Yes. That’s how bad the opinion is.
Man arrested for murder after running over and killing a guy who was stabbing a woman | Faces no charges
- Thread starter Jippy
- Start date
Do we know what kind of car it was yet? Imagine being squished to death by a Fiat Panda. The ultimate humiliation.
How come you are so certain of that? Were you an eyewitness?
The chap with the knife presumably had a clue what he was doing: stabbing a woman to death. Does having a clue mean it’s ok?
He managed to kill someone with a Renault Clio. I suspect he is a fecking expert at what he was doing, because that takes some ability to pull off.
What the feck is this?
Let him go.
I did think that. How unlucky do you have to be to be hit by a Renault Clio going at what could only have been 15-20mph tops, given the short distance, and be killed by it.
Probably 1 in a 100 you kill someone doing what this guy did. We all got lucky.
Probably 1 in a 100 you kill someone doing what this guy did. We all got lucky.
Then I'd say he should be charged and found guilty of manslaughter. If the car is the cause of death and not the knife.
I'm not sure that makes him any more or less liable to be prosecuted. Except he acted to avoid harm to the woman.
Aren’t you the guy who said you wanted Novak to play and Aus were tw@ts?
You do like contrary opinions?
Do you think we should have kept Martial too?
I think the bolded is an extremely dangerous point of view. I think we can all think of horrific examples of historical laws that led to a litany of injustices from economic suppression all the way up to slavery and death. Laws should absolutely not be followed blindly ignoring if that law is morally right or not.
But I'm not sure we have any indication that the current laws are a problem in this scenario. If they are then of course they need to be looked at and potentially revised.
I'm wondering what offence they are considering? I would have thought that involuntary manslaughter, either unlawful or negligent, is the most likely charge if any occur as I can't see there was any intent to kill or cause serious harm, just to stop the attack. I wonder if causing death by dangerous driving is a possibility? Not being a lawyer (as is probably apparent from this post) I also wonder what the avenues for pleasing justification is against any of these offences?
Do we have any cops or criminal lawyers in this thread who can give us an informed opinion? I'm sure there are a few but I can only remember @TheReligion
True, we won't know for certain but from the articles I read, it definitely seems problematic to even arrest the driver. Surely this could be investigated and (hopefully) cleared without being arrested for "suspicion of murder."
As many have said, these actions of following the letter of the law might have a massive detrimental effect on good samaritans in the future (already inhibited by the film with the phone instead of doing anything phenomenon).
They had to arrest the driver, this fits the definition of suspected murder. The place where this should be investigated and hopefully cleared is in a court of law, which means an arrest has to come first. Also he can still be a murderer who did the right thing, people should separate the word murder from meaning 'bad person who did a bad thing'. Murder literally just means an unlawful premeditated killing of another person. It makes no allowances in its definition for if someone did it for good reasons or bad reasons, whether it was justified morally or not etc. If the guy intended to kill the attacker when he started accelerating then he murdered him plain and simple, that's literally the meaning of murder and it would be up to a court to determine whether he intended to kill the attacker or whether he just intended to injure him, scare him, etc etc that's not a job for the police to establish so the arrest is warranted.
Here the guy did something that could be murder as it's defined, the police did their job as they should in the first instance and now the justice system will work as it should and the end result is that on weighing the facts the guy will most likely go free. Either as Wibble pointed out the CPS will decline to pursue because they'll consider the likelihood of a successful prosecution low, or he'll be acquitted by a jury once the facts have come out in a court where everyone isn't reacting out of emotion in the moment. Obviously this guy did the right thing, but if he intended to kill the attacker then he's simply a murderer who we all agree with - but a strong and robust legal system can't just go 'you know what he deserved it' in the heat of the moment without going through this process because applied to 99 other examples it'd feck up somewhere in a significant way.
Last edited:
First, many countries' laws do make precisely those allowances because self-defense is not considered murder. Also, killing enemy combatants in the military is not considered murder. As others have mentioned there is justifiable homicide, which, in many places, includes trying to save someone's life from an attacker. Homicide does not automatically mean murder.
Also, the police can 100% investigate without throwing someone in jail with an arrest. It is not uncommon for this to happen, police investigate crimes all the time without making an arrest. My point was if there is no exception in UK law for justifiable homicide (in defense of someone else trying to save their life) then the law is wrong and shouldn't be followed to the letter. In that case, the law would be flawed (as many, many laws have been historically). There is no virtue in following the law simply because it's a law.
In this case, the guy has already stated unequivocally that he was trying to save the life of the victim being stabbed.
In some countries self defense is lawful, which is why it's not considered murder - the same with enemy combatants in the military. Murder is simply the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person. That's all. The distinction is whether it's lawful in which case you have a number of different terms to describe it; each fitting different criteria, or unlawful in which case it's described as murder if it's premeditated regardless of the intentions or goodness of character of the person concerned.
