They can't do in depth questioning. Which they wouldn't of done at the roadside. They would have asked basic questions to get a fell of what happened. Really your hatred has over come any sense of logic and it's a silly tangent.
Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
They can't do in depth questioning. Which they wouldn't of done at the roadside. They would have asked basic questions to get a fell of what happened. Really your hatred has over come any sense of logic and it's a silly tangent.
As usual the subtleties of what is being said fly right past Tefal. No-one has said the police shouldn't investigate the death of a man, only that they shouldn't treat it as murder until they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you know, a murder has actually taken place.
A man has been killed.
You have a man saying "i stabbed him to death"
not exactly going to treat it as arson are you?
Of course you should treat the death as a potential murder until proved otherwise, note this is not the same or anything to do with Innocent till proven guilty.
If it is not treated as murder the facts won't be found out. It's a potential murder scene and is treated as such for very good reason.
If it is not treated as murder the facts won't be found out. It's a potential murder scene and is treated as such for very good reason.
sure you're not thinking of
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
the mr Dickinson one.
There are a huge number of these variations most of them are bull****.
Especially the Americans ones a teenager stabbed a guy in the hearth with a samuri sword when he tried to nick his 360 and was let off after the investigation.
I'm sure that's exactly what a man said.
It doesn't change the fact that you are allowed to "stab someone to death" as you put it, if it is reasonable force taken in self defence. Unless the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that wasn't the case, I can't see how they can treat it as a murder.
Again, why does this all seem perfectly logical to you? If someone dies in a road accident do you treat that as murder until you can prove that it was actually an accident? That would seem rather bizarre to me.
The police can do what they like at the scene, someone dying is a serious event and needs to be investigated - I've never claimed otherwise. What I dispute, and think is wrong, is the assumption that a murder has taken place when there is no evidence that that is the case.
A road accident isn't someone being stabbed to death.
Someone being stabbed to death and body not even at the crime scene, is not an accident.
It is not an assumption, they aren't assuming he has been murdered, they haven't said that. They said they are treating as murder, ie following the protocols for a murder investigation. That is the correct procedure. Police shouldn't assume anything and they haven't.
Someone being stabbed to death and body not even at the crime scene, is not an accident.
It is not an assumption, they aren't assuming he has been murdered, they haven't said that. They said they are treating as murder, ie following the protocols for a murder investigation. That is the correct procedure. Police shouldn't assume anything and they haven't.
Well a man was dead you have the person who killed him saying it was self defence.
Now I'm going to guess most murders will try and lie their way out of it so you cant exactly take this blokes word as gospel atm.
You've got to arrest him incase he tries to flee, and you need to question him.
You also need to secure the scene and get the forensics lot down.
You are seriously getting arsy over the name they call the process?
They'd treat him the exact same if they said "we're treating it as self defence"
Well, a burglar could sue for any tort or wrongdoing in the same way as anyone else if the action of the tortfeasor isn't justified by self defence or by something else.
Furthermore, everyone is subject to occupier's liability, which essentially stops you from going 'home alone' on any burglar - no booby traps.
Hmmm, sounds possible. In fact I'm pretty sure that's it. Facepalm.
I don't see how this is hard to understand.
The guy is dead having been stabbed to death. If the suspect can prove it was self defense he is innocent. If he can't he's guilty of murder. The police obviously aren't going to take the suspects word for it that it was self defense so they'll investigate it as a murder until they can prove one way or the other.
The guy is dead having been stabbed to death. If the suspect can prove it was self defense he is innocent. If he can't he's guilty of murder. The police obviously aren't going to take the suspects word for it that it was self defense so they'll investigate it as a murder until they can prove one way or the other.
BUT HES GETTING DONE FOR DA MURDAZ, COUNTRY IS GOING TO THE DOGS!1
As long as you say "he's coming right for us!!" you're fine.
Actually it's the other way round, the suspect is innocent and it's up to the police and CPS to prove he is guilty.
Treating a death as murder is presumptuous and prejudicial to the outcome of a proper investigation. Unless there's some aspect of the home owner's story that is suspicious e.g. saying the deceased was breaking in when there's no evidence of a break in, why should the police assume the home owner is lying? Imagine if there was an investigation into the Iraq war, and as it started the investigators said "we're treating this as a war crime"...
I think what RDM was saying is that it's best if they don't question a suspect without a solicitor being present, but feel free to spin it your way.