Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner

[Nikias]

To be fair, Herr vonhelmet, deadly force can be legal so long as that is proportionate, but I think you meant, e.g., deadly force as a pre-emptive strike on an unarmed trespasser for example. Do the people advocating no restraints following a trespass really believe that a householder should be able to get mediaeval with a hammer and pliers on a frightened and unarmed 14 year-old burglar? If you believe force should be proportionate to how you perceive the threat, that is already the case.

I can't really be bothered to go through all the law already protecting the householder again - such as judging him on the facts as he believed them to be, taking into account that he cannot weigh force to a nicety in the heat of the moment etc. If people want to rant about how what the law isn't should be changed to what the law already is, then so be it. It is rather sad though that people so often believe tabloid lies about the state of the law and then fear for themselves as a result.

 

[ubersonic]

In part 1 you advocate protecting your property with deadly force, which is not legal.

Actually it is, provided you act in self defence, this is something often misrepresented by the newspapers, if somebody breaks in and you believe them to be a threat to your life or the life of your loved ones you can defend yourself from that threat using weapons if necessary and if necessary kill them, this is all considered self defence even if you strike first.

Except they wouldn't.

I would have in the same situation. I'm not afraid to kill to save my life or the lives of those I love.

 

[beachBOYken]

Except they wouldn't.

some would , some would'nt whats the big deal!

Like others have said one less piece of scum off the streets!

 

[Vonhelmet]

some would , some would'nt whats the big deal!

Indeed, but clearly in that case to say that anyone would is erroneous.

 

[Abraham]

Have you been read any posts in this thread from AcidHell, Tefal or vonhelmet?

Every single one, and it seems, especially with your posts that have followed this one replying to Von that you are missing something out or confused about something.

The correct process (and the one being observed in this case is:
-incident has taken place at the house, a body has been found some distance away
-the police arrive (I'd imagine very quickly if they had previously been called)
-the police on basic questioning "what's happened?" are told that the homeowner has stabbed an invader to the house, who had 3 accomplicies.
-at this point in time, the police have: a body, a man admitting stabbing him, and a story about what's happened.
-not being psychic they must arrest the man and any other possible assaillants to take for formal questioning (without charge)
-if at any point in this process it becomes genuinely obvious (not just the suspect saying so) that they are innocent, they will be released without charge.
-the son and girlfriend are obviously cleared of any involvement and released without charge.

-As the investigation continues the CPS will have to decide whether or not to charge the man, and if they do they will be able to drop the charges in light of the continued investigation or new evidence.

-If they do not drop the charge the case will likely end up in court and a jury will decide guilt, and the decision will be around purely the point of whether the force used was reasonable or not (given the evidence we have so far anyway)

This seems to be the process you're suggesting would be *better* when it is the process already in place.

 

[Vonhelmet]

To be fair, Herr vonhelmet

deadly force can be legal so long as that is proportionate, but I think you meant, e.g., deadly force as a pre-emptive strike on an unarmed trespasser for example.

Aye, that is what I meant.

Actually it is, provided you act in self defence, this is something often misrepresented by the newspapers, if somebody breaks in and you believe them to be a threat to your life or the life of your loved ones you can defend yourself from that threat using weapons if necessary and if necessary kill them, this is all considered self defence even if you strike first.

As above, this is what I meant.

I would have in the same situation. I'm not afraid to kill to save my life or the lives of those I love.

Nor am I, but I'm not going to kill anyone for the sake of my TV.

 

[Abraham]

Actually it is, provided you act in self defence, this is something often misrepresented by the newspapers, if somebody breaks in and you believe them to be a threat to your life or the life of your loved ones you can defend yourself from that threat using weapons if necessary and if necessary kill them, this is all considered self defence even if you strike first.

Your intention should not be to kill, it should be to incapacitate, in the unlikely event that requires them being killed then so be it, but for a killing to be deemed reasonable force it would usually be accidental, or at least not a definite result of the actions taken.

 

[beachBOYken]

Nor am I, but I'm not going to kill anyone for the sake of my TV.

what if you was in the middle of watching your favourite show?

