The media and male violence

Except, for the aspect of a male attacking a woman.

And this, from @john123470 earlier:

From bystander reports, it seemed the knifeman was able to keep the men who were trying to help at bay with the knife

The driver tried to remonstrate with the attacker .. then used his car as a last resort

That certainly qualifies as being relevant to the thread topic, if the thread topic is how the media reports on cases or incidents of men committing violent acts?

I just don’t use the term “male violence”, as it implies violent behaviour towards others is an intrinsic biologically determined trait of boys and men, which is BS.

One gets exasperated that good men can put their lives /welfare on the line to help "damsels in distress" and then have their heroic actions summarily dismissed.

One has to have a debilitating persecution complex if one is so easily exasperated at the idea of journalists and talking heads making wildly stupid sweeping statements which are intended to provoke a response. The obvious danger in promoting the actions of “have-a-go hero” types is that it encourages vigilante behaviour. It’s not that anyone is dismissive of their actions, it’s that their actions are liable to lead to unintended consequences up to and including further loss of life, which they will absolutely be held responsible for by law, as has happened in this case.

This tragedy is very pertinent in light of recent discussions. It shows that "your average man on the street" does care about the welfarw of those around him

Most men are honest, caring people and painting them all as potential rapists / objects of fear for women is simply unacceptable

People are already aware that your average man on the street cares about the welfare of those around him. That’s not what anyone is critical of or complaining about. People are already aware that most men, the men they know, the men in their lives, are honest, caring people, and that painting any man as a potential rapist, object of fear, isn’t just unacceptable - it’s irrational, unreasonable, and just plain stupid. That’s precisely why most people ignore journalists and talking heads making wildly sweeping statements which are intended to provoke a response.

The only really, really wild, irresponsible, and unjustifiable comment I can think of in recent memory of the kind of sweeping generalisation attempting to associate boys and men with violent behaviour towards girls and women was Dr. Cliona Saidlear’s comments in the wake of studies done which showed a growing trend of younger people committing sexual offences in Ireland, and her conclusion and recommendations speaking as the Executive Director of Rape Crisis Network Ireland, was this -

Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.

Fortunately, people are rational and aren’t so easily given to pearl-clutching, even in light of recent tragic events, nor are they so easily given to a persecution complex in which they portray themselves as the real victim who is exasperated when someone says something so monumentally stupid, that it isn’t even worth entertaining. I’d suggest to anyone feeling that way in those circumstances might do well to chill out a bit tbh, rather than making everything about themselves.

It was beside the point, which is why I explained that it was beside the point and that I knew exactly what you meant. It wasn’t an attempt to deflect from anything, and certainly not an attempt to deflect from your point that his intention was to save the woman’s life by stopping the man from causing her any further injury.

It IS vengeance, the very definition of vengeance being irrational actions driven by an emotional response to an unjust act. I agree with you that it IS something which we will see happen more frequently as a result of the media campaigns following the killing of Sarah Everett and Aisling Murphy, and instead of being hailed as heroes, the people who engage in that sort of behaviour are likely to find themselves deprived of their liberty, not to mention the consequences of their actions for their families, friends and the wider community.

It’s why when most men are compelled to act in such situations, it is even more important that they don’t allow their emotions to get the better of them, lose self-control, and the idea occurs to them to stop the attacker by any means possible, because that’s not even justifiable as self-defence which is a defence permitting the use of reasonable force in defence of oneself or another, in this particular case, the woman who was being attacked.

There are ways to prevent such crimes, but it would be unreasonable to expect all such crimes could be prevented. What certainly can be done however, is that we aim to ensure that they occur far less frequently though through intervention and prevention policies as opposed to discussing circumstances after the fact as if that would change what has already happened.

Any such policies can only prevent people from committing criminal acts in the future. Such policies require the buy-in of everyone in society, it’s how our system of justice functions, as opposed to hailing men who commit violence as heroes because vengeance, mob justice and retribution is easier to justify as a means of achieving more immediate justice in an age of digital and social media where the justice system is perceived to be failing. Such short-sighted actions based upon emotional responses does society no good whatsoever in the long term, and it doesn’t do men any favours against the argument that men are perceived as being violent thugs incapable of keeping their emotions in check.

I'm confused as to what the argument is here.

If you intentionally kill someone else, you will be arrested on suspicion of murder. Standard process. Can't have people going around killing each other. Circumstances are irrelevant.

If after investigating, the police are sufficiently convinced that the motivation was defence, you will be released without charge. Most likely they will hand it over to the CPS/DPP to decide whether to prosecute.

If the CPS/DPP decide to proceed, then you have the opportunity in court to defend yourself. Defence is a pretty clad-iron defence against murder provided you can show that your response was reasonable.

In this case, there's a big complicating factor; if the post-mortem finds that the collision with the car was a significant cause in the woman's death, he could find himself on the hook for that too.

Are people trying to say the driver shouldn't have been arrested. A handshake, "Well done lad" and sent on his way?

Two people are dead. One way or another that has to be fully and properly investigated.

What's reasonable force to stop someone with a knife who is stabbing someone.

Real life is not a movie - Chuck Norris is not going to wade in to save the day with his bare hands and restrain an attacker until the police arrive.

There is a reason reality based self protection training (e.g. Lee Morrison's stuff) teaches people to run the fcuk away if someone produces a knife. If someone does decide to intervene to assist another person who is being stabbed, running the attacker over with a car would be a sensible approach. Where it would stray past reasonable force would be if the attacker was already down and they decided to finish him off by reversing over him.

It is reasonable force if someone's life is in danger.

There’s falling short klaz, and then there’s driving at someone behind the wheel of a vehicle with intent to cause sufficient injury to stop them from continuing an attack.

That’s not just falling short, it’s criminal.