Theft victim charged with murder after ramming thief off his motorcycle

[Grahamm]

Ok, this one is already on the Facebook forum, but it's very difficult to follow all the different conversations on there, so hopefully we can discuss it reasonably here.

Theft victim charged with murder after ramming thief off his motorcycle

THE victim of a motorcycle theft has been charged with murder after ramming two motorcycle thieves from his motorcycle as they tried to escape.

First of all, I'd like to ask that, despite how people feel, we keep this discussion civil and avoid ill-tempered comments.

The short version is that the biker heard someone trying to steal his motorcycle, chased after them in his car and rammed them twice, the second impact causing the thieves to be knocked off the bike, one dying after hitting a lamp post and the second suffering serious injuries.

It should also be mentioned that the biker then left the scene and other members of the public then had to help the injured people.

Now, whilst some people may be thinking "they deserved it" or "serves them right" or "I'd do the same", there are few points that need to be made. (NB I follow The Secret Barrister on Twitter who often explains how the newspaper headlines and stories about cases like these are often exaggerated or distorted and don't necessarily represent the facts correctly).

So, a few points...

1) Obviously, theft is wrong.


2) You have the right to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property if it or you are at risk.

3) Using a car to chase people and knock them off a motorcycle most probably does not come under the heading of "reasonable".

4) Taking the law into your own hands is generally frowned upon.

5) Whilst the headline says the prosecution are calling for a murder charge, it's unlikely that such a charge would actually be proven as it would be necessary to demonstrate intent to kill.

6) Because he left the scene, presumably he was aware that what he had done, so it's very unlikely he'd get off completely. Most likely the charge will be reduced to manslaughter and he'd probably be best to make a guilty plea before it goes to court to get the maximum reduction in sentence.

7) Yes, certain members of the Police are authorised to use "Tactical contact" to stop stolen bikes, however they are *trained* for this and to evaluate the best way to do it in a way that causes least danger.

8 ) No matter what you think of bike thieves, the penalty for theft is not murder, so please, no lynch mob style comments about "they deserved it" or "if more people did this, there would be fewer bike thefts".


9) The Prosecution are trying to get their case out into the public domain and media, unfortunately the Defence can't generally do the same. That's just how the system works.

There's probably more, but that covers a fair few things that will come up.

[fazersharp]

There ain't no jury in the land that will convict him of murder.

Its right - you can shoot an intruder in the face but you can not shoot them in the back as they run off. (shoot - so to speak )

[BBROWN1664]

I suspect he will be found guilty of manslaughter as he did not set out to kill.
Tony Martin is an example of why the law of this land gets it wrong sometimes though.

[YamFazFan]

.

[agricola]

Surely the prosecution can only allege that he deliberately rammed his own motorcycle? Dont they have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

[fazersharp]

Sounds like a tragic accident to me - just as if some lowlife grabbed my phone in the street and as I chased him he got ran over by a bus.

[agricola]

Be interesting to know if the surviving rider is charged with theft, riding without a helmet etc

[Grahamm]

I suspect he will be found guilty of manslaughter as he did not set out to kill.
Tony Martin is an example of why the law of this land gets it wrong sometimes though.

Shooting someone who is facing you *could* be argued as self defence.

Shooting someone in the back from a distance who is running away from you and trying to get through a window (and then lying about it) is murder.

In any case, that's off topic for this discussion.

[Grahamm]

Sounds like a tragic accident to me - just as if some lowlife grabbed my phone in the street and as I chased him he got ran over by a bus.

The difference is whether he fell under the bus or you *pushed* him under the bus (and whether you legged it afterwards)...

[Grahamm]

Be interesting to know if the surviving rider is charged with theft, riding without a helmet etc

Probably he will be.

(BTW Riding without a helmet is, IIRC, a £30 fixed penalty, no points)

[mtread]

Point 8 counts me out of posting in this thread

:woot

[fazersharp]

[quote author=agricola link=topic=26597.msg321279#msg321279 date=1604692785]
Be interesting to know if the surviving rider is charged with theft, riding without a helmet etc

Probably he will be.