 

[scorza]

Sigh - just when I thought I was out ... they pulled me back in.

Every single one, and it seems, especially with your posts that have followed this one replying to Von that you are missing something out or confused about something.

The correct process (and the one being observed in this case is:
-incident has taken place at the house, a body has been found some distance away
-the police arrive (I'd imagine very quickly if they had previously been called)
-the police on basic questioning "what's happened?" are told that the homeowner has stabbed an invader to the house, who had 3 accomplicies.
-at this point in time, the police have: a body, a man admitting stabbing him, and a story about what's happened.
-not being psychic they must arrest the man and any other possible assaillants to take for formal questioning (without charge)

Why must they? Surely they need reasonable grounds for suspicion to arrest someone and since presumably the householder had said he used reasonable force to defend himself and/or his family - which is not a crime, what would make the police suspicious that he had in fact committed murder?

-if at any point in this process it becomes genuinely obvious (not just the suspect saying so) that they are innocent, they will be released without charge.

Except when the reason they are innocent is that they used reasonable force to defend themselves. The police and CPS apparently aren't qualified to know what reasonable force is so it must go to a jury every time. Therefore once arrested the procedure does not allow for any way for the suspect to be released without charge. I don't know if that's true, but it's what is being suggested by AcidHell and vonhelmet.

-the son and girlfriend are obviously cleared of any involvement and released without charge.

Why were they arrested in the first place? Oh I forgot, being arrested is a good thing now.

-As the investigation continues the CPS will have to decide whether or not to charge the man, and if they do they will be able to drop the charges in light of the continued investigation or new evidence.

As above, the CPS can't decide what is reasonable force - therefore these types of cases must always go to a trial according to vonhelmet and AcidHell.

-If they do not drop the charge the case will likely end up in court and a jury will decide guilt, and the decision will be around purely the point of whether the force used was reasonable or not (given the evidence we have so far anyway)

Pot luck then - do I get a jury of 12 reasonable people or do I get 12 Shami Chakrabartis. Great legal system that relies purely on pot luck.

 

[Glaucus]

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?

or let's look at what we know
Burglars where trying to get in
Suspect was in the phone to the police
Burglar stabbed and died

Perhaps they do have evidence and fully attend to prosecute.
Who says the burglars gained entry? Perhaps the police have the tape recordings and he left the phone got a knife, opened the door and stabbed one.

 

[Glaucus]

As above, the CPS can't decide what is reasonable force - therefore these types of cases must always go to a trial according to vonhelmet and AcidHell.



.

Is it? Please quote.
I said cps decide if their is enough evidence to suggest a criminal case, if there is they decide to prosecute. And then it's up to the courts. I've also said at least once that I have no idea If every self defence case goes to court. So no that is not what I said at all.

Have you also considered it wasn't self defence and police have. Evidence that it was murder? Oh wait you haven't because your jumping the gun with no info. And on top of that hate the police and can't get past that fact.

 

[ubersonic]

Your intention should not be to kill, it should be to incapacitate, in the unlikely event that requires them being killed then so be it, but for a killing to be deemed reasonable force it would usually be accidental, or at least not a definite result of the actions taken.

Sorry but that's not right, the law is very clear on this, if you believe your life or that of others to be in direct danger then you may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so and the level of violence may include killing the assailant. The is no requirement for you to attempt to incapacitate them.

The CPS has stated that:

citizens who have acted reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts.
There will be instances where the circumstances of an individual case demand that it goes to court. These may include cases where it is not clear that an individual really was acting in self-defence or where serious injuries or death have resulted. However, this does not mean that a death will automatically lead to prosecution.

It also applies even if it turns out the person was wrong to kill their alleged assailant as long as the CPS believe "the person genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence".

 

[scorza]

Sorry but that's not right, the law is very clear on this, if you believe your life or that of others to be in direct danger then you may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so and the level of violence may include killing the assailant. The is no requirement for you to attempt to incapacitate them.

Agreed, here's what the DirectGov website says: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/VictimsOfCrime/DG_069883

What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies, you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there have been several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted.

