To think he shouldn’t be charged with murder

[CovidCorvid]

Story in the news today. A man is stabbing a woman to death in the street, people try and intervene and he’s waving a big knife about. A passing motorist rams him with a car and kills him. The driver has now been charged with murder. I get that people can’t take the law into his own hands but for all he knew it was a mad man/terrorist who might be about to start killing others. Never mind trying to save the life of the poor woman who died. Surely he can argue he didn’t have an intention to kill the man, but was just hoping to stop him.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/woman-stabbed-man-killed-hit-by-car-maida-vale-west-london

A similar precedent is when three terrorists ran amok and passers by attacked them with a variety of unusual implements- successfully stopping them for murdering more people. Those people were hailed as heroes, not murderers. Is it because this guy was just murdering one woman that this is different? If he had then gone ahead and murdered a few more- would that change things? Is it because they were terrorists?

Committing a crime for a "good" reason doesn't negate that a crime was committed.

Actually it does. "Necessity" for a state.

Then, if you kill someone to protect yourself or another and it's determined to have been reasonable force then no offence has been committed

It's a shame after the slew of ignorance in the Bristol case that more people didn't rectify or at least realise their ignorance before sharing their wisdom again.

Whatever the rights and wrongs in this case, it needs careful investigation.

Here's a case where someone killed an intruder and didn't have to face a trial as it was ruled lawful self defence.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/hither-green-stabbing-of-burglar-was-lawful-killing-coroner-rules

This appears considerably less clear cut than the London bridge members of the public who intervened

They also didn't kill anyone

[quote ProfessorSlocombe]Committing a crime for a "good" reason doesn't negate that a crime was committed.

Actually it does. "Necessity" for a state.

Then, if you kill someone to protect yourself or another and it's determined to have been reasonable force then no offence has been committed

It's a shame after the slew of ignorance in the Bristol case that more people didn't rectify or at least realise their ignorance before sharing their wisdom again.

Whatever the rights and wrongs in this case, it needs careful investigation.

Here's a case where someone killed an intruder and didn't have to face a trial as it was ruled lawful self defence.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/hither-green-stabbing-of-burglar-was-lawful-killing-coroner-rules[/quote]
Yes, but it still has to be investigated and the decision whether or not to prosecute made.

All we know in this case is one man has run over one, potentially two, people. That's a probable crime but the full circumstances are not yet known. It needs looking at and he'll be arrested whilst it is.

That is not a failure of the state. The fact that it appears this was done for a good reason does not negate the fact that it would still appear to be a crime which needs investigating.

The Coulston four were the same. A crime was committed on the face of the events of the day, it was investigated and it was decided to prosecute. The jury then decided not to convict them of criminal damage.

Whether this man ever gets convicted of anything or even if it gets to court has yet to be determined.

For all the police knew at the time of arrest they all knew each other and there was more to it than meet the eye.

They've said they think they're unconnected but they will need to investigate

Yes, but it still has to be investigated and the decision whether or not to prosecute made.

Which I believe I said ?

The Coulston four were the same

Not really. They are possibly as different as different could be. At the risk of sounding flippant, nobody died. And for a second we have no idea why they were acquitted. It's almost a given that had someone been injured or killed when they were acting, they would not have had a defence in law.

At the end of the day the police are covered by the same laws we all are. If they kill someone in order to protect the public, they are still subject to the same process of investigation. Most crucially whether the force used was reasonable. And we know there have been occasions where officers have been charged all the way up to murder.

He never meant to kill. He only meant to maim, or seriously injure

Well I’m not sure how you know that, but if he goes into his interview and says that was what he wa yes to do, then there’s a good chance he will be charged with murder.

The only motivation he can have that will mean he isn’t is that he was trying to save the woman from further injury or death

Wanted. How has autocorrect decided that was a better option? 😂

Well I’m not sure how you know that, but if he goes into his interview and says that was what he wa yes to do, then there’s a good chance he will be charged with murder.

This is probably a very good example of when you should exercise your right to silence until you've had top-flight legal advice.

This is probably a very good example of when you should exercise your right to silence until you've had top-flight legal advice

Well IMO anyone who’s been arrested for murder would be crazy not to request a solicitor. But if they also tell the solicitor they intended to maim or injure someone, the solicitor cannot ethically represent them offering self defence as their justification as they’ve just told them they’ve committed murder as it’s defined in law

@Whatwhywhenwhere

Flowers 500 thankyou. Ultimately, regardless of how we feel morally, the letter of the law has to be upheld and the evidence processed.

So, on a personal level I can empathise with the actions of the car driver, legally he has run someone over and will have to deal with the consequences. There is discretion around sentencing, also vehicular crimes tend to carry a lower sentence. I am sure this man meant to stop the person stabbing the woman, not kill.

@Whatwhywhenwhere no you've misunderstood: There ARE NO CONSEQUENCES, there is no crime in him running someone over in self defence (defence of another) if it is reasonable in the circumstances, which is clearly is if the facts as reported are true.

Imagine it like this: murder is 1. If you can show the partial defences it becomes 0.5this is voluntary manslaughter. If you can show a full defence it becomes 0no crime at all! Self defence is a full defence--it means they are not guilty of murder or half murder.

