advertisement


If I was driving a car, saw a chainsaw wielding person…

Slight variation:

Chuck and Cammy are on a royal visit to a primary school in a deprived area of London. Armed coppers at the school see a chainsaw wielding nutter running towards them shouting “Viva la republic, down with the monarchy!”

Do the coppers:

a. Shout a clear warning, then ventilate the attacker’s chest with lots of 9mm holes, or

b. Let him through, as long as he leaves the children and teachers alone.

(Ok, now I’ve thought about it, b is the correct response. Hmm)
 
If an autonomous vehicle is in a state where it has to crash into and kill a pedestrian - which does it choose, the child or the elderly person?
 
gintonic said:
If an autonomous vehicle is in a state where it has to crash into and kill a pedestrian - which does it choose, the child or the elderly person?
Click to expand...
Ejector seat followed by car self detonation.
(Now I'm just being silly, probably because I'm late and work and looking for a distraction....but at least the music is better when no-one else is around).
 
Last edited:
matt j said:
Premeditated is a bit of a push, it's not like you've set out that morning with the intent to run over and kill someone, a bit different from a spur of the moment decision to incapacitate someone chasing a copper down the street with a chainsaw.
Click to expand...
There's a misconception about the meaning of premeditation in law. Just as you've said, most people believe premeditation requires someone to spend minutes or hours planning the murder. This is simply not the case, all the test of premediation requires is that you are acting deliberately, and that you've had time to decide in your mind what action you're going to take. It can be an instantateous act, as long as it's believed that you did what you did deliberately, then it's considered premeditation. e.g. If you're in the kitchen and you reach out and grab a heavy pan whilst arguing with someone and swing at them crushing their skull, it will very likely be considered a spontaneous act and thus not premeditated. If you however you are in the living room and you run in to the kitchen to grab the heavy pan and return to the living room and crush their skull with it, it is very likely going to be considered premediated as you made a deliberate act in full awareness of what you were doing. Obviously the exact circumstances make a big difference. It would be very hard to argue that turning a wheel to swerve a car off the road in order to run over an attacker was not a premeditated act, people don't generally just swerve while driving down the road.
 
Cav said:
The OP has already alluded to murderous intent above which would compromise his defence.

As to the particular situation, if someone reasonably believed that a man with a chainsaw was chasing someone with intent to do physical harm, then using a car to prevent that attack would, probably, result in no charges being brought.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but much would depend on exactly how they use the car.

There's a really good chance that irrespective of what the law says, that the jury will find not guilty even if the Judge instructs them to find guilty. It wouldn't be the first time a jury has ignored the law.
 
ks.234 said:
Given the distance between policeman and attacker, wouldn’t the sensible option be to drive to the policeman so he could hop in?
Click to expand...
Exactly, and that's something that would be considered if actually the driver had instead just run the assailant over. Part of the requirement of self defence is that the act of violence was the only remaining alternative. You are expected to get out of the situation without resorting to violence if at all possible. e.g. if there's an escape route not blocked by the person attacking you but you still use violence against them, it'll be far harder to be successful with a self defence claim.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
Slight variation:

Chuck and Cammy are on a royal visit to a primary school in a deprived area of London. Armed coppers at the school see a chainsaw wielding nutter running towards them shouting “Viva la republic, down with the monarchy!”

Do the coppers:

a. Shout a clear warning, then ventilate the attacker’s chest with lots of 9mm holes, or

b. Let him through, as long as he leaves the children and teachers alone.

(Ok, now I’ve thought about it, b is the correct response. Hmm)
Click to expand...
Charles de Menezes
 
Tony Lockhart said:
Slight variation:

Chuck and Cammy are on a royal visit to a primary school in a deprived area of London. Armed coppers at the school see a chainsaw wielding nutter running towards them shouting “Viva la republic, down with the monarchy!”

Do the coppers:

a. Shout a clear warning, then ventilate the attacker’s chest with lots of 9mm holes, or

b. Let him through, as long as he leaves the children and teachers alone.

(Ok, now I’ve thought about it, b is the correct response. Hmm)
Click to expand...
In this case as the CWN appears to be French, the answer is clearly "a". With maximum prejudice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top