One can be deceived by one owns sensory input. Try watching one of those clips on YouTube where someone dressed as a rabbit, etc, walks by in the background.
Man arrested for murder after running over and killing a guy who was stabbing a woman | Faces no charges
- Thread starter Jippy
- Start date
And yet the driver was right. The man he ran over was murdering an innocent person. So your point is moot.
News: "Man hailed as hero after killing person on murder rampage"*Sees someone getting stabbed*
Camilo: "Gosh, I wonder what's going on here"
Camilo: "Mental bastard. How'd he know the guy was rampaging anyway?"
He could see a man straddling a woman plunging a knife into her repeatedly and slashing at people who tried to come near to intervene.
To be fair you wouldn't really need to see anything else to know that's someone who at the very least deserves a bus parked on top of them, but unfortunately he only had a clio.
At least we know @Camilo isn't from Texas.
- Some psycho brutally stabs a woman to death, taking her life in a terrorizing and torturous way.
- Random bystander makes a quick decision(Given the psycho is murdering someone, I doubt he took the time to ponder the best outcome, have a cup of coffee and lunch in between) and thinks the safest way to neutralize him is hitting him with a car. Random bystander actually does something not involving a phone and a camera, but kills the psycho in the process.
Some in this thread: "He murdered that man! How could he get involved without knowing why that psycho was doing that or what the history is! How could he take someone's life? He has to pay!" (There's some irony here).
Yes, I'm sure those of you spouting out this nonsense, if you so happened to encounter such a situation, would quietly walk up to the guy, give him a gentle hug and a kiss on the cheek, before politely asking what occurred between them for him to react so violently, and if he could pretty please, maybe stop killing her.
Christ. Get a grip.
- Random bystander makes a quick decision(Given the psycho is murdering someone, I doubt he took the time to ponder the best outcome, have a cup of coffee and lunch in between) and thinks the safest way to neutralize him is hitting him with a car. Random bystander actually does something not involving a phone and a camera, but kills the psycho in the process.
Some in this thread: "He murdered that man! How could he get involved without knowing why that psycho was doing that or what the history is! How could he take someone's life? He has to pay!" (There's some irony here).
Yes, I'm sure those of you spouting out this nonsense, if you so happened to encounter such a situation, would quietly walk up to the guy, give him a gentle hug and a kiss on the cheek, before politely asking what occurred between them for him to react so violently, and if he could pretty please, maybe stop killing her.
Christ. Get a grip.
This reminds me of why Panama City Beach changed its beach laws after spring break 2015. A girl was raped on the beach in front of everybody, and all anybody did was pull out their phones and film it.
Anyone who's reaction to a violent crime or terror attack is to pull out their phone and film it rather than stop it or provide aid is just pure scum. Lock them all up and broadcast their prison life 24/7 online for all to gawk at.
"I say, you there, with the knife. Are you murdering someone? Because if so I will have to make a reasoned decsion on how much force I may use to stop you, if I attempt to stop you at all."*Sees someone getting stabbed*
Camilo: "Gosh, I wonder what's going on here
Very Black mirror.
Sure. After the fact. Whatever happens to the driver now is whatever (dunno the word) judiciary? decides on the man. It seems it's very obvious to some. I'm just saying I don't know. He maybe shouldn't have done it before having all information.
What other information should he have gathered? More context?
I see your point, but in law, and rightly so, the principle is about whether the actions that were taken were reasonable on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be. It is actually irrelevant if the driver was in hindsight correct or incorrect, e.g. if he had been incorrect, let's say hypothetically because what he had witnessed was a sick prank and not real, he could still argue his actions were the reasonable defence of another person given his understanding of the facts at the time. Yet, he could also be correct in hindsight, but still found guilty if his actions weren't reasonable, like for example if it were to be proven that the stabber had been running away and the driver ran him over then, if it was unreasonable to believe the man was imminently going to attack someone else and needed to be stopped immediately.
I agree it's now upto the CPS/courts to decide, and it will likely come down to the precise details of the event that aren't yet publicly known. However, I disagree with the notion that in such a situation someone should be required to be excessively cautious, if it's a matter of life and death then people should have the legal right to instinctively and urgently defend themselves or others.
I would add, that I wouldn't have done it myself, as I would have been more inclined to stand back, out of a mixture of passive indecisiveness and frankly my own cowardice. But that doesn't mean that I think others should be legally required to do the same.
