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

@Toanewstart22

The stupid man killed the victim

The driver or the knifeman?

Since there is currently no evidence the driver killed the woman I think you should be more clear in your pronouncements.

Well I guess he has committed at least one murder as he intended to at least cause GBH. He might have a defence though. But up to the CPS/courts to decide

@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?

It is

@OMG12

Well I guess he has committed at least one murder as he intended to at least cause GBH. He might have a defence though. But up to the CPS/courts to decide

he has not convicted any murder (if facts are correct)

Murder is: Unlawful + Killing + human + intention to kill/cause GBH

the part that is not present on our facts: unlawful. as killing someone in self defence (defence of another) using reasonable force in the circumsntaces is lawful.

Therefore no murder as no unlawful killing.

@gsaoej

Since we didn’t convict the colston statue destroyers, we shouldn’t convict here.

That of course was the problem with not convicting the statue destroyers.

Ooh ooh, do you think the driver is a mumsnetter or a dh to a mumsnetter who heard of the Colston Four and decided, "Right! The pReCeDent has been set and I'm about to take the law into my own hands and god help anyone who arrests me"?

I wonder what else the Colston trial outcome will be blamed for.🙄

He killed two people by deliberately running them over.

This statement is true. It needs to go to trial where all of the information can be brought forward.

What would happen if someone thought they saw a murder happening and actually it wasn't and they ran them over? Or someone saw a more minor crime happening like theft, would it be ok to run them over then?

This isn't a Marvel movie, you can't just kill people and claim 'justice is done'.

By the letter of the law the driver should be jailed for manslaughter. Running the attacker would not usually be judged reasonable force, especially as the driver themselves was not under threat.

The only hope is that a sensible jury decides to ignore the law and refuse to convict. There are recent examples where juries come to a verdict based on their moral beliefs as opposed to following the law, for example the Colston statue removers getting away with it.

Well the police have a duty to investigate rather than omnisciently understanding all the circumstances and taking on the CPS' role of deciding that no prosecution would be likely to succeed. That said, on the face of it, if the CPS decided to prosecute then I'd be surprised if any jury convicted of murder or indeed manslaughter. Then again, I imagine the Chief Executive of the CPS will be along in their Mumsnet guise to give a definitive view.

If the offender was sitting on the woman, chances are the driver ran over both of them even though he'd only mean to hit the man.

There's no other way he would have missed the woman and only hit the man when they were both in the same spot, and she's lying down.

I'm just imagining the scene.

The police were right to make a lawful arrest. Should he be convicted after investigations? That's a different question.

It clearly needs looking into, the police can't just turn a blind eye to members of the public running people over, even if there is a serious crime in progress.

I'm so glad the Tories cut police funding, the streets are getting more out of control by the day

If the knife wielding alleged murderer had repelled individuals trying to stop him killing his victim then I'm not sure an escalation to vehicular prevention would necessarily be seen to be unreasonable force.

@thisplaceisweird

He killed two people by deliberately running them over.

This statement is true. It needs to go to trial where all of the information can be brought forward.

What would happen if someone thought they saw a murder happening and actually it wasn't and they ran them over? Or someone saw a more minor crime happening like theft, would it be ok to run them over then?

This isn't a Marvel movie, you can't just kill people and claim 'justice is done'.

THIS IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS.

First of all: as far as we know at this point he killed ONE person, the stabber. The postmortems will happen now, then we need a formal process where cause of death is declared.

IT DOES NOT NEED TO GO TO TRIAL THAT IS NOT HOW INVESTIGATIONS WORK. The police gather evidence. They give this to the CPS. The CPS review the case--only if they actually have a good chance of prosecution do they bring the case. Do you think they just bring people to trial as step 1?? That would be a massive waste of money and basically harassment of citizens.

Nobody is claiming 'justice is done'--this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. You CAN kill people in self defence if it is REASONABLE FORCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

If a minor crime is happening: that is part of the circumstances and affects what force is reasonable in self defence. If there is a terrorist on the loose with a gun: that is a part of the circumstances and affects whether the force is reasonable.