I can't argue with this, but what I will say is that this is something that should be brought up with lawmakers, and a push for reform made. It doesn't mean the police should just ignore the law as it currently is, and not arrest somebody who is under suspicion of murder. It's not their place, that's up to the courts.
Yes, and those who commit fraud state unequivocally that they didn't. That's why the place to figure all of this out is in a court of law. It's pretty obvious in this case that basically everyone agrees with his actions and he won't serve jail time - but there's a process for a reason. This could fall under voluntary manslaughter, but it'd require a court to rule on whether or not he lost self control, whether that loss of self control was because of what was happening in front of him, whether or not that loss of self control is what led to the killing, if a reasonable person would also lose all self control in that instance, etc etc. That needs a court room. If that's not found to be the case, then it only fits under murder, as involuntary manslaughter requires a death without attempt to kill or cause any kind of bodily harm which is absolutely not the case here.
Last edited:
Not really sure what your point is if you acknowledge that there is such a thing as justifiable homicide and that the police could easily investigate and confirm this case is justifiable homicide and not "murder" without making an arrest.
If you think this case "needs a courtroom" or they "had to make an arrest" to investigate then I would disagree with those assertions due to the previous reasons.
No, the police do not investigate and confirm that. The courts rule on it. The police make arrests based on evidence they think means a crime was committed i.e a person drove his car into another person and killed him - and then the courts rule on whether or not that was something that requires a jail sentence or not, or whether it was justified. Because the police cannot know a persons mind and thoughts, they are not capable of deciding in the moment whether or not this fits involuntary manslaughter because they cannot read his mind and work out his intentions and for obvious reasons, police can't just take someones word for it. They make the arrest correctly, and the prosecution service will sit and decide if they have a case or not, whether it's worth pursuing, and what charge to pursue whether it's murder or involuntary manslaughter. You're attributing a job to the police that they just do not have. The defendant in this case needs legal representation, and needs to argue that the reason for him doing what he did is justifiable - which like I said I doubt we even get that far because the CPS will know that a conviction is highly unlikely. But again, that's not the job of the police.
They absolutely do exactly that. Police determine all the time if an arrest should be made or not and police quite often conduct investigations and consult with DAs before deciding to make an arrest. Maybe it's different where you live, but in the US/certain cities and states, this situation would not require an arrest. Police can (and do) take statements, review video, evidence, etc and then discuss with DAs when necessary and determine if charges need to be filed.
You seem to keep conflating making an arrest with determining if a person is guilty or not. Police do not do that, that's literally why we have courts. It's the bedrock of your justice system that every defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Police gather evidence, and the DA decides whether or not to prosecute which is the same as the UK, the police make the arrest and the CPS decides whether to prosecute. In the case of UK law, in order for this to be considered involuntary manslaughter it would have to be proven in court against quite a few different standards, not some random police man using his opinion. Without meeting that bar, the only classification left is murder as voluntary manslaughter requires a standard that clearly isn't met here.
Though I'm not sure why we're arguing semantics, we're all in agreement I think that he did the right thing and will walk.
I don't think you're understanding what I am saying. Police make a determination whether to arrest or not. They don't just arrest everyone then let the court decide. It's not a legal determination of guilt, it's simply a decision not to arrest on the spot.
Two quick examples. Back when I was in uni, a student was attacked by someone then hit the attacker with a bottle. The police showed up, interviewed witnesses, and determined the student was acting in self-defense. They did not arrest him and no charges were filed. In a much more famous recent case, the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, the police showed up and determined the people were acting in self-defense and did not arrest them. In this case, though, video emerged and they eventually arrested the father, son, and other driver. The DA charged them and they were eventually convicted of murder. Both incidents (and many more just from my experience and public cases), the police have made determinations not to arrest someone based on self-defense or an equivalent claim. Sometimes they are wrong to not arrest (as the case with the murderers of Arbery) and other times they are correct to not arrest (as with the student).
Last edited:
Ask away (to save me reading back) and I'll answer the best I can without fully understanding the case.
Are you a cop or a criminal lawyer or similar?
And I would have though an informed opinion about how such things are charged, then looked at by the CPS and if we get there what sort of charges could occur and why is quite possible without needing to comment on this specific case based on detail that isn't yet known.
I understand that completely, where I'm not not understanding you is why you'd then say it's problematic for the police to arrest somebody who killed another person. The lawfulness of that killing would need to be determined in court, your average police man on the street is not equipped to on the spot make a determination of whether a killing is lawful or unlawful. Killing is generally unlawful, and any justification/excuse defences would be a thing for court. There is a huge difference between someone getting hit with a bottle, and somebody dying because someone rammed their car into them. You're also comparing US law with UK law. In the UK a jury needs to decide whether or not the force used in self defence was reasonable and justified or not. Someone getting hit by a bottle is never ever going to end up in a court room, but a killing is so it's not comparable.
