Justice for Stephen Armstrong

By the sounds of it the police, judge and even the guy himself thought his actions were over the top.

You are allowed any level of reasonable force to protect yourself, driving into someone when you've got other options (driving away), isn't reasonable imo (unless his car is a Bond special and able to drive sideways he either drove into someone who wasn't a direct threat, or was moving away from him).
If indeed that was the case, it goes from self defence to attempted murder/assault (and the injuries sustained suggest it was fairly close to killing the guy).

Note that he pleaded guilty, and the original charge was attempted murder, those two facts suggest to me that there is a lot more to it than is being reported.
 
If you're only route is forward, through the man who is smashing his way through your car so that he can "knife" you, and then most likely "knife" your children too, is it unacceptable to take that route? Then the question is, did he have another route available? I'm picturing a car in a standard parked position where one end of the car is generally against something... a wall, another car. I.e on a driveway for example.
But I don't know that, as usual there isnt enough information for us to make this decision, and say that the judge was wrong.
 
Helium_Junkie said:
If you're only route is forward, through the man who is smashing his way through your car so that he can "knife" you, and then most likely "knife" your children too, is it unacceptable to take that route? Then the question is, did he have another route available? I'm picturing a car in a standard parked position where one end of the car is generally against something... a wall, another car. I.e on a driveway for example.
But I don't know that, as usual there isnt enough information for us to make this decision, and say that the judge was wrong.
Click to expand...

Aye, if the only way was forward the it's a slightly different matter, but given the charges, and the result after the evidence I sspect there is a lot more to it than reported.

Even if the guy pleaded guilty before it reached the Jury stage that says something about the level of evidence against him (a Jury would be very reluctanct to find someone guilty if there was any other option open for them to defend themselves).

I generally tend to trust a Judge who has seen the evidence rather than a newspaper/reporter who might only have seen the charges and parts of one side of the story (and probably wasn't in court).
 
How do you run someone over if they're standing at the side of the vehicle trying to get in at you through the window?

Sounds to me like he drove off and then came back to run him over, even says that he drove up over a pavement and hit the guy in some bushes.
 
I would probably do the same thing given the amount adrenaline flowing through the guys body if someone just tried to kill me. Not a violent guy and the last time 3 drunk lads tried to beat me up after many punches I told them off for being moronic and out of line lol (as I thought i'd get in more trouble for decking them as I was older, and they were under 18).

If he actually came back and ran him over I'd still probably understand it, but not saying it's right, but i'd understand it.

What did the attempted murderer actually get for attempting to kill Stephen?

Matthew
 
If there was CCTV of the incident I'd be interested to see it...

my initial thoughts are if you're being attacked with family /your children nearby then you're allowed to use the force you deem necessary to protect them. (How much etc. is I'm guessing what the debate will be about).

Whenever things like this happen, I'm always curious to know what the judge/jurors would do in that situation. It's so much easier to cast judgment sitting in a secure court room about what theoretically should happen etc...
 
Just another victory for the thugs imo. I bet the guy who got ran over is laughing at Mr Armstrong right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom