> On 12 Jul, 23:54, John Wright pegasus.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> Doug wrote:

>>> On 10 Jul, 08:24, JNugent NPPTG.com> wrote:

>>>> Doug wrote:

>>>>> On 9 Jul, 21:57, "DavidR" 4bidden.org.uk> wrote:

>>>>>> "David Hansen" spidacom.co.uk> wrote

>>>>>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenag...

>>>>>>> As one might expect with the Daily Wail, the headline bears little
>>>>>>> relationship to the contents of the story

>>>>>> In the Telegraph there was another story on the same page about a person
>>>>>> deliberately droving a LandRover at someone. The victim leapt of the way
>>>>>> but the driver was charged with assault. My thought was "why wasn't it
>>>>>> attempted murder?"

>>>>> Good point. Why aren't cars treated like any other lethal weapon?

>>>> Good point. Perhaps motor cars should be taxed and regulated like those
>>>> lethal weapons kitchen knives (even daggers), hammers and plastic bags.
>>>> Not to mention sleeping pills.

>

>>> Any of which would involve a manslaughter charge if they inadvertently
>>> caused a death but why not a car? If a car is deliberately used to
>>> kill then that is treated as murder, just like any other weapon, but
>>> not if it is an involuntary cause. Obviously killer drivers are
>>> treated preferentially.

>

>> You posted something in another thread showing how a driver of a van had
>> been charged with murder. So its no so impossible as you like to portray.

>
> I don't say it is impossible. What is it about 'If a car is
> deliberately used to kill..." you do not understand?
>
> Either there is something we are not being told about the van driver,
> i.e. it was a deliberate killing which usually involves a murder
> charge regardless of the weapon used, or the police are up to their
> usual tricks of using any old initial charge, which will be changed
> later when and if it comes to trial.