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

@SchadenfreudePersonified that's not what the common law defence of self defence means.

It's called self defence: it includes defence of another. It's the same thing. When I type it here I write self defence (defence of another) so people here can be absolutely clear, but self defence DOES LEGALLY INCLUDE defence of others

He has been arrested, not charged and convicted. Many people are arrested then released without charge. As I said previously it is just part of the process which allows the police to question him. A voluntary statement is just not going to cut it in this instance. He needs legal representation to ensure his rights are upheld.

That is NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS.

I don’t think you understand? I didn’t say it was impossible, said it was unlikely to be judged as reasonable.

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!

The operative words in your post are if reasonable force is used

In this case, driving a car at someone, would not count as reasonable force as the driver should be aware that they had a high chance of seriously injuring, if not killing, someone which is beyond the force required to stop the attack

Reasonable force would be if they had a cricket bat in the back of the car and they used that to hit the assailant to stop them from stabbing their victim - it would be assault but it would be reasonable force (the driver used an available item to stop an assault).

Driving a car at someone is so far beyond reasonable force because the risk of serious injury or death of the person who is hit is almost guaranteed, which takes their actions beyond reasonable force required to stop the attack and into murder (they committed an action knowing that they would likely kill their target)

The police have no idea of any connection between the stabber, the victim and the driver. Nor will they have full details of what actually happened until they've properly investigated it.

These facts and other details such as any connection between the parties needs to be established by the police/CPS before decisions can be made to dismiss or proceed.

You cannot assume and neither can the police.

@PheonixGlitterRepublic

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.

Why was it excessive self defence? The woman died and the reports suggest he was running after someone else with a knife. There was an active murder spree/potential terrorist incident, as far as we know he ran over the man once.

Legally that would NOT be excessive force. He would be neither charged nor convicted on these facts.

The woman died--it was an extreme situation. If he didn't have a knife and she just had some bruises then that might be correct, but that is not the situation

Flowers500

Okay so man comes up to you and stabs you twice, you stab him 20 times in self defence. Result is a murder charge on basis of excessive self defense. I’ve seen it happen. You seem to be saying this is impossible?

@melj1213

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!

The operative words in your post are if reasonable force is used

In this case, driving a car at someone, would not count as reasonable force as the driver should be aware that they had a high chance of seriously injuring, if not killing, someone which is beyond the force required to stop the attack

Reasonable force would be if they had a cricket bat in the back of the car and they used that to hit the assailant to stop them from stabbing their victim - it would be assault but it would be reasonable force (the driver used an available item to stop an assault).

Driving a car at someone is so far beyond reasonable force because the risk of serious injury or death of the person who is hit is almost guaranteed, which takes their actions beyond reasonable force required to stop the attack and into murder (they committed an action knowing that they would likely kill their target)

Legally this is not correct (I have studied criminal law!!!!)

reasonable force is REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES plus margin for error for the heat of the moment. This would be correct if there was no knife, no active threat to the rest of the public, and no woman about to die.

He took an action to stop the threat of death to others--by consequence the man died. Legally that is reasonable force BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Driving a car at someone who slapped someone would not be reasonable. Driving a car at a terrorist with an AK-47 is absolutely reasonable. Legally it depends on the circumstances

Typical knee jerk reaction there OP. You can’t just go around mowing people down without there being some kind of investigation, regardless of your motives. He has been arrested for murder because two people have died. It doesn’t necessarily mean he will be charged with murder.

Until post-mortems are carried out the Police won’t know exactly what caused the deaths. There will be a massive investigation by the major investigation team and many statements will be taken.

Let them do their job before jumping and criticising when you’re not in possession of the facts.

[quote Flowers500]@SchadenfreudePersonified that's not what the common law defence of self defence means.

It's called self defence: it includes defence of another. It's the same thing. When I type it here I write self defence (defence of another) so people here can be absolutely clear, but self defence DOES LEGALLY INCLUDE defence of others[/quote]
Thank you Flowers

I didn't realise that they came under the same heading.

@melj1213

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!

The operative words in your post are if reasonable force is used

In this case, driving a car at someone, would not count as reasonable force as the driver should be aware that they had a high chance of seriously injuring, if not killing, someone which is beyond the force required to stop the attack

Reasonable force would be if they had a cricket bat in the back of the car and they used that to hit the assailant to stop them from stabbing their victim - it would be assault but it would be reasonable force (the driver used an available item to stop an assault).

Driving a car at someone is so far beyond reasonable force because the risk of serious injury or death of the person who is hit is almost guaranteed, which takes their actions beyond reasonable force required to stop the attack and into murder (they committed an action knowing that they would likely kill their target)

This is fair enough, as in a car is more likely to be fatal than a punch to the head, but I doubt he'll be convicted of the killer's death by a jury for murder specifically. The victim, who knows. Again, probably not murder though.

