Fair enough. But going by what I've heard of that situation, I really don't care what the courts decide. Unless there really is more to this, 4 people ups the ante enough for anything he does to be justified as reasonable self defence in my eyes.
Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Fair enough. But going by what I've heard of that situation, I really don't care what the courts decide. Unless there really is more to this, 4 people ups the ante enough for anything he does to be justified as reasonable self defence in my eyes.
:
They haven't even been charged yet, so it might not even go to the courts.
They haven't even been charged yet, so it might not even go to the courts.
I also think 'the line' is probably extremely hard to accurately place (what if the burglar turned out to be some Ian Tomlinson chap and just died after getting pushed over or something).I don't doubt that in the spur of the moment, stepping back and thinking 'hmm, am I justified in my actions' is a rather unrealistic situation - if some gang started breaking in and I was worried for my/my families safety, who knows what would happen...
I'd say that some people are born more predisposed to 'wrongness' than others though... and I'd accept that upbringing and environment account for a persons behaviour, but I don't think they should get different rules. It may well be that if they were brought up properly they woulod turn out to be a good law abiding citizen, but it turns out that they weren't, they turned out to be a criminal. Although it might be harsh, I think it's fair (to the rest of society, who will feel hard done by if they don't see punishment) to say they have to be responsible for their actions, and even if they might never have had the opportunity to live a different life, neither does anyone else, and if you're going to go down the path of not judging anyone as they might have had a bad upbringing then you might as well just throw society down the drain. I'm not sure I really care either way - the dead dood doesn't know anything about it now, and the guy who killed him will hopefully feel he acted reasonably, and that's all that you can really ask for. Life's not fair, nothing to be done about it.
We could solve that if everyone had CCTV cameras around - then we'd know for sure if someone was trying to break in or if they were lured in... Then again there is still the remote chance that you might have put them up to it ('ere Dave, wanna play a practical joke on the missus? just put this balaclava on and pretend you're breaking in - then stab 'Dave'), and of course if it was a mate playing a joke and you killed them you'd feel pretty bad about it... But I think CCTV cameras everywhere are the way forward.
The innocent man that you've presumed is guilty because he was a home owner defending himself in his own property.
I don't dispute that it needs to be investigated, I assume that all deaths are investigated to some degree or other?
Why can't the police determine if the force used was reasonable? If they can't how can we, the public be expected to determine what force is reasonable in a given situation? Maybe I'm old fashioned in thinking that being arrested is a bad thing, it means being treated like a criminal. How can it be right for the police to treat someone like a criminal before they're even sure that a crime has even been committed?
you mean you want the police to be judge and jury based on a few minute look at the scene and whatever the guy who's just stabbed someone to death has said?
Normally in these cases it takes quite a few months before it gets to the point where the cPS chooses to even charge them or not.
being arrested though affords you a lot of legal protections.
And they do it on the suspicion of X.
otherwise people would just be let off with "ok we think you did this but we haven't fully analysed the scene and held a trial yet so you go on home please don't leave the country pretty please you'd be amazed how many people have started doing this since we stopped arresting suspects."
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
How do you define reasonable though, when the very nature of your existance or families existance is in danger you will defend them and yourself.
I think you should have ever right to defend yourself and your property when someone is clearly tresspassing and likely to cause harm to yourself or your family.
The thing is with our legal system even if the victim here had punched one of the burglars and knocked them out, they would have been done for GBH or ABH, imprisoned for a few years which the burglar gets a slap on the wrist and good old fashioned telling off.
Our whole legal system is there to help the criminal and not the victim to be honest... its a joke.
I think you should have ever right to defend yourself and your property when someone is clearly tresspassing and likely to cause harm to yourself or your family.
The thing is with our legal system even if the victim here had punched one of the burglars and knocked them out, they would have been done for GBH or ABH, imprisoned for a few years which the burglar gets a slap on the wrist and good old fashioned telling off.
Our whole legal system is there to help the criminal and not the victim to be honest... its a joke.
How long the investigation takes is up to the police, or whoever does the investigation.
