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

@Wife2b

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.

How is this your takeaway from people explaining this to you???

The police urgently need to establish what happened, take statements, seize vehicles, etc. There is a process that needs to be followed, which is quite correct because these situations are time sensitive and ultimately everything that we think we know might be incorrect.

This is standard, for example: the case of the old man who killed a burglar: it was totally legal self defence but it is necessary to establish this.

To throw out some hypotheticals:
--what if he knew the victim/perpetrator and it changed the narrative of what happened?
--what if he had pre-planned the attack with the stabber and was aiming for the woman?
--he will need to give a statement about what he saw with regards to her death
--his evidence of the heat of the moment will be useful to establish that it was self defence

It is as much in his interest to have the facts established now. And the police would be utterly negligent if they didn't do so.

@Wife2b

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.

Is it just this crime that you think the police should look at and say “seems like this is what happened, we’ll go with that” and not bother investigating or asking questions about or all crimes?

I am rather amused but the fact that, despite having it explained several times on this thread why it is necessary for this man to be arrested, posters still think the police could just let him go with a pat on the back and a 'well done old chum'.

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?

How would you ever find out if it was a terrorist if you didn't carry out an investigation? And how could you investigate, or prevent a repeat, if you didn't detain suspects?

Do you know the difference between an arrest and a charge?

@Wife2b

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.

Yes, I think that's exactly what should happen.

In 2005 a man was wrongly killed by police after they assumed he was a terrorist. Any time a life is taken there needs to be an investigation otherwise we open up the justice system to vigilantes and corruption.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShootingofJeanCharlesde_Menezes

@Wife2b

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.

Given his reported comments, it sounds like he wished he hadn't done it before the police got involved. But, to answer your question, yes it would still be correct. The police should not just accept things at face value. They need to investigate.

Some of the press seem to be pushing the line that, if the police turn up to your home and find a dead body in the kitchen, all you have to do is say, "he/she was a burglar" and they should leave it at that, no questions asked. It goes with their usual outraged (and wrong) claim that the law protects the criminal, not the innocent.

It is not for the Police to dish out medals for bravery. This is Court matter now. Police's job is to investigate crime. Would you suggest they should have let the driver just walk off? He HAD to be arrested, he would definitely go to Court, but might just walk- although I don't see on what grounds.
I do sound harsh and I would like this bloke not to be punished, as he was doing something to stop other man killing the woman, but where is the line? Next time somebody will bash someone else with the metal pole just for littering.

Next time somebody will bash someone else with the metal pole just for littering.

Well bashing somebody for littering probably wouldn't qualify as self defence so slightly different, but then again, maybe intervening in fatal attacks might lead to that

@Wife2b

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.

Of course it would be correct if it was a terrorist. As has been explained to you many times, full facts have to be established. Imagine if the same thing happened, but no witnesses. Should you just take the drivers word for what happened? What if the witnesses were related to the driver? Or the knife man? Where do you draw the line?

You don’t seem to understand the difference between arrested for, and charged with.

@primarium

It is not for the Police to dish out medals for bravery. This is Court matter now. Police's job is to investigate crime. Would you suggest they should have let the driver just walk off? He HAD to be arrested, he would definitely go to Court, but might just walk- although I don't see on what grounds. I do sound harsh and I would like this bloke not to be punished, as he was doing something to stop other man killing the woman, but where is the line? Next time somebody will bash someone else with the metal pole just for littering.

@primarium To explain this: He has been arrested, this is to establish what happened. It does not even imply that he will be charged with a crime.

He is highly unlikely to be charged, if the reported facts are correct. He acted in self defence (defence of another), with what seems to be reasonable force given the circumstances (there is also a margin of error to account for decision making in the moment). Therefore the killing would be lawful.

Murder is: unlawful killing, of a human, with intent to kill/cause GBH. If the self defence is reasonable then the killing is lawful, so there can be no prosecution for it.

SECONDLY: there is a line, a big fat line that gets grey in certain points but is the basis for the law here. Self defence must be reasonable in the circumstances (plus margin of error due to acting in the moment). It is a matter of degree: shooting a terrorist on a rampage is lawful, shooting a 5 year old who hit their mum is not. Running over someone once when they are stabbing people in the street clearly belongs in the first category, it's not even fuzzy or arguable.

