Two arrested for murder after hunt supporter's death

[dylanredefined]

Some gyrocopters have the ability to power the rotor up before take off
shortens take off .So if the gryocopter was stationery and the pilot powered
up the rotor as the victim approached could be considered intent I suppose.
Still think its a bit dodgy .

 

[paolo]

I'm having difficulty imagining how it could be done on purpose unless there was a propeller at the front and he was kind of mown down.

That's the odd bit.

If they were taxiing (doesn't seem to be any doubt on that point) then the main rotor wouldn't be turning. The powered prop is at the back.

There was unsubstantiated post on the main aviation forum that the guy tripped and went into the prop. Went to get up again and was killed on the second strike.

(Much as I don't agree with hunting, I'm not getting a joy out of this story whatever the truth. )

 

[cesare]

Some gyrocopters have the ability to power the rotor up before take off
shortens take off .So if the gryocopter was stationery and the pilot powered
up the rotor as the victim approached could be considered intent I suppose.
Still think its a bit dodgy .

It's not clear to me whether the copter was taking off or landing.

Either way, unless those copters have a prop in front, what happened was behind or at the side?

Did the copter reverse into him, or lunge sideways at him?

Whether take off or landing, both of those seem unlikely.

 

[Tromaville]

I hope they sue his estate for the damage done to the aircraft.

Propellers aren't cheap.

And blood stains pretty bad if it's allowed to dry in..... one good thing though at least there won't be much brains to have to clean up.

 

[longdog]

Some gyrocopters have the ability to power the rotor up before take off
shortens take off .So if the gryocopter was stationery and the pilot powered
up the rotor as the victim approached could be considered intent I suppose.
Still think its a bit dodgy .

I don't think the rotors would have the 'oomph' to do any real damage even of a machine with a spin-up. If I recall correctly the blade is spun up by a fairly weedy electric motor.

I'd rather be hit by the rotor than the prop that's for sure. Walking in to a rotor is survivable, people have gone through helicopter rotors and lived to tell the tale, getting twatted by a 20kg prop at 2000RPM is going to seriously ruin your day.

 

[cesare]

And blood stains pretty bad if it's allowed to dry in..... one good thing though at least there won't be much brains to have to clean up.

I'd always be rather speculating about blood and brain clearage, takes you right back to the corpse innit

 

[cesare]

doggie, the fucking prop's at the back Did he run into it? Or did they do some brilliant reversing move into him?

Unless you're suggesting that they managed to dip the rotors out to the sides in some way, ?

 

[longdog]

doggie, the fucking prop's at the back Did he run into it? Or did they do some brilliant reversing move into him?

Unless you're suggesting that they managed to dip the rotors out to the sides in some way, ?

Nope... You've lost me

I know the prop's at the back. I assume he walked in to the path of the machine and got twatted by the prop. Going by the picture on the beeb it was an unshielded prop.

My point is I am more inclined to believe he got chopped vertically by the prop than horizontally by the rotor.

 

[cesare]

Nope... You've lost me

I know the prop's at the back. I assume he walked in to the path of the machine and got twatted by the prop. Going by the picture on the beeb it was an unshielded prop.

My point is I am more inclined to believe he got chopped vertically by the prop than horizontally by the rotor.

If he walked from the back into the path of the machine prop, it was an accident.

Not murder

If he walked into the sides without ducking, similarly accident

Not murder

Just trying to work out how they murdered him lol, cos it doesn't seem to stack up

 

[longdog]

If he walked from the back into the path of the machine prop, it was an accident.

Not murder

If he walked into the sides without ducking, similarly accident

Not murder

Just trying to work out how they murdered him lol, cos it doesn't seem to stack up

I agree.

To my mind you stay the fuck away from anything with a prop that's going to cut you in to tiny little pieces unless you know what you are doing and I suspect a fox-murdering bumpkin in a bad mood doesn't fall in to that catagory.

 

[paolo]

Pic from Sky

What would be possible here is that the guy stood in front of the gyrocopter, and the pilot continued taxying very close by. Wouldn't be too difficult to get clobbered by the prob in that situation.

"Where was Mr X"
"He was stood in front of us"
"Did you stop?"
"No"

Straight for a murder charge with just those basic facts... total speculation I must add.

 

[slaar]

When I first read this, I thought it was one of those little model helicopter thingys. Which I am sure could still give you a good whack, but anyway...

 

[laptop]

A post mortem-examination carried out at the University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire revealed Mr Morse died from severe head injuries.

"Body - here. Head - in that bucket. You think we should put 'severe', Susan?"




Interesting to see the pilots pointing out that interfering with an aircraft is itself an offence. Not that there's much to arrest, now.

From their forum (if the newspapers don't get done for contempt after charge...)

From a third hand source and based on an eye witness account, this is what is alledged to have occurred at Long Marston. The hunt supporter is said to have approached from the front of the aircraft after pulling up in his Land ( or Range) Rover with his wife at the fuelling bay. The pilot(s) who were confused by what was going on apparently shouted to the man to move as they were pulling away, he approached the front of the craft shouting back "you are going nowhere." Again it is said that the pilots were heard to shout to move as they were taxiing and again he apparently repeated "you're not going anywhere."

It is then believed that he approached and tripped over the rear wheels where the blade unfortunately struck his head, however he did momentarily stand up, albeit with a severe head wound before falling down backwards to the shock of all present including of course his wife.

