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

[Cas112]

He will more than likely get sent down for manslaughter

[Agrudge]

Poor man

[Flowers500]

@Cas112

He will more than likely get sent down for manslaughter

There is nothing to indicate this. Read the thread.

[MilduraS]

If what we've heard happened is true then I hope he doesn't get a custodial conviction. I can imagine in a blind panic you'd do almost anything to stop the attack. The police still have a duty to the victims (including the attacker) and their families to investigate. Otherwise it would be too easy to start judging situations and wrongly assuming innocence. The driver involved is very fortunate to have been surrounded by witnesses though I doubt it's much comfort to him at the moment.

[Verv]

I can see why he would have to be arrested, investigation and due process etc, but from what I've read, it was to stop a man from stabbing a woman and lashing out at pedestrians trying to intervene with a knife.
A rather deadly situation.

Personally, I think he should be released without charge.

[Agrudge]

There has to be a process. Unfortunately arrested him for murder is the start and will more than likely end up being no further action.

There was a man that shot an intruder some years back he arrested for murder, then no further action. Not the guy who shot an intruder in the back . That's not defense if they a moving away from you.

[alexdgr8]

[quote Twocrabs30]@alexdgr8
Genuinely curious, why do you say this?

It’s not like we are on the jury. Even if there is much speculation, it does appear to raise public interest issues[/quote]
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/2010-01-06
Contempt of Court Act 1981.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings

proceedings are active, and therefore the strict liability rule applies, once a person has been arrested.

[alexdgr8]

[quote Twocrabs30]@parchedjanuary
With close to 50m adults in the UK, the chances of anyone of us being selected to be one of 12 jurors are pretty remote. And it would be fairly simple to declare you have expressed pre-conceived thoughts about this case or might be biased from what you have read, and be moved to one of the other thousands of trials needing jury members.[/quote]
this forum equates to publication in a newspaper, for the purposes of the strict liability rule, section 1, Contempt of Court Act 1981.
which is why any discussion or speculation is forbidden once proceedings are active.
only the bare facts of the matter can be reported.
proceedings are active once a person has been arrested.

[Abigail12345654321]

@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

No Harry Potter fans in the house I see……

[WendyTreetops]

@Alexandra2001

You mean the de Menezes case back in 2005? That was a man not a woman who was tragically killed. The CPS did not bring forward a prosecution of any individuals involved in the shooting due to insufficient evidence. The Met Commissioner (in his official capacity) was prosecuted and found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety Act

Well aware he was a man, is that relevant?

But as i said, no one arrested on suspicion of murder, despite it being clearly such.
Gunning anyone down who is just going to work is murder.

It being a man is relevant only because you mentioned it in the context of 'another woman murdered'. We don't know if he was murdered. No-one was prosecuted, let alone found guilty, for murder, and the inquest delivered an open verdict.

[PerkingFaintly]

The driver has now been bailed:
Maida Vale deaths: Man who killed Yasmin Chkaifi was wanted by police
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60145148

Nightmarish story emerging of how the attacker had been stalking Yasmin Chkaifi.

[Jedsnewstar]

They have to arrest him for this. He won’t be convicted I doubt or he will get a suspended sentence. There will be a public outcry and the police don’t need the bad press.

[daimbarsatemydogsbone]

Announced today there will be no further action.

[SheldonesqueTheBstard]

As it should be.

[Whatwhywhenwhere]

He must be completely traumatised by the whole thing.

[Agrudge]

Good news he been let go with no further action

[Tiramysu]

@Whatwhywhenwhere

He must be completely traumatised by the whole thing.

I hope they offer him therapy

[ancientgran]

@Whatwhywhenwhere

He must be completely traumatised by the whole thing.

I think most people would be traumatised if they killed someone.

[WotsitsMadeIn1927]

Involuntary manslaughter. His intent was meant to stop the man from killing not actually kill the man himself.

[Abigail12345654321]

@WotsitsMadeIn1927

Involuntary manslaughter. His intent was meant to stop the man from killing not actually kill the man himself.

Involuntary manslaughter is a crime.

No crime was committed in this case.

So it was not involuntary manslaughter. It’s not any sort of manslaughter. Nor was it murder. He did nothing wrong.

[WotsitsMadeIn1927]

@Abigail12345654321 I suggest you read up on British Law, how it works on intent. The man may end up with lesser charges, at the end of the day, he used his car to stop a murder but killed him in the process. Taking the life of another is still a crime.

[SheldonesqueTheBstard]

I thought this had been decided.


The Met Police said it had been decided the 26-year-old would face no further action after a review of the evidence.

And rightly so.

[Abigail12345654321]

[quote WotsitsMadeIn1927]@Abigail12345654321 I suggest you read up on British Law, how it works on intent. The man may end up with lesser charges, at the end of the day, he used his car to stop a murder but killed him in the process. Taking the life of another is still a crime.[/quote]
I suggest you do the same. No crime was committed.

[Abigail12345654321]

A self defence killing is not a crime. As long as it’s proportionate. Which this was. And you need not be defending yourself, you can be defending a stranger who is being murdered. As this good man was. He is not a criminal and you should not accuse him of being a criminal.