advertisement


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

Tony Lockhart

Tony Lockhart

Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
… chasing a copper, and I chose to drive flat out at the attacker, any idea what the likelihood is that I’d be charged?

I absolutely know I would do it anyway, and might even reverse over the lifeless lump just to make sure.
 
wacko said:
And find out the copper had raped and murdered his wife...
Click to expand...
Well, the scenario of a murder/rape victim’s partner chasing the suspect while armed with a chainsaw hasn’t happened. A deluded, Ali’s Snackbar yelling nutjob chasing a random copper down the street has now happened.

Our emergency service workers frequently experience violent attacks from bystanders.

If I saw anyone attacking a copper, I wouldn’t hesitate to attempt to disable the attacker.
 
I'm not sure the identity of the person being attacked matters. You do what you think is best at the time to reduce the harm to people. There is no way i'd try and kill anyone in any situation, but i'd certainly try and immobilise someone if they were a danger to others, if I had the means at my disposal.
 
The likelihood is, that the chainsaw man was entirely morally right, & the policeman probably morally corrupt.

Just get the phone out, film it, & pop it on YouTube I advocate.. not drive at the sensible man ffs.

Capt
 
Could have been a paid for stripper dressed as a copper and a jealous husband..! Too many unanswered questions.
 
As I understand it, in UK law it's murder. Slam dunk. Unless they've added a mitigation of "the person transpires to have been committing an act of terrorism and had already killed/seriously injured several other people".
 
Tony Lockhart said:
… chasing a copper, and I chose to drive flat out at the attacker, any idea what the likelihood is that I’d be charged?

I absolutely know I would do it anyway, and might even reverse over the lifeless lump just to make sure.
Click to expand...
Hitting him with the car the first time is defensible. You would have to claim that it was reasonable force to defend the life of the police officer that you believed to be in danger, and that you had no other option. Reversing over him isn't justified because he is no longer a threat at that point, and this would be murder, even if he were already dead.
 
stevec67 said:
Hitting him with the car the first time is defensible. You would have to claim that it was reasonable force to defend the life of the police officer that you believed to be in danger, and that you had no other option. Reversing over him isn't justified because he is no longer a threat at that point, and this would be murder, even if he were already dead.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt you'd have a chance in hell of successfully convincing a court that using a car to run someone over is "reasonable force".

Actually, thinking about it. As you used a car, it may be considered a motoring offence: death by dangerous driving.
That said, I don't think that works if the prosecution can prove intent.
 
gez said:
As I understand it, in UK law it's murder. Slam dunk. Unless they've added a mitigation of "the person transpires to have been committing an act of terrorism and had already killed/seriously injured several other people".
Click to expand...
It's not a slam dunk, unless you foolishly say that you intended to kill him. The intent was to stop him from murdering the police officer, which it was clear to you that he intended, and you did the least that you could do to prevent it. You are obviously distraught that the man has unfortunately died, you only wanted to stop him. Now get a good solicitor and no pictures in the Daily Mail of you standing triumphantly atop the damaged car saying "I got the bastard, and I'd do it again!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top