As mentioned above, this is third hand and partially chinese whispers so please feel free to fill in the gaps however you feel or even totally disregard the above post as required...

 

[cesare]

I agree.

To my mind you stay the fuck away from anything with a prop that's going to cut you in to tiny little pieces unless you know what you are doing and I suspect a fox-murdering bumpkin in a bad mood doesn't fall in to that catagory.

Yep I agree. My way of thinking is different but leads to same place.

Me:

What the fuck was he doing there in the first place?

If he was there, was he visible?

If he was visible, did they want to kill him?

If they did, what would it have taken for them to be able to kill him without him being able to duck/run away?

 

[chainsaw cat]

I'm fucked if I'd deliberately hit anything with a rotating propeller. There's no knowing which way the pieces are going to go.

I've strimmed a long dead badger and a long dead Alsatian, some frogs and some dog turds.

I'd go along with Longdog on this one.

Bitter lesson: use a perspex visor not a mesh visor.

 

[paolo]

Yep I agree. My way of thinking is different but leads to same place.

Me:

What the fuck was he doing there in the first place?

If he was there, was he visible?

If he was visible, did they want to kill him?

If they did, what would it have taken for them to be able to kill him without him being able to duck/run away?

Fairly sure intent isn't required for murder, just sufficient recklessness.

If, having seen him, the pilot continued to move towards him (without good reason), that would suffice for murder I suspect.

 

[cesare]

Fairly sure intent isn't required for murder, just sufficient recklessness.

If, having seen him, they continued to move towards him, that would suffice for murder I suspect.

Moving intently towards him might have knocked him over, might have run over him.

But his injuries were prop type ones, not running over type ones?

 

[paolo]

Moving intently towards him might have knocked him over, might have run over him.

But his injuries were prop type ones, not running over type ones?

That's not the point. No need for the pilot to have intended any injury at all, just to be sufficiently reckless that the outcome was a realistic possibility. Merely possible, wouldn't even have to have been the most likely outcome.

 

[paolo]

(Every pilot knows that a live prop is extremely dangerous. Normal procedure is to shut down IMMEDIATELY if anyone is getting at all close.)

 

[laptop]

(Every pilot knows that a live prop is extremely dangerous. Normal procedure is to shut down IMMEDIATELY if anyone is getting at all close.)

(Yes, but it'll keep turning for quite a while even if you do do that, won't it...)

 

[chico enrico]

I wonder if there's film of it anywhere, hunt sabs usually filming stuff and that. Would be way cool. Like when you're at school in a classroom with a fan and you chuck someone's packed lunch up into the blades

 

[paolo]

(Yes, but it'll keep turning for quite a while even if you do do that, won't it...)

Sure, but not relevant in this context though. If you shut down as soon as, you aren't being reckless.

 

[Diamond]

That's not the point. No need for the pilot to have intended any injury at all, just to be sufficiently reckless that the outcome was a realistic possibility. Merely possible, wouldn't even have to have been the most likely outcome.

You'd need more than that for indirect intent when it comes to murder.

The prospect of death has to be a virtual certainty and the perp must appreciate that at that point in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law

 

[paolo]

You'd need more than that for indirect intent when it comes to murder.

The prospect of death has to be a virtual certainty and the perp must appreciate that at that point in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law

Thanks for the correction.

Might be that they are charging on murder, as a cover all-on the basis that it can then get stepped down to manslaughter.

ISTR DB highlighting this approach back when he posted here.

 

[laptop]

Might be that they are charging on murder, as a cover all-on the basis that it can then get stepped down to manslaughter.

That. They may even have put in alternative charges, which wouldn't get reported.

And, cynics might say, ensuring some headlines knocking the hunt sabs that disturb their Queen's Peace of tranquil rural blood-lust.



I'd be quite surprised if the murder charge got as far as the start of trial, even. Does the test of a 50% chance of getting a conviction apply to murder? Is there really a 50% chance of showing intent?

But, cynics might say: the headlines have already been had.

 

[_float_]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5880691.ece

in the comments section:

"...I wonder if these people ever protest about the millions of urban rats that are killed each day? Not one word about rats being trapped, poisoned slowly or shot. Foxes are rural pests, like rats..."

(((rats)))

 

[laptop]

(((rats)))

What colour coats do you think we should order for the Brixton Rat Hunt? Proper pink?

I reckon we should ride donkeys, for manouverability, too.

 

[paolo]

Is there really a 50% chance of showing intent?

I doubt there's any similar case history, so I'd guess the CPS wouldn't have a yardstick for that.

Is it almost certain that you drive a rear-mounted live prop at someone, they'll die? Could be argued that they would. I could see it sticking if the pilot doesn't hire an aviation specialist lawyer.

 

[laptop]

I could see it sticking if the pilot doesn't hire an aviation specialist lawyer.

I would expect the person facing trial to do just that. Their solicitor would, I suggest, be negligent not to get that expertise onto the case.

 

[paolo]

I would expect the person facing trial to do just that. Their solicitor would, I suggest, be negligent not to get that expertise onto the case.

You'd hope so. When I used to hang around aviation circles, I only knew of one though. He was the Go To Man when the CAA came after you. They apparently hated him, because he usually whipped them. He's a 'rotorhead' himself, so wouldn't be surprised if he ends up defending.