<Potential controversy> PC killed

[Whiskey88]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24195404

A Metropolitan police officer has died from his injuries after being involved in a hit and run incident whilst attempting to stop a speeding car. The driver of the car had been found and arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving, but has now been arrested on suspicion of murder - which carries a mandatory life sentence in the UK (though prisoners can be released on parole after a minimum term).

My question is this: Why is it murder if you run over a police officer, but not if you kill a cyclist whilst in charge of a motor vehicle?

 

[CopperCyclist]

It depends on the circumstances. Without reading the story, just from reading your post on face value it would seem that the officer wad making an attempt to stop the car, and the driver has deliberately driven at him.

In most cycle deaths (not all) there is no deliberate attempt to maim or kill the cyclist, instead it's an rtc where poor or dangerous driving is to blame.

In any incident where the suggestion is that the cyclist is deliberately attacked and ran over, murder would indeed be the arrest reason, and is used as such.

Lastly, note that this is the arrest and not the charge. We almost always arrest for the more serious offence, and CPS almost always charge with the last serious. Expect to later see a charge of death by dangerous or careless driving.

Put simply the statement that "it's murder if its a police officer but not if it's a cyclist" is wrong.

Regardless, my thoughts are with the officers family and friends, and I'm disappointed that the OP didn't think to include similar condolences.

 

[Archie_tect]

Deliberately driving into a policeman trying to stop a speeding car is premeditated and intending to cause fatal injury. Most people when out driving would avoid doing anything likely to cause a collision with another person whether they be a pedestrian, on a bike or a horse or driving another vehicle. The fact that death can occur without intending to cause any injury at all is occasionally the unfortunate but unintended consequence and should rightly be viewed as such when investigated.

 

[Noodley]

What copper cyclist said (edit - and Archie_tect)

Be as well closing the thread now.

 

[swee'pea99]

The question as posed by the OP is in poor taste to say the least, and as others have said quite rightly, the status of the victim is not an issue.

But putting that non-issue to one side, it does raise something that's baffled me in a few cases recently - this being a case in point - which is that without knowing any of the facts of the case, it seems more likely that the accused acted callously, in that they didn't care what happened to their victim, rather than actively murderously. In other words, that they acted as they did with the deliberate intent of killing him. I'd always understood that the whole point of murder, as against manslaughter or similar charges (causing death by dangerous driving, etc), legally was this one of intent: ie, that for an incident to constitute murder, the murderer has to have consciously decided to kill the victim (premeditation), and then acted in order to bring that about. This sounds to me like one of a number of 'similar' cases I've come across recently, where a charge of murder has been brought, despite an apparent lack of any such deliberate - and specific - intent.

As others have said, though, condolences to the victim and his family, and unlimited respect to those who put themselves at risk to try to protect others from the thoughtless (at best) peanuts out there.

 

[CopperCyclist]

The question as posed by the OP is in poor taste to say the least, and as others have said quite rightly, the status of the victim is not an issue.

But putting that non-issue to one side, it does raise something that's baffled me in a few cases recently - this being a case in point - which is that without knowing any of the facts of the case, it seems more likely that the accused acted callously, in that they didn't care what happened to their victim, rather than actively murderously. In other words, that they acted as they did with the deliberate intent of killing him. I'd always understood that the whole point of murder, as against manslaughter or similar charges (causing death by dangerous driving, etc), legally was this one of intent: ie, that for an incident to constitute murder, the murderer has to have consciously decided to kill the victim (premeditation), and then acted in order to bring that about. This sounds to me like one of a number of 'similar' cases I've come across recently, where a charge of murder has been brought, despite an apparent lack of any such deliberate - and specific - intent.

As others have said, though, condolences to the victim and his family, and unlimited respect to those who put themselves at risk to try to protect others from the thoughtless (at best) peanuts out there.

Common misconception, no premeditation to kill needed for murder in the UK. Intent to cause GBH, which ends up causing death is enough.

On top of that we only need suspicion of this to arrest.

 

[Whiskey88]

I offer my apologies if my lack of condolences has caused offence, it was an honest oversight. I do tend to say things straight to the point and failed to consider the attitudes of my fellow forum users here.