Good point, and in those few months the suspect could well be remanded in custody - before anyone has even taken a judgement on whether or not a crime has actually taken place. What an amazing justice system we have...
you should stop posting and go read wiki to. Get a basic idea.
No they can't be held without charge iirc they can only hold without charge for 24 hours then it has to go before a judge and convince the judge that they pose a risk. Even then there is a limit. Terrorism law which is despicable extends that to something like a month, but this isn't terrorism.
Reasonable is what the average person would consider reasonable at the time, and heavily influenced by what the defender thought was happening.
ie the thief reaches into his pocket and pulls something out, the defender thinks it's a knife and hits him over the head with the first available thing to hand and kills him. it later turns out the guy was taking a phone out fo his pocket.
what the defender believed was happing though would be used not what actually happened in determining the "reasonableness!
You do.
Err no, the "victim" would be arrested questioned and then most likely never charged.
unles he;d say rabbit punched a child because they had jumped his back garden fence to get their ball back.
That's why we have so many cases of home-owners beating up and even killing burglars all found innocent and most not even taken to court?
newspapers report the guy being arrested which is a very sensible course of action when all you have is his word, but they never report the fact the uy was released later on.
They do this because it gets idiots all exicited and sells papers.
yeah so you arrest the guy so he can't leg it or go and get his story straight with any co-conspirators.
Nope usually after the initial questioning released on police bail.
You are suggesting here that the police just take his word for it that it was self defence?
ok so hypothetical A you get a call someone says there's a burglary in progress, you get there find a man in a balaclava dead on the garden lawn the owner comes out says he got in fight with the man who pulled a knife and in the struggle the man was stabbed with his own blade.
how do you proceed with your investigation?
Last edited:
So we're back to square one - assuming that the home owner is guilty and will do a runner if you don't arrest him. Brilliant and in no-way prejudicial to the way the police treat home owners.
Usually? Is there a rule that says in these types of cases, where we don't actually know if a crime been committed we always release on police bail?
At no point have I ever mentioned taking someone's word for it.
Not being a policeman it's not my job to say how an investigation should be done. I would suggest taking statements from man and any witnesses, establishing identities, looking at evidence at the scene, making a judgement if statements are coherent and are corroborated by evidence. If not arrest suspect, otherwise continue investigation until sure no crime has been committed.
I take it your approach would be to march in, arrest the man and tell him it's for his own good as he now gets a free lawyer. Like I said, subtlety isn't your strong point is it?
So are you saying that all people who are arrested, are arrested because the police officers believe they are guilty, even though the whole thing is based on and worded around suspicion?
You sense of assume guilt is totally screwed, they aren't assuming guilt. They are following prod crude to insure the evidence remians and they gather it fresh and without tampering. They haven't even been charged let alone found guilty. As soon as you get this silly Orion out of your head perhaps you will se the light.
I've said nothing of the sort. The police must arrest people when they reasonably believe they have committed a crime, except in the case of a homeowner defending himself from a home invader it seems. In these cases the police assume the home owner has committed a crime and make the arrest in spite of the evidence. That's what it basically comes down to for you, Tefal and AcidHell right?
No the police have not assumed guilt, they are not judge and jury. They are gathering evidence and putting a picture together. Until then they are taken into custody to be formerly questioned on tape. For future reference/evidence.
And it's not so clear cut.
You are only allowed to use reasonable force. How do the police know they used reasonable force?
Until such time, it is investigated the scene and interviews have to be treated in a legal way.
And it's not so clear cut.
You are only allowed to use reasonable force. How do the police know they used reasonable force?
Until such time, it is investigated the scene and interviews have to be treated in a legal way.
Last edited:
What you mean the evidence of someone having been killed inside his house? At the moment the ONLY thing that the homeowner has in his defence is his own word. To get the full story the police have to launch an investigation which involves questioning him.
You need to get this idea out of your head that by arresting him and investigating what happened they're actually accusing him of murder. They haven't done any such thing as he hasn't been charged of anything.