Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:45

scorza said:
So why can't the police and CPS decide that there isn't evidence that a crime has been committed and it isn't in the public interest to prosecute?

Huh? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the CPS can do.

Nikias · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:45

scorza said:
No. Have you?

Yes; I will qualify as a solicitor in a few years' time and have attended court many times. The firm I have a training contract with deals with commercial rather than criminal law, but while studying academic law I spent time observing from the gallery in the criminal courts and even shadowed a circuit judge for a week in the crown court, sitting with him on the Bench and discussing the cases with him in his chambers during the breaks.

scorza said:
So why can't the police and CPS decide that there isn't evidence that a crime has been committed and it isn't in the public interest to prosecute?

They frequently do, especially for lesser offences. There is already the professional you suggest to judge whether there is sufficient evidence to continue investigation following arrest: the Custody Officer. The police and CPS can drop cases at any time and the judge will sometimes throw it out of court if not satisfied with the police evidence. Even homicide and murder charges get dropped by the CPS sometimes, but more rarely - look at that case with the man who strangled his wife in the caravan because he didn't take his medication.

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:46

scorza said:
In these cases the police claim that they have to arrest everyone, even before it has been established that a crime has been committed.

You have the legal system all backwards. Only a judge can decide that a crime has been committed. You arrest suspects on suspicion of committing a crime. Even at the point of arrest a policeman does not say that he believes a crime has been committed, only that he is suspicious that it has been.

scorza · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:47

vonhelmet said:
The police can't decide what is reasonable force. A single policeman can't speculate as to how a person felt, how much stress they were under, how intimidating the attacker was. This is a job for the jury.

If the police can't decide what is reasonable force, how is anyone else supposed to?

vonhelmet said:
Besides... You want to take the decision out of the hands of 12 normal people and put it in the hands of 1 considerably more corruptible and potentially biased person? That sort of seems like a step backwards...

We've already established that there's only a small probability that a jury will be made up of 12 normal people. Surely justice is better served the more people involved in the decision. At present for someone to be convicted in this sort of case, 12 random people have to decide the householder is guilty. I'm proposing that for someone to be found guilty in this sort of case, the police have to suspect them of a crime, the CPS has to agree with that based on the evidence, and 12 random people have to return a guilty verdict. This is what happens with every other sort of crime - why make this type of crime a special case?

scorza · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:50

vonhelmet said:
You have the legal system all backwards. Only a judge can decide that a crime has been committed. You arrest suspects on suspicion of committing a crime. Even at the point of arrest a policeman does not say that he believes a crime has been committed, only that he is suspicious that it has been.

So why do the police have to arrest someone in this type of case if he isn't suspicious that a crime has been committed?

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:50

scorza said:
If the police can't decide what is reasonable force, how is anyone else supposed to?

Who decides what is reasonable? A single person can't decide, because they only have their own feelings to go on. Hence, you have multiple people who can hash it out and decide collectively on whether the force was reasonable.

scorza said:
We've already established that there's only a small probability that a jury will be made up of 12 normal people.

Where and how did we decide that? Because it sounds like ******** to me.

scorza said:
Surely justice is better served the more people involved in the decision.

Yep. Hence why I'm saying that 12 people are better than the one that you suggested a few moments back :confused:

scorza said:
At present for someone to be convicted in this sort of case, 12 random people have to decide the householder is guilty.

Yep.

scorza said:
I'm proposing that for someone to be found guilty in this sort of case, the police have to suspect them of a crime, the CPS has to agree with that based on the evidence, and 12 random people have to return a guilty verdict.

That's already what happens :confused:

scorza said:
This is what happens with every other sort of crime - why make this type of crime a special case?

No one is making it a special case. :confused:

Note: I'd have put more confused's in, but I'm only allowed 100 images per post.

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:52

scorza said:
So why do the police have to arrest someone in this type of case if he isn't suspicious that a crime has been committed?

The policeman is suspicious that a crime has been committed, because he has a dead body and a man with a knife.

Honestly, if you don't think that looks at all suspicious or worthy of investigation, then I think you're a bit off the map.

Remember: Being arrested does not imply guilt in this case any more than in any other case in which you are apparently happy with people being arrested.

avec · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:52

The member of a masked gang that tried to break into an innocent persons house was killed by an outnumbered owner of said house trying to defend his family/property. The main who died was already on bail for another burglary.

I'm not seeing anything other than a pat on the back for the 'murderer' so far in my opinion.

If he gets in serious trouble over this what kind of a message does this send to the crooks?

If you don't want to risk being harmed/stabbed/shot/killed then don't break into innocent peoples property? That's what the message should be.

