Yeah, I agree with this. What I don’t understand is why he was (allegedly) already charged with murder? Who makes the decision about a charge like that anyway?
Man arrested for murder after running over and killing a guy who was stabbing a woman | Faces no charges
- Thread starter Jippy
- Start date
In a case of trial by jury I'd expect a consideration of excessive force to be a factor. I remember two cases of householders facing down burglars in their homes at night. One beat the burglar into a coma with a cricket bat, continuing to beat him after he was disabled. The other killed one of a group of 4 burglars with a single stab wound to the heart from a kitchen knife. The former was sent to prison for excessive force whereas the latter had all charges dropped because his actions were deemed to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Do we know the specifics of this case? Did he hit him once and kill him or run him over a few times?
Self defence in English law is formally called public defence, and you can claim it in defending others against attack or trying to prevent crime, so I would hope the CPS understands it would apply here and the prosecution is discontinued.
The police charge but the CPS make the ultimate decision on whether to prosecute using a two stage legal test (whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute).
The basic principles of self-defence are set out in Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814; approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.
Was gonna say the same. He defended someone whose life was under threat. No way is acting in that moment committing a crime.
Yeah how was he to know this was between a man and his ex and not some loony on a stabbing spree? Can't exactly confront someone with a knife without risking being stabbed yourself so getting in your can and running him over is definitely something I'd think about doing in the heat of the moment
Did the right thing. feck the stabbing maniac.
Here it would be a justifiable homicide and he’d be free. It wouldn’t get to voluntary manslaughter.
If they’re releasing him on bail while they verify he was not involved in the altercation other than reacting on the scene to protect someone’s life, then that’s reasonable I guess.
If they’re releasing him on bail while they verify he was not involved in the altercation other than reacting on the scene to protect someone’s life, then that’s reasonable I guess.
Yeah of course, id probably help him do it right? feck off.
I havent clicked on the article. don't think I want to risk seeing any images...
but if the man stabbing was on/or close to the woman, how is running a car over them helping the woman?
If the man had moved away, how is running over him helping the woman?
I understand the urge to run someone like that over... but I am not sure how heroic it is.
You're trying to apply morality to law.
It is not in the public interest to charge the guy and shame on the CPS if they do.
Interesting. Thanks. I guess that second test is where he might avoid prosecution?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime
Slightly centred around homeowners but this is the relevant cps guidance.
the two balance points between civic conscience and vigilantism are key and particular to the full facts of any instance.
second key point is the CPS have likely agreed the charge which likely means within the evidence there is something that they feel significantly rebutts the reasonableness/self defence argument and then they still think the public interest test is met.
On the face of the facts we have that is surprising to me but as always they will know everything, while we know little to nothing.
Slightly centred around homeowners but this is the relevant cps guidance.
the two balance points between civic conscience and vigilantism are key and particular to the full facts of any instance.
second key point is the CPS have likely agreed the charge which likely means within the evidence there is something that they feel significantly rebutts the reasonableness/self defence argument and then they still think the public interest test is met.
On the face of the facts we have that is surprising to me but as always they will know everything, while we know little to nothing.
I think so. He has a decent case of self defence which would likely hold up in front of a jury.
I think the cafs trying too hard to be liberal.
Carrying a knife and threaten to kill isnt a cause for vigilantw justice but he's actually activelt stabbing the woman and once he made that move anyone could be justified for taking the perp down.
Carrying a knife and threaten to kill isnt a cause for vigilantw justice but he's actually activelt stabbing the woman and once he made that move anyone could be justified for taking the perp down.
Isn't that exactly what people are saying here?
Agreed. Even if just trying to protect the woman you would hope he doesn't get more than a slap on the wrist.
Let him go.
So much for the story of the 'Good Samaritan', perhaps for the driver it would have been better to have walked by on the other side of the street?
If it turns out the car is to be treated as a 'murder weapon', then what about all the dangerous driving hit and run deaths caused every year?
If it turns out the car is to be treated as a 'murder weapon', then what about all the dangerous driving hit and run deaths caused every year?
He'll get let off if the detail of his actions were reasonable but it obviously needs proper process to come to that conclusion.
If for instance she was already dead and he'd stepped away before he ran him over then that's very different.
If for instance she was already dead and he'd stepped away before he ran him over then that's very different.
His reaction should have been proportional to the action - which was proportionate, in my opinion. If one is trying to kill someone (stabbing) with a deadly weapon, then using appropriate means, should absolutely be allowed.
