Even a light manslaughter charge would feel incredibly harsh because that man did not ask for the situation to come into his life. He was coincidentally in the same place and was given a choice to ignore it or try to intervene. It's not like he actively went out looking for an incident so he could be a vigilante.
Man arrested for murder after running over and killing a guy who was stabbing a woman | Faces no charges
- Thread starter Jippy
- Start date
I also have to call bollocks to "he could have done many other things". A man with a knife is stabbing someone and threatening anyone else that approaches with said knife. What are these many other things that are possible in that situation for an unarmed man? How much time do you have to work out and implement an alternative plan of action that doesn't include the risk of killing the man. You have all the time and no pressure of the situation here, so can you tell us?
This is just so sad and disappointing to read. Such a preventable death with all these warnings.
Last edited:
This really annoys me.
The better thing to do would've been to call the police and just accept the fact that the woman will be stabbed non-stop until they arrive, which could've been who knows how long? Sigh.
The better thing to do would've been to call the police and just accept the fact that the woman will be stabbed non-stop until they arrive, which could've been who knows how long? Sigh.
Good thing you're not sure, because you're wrong.
I think a key element would be to assess whether he could reasonably expect to kill the stabber with the speed and force he drove into him.
As it happened, this was a violent ex-husband who had made the poor woman live in fear of her life for some time. He was threatening people who tried to intervene, so the driver decided to use his car as a last resort - the reports say he drove slowly towards the knife man, he didn't drive full-speed at him.
Yes, it's manslaughter, but the extenuating factors mean that as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't be charged. I doubt if a jury would find him guilty, although he has killed a man.
(edit - and there were many eye-witnesses, who have reported that the knife man was under the car calling out for help, but no-one was minded to assist).
Yes, it's manslaughter, but the extenuating factors mean that as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't be charged. I doubt if a jury would find him guilty, although he has killed a man.
(edit - and there were many eye-witnesses, who have reported that the knife man was under the car calling out for help, but no-one was minded to assist).
They should be shaking the guys hand not fecking slapping the cuffs on him.
You're right, I thought it was only when there was immediate danger to themselves but it's also for others.
Doesn't make the comparison any better though, that's what I was getting at. I don't think the police would shoot to kill in that instance.
Yes, that's fair, and why it is such a difficult scenario to judge, both as the man who witnessed the murder and intervened and the people deciding his sentence, if any.
Not sure he should be charged with murder. Is taking him off the streets making the streets safer? But he did kill someone... I dunno it's a tough one.
Would you arrest Batman?
Would you arrest Batman?
You should have put "I'm not sure" again because guess what; you're wrong again.
Remember the Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant. Same would have happened in the UK and it would be a justified and reasonable response by law enforcement.
Poor bastard though. Witnessing all of that, trying to help and ending up trying lift his car off a dead/dying man. Then arrested and charged with murder. What a fecking terrible day. Psychological trauma he’ll carry with him to his grave.
Under German law, it would be self-defense or rather Nothilfe. So he would not be charged.
The nerve!
I don't think he'll do any time
Exactly, that was my line of thought
Check out the tough guy who would have 100% taken on a man with a knife without combat experience at fighting people with knives. Big brass balls on you kid.
Hopefully gets cleared if the headlines are correct
It's normal to be arrested and police have the incident investigated. It still baffles me he got charged with murder though. If legally this is murder (and assuming we know all the facts), then in my opinion the law is morally wrong and needs altering.
He should not be charged and should be given a medal
Some sanity at last. The German law is right here.
Am I missing something here?
In other threads we all show outrage and ask why passers by never stop to help people in distress. This answers that question.
Even if charges are dropped or he's found innocent in court, the mere fact he was charged in the first place means its better to keep out of it.
edit: charged or arrested, not sure which he is.
Even if charges are dropped or he's found innocent in court, the mere fact he was charged in the first place means its better to keep out of it.
edit: charged or arrested, not sure which he is.
Last edited:
Do you know what a coroner is?
Horrible, horrible situation.
I can see both sides, but you can't use a car to hit the stabber, even though I understand why he did it.
Imagine if a random person had run to help her as the car approached.
I can see both sides, but you can't use a car to hit the stabber, even though I understand why he did it.
Imagine if a random person had run to help her as the car approached.
Thought it was an "onderzoeksrechter" in Dutch, but appears not to be the case
Would also be ruled self-defense in Belgium for what it's worth, just like under German law, as long as the self-defense is deemed to be proportionate.
Billionaire who goes around beating up petty criminals just trying to survive?