Jokester · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:54

One less piece of scum on the streets.

Nikias · 24 Jun 2011 at 12:55

scorza said:
So why do the police have to arrest someone in this type of case if he isn't suspicious that a crime has been committed?

Because the suspicion required by police to arrest under s.24 of PACE 1984 is a very low threshold. Conviction by a jury requires a very high threshold of belief. If cops needed to be as sure as a jury, without the benefit of a trial, they would not arrest anyone.

scorza · 24 Jun 2011 at 13:18

vonhelmet said:
...snip...

We're going round in circles, and frankly you're argument is so full of holes and contradictions it's laughable. In the interests of getting this thread off the front page, I'll agree with you, AcidHell and Tefal - the British Justice system is never wrong and will always be perfect :rolleyes:

cm1179 · 24 Jun 2011 at 13:22

look at it as a rape of your house. someone is coming into your house and you don't want them to. imo you are entitled to fight that reality, if the intruder dies then so be it.

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 13:32

scorza said:
We're going round in circles, and frankly you're argument is so full of holes and contradictions it's laughable. In the interests of getting this thread off the front page, I'll agree with you, AcidHell and Tefal - the British Justice system is never wrong and will always be perfect

Cheers for taking the time to clear up the points you disagree with. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you in such a clear and frank fashion.

:rolleyes:

It's truly baffling that your last serious post that I responded to requested that the system operate in a manner in which it already operates, and then you accuse me of going around in circles and contradicting myself and then you take your ball home.

Seriously, WTF.

mothermachine · 24 Jun 2011 at 13:57

Don't give a crap what the law is, should be or might end up being - if someone breaks into my house I will take a hammer to them until they leave or can't leave any more. Or, more likely, a sword (keep one under the bed - not even kidding).

Seriously, if it's my family's safety then I'll go to prison for it if that's the way it pans out. The assumption has to be that the intruder is there to do damage to either your property or family, or both. You can't assume that they're just going to run off if you ask nicely. I'll do whatever it takes to protect them. Obviously the intention is to get them to run off, but if they don't then so be it. What man won't do what it takes to protect his family and himself?

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 14:00

Part 1:

mothermachine said:
Don't give a crap what the law is, should be or might end up being - if someone breaks into my house I will take a hammer to them until they leave or can't leave any more. Or, more likely, a sword (keep one under the bed - not even kidding).

Seriously, if it's my family's safety then I'll go to prison for it if that's the way it pans out. The assumption has to be that the intruder is there to do damage to either your property or family, or both. You can't assume that they're just going to run off if you ask nicely. I'll do whatever it takes to protect them. Obviously the intention is to get them to run off, but if they don't then so be it.

Part 2:

mothermachine said:
What man won't do what it takes to protect his family and himself?

Parts 1 and 2 stand opposed. In part 2 you advocate what is already legal - protecting your family and yourself. In part 1 you advocate protecting your property with deadly force, which is not legal.

mothermachine · 24 Jun 2011 at 14:03

vonhelmet said:
Parts 1 and 2 stand opposed. In part 2 you advocate what is already legal - protecting your family and yourself. In part 1 you advocate protecting your property with deadly force, which is not legal.

It is not possible to know if an intruder intends only to nick your stuff and run, without touching your family. Like I said, the assumption *must* be that they are capable and willing of harming your family, so you act on it. What are you gonna do? Ask them? "Hey! A**hat - You gonna go for the telly or have a pop at the wife too?".

Jimz · 24 Jun 2011 at 14:04

Good for the home owner, anyone would have done the same.

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 14:05

mothermachine said:
It is not possible to know if an intruder intends only to nick your stuff and run, without touching your family. Like I said, the assumption *must* be that they are capable and willing of harming your family, so you act on it. What are you gonna do? Ask them? "Hey! A**hat - You gonna go for the telly or have a pop at the wife too?".

That doesn't answer the question of the two approaches being contradictory, though it does raise the more interesting question of how you determine whether it is your property or person that is under threat. That's always going to be more subjective, and it's for that reason that - ta-da - we come back to the issue of whether the force applied was reasonable under the circumstances, which will be decided by the authorities involved. If they decide that there is no evidence that your person or family was under threat, and you've claw-hammered the burglar's head into the carpet, then you're going to be in trouble.

Vonhelmet · 24 Jun 2011 at 14:05

Jimz said:
Good for the home owner, anyone would have done the same.

Except they wouldn't.

FTM · 24 Jun 2011 at 14:09

its not clear at the monent..though I suspect its what the police are trying to clear up

was he stabbed inside the property or has he been pursued by the homeowner and stabbed off his property?

this will make all the difference I think