Gobsmacked at the jogger on the news..

[KurriKurri]

Who pushed that woman over into the path of a bus.

What a complete and utter wanker - who the hell does that?

Thank goodness she was OK (physically at least- she'll probably be rather nervous about walking along the pavement now

Premeditation for a murder charge does not mean that someone "set out that day to murder someone". Premeditation can last for 3 seconds.

Very telling that the victim saw him running the opposite way 15 minutes later and he ignored her when she tried to speak to him. If he was planning a "just an accident" defence, that basically demolishes it.

What it looks like to me is an angry, angry man basically exploding at someone who had the nerve to not get out of his way fast enough.

I hope he gets a decent prison sentence and loses his (no doubt) high-paying job. Wanker.

It wasn't attempted murder.

He's running the middle of the pavement, which he clearly thinks is "his space". The man he passes is in the sunlight, the women is (just) in the shadow, which he clearly thinks he owns, and so when he gets to her, he shoves her back into sunlight bit instead of adjusting his pathway to run closer to the railing.

Whilst he is obviously guilty of assault, I doubt he intended her to even fall, never mind die in front of a bus, so it's not attempted murder.

Doesn't make him any less of a psychotic wank stain on humanity though.

Agree....I doubt it was attempted murder too. I was just responding to what someone upthread said about premeditation.

Doesn't make it better, of course.

Sorry. I see what you mean now.

Belligerent I think that's charitable.

He absolutely did intend her to fall, it was a mighty full body shove. And the bus had just gone past. He was trying to push her into the path of it.

The comments i saw from someone supporting the find Corrie campaign have given me more food for thought.

If it was a woman who disappeared during a night out i bet many would have said " what was she doing out at that time of night"

The reaction wasnt like this though because it was a man.

Well the woman walking along that bridge wasnt even on a night out She was WALKING TO WORK. And yet still there was mental gymnastics to try and make it her fault. I dont see how anyone can deny the victim blaming towards women now.

High paying job ... yes I bet.

Modern day Patrick Bateman. Not so elegant however.

Whilst he is obviously guilty of assault, I doubt he intended her to even fall, never mind die in front of a bus

He pushed her, with force, towards the road and carried on running as she fell. Whilst he would never be arrested for or charged with attempted murder but he didn't care much if she did get run over (as it was only due to the bus driver's swift action she didn't as he ran off).

She was WALKING TO WORK. And yet still there was mental gymnastics to try and make it her fault. I dont see how anyone can deny the victim blaming towards women now.

I agree. It's so clear and abhorrent. So many people have gone to extreme lengths in their desperation to blame the woman and excuse this violent man.

Even if she did push him, he still veered off course towards her to.
He was still the aggressor.There is no way around that.

I wish people would stop doing this. She did nothing except do her usual walk to work. He decided to veer towards her and push her into the road with absolutely no provocation, then jog off, and ignore her when she saw him again and challenged him later on.

Well well well Im now unblocked because a MAN on twitter has explained it to her and she sees it differently when a man explains it rather than a woman.

Very telling.

I know that its almost out of camera but you can see by his body language that he knows exactly what he has done.

it wasn't until I saw a better quality version that she does appear to have tried to trip him

Do you have a link to this footage that shows her tripping him?

Can anyone explain to me just why this woman would try and trip a random man she doesn't know who happened to run past her on her way to work? It makes zero sense. Unless we think she has a deep seated hatred for joggers or something?

Obviously not some woman on her way to the office, pondering her meeting with Mr Tibbs from accounts and what she will have for lunch.

Actually an anti jogging ninja-vigilante. Stalking the affluent streets of south London for her next poor wee male victim.

Any more inexplicable than a random jogger shoving a woman out of the way?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think she tripped or tried to trip him, but that's based on what I see/interpret, not what I expect about (gender stereotypes?) behaviour.

I suspect entitled joggers would be more aggressive than a pedestrian walking along to the office (not rushing to catch a bus or lugging heavy bags).

Any more inexplicable than a random jogger shoving a woman out of the way?

Yes, tbh. Because that actually happens very often.

More than pedestrians interfering/chucking stuff/flicking fags? Are you sure? I'm not. Never seen an angry jogger. Been shoulderbarged by enough pedestrians though.

To reiterate: I don't think she's one of those pedestrians.

Any more inexplicable than a random jogger shoving a woman out of the way?

Yes because male violence against women and girls is common. On which, it's scarcely even worth dignifying with discussion as it's an attempt to victim blame but a woman who even considered attempting to do such a thing would doubtless fear the reaction from a man.

Female pedestrians tripping up male joggers?

Did you miss the bit where I have been very clear about what has happened? I'm just arguing against assumptions based on stereotypes.

What's telling is that he is not startled when she falls, he doesn't stop in shock as anyone would do. What a weirdo.

but potential jurors will have seen the video and you need to find 12 who have not been prejudiced by seeing it.

I can't see any reason why this would be necessary. The video itself will be the main evidence if he pleads Not Guilty, and the jury will be given every opportunity to examine it in detail, frame by frame if necessary. What they may be seeing now won't be any different from what they see in court, so how can they be prejudiced by it?

Indeed Ceto and CCTV appeals are commonplace.