The law recognises this and it is the basis of self defence law.

Full facts have to be established. Imagine if the same thing happened, but no witnesses. Should you just take the drivers word for what happened? What if the witnesses were related to the driver? Or the knife man? Where do you draw the line?

Exactly. A friend of mine crashed after another car pulled out of a side road without warning. A lot of damage to both cars and my friend sustained an arm injury that prevented him from working for several months.

The police turned up. Several eye-witnesses told the police a load of total bollocks, claiming that my friend had flashed his lights to get the other driver to pull out, then driven into her. It turned out that the apparently independent eye-witnesses were actually relatives of the other driver and each other. Luckily for my friend, the police didn't just take their word as gospel, otherwise his insurers might not have covered his loss of income from his injury.

I get the point in terms of not wanting to punish “heroes” but I also wouldn’t want to encourage people running others over and killing them in order to save them - there has to be an element of responsibility in your selection of heroic method - one that’s definitely going to kill the person you are attempting to save really isn’t the best choice. But I’m sure it’s only “manslaughter” not murder.

Didn't he also run over the victim?

Of course he should be charged with murder, unless he is blind in which case he should be charged with dangerous driving.

He's not a "poor bloke", he's an impulsive idiot.

@WheekestLink

Didn't he also run over the victim?

Of course he should be charged with murder, unless he is blind in which case he should be charged with dangerous driving.

He's not a "poor bloke", he's an impulsive idiot.

Obviously you would have come up with a much better scheme, despite having only seconds to think about it 🙄

The only way of stopping the attack was with a weapon of some sort. If he had been a trained police marksman, he might still have killed the victim by accident. It's an inevitable risk in this kind of scenario. There is a fine line between heroism and fuck-up.

Family of the mother who was stabbed now named... feel nothing but gratitude toward the guy arrested on suspicion of murder. I agree he should have been arrested for investigation. However if the case is as it has been portrayed, a bystander... Or driver who didn't know either the victim or perpetrator, I imagine the consequences of living with the knowledge you've caused another human to die. In the midst of trying to save a stranger who after years of domestic abuse is being killed in the street by her ex husband... That is going to change your life indefinitely. I hope justice provails - and he isn't given a criminal record unless some major underlying factors come to light... Reading the history of the victim and perpetrator as a survivor of DA myself I feel nothing but sadness for the whole case. How many lives can be destroyed, and changed forever due to DA. The law needs to be tougher in protecting victims. My thoughts are with this lady's children and family tonight💔

Arrested is different to being charged

Police can prosecute without the CPS if they feel the need

@mummykel16

Police can prosecute without the CPS if they feel the need

Not for murder or manslaughter. The police can start proceedings for some low-level offences such as low value shoplifting but, even here, if the case goes to court it must be reviewed by the CPS before the first hearing.

@ApolloandDaphne

I am rather amused but the fact that, despite having it explained several times on this thread why it is necessary for this man to be arrested, posters still think the police could just let him go with a pat on the back and a 'well done old chum'.

Or alternatively screaming. "HE DELIBERATELY KILLED THE STABBER! IT'S MURDER!"

if the case is as it has been portrayed, a bystander... Or driver who didn't know either the victim or perpetrator, I imagine the consequences of living with the knowledge you've caused another human to die. In the midst of trying to save a stranger . . . That is going to change your life indefinitely

I agree.

He had seconds to react to try to stop this attack, and he reacted (IMO) in the old way he could - he used a car as a weapon.

I don't think the intention will have been to kill, just "I MUST stop this happening"

He has taken another person's life, and even if that other person was the most evil person in the world, that is a dreadful thing to have to come to terms with. he did it accidentally, from the best of motives, and without any intent to kill, but he did it. Poor man will have a lot to cope with.

Any police investigation (if the facts that emerge are the same as the ones reported) will, if anything, be helpful for him as they should exonerate him - but I think that something like that will stay on any conscience for a very long time.

*only way, not old

Sorry

@ilovemybeachhut

What would you call someone who tried to prevent a murder?

Is this the guy who ran over his daughter?

Ignore me, it isn't.