Arrested for murder - wtaf?

[Wife2b]

Can’t believe what I’m reading. Yes I know Daily Fail blah blah. But reading the article, wtaf?

In short, man stabs woman in broad daylight up to 10 times with a kitchen knife, brave bystanders try to intervene but are unsuccessful. Attacker sits on woman continuing to stab her and the only thing that helps is a random member of the public running over him with a car (albeit unfortunately hitting the victim also). Now both the attacker and victim are dead (likely due to stab injuries I imagine given helpers couldn’t stop the bleeding) and the driver arrested for murder.

What on earth is up with our justice system? It’s like common sense and discretion based on context goes completely out the window.

Aibu to think the bloke should be given a medal and not thrown in the back of a police van?

Link to article:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10437219/What-Words-hero-ploughed-car-woman-trying-save-knifeman.html

@Nos3y

I get your point. Could you just stand by and do nothing? However, if we let people take justice into their own hands...or allow people to commit a crime to stop another we would be living in The Purge. I get the anger though it doesn't feel right to charge him with murder. He'll hopefully just get dangerous driving and a suspended sentence. But you can't live eye for an eye or it would he mayhem

THAT IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. Eye for an eye as a phrase refers to revenge. This has nothing to do with revenge! This is actively trying to stop a crime that is underway, which is entirely legal if reasonable force is used. Stopping terrorists or murderers mid crime is a good thing and not something the law punishes!

They've called him a hero ? Makes a total mockery of the word and a general insult to true heroes.

@Seeline

But we can't let individuals start policing/punishing society on impulse! Our justice system is far from perfect, but everyone is entitled to a fair hearing.

THAT IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. If you see someone about to shoot someone, you are entirely allowed to tackle them or stop them in some way that uses reasonable force. Yes if you run them over, threat is gone and you then get 5 more squishes for kicks the force is unreasonable, but stopping a stabber mid stabbing is 100% legal

I doubt he'll be found guilty of murder - manslaughter maybe but I bet he won't go to jail.

Who knows how you would act in that situation? You see a man stabbing a woman and no one can get near - if you were in a car and thought you could stop him? I can't say I wouldn't do the same myself. The man had good intentions but it went tragically wrong.

I wonder if he just panicked and his defence would be diminished responsibility. Only the post mortem can tell what the woman died of. She may already have been dead?

@CynsterBitch

This is how the justice system should work, it’s right that he he is charged with murder as by the sounds of it he deliberately used a car as a weapon and now two people are dead. I imagine the mitigating circumstances will help him and depending on the stabbing victim ( did they die from stabbing or being run over) he might be found guilty of a something but maybe not something as serious as murder.

This is NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. He has not been charged with murder, there is zero indication that he will be. Self defence (defence of another) that is reasonable IS NOT A CRIME--it means no murder, no voluntary manslaughter, no assault, nothing.

If the facts are as reported and the police can establish this, he will not be charged with anything

[quote Seeline]@kittykutty I was expressing sympathy for anyone!

Concerned that a vigilante society is not somewhere I wish to live in. Individuals cannot go round imposing their own rules and punishments. A situation that you may come across in the street may be entirely different from the first impression. Someone acting in self defence may end up being killed by a passerby in a similar scenario to that described by the OP.[/quote]
@Seeline that is not how the law works, it is not vigilantism to prevent a murder happening in front of you--it is entirely legal self defence

@Seeline

Intervention is one thing (eg the two people who went after the terrorist at the Fishmongers hall with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk). Deliberately running someone over (and the victim) with your car is quite another.

Are you serious??? Have you read the reported facts??

If one party is on the ground dying of stab wounds, the other guy has a knife, he is chasing people trying to stab them, then yes you absolutely can intervene.

How do you think the law works????

could also say it was an accident as he was just trying to distract the man and panicked and didnt stop?

The police do not decide on whether someone is guilty, the courts do. Similarly the courts alone decide if there is self defence. Not the police. And given the police's record recently (Sarah Everard etc), this is a very good thing.

I wouldn't want to be using many 'arm chair solicitors' on here, I would end up being hanged for a minor infringement of the law !

@Seeline

Maybe. If he's charged for the woman's death I think that's actually understandable but for the perpetrator- no way.

Playing devil's advocate here, but what if the 'perpetrator' attacked the women in the first place because eg she killed his son whilst speeding? Would he be justified then?

A proper investigation needs to take place.

Banging my head against the floor...

Do you understand the difference between (a) stopping someone who is mid killing someone and (b) getting revenge??? Morally and legally and just in basic facts they are completely different things

If one party is on the ground dying of stab wounds, the other guy has a knife, he is chasing people trying to stab them, then yes you absolutely can intervene.

How do you think the law works????

