Yeah that happens every day in good old yankland where you can blow someone away if as much as sneeze next to your house,
as if! Not that many people are that detatched from reality, plenty of stupid people about, but not that stupid.Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Yeah that happens every day in good old yankland where you can blow someone away if as much as sneeze next to your house,
as if! Not that many people are that detatched from reality, plenty of stupid people about, but not that stupid.
Would that be like questioning you as well? Or are you somehow not included and always correct and who said I don't question government. I think if you search I'm very critical on a lot of government stuff.
Yeah that happens every day in good old yankland where you can blow someone away if as much as sneeze next to your house,
You might want to read up on us law.
Oh come off it, that's such an extreme example and I doubt it'd ever happen in the first place. I expect it's not as easy to get away with as you suggest either (so the burglar broke into your house? how? the broken window? why are there no cuts or glass shards on his person? - you don't have to arrest someone to ask these questions btw).
Yeah that happens every day in good old yankland where you can blow someone away if as much as sneeze next to your house,
You mean "As if the law in America operates like that?"
Because if that's what you mean, then I agree with you.
As I said before, you don't have to break anything to commit burglary. You have to break something to commit breaking and entering, but not burglary.
Some people should do some research into what the law actually is before holding forth on why society is going to the dogs and repeating some vague tabloid assertions.
You have a common law right to use reasonable force in self-defence. You also have the right to use reasonable force to prevent a crime. The recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 codifies what is reasonable force, and heavy weight is given to what the defendant considered to be reasonable at the time. The law is fine, but not well-understood by the public. It needs better explaining is all, not further obfuscating by knee-jerk red-top newspapers and people on soap boxes.
Of course it is perfectly reasonable for the police to investigate deaths and take people in for questioning. Would you rather our government just disregarded a man's death in the street?
You have a common law right to use reasonable force in self-defence. You also have the right to use reasonable force to prevent a crime. The recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 codifies what is reasonable force, and heavy weight is given to what the defendant considered to be reasonable at the time. The law is fine, but not well-understood by the public. It needs better explaining is all, not further obfuscating by knee-jerk red-top newspapers and people on soap boxes.
Of course it is perfectly reasonable for the police to investigate deaths and take people in for questioning. Would you rather our government just disregarded a man's death in the street?
Either way, it'll stink to high heaven of a tall tale. Even if you're some sort of psychopath who meticulously plans his murders, how do you know the target won't tell anyone they've been invited round to yours? No I'm sorry, I'm not buying this notion that if we allow home owners to defend themselves properly we'll suddenly have a rash of these types of killings.
Besides, whatever happened to "it's better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man"?
The way I see it, a knife is quite a dangerous weapon to use for defense, it may be useful to scare people off, but if its "used" at all then it can be life threatening to the attacker or the defender, same would go for any guns. Something blunt like a baseball/cricket bat would be better as a few blows on anywhere but the head are far less likely to kill than a knife.
Also in addition to what was said about people luring others to trespass so they can kill them, you could also have a situation where even the slightest trespass (ie wondering onto someones private land in the countryside) could lead to killings.
I think the police are right to treat this like murder, but only to uphold the fact that people shouldn't try to defend themselves by attempting to kill their attackers quickly.
Also in addition to what was said about people luring others to trespass so they can kill them, you could also have a situation where even the slightest trespass (ie wondering onto someones private land in the countryside) could lead to killings.
I think the police are right to treat this like murder, but only to uphold the fact that people shouldn't try to defend themselves by attempting to kill their attackers quickly.
In a case where the death occurred while the victim was engaged in an illegal act such as Burglary and the householder had reason to believe that either he or members of his family were at risk then it should not be murder, in fact it should be not be deemed a criminal offence but one of justifiable homicide.
However this does not mean that one can use excessive force to defend themselves, and as such all cases where someone who is committing an offence against the individual and is subsequently injured or killed should be treated as any other investigation until the facts are known.