@PheonixGlitterRepublic

Flowers500

Okay so man comes up to you and stabs you twice, you stab him 20 times in self defence. Result is a murder charge on basis of excessive self defense. I’ve seen it happen. You seem to be saying this is impossible?

NO. Let me explain this: self defence is reasonable force in the circumstances, plus heat of the moment. Let's break this down:

Scenario 1:
A punches B. B is absolutely allowed to defend themselves but it must be reasonable IN THE CIRCS. The key part is the CIRCS. If B pushed A away from them, that would be reasonable. if they beat them to death while they lay on the floor, that's not reasonable.

Scenario 2:
A is killing C, to stop them B hits A once, A dies. This is reasonable force in the circs as it was necessary to stop them, in a matter of life or death.

Scenario 2 +:
imagine now that B takes this further. A is on floor, no longer a threat, clearly unable to move. B starts kicking them in head, clearly going further and continuing this when they have already achieved self defence. THIS IS UNREASONABLE FORCE and not legal self defence.

Apply this to your scenario:
Person stabs me twice, I am allowed to use reasonable force so I stab them back so they can't continue the assault. Legal. They fall to the ground groaning and unable to move, I would have chance to get away, get help, call police, they clearly can't continue hurting me.

I now stab them 19 more timesthis is where it becomes ILLEGALit is no longer reasonable force or self defence.

If I'm being stabbed I do hope someone does the same! I would have done the same if I saw that. He had to make a split second decision to try and save a life.

@PheonixGlitterRepublic

Flowers500

Okay so man comes up to you and stabs you twice, you stab him 20 times in self defence. Result is a murder charge on basis of excessive self defense. I’ve seen it happen. You seem to be saying this is impossible?

I think it's more like the other way round given the killer was given countless attempts to stop or surrender and deliberately obstructed anyone from even helping her. Im not sure you can spin it with that analogy when he definitely stabbed more than twice and like pp said, he was fun over once - so definitely not some innocent party.

The argument about a car being excessive is plausible, but in the real world, it was a crazed knife wielding man who targeted.

@bogie

If I'm being stabbed I do hope someone does the same! I would have done the same if I saw that. He had to make a split second decision to try and save a life.

What @bogie has said is actually pretty much exactly the line that the law takes on self defence.

The mans actions were reasonable in the situation. Not only was the perpetrator trying to kill the woman, but the bystanders were in danger too if he decided to attack them as he had a weapon. I can understand his spare of the moment thinking, he will have been doing their best in a fight or flight scenario. It wasnt planned, it was just a reaction.
It all needs proper investigation of course. I doubt he will be punished.

Surely a complicating factor here is he hit both the offender and victim with the car?! I’m just saying I don’t think it’s 100% cut and dried that his behaviour was reasonable.

@IncompleteSenten

my first thought was also wtf? But then I thought the last thing we want it to create a precedent for it being acceptable to run people over with your car when you see a crime in progress.

I doubt he'll be convicted of murder but I bet he'll get manslaughter or dangerous driving or other motoring offence.

Police already do this, with scooter robbers etc

I understand there are protocols that need to be followed in a major incident like this but I don’t think we can call it ‘vigilantism’ or ‘people taking the law into their own hands’ when someone intervenes in a fatal stabbing. That kind of mentality encourages bystanders syndrome where everyone stands around doing nothing because it’s not worth getting involved. Gives me chills to think of living in such a cold society.

I see the Mail has it's priorities right:

The incident happened on Chippenham Road which has an average house price of £497,000

@PheonixGlitterRepublic

Surely a complicating factor here is he hit both the offender and victim with the car?! I’m just saying I don’t think it’s 100% cut and dried that his behaviour was reasonable.

As far as I can see nowhere says he caused the woman's death or contributed to it. In fact newspapers are reporting that she died of the stabbing and he was possibly trying to attack another passer by when it happened.

Regardless, it would make no difference to preventing him being charged with any crime towards the stabber. If he accidentally hit her too it's more complex but he was acting in her self defence so likely lawful too. But again this does not appear to be the case

@Flippanty

I understand there are protocols that need to be followed in a major incident like this but I don’t think we can call it ‘vigilantism’ or ‘people taking the law into their own hands’ when someone intervenes in a fatal stabbing. That kind of mentality encourages bystanders syndrome where everyone stands around doing nothing because it’s not worth getting involved. Gives me chills to think of living in such a cold society.

The law takes the same approach as you @Flippanty

• another passer by when it happened.

Regardless, it would make no difference to preventing him being charged with any crime towards the stabber. If he accidentally hit her too it's more complex but he was acting in her self defence so likely lawful too. But again this does not appear to be the case*

I was indeed under the impression he ran over both of them from the report I read which certainly seemed excessive. If he just hit the offender I can see it being more reasonable.

they have to arrest him its jsut how it is but hopefully will be charged with a lesser offence or not at all

I read it that driver was trying to stop the stabber and they chose the wrong instrument…