No crime means no sentencing. Also a car being involved would make no difference on sentencing

@kierenthecommunity

He never meant to kill. He only meant to maim, or seriously injure

Well I’m not sure how you know that, but if he goes into his interview and says that was what he wa yes to do, then there’s a good chance he will be charged with murder.

The only motivation he can have that will mean he isn’t is that he was trying to save the woman from further injury or death

Firstly, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human with intent to either kill of cause GBH--so intending to maim is fine for a charge of murder, you don't actually have to intend for them to die. That is NOT what his excuse here would be.

He was acting in self defence (defence of another) if the facts we have are true. Therefore he has a full defence to murder--see the part of the murder definition that says 'unlawful'? If you are acting in self defence, that is lawful so there is no unlawful killing. Therefore NO MURDER.

It just has to be reasonable in the circumstances and allowing a margin of error for the heat of the moment. The stabber is mid murder, it's a matter of life or death, therefore this is reasonable. Therefore self defence shown, killing is lawful, so no murder.

@OneTC

This appears considerably less clear cut than the London bridge members of the public who intervened

They also didn't kill anyone

Both (if the facts we have are accurate) are fairly clear cut examples of self defence. The members of the public in the London bridge attack could also have killed in self defence with zero legal issue.

Self defence but we’re the means proportionate and was the driver reckless in execution of his defensive driving? Even if he had no intention to kill, intention to cause gbh and reckless driving still leaves him in an unfortunate pickle and will tie the cps in knots.

@AtillatheHun

Self defence but we’re the means proportionate and was the driver reckless in execution of his defensive driving? Even if he had no intention to kill, intention to cause gbh and reckless driving still leaves him in an unfortunate pickle and will tie the cps in knots.

Self defence requires the force used to be reasonable, with margin of error for heat of moment. In life or death situation with active stabber on rampage, running over them once is reasonable force (if the reported facts are correct).

Charging him would be unlikely on these facts.

@kierenthecommunity

This is probably a very good example of when you should exercise your right to silence until you've had top-flight legal advice

Well IMO anyone who’s been arrested for murder would be crazy not to request a solicitor. But if they also tell the solicitor they intended to maim or injure someone, the solicitor cannot ethically represent them offering self defence as their justification as they’ve just told them they’ve committed murder as it’s defined in law

That's not quite 100% correct.

If he acted in self defence in a life or death stabbing and ran the guy over once, it's self defence. Even if he tells the police he hoped the terrorist?murder? etc died if the force used was reasonable in circumstances (plus margin of error for heat of moment) then there is no unlawful killing--no murder or manslaughter.

If he ran him over a couple of extra times to be sure he was definitely dead, then the above would be correct. But on the facts we have, that is not the situation

@user313213521

Incredible how this man has been arrested for murder (if only so it can be investigated properly) and yet there's many many many cases where a driver runs over and kills a cyclist and isn't arrested for any offence whatsoever.

Actually as a rule , they are . For death by dangerous driving , and at the scene unless there is absolutely incontrovertible evidence to the contrary , or they haven't stopped .

As to what they get charged with , or ultimately found guilty of or sentencing, all of that is down to the CPS or the courts .

if the facts we have are accurate

And therein lies the rub

@OneTC

if the facts we have are accurate

And therein lies the rub

And this is exactly why the police are investigating fully, and they can't just send him home with a cup of tea as others suggested

Yes I know and agree

Interesting it's not yet been reported more widely. I suspect there are a lot of factors in play.

There was a case a while back where a householder who injured a burglar was hailed as a hero with the usual chatter from the hang 'em high contingent. Until it turned out that the householder had chased the burglar down the road in order to "defend" themselves while some relatives held the burglar down. It didn't end well for them.

@ProfessorSlocombe

Interesting it's not yet been reported more widely. I suspect there are a lot of factors in play.

There was a case a while back where a householder who injured a burglar was hailed as a hero with the usual chatter from the hang 'em high contingent. Until it turned out that the householder had chased the burglar down the road in order to "defend" themselves while some relatives held the burglar down. It didn't end well for them.

Interesting legal fact:

self defence generally: you must use reasonable force in the circumstances, plus margin of error for heat of moment.

self defence in householder cases: force just cannot be 'grossly unreasonable.' which is a high bar!!! You can be unreasonable with a burglar but cannot go batshit (to use a less legalistic expression!)

Self defence is always judged in hindsight.

There used to be a saying about better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

@kierenthecommunity

He never meant to kill. He only meant to maim, or seriously injure

Well I’m not sure how you know that, but if he goes into his interview and says that was what he wa yes to do, then there’s a good chance he will be charged with murder.

The only motivation he can have that will mean he isn’t is that he was trying to save the woman from further injury or death

That's a quote from Harry Potter, for anyone else who thinks the PP who said it was being entirely serious.

I'd rather have this situation with the man is arrested and the circumstances properly investigated than it be treated like the 3 white men who killed a black man out jogging in the USA. They seemed to be immediately exonerated by the police. The only reason they got arrested and convicted was that one of them was stupid/arrogant enough to post a video of the "chase" and murder of an innocent man who they accused of being a criminal.

So yes I support what the police have done.