Soldato
Stabbing a man that hasn't attempted to harm you 18 times is not self defence!!
Darren Pencille murder trial
- Thread starter Screeeech
- Start date
Soldato
No, it's not.
Why? What is aggressive about it in that instance? What is aggressive about a complaint/objection?
He's just casually leaning against the post, he scratches his ear, he doesn't look to be shouting, getting angry etc..
Soldato
it is when you already know the man to be argumentative.
to be honest though it's a pointless story to try and debate, we know virtually nothing of what was said between the 2 men. we can debate all we want but without full knowledge of the conversation there's not really a lot to discuss, all we know is 2 dudes talked to each other in a rather lively manner and 1 ended up dead.
no one deserves to be stabbed (well for the most part no one
) but the victim had no business following the other dude irrespective of what the 'he did nothing wrong/wasn't aggressive/he's entitled to give him a piece of his mind' folk think. if you get into a heated exchange with somoene you don't know and they walk off, let them walk off unless you want to potentially escalate the situation and unless you're prepared to deal with that excalation - we don't live in a fun fuzzy world where it's easy or indeed your entitelment to tell somoene off who offends or upsets you. as my auld fella told me years ago - don't tell someone to **** off unless your prepared to physically make them **** off or deal with the consequences of telling them to **** off. (i'm not saying the victim told the other dude to **** off but the idea is the same)
Soldato
Can't see him getting off with it especially with all the knife crime in London. The government needs to look like its taking a hard stance against knife usage.
I think you're either misrepresenting things here or you're getting the wrong end of the stick. No one has claimed that he did nothing wrong (we don't know what he said, it is possible that he did threaten him, though his body language seems pretty clam) or that it is necessarily a good idea to have followed the guy.
My objection is that if he was just following to give him a piece of his mind/tell him he was out of order then that isn't an aggressive act in itself as some other poster claimed and it doesn't warrant a physical response let alone a stabbing. I'm not saying it is a good idea or that people should do that. He is entitled to do that IMO, though it probably isn't a very good idea in the case of some "roadman" type.
Knowing the man is argumentative doesn't mean that your objection to his behaviour is now aggressive, I think you're being silly if you're taking that pov and you haven't really justified why it is aggressive... I think if you did then you'd have to articulate a position that still relies on the defendant being the aggressor. Just because the other party is violent (something he didn't know that the time and was perhaps naive to) and might react in a certain way doesn't make otherwise non-aggressive behaviour, that irritates/annoys the violent individual, aggressive.
Last edited:
Soldato
it is when you already know the man to be argumentative.
to be honest though it's a pointless story to try and debate, we know virtually nothing of what was said between the 2 men. we can debate all we want but without full knowledge of the conversation there's not really a lot to discuss, all we know is 2 dudes talked to each other in a rather lively manner and 1 ended up dead.
no one deserves to be stabbed (well for the most part no one
Some people aren't as streetwise as me and you!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,453
Victim is an idiot for not walking away
Murderer is an idiot for murdering a stranger over a verbal argument on a train and yes it is murder, not self defence
Murderer is an idiot for murdering a stranger over a verbal argument on a train and yes it is murder, not self defence
Soldato
i suppose it could be argued the victims actions were aggravating rather than aggressive but that's for the lawyers to sort
however back in the real world, if you follow somoene you've just argued with to another area with the sole intention of confronting them then that is an agressive act - at least in my opinion. dude that size stomps after you in a train carriage after an argument, unless he comes in wanting to hug and kiss it's going to be read by the other party as aggression.
Soldato
sadly that's very true.
but and this is just my own personal opinion having watched the vid and read the story - the victim is a big dude, i imagine he felt he could handle the situation (it's a failing a lot of big dudes often have, especially when they start to get on a bit in years) and figured he'd follow the defendant and demand an apology or perhaps simply point out the guys failings as a human being - or whatever conversation he want to continue with. not only is that not streetwise, it's down right stupid. i imagine he's 'fronted' other people in his life previous to this encounter when he's felt wronged (it'd certainly be the crappiest luck ever if this was the first time he's decided to 'act the big fella' and ended up stuck by some ratbag) - unfortuantely for him this was a situation he shouldn't have bothered confronting.
Man of Honour
It arguably has some aspect of defence when that person has followed you after you walked away from the initial confrontation, is being aggressive towards you, has trapped you in a confined area and deliberately prevented you from leaving when you tried to do so and is literally looming over you, crowding you into a corner. Not enough to consider it reasonable force in my opinion, but some.
EDIT: As for the "18 times!" thing, well, that's how you make sure to kill someone using a knife, especially a smaller knife - stab them repeatedly. It's not necessarily indicative of "frenzy". It means that the killer knew at least the basics of how to use a knife as a weapon and intended to kill, but it doesn't mean that they were frenzied. They might have been, they might not have been. There's a lot of focus on the number of stabs because bigger numbers attract more attention, but that's all it's for.
I read the news after adding that edit and saw a very relevant statement:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-48786426
Last edited:
Caporegime
I'm not sure I even have it in me to stab someone once non fatally in "self defence" - No matter what your opinion of this incident is, the actions of this Darren guy are unhinged, he is mentally ill, and cannot be part of society without some serious thinking time behind bars.
Murder requires an intention to kill someone. The guy was walking away from him.
If you bumped in to someone by accident on a train, and he was a foot taller than you, and a bigger guy all round, he started arguing with you making it an issue. You walked away and he kept following you carrying it on, squaring up to you, towering over you.. wouldn't you feel your physical safety was under threat?
Caporegime
So you are saying that he intended to just injure him by stabbing him 18 times? Right OK...
Caporegime
Another bit of on the nose sense from minsta.
Also points for use of the word meanie.
Caporegime
Oh sorry, could you clarify why else you would stab someone 18 times?
So you are saying that he intended to just injure him by stabbing him 18 times? Right OK...
I've never stabbed anyone. But I'd imagine stabbing someone once isn't going to stop them being aggressive, it would probably inflame them more.
I know its shaky ground when talking about a knife. But in that situation it could be a mitigating factor that he felt physically threatened by someone and he grabbed a weapon.
If some 'big man' is shouting at me on public transport, following me, then I'm striking first. Because if he does then I might be beaten to a pulp.
The big guy picked on the wrong person who had a dangerous weapon to hand and paid the price. He should have stopped chasing the guy around and stayed with his kid.
The problem for the defendant and the argument of self-defense, is that the evidence shows he made a phone call to his girlfriend and said he was going to "kill this man" so the intention is there and undisputed, so I don't think it can be successfully argued that it's not murder, because it clearly was.
You can't really ring someone up and say you're going to kill someone, then subsequently after killing them with a knife - argue it was self defense, it's folly.
You can't really ring someone up and say you're going to kill someone, then subsequently after killing them with a knife - argue it was self defense, it's folly.
Soldato
The CCTV didn't look like the victim was being aggressive after he'd followed him into the next carriage. The most aggressive thing he did was follow him into the next carriage. Murder with reduced charge under diminished responsibility will probably be the outcome, unless he's faking it.