I do feel, however, that some of what I said has been misunderstood. My comment was more about how we see incidents of road-rage, where the driver has deliberately set out to cause harm to another road user which has could to serious injury or, in rare occasions death, being treated with perceived indifference by the judicial services. An example would be "punishment passes" - I've received 3 of these within the past 4 months (all on my motorised version of 2 wheels) that have warranted reporting to the authorities, however no action has been taken because there was no collision. How sooner could we have had drivers removed from the roads, such as the one involved in this tragic incident, if the matters were taken seriously before they involved a member of law enforcement?

 

[CopperCyclist]

I offer my apologies if my lack of condolences has caused offence, it was an honest oversight. I do tend to say things straight to the point and failed to consider the attitudes of my fellow forum users here.

I do feel, however, that some of what I said has been misunderstood. My comment was more about how we see incidents of road-rage, where the driver has deliberately set out to cause harm to another road user which has could to serious injury or, in rare occasions death, being treated with perceived indifference by the judicial services. An example would be "punishment passes" - I've received 3 of these within the past 4 months (all on my motorised version of 2 wheels) that have warranted reporting to the authorities, however no action has been taken because there was no collision. How sooner could we have had drivers removed from the roads, such as the one involved in this tragic incident, if the matters were taken seriously before they involved a member of law enforcement?

If the officer had been subject of the equivalent of a punishment pass, they probably wouldn't even have arrested for any careless driving other than the fail to stop.

I won't argue that certain traffic offences could be dealt with better in our judicial system. I will argue that having an officer as an ip makes a difference, because it really doesn't.

 

[CopperCyclist]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...quiry-death-teenage-cyclist-knocked-bike.html

http://westminster.londoninformer.co.uk/2013/07/two-men-arrested-for-attempted.html

Here are two examples of people being arrested for murder after 'hit and runs' on cyclists. If there are grounds to suspect murder, it will be treated as such. In fact the normal policy with any death at all is treat it as murder until you know it isn't, just to cover all the bases.

 

[PK99]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...quiry-death-teenage-cyclist-knocked-bike.html

http://westminster.londoninformer.co.uk/2013/07/two-men-arrested-for-attempted.html

Here are two examples of people being arrested for murder after 'hit and runs' on cyclists. If there are grounds to suspect murder, it will be treated as such. In fact the normal policy with any death at all is treat it as murder until you know it isn't, just to cover all the bases.

The first refers to:>

A gang member who killed his former schoolfriend by mounting the pavement and driving at him in a stolen car has been jailed for 24 years today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ement-driving-friend-Luton.html#ixzz2fdizhNy5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[swee'pea99]

Common misconception, no premeditation to kill needed for murder in the UK. Intent to cause GBH, which ends up causing death is enough.

Interesting. Do you know whether that's true in the US? (You say 'in the UK'...maybe my understanding has been skewed by too much telly.)

 

[PK99]

Interesting. Do you know whether that's true in the US? (You say 'in the UK'...maybe my understanding has been skewed by too much telly.)

FYI:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#intent

Intent
For the principal defendant, (see later for Joint Enterprise) the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL).

Attempted Murder
In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm: R v Grimwood (1962) 3 All ER 285. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances: R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.

us link: http://www.attorneys.com/homicide/attempted-murder-charges-and-penalties/
Elements of Attempted Murder
In most jurisdictions, attempted murder charges consist of two elements:

• The offender took some action towards killing another person
• The offender’s act was intended to kill a person

 

[ComedyPilot]

RIP to the fallen officer.


Any other debate should really be done on another thread.

 

[asterix]

On the basis of the BBC story that seems wrong to me.

Suppose the guy hit hit the officer with, say a hammer. Would that not be murder? Not 'causing death by dangerous use of a hammer'?

 

[ASC1951]

On the basis of the BBC story that seems wrong to me.
Suppose the guy hit hit the officer with, say a hammer. Would that not be murder? Not 'causing death by dangerous use of a hammer'?

Driving crimes are treated differently in most countries for several reasons:
- it can be very difficult to demonstrate intention
- most drivers drive with minor bits of incompetence or law-breaking some of the time
- the consequences of bad driving are sometimes down to chance rather than how bad the driving was.
That is why we have specific offences of eg causing death by dangerous driving.

Anyway, hitting someone with a hammer would not necessarily be murder. It's all down to context. What if the PC came to question him in his workshop where he was already using a hammer, and he carried on wielding it even when the PC stood in front of him? Conversely, if this driver had hit him with the car, but had driven it to the police station and driven straight into him in the car park, there might be enough evidence of intention to justify a
non-motoring charge.