Intervention is one thing. Intentionally killing someone is entirely different. I cannot see how intentionally running someone over with a car is 'reasonable force'.

In the eyes of the law you're innocent until proven guilty so technically running over a guy who's stabbing someone is not on.

Something that results in death is very unlikely to be judged as reasonable force for self defense purposes.

@Seeline

If one party is on the ground dying of stab wounds, the other guy has a knife, he is chasing people trying to stab them, then yes you absolutely can intervene.

How do you think the law works????

Intervention is one thing. Intentionally killing someone is entirely different. I cannot see how intentionally running someone over with a car is 'reasonable force'.

I'm sure the intention wasn't to kill the aggressor - just to stop the attack.

What would have been "reasonable force" in your opinion, against a man wielding a knife so savagely that bystanders had been unable to safely stop him manually?

@WorstXmasEver

In the eyes of the law you're innocent until proven guilty so technically running over a guy who's stabbing someone is not on.

Don't talk soft!

What a horrific story. Women are so hated.
I've voted yabu only for this reason - you cannot set a legal precedent for vigilante action like this to be officially condoned. But how awful for the man in the car. And for everyone involved. And that poor woman

I think more to the point, what has our country come to that horrific stuff like this happens to women in broad daylight. Every aspect of society is failing us.

I feel sorry for all the kids who saw this, probably her own kids too.

@Valkyrie40 @inheritancetrack

To explain this legal situation (I have studied criminal law):
This, if the facts are correct, is neither a murder nor a manslaughter.

Murder is: the unlawful killing of a human being with the intent to kill or cause GBH.
Yes someone died--HOWEVER the key issue here is the element that says 'unlawful.'
Self defence (defence of another) is a full defence for killing someone, provided it is reasonable in the circumstances and allowing a margin of error (for the panic of the moment). Seeing someone being stabbed, trying to stop it--reasonable. Therefore there is no unlawful killing.

As there is no unlawful killing, there is no murder. Manslaughter is essentially murder but with a specific partial excuse: diminished responsibility or loss of control. HOWEVER neither of these partial defences to murder are needed (to downgrade to voluntary manslaughter) as we are dealing with self defence, which is a full defence to murder.

Think of it like this: murder is 1. if you commit murder but have a partial defence, it is 0.5 (voluntary manslaughter). If you kill someone but have a full defence (self defence) then it is 0, no crime.

Therefore--no need to charge as he will not be convicted, provided police establish the facts and can say it's reasonable self defence

@PheonixGlitterRepublic

Something that results in death is very unlikely to be judged as reasonable force for self defense purposes.

Wasn't self-defence - it was defence of another person.

Sometimes a death can result from an attempt to stop someone killing/injuring someone else. It can't always be controlled.

Had this been a terrorist, and he had had a bomb strapped to his torso and was about to detonate it, and then someone had smashed him over the skull with a wrench from the back of their car, and killed him, would hat still have been unreasonable force in your opinion?

@PheonixGlitterRepublic

Something that results in death is very unlikely to be judged as reasonable force for self defense purposes.

That is NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS.

Self defence (defence of another): reasonable force plus margin of error for heat of moment: absolutely DOES allow this. What would not be allowed: if they ran over a man passed out to ensure he actually dies.

Fun fact: in householder cases the allowance for self defence is EVEN GREATER--you can use any force that is not 'grossly unreasonable'

I'm sure the intention wasn't to kill the aggressor - just to stop the attack.

It doesn’t matter. If death or serious injury is a virtual certainty then intention is inferred.

My guess is it will end up being manslaughter on basis of excessive self defence.

The police do not decide on whether a crime has been committed, they must preserve evidence and interview to investigate. Which is why he's been arrested. He's not been charged as far as I saw?

When it comes to the CPS they have guidance on bringing charges in situations like this. Which includes... :

Use of Force against Those Committing Crime
Prosecutors should exercise particular care when assessing the reasonableness of the force used in those cases in which the alleged victim was, or believed by the accused to have been, at the material time, engaged in committing a crime. A witness to violent crime with a continuing threat of violence may well be justified in using extreme force to remove a threat of further violence.

In assessing whether it was necessary to use force, prosecutors should bear in mind the period of time in which the person had to decide whether to act against another who he/she thought to be committing an offence.

The circumstances of each case will need to be considered very carefully.

I highly doubt if the post mortem on the stabbing victim is found to not involve the car running into the stabber.. Then it would be extremely hard to bring any charge against the man driving the car (perhaps a driving offense I'm unsure and in not a lawyer). But it is right thst he is arrested absolutely.

And presumably the bystander was trying to help but if he ran over the victim too then they probably have to investigate if she was dead/would have died anyway or he technically killed her with the car.