Do you understand? It's the same principle about why police might shoot an active terrorist but they won't shoot little Johnny stealing a lollypop. The law recognises that what is reasonable DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

This happened on our school run route

Well, that was supposed to say 'prosecuted after investigations?...'

@thisplaceisweird

He killed two people by deliberately running them over.

This statement is true. It needs to go to trial where all of the information can be brought forward.

What would happen if someone thought they saw a murder happening and actually it wasn't and they ran them over? Or someone saw a more minor crime happening like theft, would it be ok to run them over then?

This isn't a Marvel movie, you can't just kill people and claim 'justice is done'.

Actually, you can. Sometimes we have to use common sense and rational thinking. This case is a bit more complex, but in general killing an attacker in the moment is justified. Theft as an example is a red herring - you can't compare stealing an iPhone to slaying a woman on the street

@Flowers500 chill the fuck out with your caps

This thread gives a great insight into the prevalent attitude of "it's not my problem"

Sad to see.

The only sensible approach here is do what has happened. Arrest on suspicion of murder and then investigate. It doesn’t mean charges and a prosecution will follow (although they might). It’s not for the police to just make a snap judgment based on what’s happening at face value.

@MorningStarling

By the letter of the law the driver should be jailed for manslaughter. Running the attacker would not usually be judged reasonable force, especially as the driver themselves was not under threat.

The only hope is that a sensible jury decides to ignore the law and refuse to convict. There are recent examples where juries come to a verdict based on their moral beliefs as opposed to following the law, for example the Colston statue removers getting away with it.

That is NOT THE LAW. By the letter of the law NO there is no manslaughter (if the reported facts are correct with regards to the stabber etc).

firstly: self defence includes defence of another. so that is not an issue.

secondly: YES running someone over and them dying CAN be reasonable force. Self defence requires reasonable force in the circumstances, plus margin of error for heat of the moment. You can shoot an active armed terrorist, you cannot shoot a child who slapped you. It's the CIRCUMSTANCES that dictate if it is reasonable. This is life or death, mid stabbing, the public at risk--a high level of force is reasonable. As far as we know it was 1 hit, it wasn't like multiple impacts (which might be unreasonable).

On these facts there would be NO PROSECUTION and therefore no hope of conviction.

(I have studied criminal law!)

Equally if I got a phonecall saying DP was run over I would want to know why. Obviously when I find out he murdered an innocent woman and a member of public stopped him (I think he used reasonable force in a situation like that) I would understand. I wouldn't just take "because people said he did" as proof. It would need statements from witnesses, the suspect etc and to get that they need to detain him.

Had my sister been involved in a fatal stabbing and car accident, I would want to know exactly what happened. An investigation in to it. Again, "well we let the driver go because people said he tried to help" wouldn't cut it. Did the driver and attacker know each other? Was it planned? (Not saying its the case here but it's something police will need to investigate and I would want to know)

The law works for everyone, the families, the courts and the public.

Had he been charged with murder I would understand the outrage. At the moment, he has murdered someone, the reason and punishment, if any, comes after a much needed investigation.

Simplifying the process would be a step back, especially for women.

According to the local press, the stabber and the stabbed knew each other. The BBC seems to have stopped reporting on this case.

Can't have anyone going about their business after killing someone even if it wasto save someone's life. Need to arrest, investigate and decide to charge/not charge.

[quote thisplaceisweird]@Flowers500 chill the fuck out with your caps[/quote]
My bold is not working! So it's the only way I can put in place clear emphasis.

I have studied criminal law and am trying to ensure people understand how it actually works!

They have to question him , obviously. We can't just let someone kill another person with a car - no matter what the circumstances - and not find out everything about the circumstances.

I think it's a highly unusual thing to do, despite people on here saying ' I would have done the same' ..really, I doubt many people would have the presence of mind to do this . I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't just a stranger that happened on a murder taking place.

So, the police are correct to question him, and if the law dictates, charge him with a crime. A jury can always find them not guilty of all and any charge if it goes that far. Remember a file has to be submitted to the CPS and they will make the decision whether to prosecute.

@Flowers500 spot on.