I don't believe anyone has ever said this.
Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
I don't believe anyone has ever said this.
You keep talking about it as though the police arresting someone implies a presumption of guilt.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,632
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
wow - the thought of putting burglary below rape, murder and paedo's.
The way i look at it is, if the bloke hadnt broke into the place, he wouldnt have been stabbed. The fact that he got stabbed should be a lesson to other would be burglars, dont go burglaring. The uk is to soft on criminals, homeowners should be allowed to defend their own property/belongings with whatever force they can bring to bear. It's actually encouraged and taught by many police forces in america.
so guy in this video should he be charged or not?
http://bcove.me/iqzxct9z
*the guy off screen is unconscious the first shot to the head knocked him out.
Does he shoot him again?
Yes. He plugged him a few more times to finish him off. Was a big story a week or so ago in America about how far you're allowed to go in protecting your home and/or business. A lot of NRA types actually disagreed with what the store owner had done as obviously the kid wasn't a threat anymore. A saw a lot of comments on the video on various sites along the lines of "I'm a gun owner, but..." and the majority stated instead of plugging him a few more times he should have administered first aid to keep him alive.
As for the original story. I see the dead burglars dad has come out and said that you should have the right to protect your property. (It's probably already been posted in this thread but here's the link again anyway: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-home-owners-entitled-protect-property.html )
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 11,364
- Location
- Cheshire
Agreed
We needs laws that protect the homeowner rather than the dirty jipsy scum that trys to break in.
Whole law system is ***** up when you think about situations like this.
Murder should never be justified by circumstances before those circumstances are fully known.
That's my opinion at least, if you kill someone you should be under suspicion of murder, if after it is investigated it is found the circumstances surrounding the murder justified it, be it in terms of reasonable force or otherwise then you should be fully cleared.
It is absurd to think that an act of murder can be ignored purely due to the initial inspection of circumstances.
That's my opinion at least, if you kill someone you should be under suspicion of murder, if after it is investigated it is found the circumstances surrounding the murder justified it, be it in terms of reasonable force or otherwise then you should be fully cleared.
It is absurd to think that an act of murder can be ignored purely due to the initial inspection of circumstances.
So you agree that there should be a presumption of guilt in these cases? Why only these type of cases? I know that most children are abducted by people known to them, the parents are always suspects when children are reported missing. Should the police always arrest the parents of missing children too?
I never said anything about arresting people, I said they should be under suspicion, which in cases of kidnap the parents usually are in some form.
You do seem to be mixing things up scorza.
Suspicion isn't guilt.
And yes, Parents of missing children will be under suspicion and investigated, doesn't mean they will be arrested automatically.
In this case there is evidence, ie: a dead body. So the guy is arrested (and now released on bail) while the police work out what actually happened. I see no problem in this?
I wouldn't. Unless there's been a press release over night.
Only thing the police have said is they received a 999 call, while the burglars where trying to brake in, then one of them dies with a single stab wound. But police wouldn't say if that killed him until postmortum and coroner told them and body was found in hospital road not at the house.
I see yet more rubbish comparisons from scorza and still pushing the guilty thing. He has a bloody knife, covered in blood, admits he stabbed someone but the body is not at or in the house. He's going to be arrested as the body isn't even at the house, why? Police can't confirm the body was carried off. Also again have you thought there's more to the situation. They where on the phone to 999 so their will be tape recordings.
Last edited:
Imagine all the salt in the world, now double it, you now have just about what you need to take with every sentence you read in the daily mail.
I disagree, we do have laws that protect the homeowner. They may need to be looked at and modified but they are there.
What they don't give, and should never give imo, is carte blanche to people to dispense their own vigilante justice.
Of course I understand Burglary is a distressing crime, but the punishment for it is not death and shouldn't be imo.
I see no problem in someone defending themselves with reasonable force (as the law states now) even if the situation warrants that force ends up killing the assailant - this is not restrictive to burglary of course. But to allow people to have the right to kill unarmed burglars is a step too far.
Last edited:
‘This is a problem not of law but the public understanding of it.
‘Of course people facing intruders can use reasonable force to defend themselves.
‘But saying that “burglars leave their rights at the threshold” is a recipe for vigilante execution and mistaken killings of family members returning home after dark.’
Civil rights campaigner Shami Chakrabarti quoted in the DM link up above.
All the idiots who come in here slamming the situation simply do not understand it, the law is fine.
Ah good - that's my view too. According to some here they should be arrested in case they do a runner, and told being arrested is a good thing because they get a free lawyer.