For example, the stabbing and killing of someone dressed in a balaclava and in the process of burglarising your home when you have reason to think that the burglar poses a physical threat to either you or your family should not be deemed after investigation as a criminal offence.
However, doing the same to someone trespassing on your property or to someone who retreats or offers no intent to commit violence when challenged should be treated as a criminal offence if the facts show this to be the case.
We have to be careful that we do not condone the killing or injury of people who are committing what are minor offences, while at the same time giving householders the peace of mind to be able to defend themselves if needs be without fear of state retribution.
However this does not mean that one can use excessive force to defend themselves, and as such all cases where someone who is committing an offence against the individual and is subsequently injured or killed should be treated as any other investigation until the facts are known.
For example, the stabbing and killing of someone dressed in a balaclava and in the process of burglarising your home when you have reason to think that the burglar poses a physical threat to either you or your family should not be deemed after investigation as a criminal offence.
However, doing the same to someone trespassing on your property or to someone who retreats or offers no intent to commit violence when challenged should be treated as a criminal offence if the facts show this to be the case.
We have to be careful that we do not condone the killing or injury of people who are committing what are minor offences, while at the same time giving householders the peace of mind to be able to defend themselves if needs be without fear of state retribution.
You want to question me ? i dont tell you how to think
are you critical of the government/law when its Vs the public ? maybe you are on the very rare occasion but i'm yet to see it.
so my opinion of you still stands....someone who is told how to think
What innocent man? The one that murdered someone because they went above and beyond what is "reasonable" self defence?
On the rare occasion? Or is it you only read some threads and what I say goes over your head. Like in this thread I advent said anything about what I think of the current law. I have only stated what the law is and of course it should be treated as murder scene until all facts say otherwise.
I'm going by what i have read and what i remember of your posts.
i am saying you pretty much always agree with the law
you are disagreeing with me.
you are also saying you have not commented on the law.
then you are saying you only stated what the law is and that you agree with it.
Are we still talking about the news story in the OP?
Nobody knows what the situation was. 1 person its good grounds to assume they were most likely trying to steal stuff so stabbing him to death is likely excessive. But 4 people? They could've done practically anything to the house/family so practically anything that gets rid of them seems reasonable self defence to me. He was probably panicking that much he didn't even know how far he'd gone.
Not as such. The discussion has become somewhat hypothetical.
Evilsod said:
Well, we'll have to wait and see what the police, then the CPS, then the courts decide.
Because most law is based on sense. Some aren't though. Plenty of moaning posts on road law, hunting ban, gun ban etc.
And I haven't said anything about how far homeowners rights should go. Just that crime scenes should be treated worst case scenario until police actually know what happened, they can't take someones word for it.
Also complained about what Cameron said about dads the other day, disgusted by the selling of northern rock shares or the purposed giving the shares to us.
And I'm sure you can find a million and one posts criticising a dozen laws labour brought in, especially terrorism act, but many others as well. As well as Gordon browns fiscal management.
Oh and prison sentences and prison conditions.
Last edited:
Yeah that happens every day in good old yankland where you can blow someone away if as much as sneeze next to your house,
Indeed, especially as Tony Martin would have been sent down (or down and out via lethal injection) pretty much anywhere in the USA, even in states with strong castle doctrine like Texas...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Police could never turn up at such a scene and write it off there as self defence and reasonable. It has to be investigated. It can't be decided by uniform and CID that the course of action was reasonable and that's it, body carted away and job written off.
There is a dead body at the scene and persons suspected of doing it will be arrested and interviewed and it will be a CPS decision as to what the charging decision is.
At the end of the day, someone is dead and police are not coroners, CPS, judge and jury as well. The due process of law must be followed. Kangaroo court is seemingly what people want.
There is a dead body at the scene and persons suspected of doing it will be arrested and interviewed and it will be a CPS decision as to what the charging decision is.
At the end of the day, someone is dead and police are not coroners, CPS, judge and jury as well. The due process of law must be followed. Kangaroo court is seemingly what people want.