Manslaughter at most.
Issue will be don't want vigilantes, people taking the law in to their own hands, easy to misjudge exactly what a situation is before you go run someone over or generally use potentially deadly force like that.
Issue will be don't want vigilantes, people taking the law in to their own hands, easy to misjudge exactly what a situation is before you go run someone over or generally use potentially deadly force like that.
So a few posters have pulled you up on the bolded part. What exactly are the many other options he could have chose from out of interest ?
The driver is a hero....If by any chance he's a member on Red Cafe and is still a newbie he should be promoted.
Phone the police, phone for an ambulance, shout at him, throw something at him, give cpr to the woman when the guy goes away. None of them may have saved the lady's life unfortunately but in reality probably nothing would have under the circumstances. It's a horrendous situation but I'd say that getting into a car and deliberately running someone over is still a choice somebody makes that could potentially kill somebody.
The police are allowed to use lethal force to protect other people, not just themselves.
I don't think people should have to put themselves at unnecessary risk to try and minimize the harm to a violent attacker. At the level where someone is literally in the act of trying to murder someone, their personal rights should go out the window.
They seem a fairly useless set of suggestions.
They may well be but what else do you expect somebody to do in those circumstances? I'm not saying the person could have saved the lady's life - in all likelihood he wouldn't have been able to.
Here this would fall under the “alter ego / defense of others” rule of self defense law.
A person has the right to use deadly force in defense of another person if the person being attacked would be justified in using deadly force to defend themselves against an attacker.
A person has the right to use deadly force in defense of another person if the person being attacked would be justified in using deadly force to defend themselves against an attacker.
Ah yes a very effective method of dealing with a knife wielding maniac
I'd say trying to distract him or scare him off in some way would be a pretty valid approach under the circumstances. Not saying it would work.Ah yes a very effective method of dealing with a knife wielding maniac
Well, something with the immediacy that is required to bring the situation to a halt.
Your suggestions seem more aligned to somebody in a little skirmish on the floor. A bit soft quite frankly. I don't think being proportional is always about finding a palatable outcome for every party. It is about assessing a situation and ultimately I suppose that is what they'll deliberate on.
At least I'm trying to offer an alternative response to one that involves killing somebody. They may be crap responses but I'm not hearing anybody else try and come up with any. Does this mean I'm the only person who could conceive of any response to this situation that wouldn't involve killing somebody? Maybe I am I don't know.
You're basically saying do nothing and leave the woman to die. This is a man intent on stabbing a woman until she's presumed dead; being a bystander phoning for police, even with the best response times, is consigning her to death.
Throwing anything with enough force to dissuade someone in a psychotic frenzy would need to be done so with a hard and heavy object with enough gusto it could potentially kill them, and at close range.
Your suggestions probably sound reasonable to you, but you're removing any slither of hope for her with them. This person was trying to save her life in real time; none of what you've suggested would be sufficient.
If it's an instictive desperate act to try and save a woman from being murdered that's obviously a morally good act and the law should ultimately reflect that. In that regard I'm reminded of the recent murder of a young woman in Ireland, which prompted a discussion about the need to do more to protect women from violence. With that in mind we presumably want to put forward the idea that intervening to save a woman who is being attacked is generally the right thing to do don't we? Better that than meekly calling the police and doing nothing else while a woman continues to be attacked.
That said, there's obviously a limit beyond which an intervention turns deliberately malicious. If you needlessly kill someone in a way that could have been avoided even in your efforts to save the person being attacked then there should be some consequences. It really depends on the details.
That said, there's obviously a limit beyond which an intervention turns deliberately malicious. If you needlessly kill someone in a way that could have been avoided even in your efforts to save the person being attacked then there should be some consequences. It really depends on the details.
There's a life at stake here. You're thinking someone who is trying their best to kill someone else is going to cease and desist because you've shouted at them.
Some might yeah - you might startle them and scare them off. I mean it's possible isn't it? We are getting into hypotheticals here which is basically pointless.
He was stabbing a woman to death in the middle of a street with people around. I think he was past the point of caring about shouts
Treating this as a "regular" murder seems very harsh. Still, surely taking things in your own hands with fatal consequences is illegal in England?
Still, these situations are always an ethical dilemma. The man had good intentions by all account, so treating him as a murderer feel very unjust.
Still, these situations are always an ethical dilemma. The man had good intentions by all account, so treating him as a murderer feel very unjust.