(BTW Riding without a helmet is, IIRC, a £30 fixed penalty, no points)
[/quote]that's cheaper than buying a helmet

[YamFazFan]

.

[darrsi]

[quote author=BBROWN1664 link=topic=26597.msg321270#msg321270 date=1604685927]
I suspect he will be found guilty of manslaughter as he did not set out to kill.
Tony Martin is an example of why the law of this land gets it wrong sometimes though.

Shooting someone who is facing you *could* be argued as self defence.

Shooting someone in the back from a distance who is running away from you and trying to get through a window (and then lying about it) is murder.

In any case, that's off topic for this discussion.
[/quote]


You seem to have decided in your own mind what you want people to say or not say?
That's not a discussion is it?


Thieves, burglars, murderers, rapists, etc, are all the lowest of the low in my mind that can deeply hurt or even wreck peoples lives, so if it goes badly wrong for them or they get their comeuppance every so often, then.........tough titties.  mokin


As for the driver, as much as i hate to say it, he was in the wrong as he went out of his way for vengeance, but heat of the moment anger can do that to a person. Not sure about a clean cut murder charge, because as you say it wasn't premeditated at all, just an over reactive response that ended badly. Death as a result of dangerous driving maybe, along with the GBH charge which will probably stick.
They will have to take into account that none of this would've happened if the two thieving scrotebags had not nicked his bike in the first place, so they are still a victim of their own actions. All depends on how good his defence liar is.
The poor sod has to live with smashing his own bike up too.  :\ 

[darrsi]

Not sure what type of Honda it was......but he paid £450 for it. :groan


Again though, it should be about the value to the owner, theft is still theft.



https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor...e-19217509

[BBROWN1664]

[quote author=BBROWN1664 link=topic=26597.msg321270#msg321270 date=1604685927]
I suspect he will be found guilty of manslaughter as he did not set out to kill.
Tony Martin is an example of why the law of this land gets it wrong sometimes though.

Shooting someone who is facing you *could* be argued as self defence.

Shooting someone in the back from a distance who is running away from you and trying to get through a window (and then lying about it) is murder.

In any case, that's off topic for this discussion.
[/quote]

Or could be considered instant justice. Either way, in that paticular case, they were convicted crims out to steal .

In the case of the bike thieves, I have no idea what their past was but suspect that they had some practice at stealing bikes haveing managed to do it relatively quickly. I am not condoning the way that the owner allegedly dealt with it. Maybe he did intend to do them some damage, maybe he just nudged the bike to knock them off. The fact the scumbags were not wearing helmets was their own fault IMHO.

I hope the surviving one gets some decent prison time and the owner pleads guilty to manslaughter with a minimum punishment.

[Grahamm]

Or could be considered instant justice.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "Justice".

I hope the surviving one gets some decent prison time and the owner pleads guilty to manslaughter with a minimum punishment.

That will probably be what happens. Done according to the law and via the courts.

That's justice.

[fazersharp]

:uhuh It beginning to dawn on me - what the FOC was the point of you starting this thread.

[b1k3rdude]

The fact the scumbags were not wearing helmets was their own fault IMHO.

That was exactly the utterly stupendous reason the police would not chase bike thieves in the past, now in London at least it doesn't matter. You steal a bike prepared to be rammed off by the police if you fail to stop, period.

These boys pretending to men stopped being considered fellow members of society and lost any and all privileges when the stole the bike, and they were belligerently arrogant enough to do it with no crash helmet on. I concede the following will be controversial in language and sentiment, but I have zero fucks to give to the two little cunts.

[Grahamm]

Fenham driver accused of ramming stolen motorbike found not guilty of murdering Joshua Molloy

Mihai Dinisoae, of Fenham, has been cleared of murdering Joshua Molloy and causing GBH with intent


[...]


[The Jury] failed to reach a verdict on the alternative charge of manslaughter and were discharged.


Dinisoae, 32, of Baldwin Avenue, Fenham, was further remanded in custody and the case will be mentioned again in two weeks.

So, unsurprisingly, the murder charge didn't stick, nor did the Jury think that he'd committed GBH with intent to kill.


He's not out of the woods yet, because they couldn't agree a verdict on the manslaughter charge, so he may well face a retrial on that.