However, if, for example:

having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them

or

you know of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police

then you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

Nowhere does it say you will be arrested if you act in reasonable self-defence and kill someone.

It also says that there have been several cases where householders have not been prosecuted for doing this, so clearly the people saying the police/CPS aren't allowed to take a view on what's reasonable force are talking crap.

 

[Glaucus]

Agreed, here's what the DirectGov website says: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/VictimsOfCrime/DG_069883



Nowhere does it say you will be arrested if you do this. It also says that there have been several cases where householders have not been prosecuted for doing this, so clearly the people saying the police/CPS aren't allowed to take a view on what's reasonable force are talking crap.

Is it? Please quote.
I said cps decide if their is enough evidence to suggest a criminal case, if there is they decide to prosecute. And then it's up to the courts. I've also said at least once that I have no idea If every self defence case goes to court. So no that is not what I said at all.

Have you also considered it wasn't self defence and police have. Evidence that it was murder? Oh wait you haven't because your jumping the gun with no info. And on top of that hate the police and can't get past that fact.

or let's look at what we know
Burglars where trying to get in
Suspect was on the phone to the police
Burglar stabbed and died

Perhaps they do have evidence and fully attend to prosecute.
Who says the burglars gained entry? Perhaps the police have the tape recordings and he left the phone got a knife, opened the door and stabbed one.

 

[Abraham]

Sorry but that's not right, the law is very clear on this, if you believe your life or that of others to be in direct danger then you may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so and the level of violence may include killing the assailant. The is no requirement for you to attempt to incapacitate them.

I was going to add an ammendment because I thought my wording might be confusing.
What I meant was that what would be deemed reasonable force (in most cases) would not include something that was highly likely to or intended to cause death, e.g. cutting someones head off.
It is much more likely to be deemed reasonable force if it's an action to immediately defend oneself/others and is of measured force.

Obviously there are cases, especially involving extreme panic/fear, where killing someone could on the spur of the moment seem the only way of stopping them, and thus would be deemed reasonable force in the situation.

However someone who says "If it was me, I'd definitely kill them" is definitely of a different mindset and I think much less likely to be found to have used reasonable force.

 

[White Mouse]

The real tragedy of this story is that he didn't manage to kill all of them. The man should have been knighted if he had managed that.

Britain is now a joke of a country. At least Labour isn't in power anymore so he might have a chance of not going to prison, but I imagine the Lib Dems will try to keep the status quo in that regard.

 

[Abraham]

Nowhere does it say you will be arrested if you do this. It also says that there have been several cases where householders have not been prosecuted for doing this, so clearly the people saying the police/CPS aren't allowed to take a view on what's reasonable force are talking crap.

I can almost guarantee they will have been arrested, because it's something that requires investigation, asking the potential suspect what happened is not sufficient investigation.

However as I've said, and even the people who you think have said coversely have also said, if the investigation reveals either than there is evidence of their innocence, or there is insufficient evidence of their guilt, then the charge will be dropped.

 

[Glaucus]

I can almost guarantee they will have been arrested, because it's something that requires investigation, asking the potential suspect what happened is not sufficient investigation.

However as I've said, and even the people who you think have said coversely have also said, if the investigation reveals either than there is evidence of their innocence, or there is insufficient evidence of their guilt, then the charge will be dropped.

That flies over his head, as he thinks they've already been found guilty and keeps paddling the guilty line. Whilst ignoring everything else. He can't even read what we have written. Or at least changes it in his mind to something else.

 

[Strife212]

Nowhere does it say you will be arrested if you act in reasonable self-defence and kill someone.

Arrested and prosecuted are totally different...

 

[Abraham]

Why must they? Surely they need reasonable grounds for suspicion to arrest someone and since presumably the householder had said he used reasonable force to defend himself and/or his family - which is not a crime, what would make the police suspicious that he had in fact committed murder?

Because his on the scene statement is particularly insignificant evidence compared to the dead body and the *bloody dagger*.
There is no assumption made however at that time the evidence requires further investigation, initially involving the mans arrest and questioning.

Would it make you feel better if they had used the phrase "taken in for questioning" or "helping with their enquiries"?