Last edited:
Don't know law, UK law even less. But, yeah. Pretty much what you're saying exactly. After the fact he seem to have done good. Hope they go easy on him
And yeah, one can only hope to be brave when it's required.
Last edited:
What if the victim had killed the attackers family moments before? What if the woman getting stabbed had attacked him with the knife first? What if it's a terrorist situation?
If you don't know, why on earth would you think it acceptable to KILL another person??!! Not stop, not intervene, KILL.
The driver chose who should live and who should die. You lot are bonkers defending that.
In all those highly improbable hypothetical examples it would be a great travesty and the guy would be locked up.
In actual fact, in the real world, he ran over a man who was repeatedly stabbing a woman on the pavement, and accidentally killed him. There's your facts, as opposed to your what ifs.
But if by some bizarre twist that woman was a terrorist you're saying it's okay for him to stab her. Aren't you actually saying it's okay to kill another person then depending on the situation? You just said it's not okay to kill another person but based on the scenario you just outlined about her being a supposed terrorist or she just killed his family he has all right to stab her to death because she could potentially harm someone. Isn't that basically you accepting that it's okay for someone to kill another person based on the situation? He was a murder which would fall under the category of a person willfully harming another and you just said it's okay to kill someone if that the case.
What exactly about this situation makes it different from someone defending their family or innocent bystanders against a terrorist? Both situations is someone trying to remove a threat. Terrorist is a threat a man stabbing a woman is also a threat.
The question all boils down to how reasonable his action were. Obviously trying to save someone's life in general is reasonable but if an attacker accidentally dies and the actions that lead to his death were foreseeable e.g. you run them over with a car, then there is bound to be an investigation. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends without charges.
If it ever went to trial I'd be surprised if you could find a jury that would convict. A bloke dies as a result of stabbing his partner to death, after years of using her as a punching bag, outside a school. Shortest deliberation before aquital ever most likely.
He didn't, not consciously anyway, but if he had I would totally respect it.
Did the world a net good being too enthusiastic with the throttle.
Don’t really blame his actions but id be worried in that case I’d hit the girl as well as him.
Bystander effect is a bad thing. See: Kitty Genovese
I am embarrassed for you.
What will people‘s opinion be if the autopsy says that she suffered catastrophic injuries when she was run over as well?
If he accidentally killed her as well, I'd say he will obviously be sentenced for something.
feck this.
Anyone who calls this murder or manslaughter is bullshit.
This was a result of another murder - which led to a man trying to stop the situation.
I would have done the same thing.
If this was some person from the royalty going through a horror stabbing and then someone tried to save them - would the latter still be called a murderer?
Not for me, he was attempting to be a hero.
Anyone who calls this murder or manslaughter is bullshit.
This was a result of another murder - which led to a man trying to stop the situation.
I would have done the same thing.
If this was some person from the royalty going through a horror stabbing and then someone tried to save them - would the latter still be called a murderer?
Not for me, he was attempting to be a hero.
I thought the same, the family of the victim said they were grateful that someone tried to save her, rather than just whip out their phones. It's a sad state of affairs when our first instinct is to video someone else's agony.
It comes down to this I think. Outside of a few weirdos in this thread, you won’t find anyone who thinks this guy should be convicted of any crime for this, so even if it does get to trial I can’t see anything coming of it.
It will just be a lot for the driver to deal with, which in the first place he probably should not have to.
Nah see, by definition this is manslaughter. That can't be denied. Whether or not he gets charged is a different story.
I doubt it will go to trial as the CPS will consider the likelihood of a prosecution being successful.
You may have thought this is an enlightened take but it’s actually a terrible one.
No it isn't. My understanding of UK law is that involuntary manslaughter (where death was unintentional) still requires the actions to be reckless or criminally negligent.
Voluntary manslaughter might be considered as the intention to cause grievous bodily harm might be proven but imo even less likely to result in a successful prosecution.
The devil is in the detail. We don’t know the detail so it’s hard to justifiably get outraged. As far as I’m aware he did run over the woman too. The details of that could be legally problematic for him.
I'm convinced he had good intentions from what Ive read. Still it's a horrible situation all around.
I don’t doubt he had good intentions. It may transpire to be more complicated that that though.
Those are the facts, with hindsight.
Im sorry, I really can't see how it's defensible. The driver had no clue what he was doing.
You're embarrassed because of a different opinion? Weird.
It's not like it's difficult to understand any of the points being made here.