I don't know too much about US law so I can't really discuss the Arbery case with any confidence but even a cursory glance infers that the only reason the police did not arrest the killer is not because they decided they didn't need to, but because they wanted to and the DA stopped them and was later indicted for having done that. "Johnson -- on the day of the shooting -- prevented two Glynn County police officers from exercising their duties "by directing that Travis McMichael should not be placed under arrest, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof" indicating that it would have been the right thing for the police to have arrested them at the time.
I've seen a lot of cop shows so i'm somewhat of an expert. He'll be used as an undercover informant and go to a drug cartel pretending to be a buyer, he'll be trusted at first because he's magically friends with one of the top lieutenants, who vouched for him. He'll be so nervous the cartel will end up suspicious, discover the wire and a shootout will commence, he'll be shot twice in the left shoulder and once in the stomach. The cops will give chase but one, the who recruited him, will stay behind, tears in his eyes, and hold the wound, "You're going to be ok man, your wife and kids will be waiting for you at the hospital when you wake up..." He won't wake up, the bust will have failed, but at the end of the episode they will receive a tip about the cartel, arrest them all, and the cop who recruited him will take some money from the cartel, secretly, and give it to the guy's wife and say, "Your husband was a hero."
Roll credits and 80's hair metal.
The police are the investigating team for the prosecution (CPS/DA/ADA or the like). They have the responsibility of deciding if taking no further action in cases that cannot meet the appropriate evidential standard and without the need to refer to a prosecutor. The police also assess whether cases meet the legal threshold test on available evidence to present to the prosecution for a charge decision. So in short, if the police believe he acted lawfully, they can end an investigation.
The decision to charge and with what is a serious case is the responsibility of the prosecutor, we'll say the CPS for argument's sake. The CPS will have to consider if the evidence available is usable in court and that it is reliable and credible. The CPS will have to determine if there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The case must also be in the public interest and the CPS must consider the costs involved in bringing the case to trial (a highly debated aspect). This case is very complex and I have zero doubt that the prosecutor, not the police, would be charged with making the decision to proceed or not.
Could he be charged with murder? Yes. Murder is committed when a person of sound mind unlawfully kills another person (actus rea) and they have the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm(mens rea), both mens rea and actus rea must be proven to be convicted. It could be argued that when the defendant decided to get into the car and drive it at the attacker that the defendant should have had a reasonable mind that his actions would cause death or serious harm.
Could he be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Unlikely. As above but without the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, this is less likely to be argued successfully as the outcome was the death of the attacker. To argue that he didn't intend to harm has little weight considering the facts known and I would advise against the charge being brought forward.
Could he be charged with gross negligence manslaughter? Unlikely. Gross negligence manslaughter is committed where the death is a result of a grossly negligent, though otherwise lawful, act or omission on the part of the defendant. It could be argued that when the defendant chose to get into the car with the intention to drive at the attacker that this was not a legal act. If the defendant ran over the attacker on the road whilst driving to the shops, the defendant may have been negligent and this charge may apply.
Could he be charged with death by dangerous driving? Yes. Causing the death of another person while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on the road or a public place. It could be argued that the facts of the case could be applied and successfully argued.
Could he be charged with criminal negligence? Yes. Conduct where a person ignores an obvious risk or disregards the life and safety of those around him. This could be argued successfully when considering the facts we know.
It really does fall on how the investigating team (police) and the Prosecution (CPS) view the act. There will also be pressure to 'do the right thing' but what is the right thing? Believe it or not, there will be those that call for the strict law to apply without fear or favour and will want to claim justice for the attacker, both public and political pressure. For example, if the CPS decided to discontinue the family of the attacker can bring litigation in the form of a civil suit against them. There is always many this to consider.
Bare in mind, this is just conjecture and there could be different charges brought forward that are not listed above.
I hope this helps a little.
Edit: What to charge the defendant with is very important for the prosecuting team. To get a conviction they must prove the intiraty of their case beyond all reasonable doubt, the burden of prosecution.
Last edited:
Thanks for this, it's interesting getting the breakdown of the options.
One question though- with the possible death by dangerous driving charge, wouldn't that normally be more accidental and reckless, rather than deliberately hitting someone with a car? That was the impression I'd gotten, but don't have your legal background.
I thought we'd have heard an update on this by now tbh.
The right decision.
Well done.
Good.
There's the update and sensible decision.
You could be right, I may be right. The same piece of law can be argued in many different ways.
Death by dangerous driving has three levels of severity.
Level One, the most serious, is defined as driving that involves a deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others. A prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving or Consumption of alcohol or drugs leading to gross impairment for example.
Level two is defined as driving that created a substantial risk of danger. Excessive speed or racing against another driver for example. Reading or using your phone is another.
Level three is defined as driving that created a significant risk of danger. Above the speed limit, driving whilst tired, an obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre, Failing to have proper regard for vulnerable road users (the words make it sound like it must be other drivers, riders but this is not the case)
In bold are terms that could have been applied.
Great news about the outcome and a sensible decision in the end.
Now let's hope he gets whatever therapy he might need. The trauma could be tremendous depending on his mental make up.