Yes I would and I'd put him on a diet too.
He's not being charged with reckless endangerment of the public. He is being charged with murder.
The type of arguments I read on this thread are downright bizarre. Counterfactual even.
There's no need to imagine something that didn't happen though. It doesn't sound like he was out of control with the car either so that's a strawman argument.
I'd plead not guilty if it were me. I think he did what he could under extreme stress.
So, since we're debating the morality of the law here: are we in agreement that is was the morally correct course of action and the person should not be charged with murder?Thought it was an "onderzoeksrechter" in Dutch, but appears not to be the case
Would also be ruled self-defense in Belgium for what it's worth, just like under German law, as long as the self-defense is deemed to be proportionate.
I don't think I've ever expressed what I thought the right solution would be?
If he can be exempted based on the law, then that's great (and it would be morally correct imo). If he can't, then he should be punished, taking into account all relevant circumstances (so for me, that would be as low a sentence as possible). The law should be followed regardless of whether you think it is morally right or wrong in a certain situation.
Don’t see how that fits the legal definition of murder based on the tiny bits that I’ve just read.
Obviously might depend a little bit on the finer details of the story but not a murder for me
Obviously might depend a little bit on the finer details of the story but not a murder for me
That relates to my point earlier. If he pleads not guilty to murder then he'll face trial by jury but there's always a chance he'll be found guilty and spend 7+ years in prison. The Colston statue isn't a precedent as such, only something that can happen dependent on the perception of the jurors at the time.
You didn't, that's why I was asking. But maybe I was the one not being clear here. When I said we're debating the morality of the law here, I was talking about the thread not our little side convo.
I think I got my answer in the bolded part.
Following a law you deem deeply immoral or unethical is a tricky one. Sometimes you disregard it and live with the consequences. If this is murder by English law, then I think I would have also broken it if I were in the man's shoes. Even if I knew there was a chance I'd be charged with murder.
A woman's life was in danger and even running him over at the speed he did wasn't enough to prevent him from taking her life. Suggesting that he should have gone slower wouldn't make much sense in that regard.
He took action to try and save her life. I presume that the police had no choice but to charge him under the law and it'll be up the jury to determine if his actions were reasonable given the circumstances. I'd hope he gets off or at least gets a light sentence.
Last edited:
It will definitely count for something.
But the police and CPS have to put him through the courts as he did kill someone, it is the job of the court to understand what he did and act accordingly, in a similar way to the Colston 4 being found not guilty of criminal damage as they can.
It can not be the job of the police to say, that actually this guy is fine and was just trying to help out, otherwise we'd end up with vigilantes all over the shop.
Obviously he tried, in vain unfortunately, to save her life. That was responsible for the life of the cnut who took the life he was trying to save has to be overlooked if it can be proven without doubt that that's all he was trying to do (i.e. he didn't have some grudge against the guy that could be seen as an ulterior motive (imo as a non laywer).
Obviously there's a need to really careful about this sort of thing. It's difficult for anyone (even 'trained professionals') to make the 'right' decision about when it's justifiable to use deadly force. As a matter of course, cases like this should go through proper process, be judged on their own merits and the outcomes and the rationale behind decisions made clearly communicated. Anything less and we end up setting some murky precedents.
From what I've read I don't think the guy should be charged/convicted. Clearly the attacker posed a risk to life (sadly, that's beyond doubt), from reports it seems that non-violent attempts to intervene had been unsuccessful and that others were now at risk. Finally, the guy didn't ram the attack at full speed so it doesn't sound like he was intending to kill him, just incapacitate him. For me, all those factors are key to my judgement that he shouldn't be punished and obviously if the police/a jury are to come to the same conclusion they need to investigate and verify all those facts (and, obviously, make sure there wasn't some other motive we don't know about).
From what I've read I don't think the guy should be charged/convicted. Clearly the attacker posed a risk to life (sadly, that's beyond doubt), from reports it seems that non-violent attempts to intervene had been unsuccessful and that others were now at risk. Finally, the guy didn't ram the attack at full speed so it doesn't sound like he was intending to kill him, just incapacitate him. For me, all those factors are key to my judgement that he shouldn't be punished and obviously if the police/a jury are to come to the same conclusion they need to investigate and verify all those facts (and, obviously, make sure there wasn't some other motive we don't know about).
Surely the CPS could opt to not pursue it though? The murder charge would never stick and it would be a surprise if a jury convicted him, I'd have thought.
He's a hero. He didn't intend to kill the driver, he intended to stop him from stabbing that woman. He hit him with his car too do that.