the media; who in this case have nothing to
answer; but an attack on all motorists. There was no attempt on your
part to qualify this merely an attempt to justify your action by saying
the media were not reporting things fairly.
I will not accept that you are again an injured party. You
deliberately, in my opinion, attempted to deceive this newsgroup by
posting a provocatively misleading heading and compounded that with the
body of the text and your subsequent replies.
It is not my way to be outwardly rude to people however you should be
aware that others may not feel as restrained as I. You have done, in my
opinion, no good to yourself with this and other recent posts you have
made. I would hope in the future that you restrict yourself to what is
needful to say.
Sniper8052
