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

It is absolutely necessary to arrest the driver of the car in such a case, pending investigation.
You don't know, for instance, if the driver of the car had in fact hired the stabber to kill the woman and was therefore running them both over to ensure no one traced the commissioning of the hit back to him. We have a legal system (flawed and imperfect as it is) to prevent judgements being made on the grounds of what something looks like - or on who gets their story in first.

(Also, remember how the tabloids and pro-vigilante fuckwits all tied themselves up in knots when it came out that one of the people who went after the London Bridge attacker was himself a convicted murderer - who had either served his sentence and was on parole... ISTR there was another man who was photographed hitting out at a terrorist during a different incident who also turned out to be someone with prior convictions for violence.)

@Wreath21

(Also, remember how the tabloids and pro-vigilante fuckwits all tied themselves up in knots when it came out that one of the people who went after the London Bridge attacker was himself a convicted murderer - who had either served his sentence and was on parole... ISTR there was another man who was photographed hitting out at a terrorist during a different incident who also turned out to be someone with prior convictions for violence.)

I believe the person you’re referring to received a royal pardon for his bravery. a decision that was supported by his victim’s family.

@HopeYourHighHorseBucks

Realistically he has to be arrested for them to carry out their investigation. Getting charged is a completely separate thing. They have to establish what exactly has happened, they can not tell him to go home and have a cup of tea. Its pretty standard thankfully.

I worked with someone who when killed her husband in self defense (and called the police herself) was arrested for murder at the start, after the investigation she received a lesser charge. They have to start with something.

Exactly this.

Also, being under arrest from the start gives suspects greater protections than being questioned as a witness - when they will not be under caution and are less likely to have a solicitor present (witnesses are entitled to have one, but often don't exercise this right). Without these protections, witnesses may make unguarded statements that are later used against them. It might seem harsh, but it is a hell of a lot safer, legally.

Does anybody think he will be bailed?

The fact he was arrested for murder makes me think not, however these are very extenuating circumstances and I would hate to think he be remanded in custody and put in prison because I don't think he deserves to be there.

@ilovemybeachhut trying to save someone else though he can ve charged with murder if he intended to kill him which i imagine will be hard to prove
Unless anyone was there I don't think anyone can comment about what you may of may not do
We stopped an attack once well my dh did and ended up having to hit the guy in self defence which could of landed my dh in trouble if the offended was badly hurt but this all happened in split seconds but my dh prob saved the other guys life and acted on instincts wether right or wrong

As others have said how did he what kind of attack this was

@Dillpickles

Does anybody think he will be bailed?

The fact he was arrested for murder makes me think not, however these are very extenuating circumstances and I would hate to think he be remanded in custody and put in prison because I don't think he deserves to be there.

He has been arrested but not charged, so they have to release him or charge him. It seems unlikely that he will be charged so he won't need to be bailed

Of course he should be arrested for murder! He killed them. As to whether he gets found guilty or not is entirely different.

@DoTheMerengue I'm not sure I would entirely support that on ethical grounds as a courageous act doesn't completely wipe out a wicked one (though it would depend on the details of his prior conviction, which I don't know.)

@melj1213 but you can't decide that all things will be taken into account
How fast he was going , what else had been done etc etc
No one in here can say anything as you don't have all the facts at all just what you have read
Their were multiple witnesses etc the poilce will get all the evidence and the cps will decide

@Cheeseplantboots

Of course he should be arrested for murder! He killed them. As to whether he gets found guilty or not is entirely different.

He has been arrested not charged, there is no indication that he will be charged.

Arrest: held and interviewed, investigation happens.

Decision made about whether to charge for anything: police investigate, decision made by the CPS. Either he is let go or charged.

Then if charged there is a court case, gets found guilty or not. Unlikely to get to this stage, they will only do this if they think they will be successful

@Cheeseplantboots thats not how the law works they Can arrest you but nit charge you

@worriedatthemoment

As others have said how did he what kind of attack this was

Maybe the screaming the blood the stabbing gave him a wee inkling that something was wrong.

@ForTheLoveOfSleep

He killed at at least 1 person. Possibly 2. Of course he's been arrested for murder. Circumstances come into play for the investigation but not in the immediate aftermath.

This. It allows them to investigate. I'm surprised some people don't seem to think that that's necessary.

I used to work in a prison. I was taught breakaway techniques in case I ever got in trouble. One of the overriding principles was that only appropriate force was to be used. For example, I could break an attackers nose to get out of a chokehold, but if I then kicked him in the ribs and stamped on his head I'd be in trouble.

In both scenarios I would be hauled in and investigated, if it transpired I'd only used appropriate force I wouldn't face any disciplinary action.

I imagine the wider investigation and justice system is similar, the chap driving the car has been arrested whilst the police work out what has happened, if the CPS decide he was justified in his actions they will not bring a case, if they decide he went o we the top they will charge him with manslaughter or murder. Either which way an investigation needs to happen.

@Zilla1

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.

Both the police and the suspect are safest, legally, if the arrest is made on suspicion of the most serious possible offence - in this case, murder, rather than manslaughter.

This does not imply that the police believe that murder is the most likely charge, or even that any charge is likely.

Intent is going to be extremely difficult to prove in this case, on the face of it. Lack of definite intent to kill doesn't necessarily protect you from being convicted of murder - you can still be convicted if you intended to cause GBH. But the driver will no doubt argue that he had no intention of killing or even seriously harming the stabber - the intent was simply to stop the attack.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow spot on. I was just replying to a PPs assertion that using a car would demonstrably be unreasonable force.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow that's overall accurate but the relevant issue isn't really his intent to kill or cause GBH (the mens rea issues) it's the actus reus (that there was an unlawful killing) that would fail.

Self defence is lawful, killing someone in self defence if the force is reasonable (in the circs, with margin of error for heat of moment) means no unlawful killing.

Therefore no unlawful act so you don't really need to analyse unlawful mind.

Murder: unlawful killing + human +intention to kill/cause GBH. If first point isn't proven mindset and intention don't need discussion

@LadyFlumpalot

I used to work in a prison. I was taught breakaway techniques in case I ever got in trouble. One of the overriding principles was that only appropriate force was to be used. For example, I could break an attackers nose to get out of a chokehold, but if I then kicked him in the ribs and stamped on his head I'd be in trouble.

In both scenarios I would be hauled in and investigated, if it transpired I'd only used appropriate force I wouldn't face any disciplinary action.

I imagine the wider investigation and justice system is similar, the chap driving the car has been arrested whilst the police work out what has happened, if the CPS decide he was justified in his actions they will not bring a case, if they decide he went o we the top they will charge him with manslaughter or murder. Either which way an investigation needs to happen.

This is spot on. The question is whether he used reasonable force. If the police and CPS conclude that he only used reasonable force, he will not be charged. Even if he is charged, it will still be open to the jury to conclude that he used reasonable force. Note that the courts accept that, in the heat of the moment, you cannot be expected to precisely determine the line between reasonable force and excessive force, so you should only be found guilty if the force used is clearly excessive.

It's for the CPS to decide about prosecution. On the face of it he was attempting to prevent a murder and I could never vote on a jury to convict if that were so. Perhaps he should get a medal or commendation.

[quote Flowers500]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow that's overall accurate but the relevant issue isn't really his intent to kill or cause GBH (the mens rea issues) it's the actus reus (that there was an unlawful killing) that would fail.

Self defence is lawful, killing someone in self defence if the force is reasonable (in the circs, with margin of error for heat of moment) means no unlawful killing.

Therefore no unlawful act so you don't really need to analyse unlawful mind.

Murder: unlawful killing + human +intention to kill/cause GBH. If first point isn't proven mindset and intention don't need discussion[/quote]
Thanks @Flowers500.

@JustLyra

Do people actually think the police should just take everything at face value and not arrest and investigate?

Two people are dead, one of them from being hit by a car. Of course he has to be arrested until all the evidence is collected, witnesses spoken with and the likes. What else are they supposed to do?

Never safe to bring common sense into these things, JustLyra ...

Nobody thinks he should get away with anything without a reasonable explanation. It's pretty obvious people were just unclear on the terminology and what arrested actually means. They naturally assumed it meant he'll be charged I suppose.

Seems like a lot of trauma for a poor bloke who acted to try save the life of another.

I wonder if it were a terrorist shooting a gun at people you’d still think it correct that the driver be arrested pending investigation?

Bet the poor sod wishes he hadn’t of bothered now.