Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner

bloodline76 · 26 Jun 2011 at 14:12

robgmun said:
While i agree with you, and playing devils advocate here, what happens if stabbing a burglar becomes ok by law. What to stop someone luring someone into their house, stabbing them and then claming they were trying to break in?

Whilst I do agree with you in principle. I have a wife and two young children. If someone broke into my house I certainly wouldn't stop hitting them until they were unconscious or stopped moving on the floor.

Anyone who breaks into my house is a serious risk to my family and if I was overpowered then I would not be able to protect them. Which means I would take them down anyway possible.

Deep · 26 Jun 2011 at 14:26

cheets64 said:
Anyone think it was a drug debt or something related to that.

4 guys going to break into a terrace house seems ott.

Something similar happened just down the road from where I live.

3 men broke into a house and held up a family at gun point. They then proceeded to rob them.

The police came to our shop to see if our CCTV would cover the street (unfortunately it didn't), and when she told me what happened she mentioned that she believed the 3 men broke into the wrong house.

Meridian · 26 Jun 2011 at 16:52

scorza said:
Who said a dead body should be "written off" by the police? Why does the due process involve presuming the householder is guilty and arresting him? Reasonable grounds for suspicion are required for arrest in all cases, why are these cases different?

Well, for a start they have to make sure he IS the householder. It would be awful embarrassing if he gave the feds the line about defending his property and got released, only for plod to find out that the dead man was the actual owner and they'd just released the burglar. And a dead body is about as reasonable grounds for an arrest as you can get, anyway.

M

Von Smallhausen · 26 Jun 2011 at 16:54

scorza said:
Who said a dead body should be "written off" by the police? Why does the due process involve presuming the householder is guilty and arresting him? Reasonable grounds for suspicion are required for arrest in all cases, why are these cases different?

Well let's hear what you would do when you tip up at the scene with a dead body that has a knife wound.

scorza · 26 Jun 2011 at 17:59

Meridian said:
Well, for a start they have to make sure he IS the householder. It would be awful embarrassing if he gave the feds the line about defending his property and got released, only for plod to find out that the dead man was the actual owner and they'd just released the burglar.

Agree wholeheartedly. I don't see why you need to be arrested to prove your identity however.

KatanaDV20 · 26 Jun 2011 at 18:03

Good on the homeowner. Gave it to the scum burglar.

I totally support those countries where the law says that anyone breakiong into YOUR property has left all his/her rights behind.

And here we go again our beloved country putting innocents in prison. And we have the cheek to lecture other countries on "rights".

Werewolf · 26 Jun 2011 at 18:04

scorza said:
Agree wholeheartedly. I don't see why you need to be arrested to prove your identity however.

Not just the identity, but the circumstances, of which the ID is just one.

You really don't get it do you?
People Lie to the police.
The Police cannot just take anyone's word at face value when there is a dead body and obvious signs of a violent death, to just take someones word would be a massive lapse of investigative standards.
By arresting them they get the chance to do enquiries without the scene being messed with, and without the involved parties having a chance to either discuss and agree a story, or run away. From the arrestee's point of view it gives them access (if they wish it) to free legal advice.

Wicksta · 26 Jun 2011 at 18:09

KatanaDV20 said:
Good on the homeowner. Gave it to the scum burglar.

I totally support those countries where the law says that anyone breakiong into YOUR property has left all his/her rights behind.

And here we go again our beloved country putting innocents in prison. And we have the cheek to lecture other countries on "rights".

Have you considered lobbying your MP with your amazing suggestions, or does it stop at posting guff on the internet?

scorza · 26 Jun 2011 at 18:39

Werewolf said:
Not just the identity, but the circumstances, of which the ID is just one.

You really don't get it do you?
People Lie to the police.
The Police cannot just take anyone's word at face value when there is a dead body and obvious signs of a violent death, to just take someones word would be a massive lapse of investigative standards.
By arresting them they get the chance to do enquiries without the scene being messed with, and without the involved parties having a chance to either discuss and agree a story, or run away. From the arrestee's point of view it gives them access (if they wish it) to free legal advice.

You go from the sensible - that police must investigate the death and examine the scene, to the quite ridiculous - that the householder must be arrested for this to happen and this is good for them because it means they get a free solicitor.

Can anyone justify this ridiculous system of ours with an argument that boils to something more substantial than "that's just the way it is"?

Vonhelmet · 26 Jun 2011 at 18:57

Do you object to all suspects of serious crimes being arrested?

Werewolf · 26 Jun 2011 at 19:06

The only time the Police can hold someone potentially against their will is when they are arrested, charged or in jail.

To investigate properly, the Police may need to ensure there is no risk that the person is going to abscond, or discuss a potential story with accomplices
Now, to do that, they may need to hold people separately - and the only way they can legally do that for the sort of time that may be required is by arresting when there is suspicion that a serious crime may have been committed.

Unfortunately that means that sometimes an innocent person is put out for a short time, to discover the facts of what has happened fully.

Danthus · 26 Jun 2011 at 19:13

scorza said:
You go from the sensible - that police must investigate the death and examine the scene, to the quite ridiculous - that the householder must be arrested for this to happen and this is good for them because it means they get a free solicitor.

Can anyone justify this ridiculous system of ours with an argument that boils to something more substantial than "that's just the way it is"?

Being arrested ensures you a level of rights.

Raymond Lin · 26 Jun 2011 at 19:21

Scorza, I suggest you read up on criminal law, PACE and some case laws. You seemed to be oblivious on how the whole system works. The system wasn't created in 1 day, it was evolved through the last few hundred years. There are reasons for the law, it might seem strange and baffling to you but they are there because of past events and there for a reason.

He also doesn't realise that one has more rights being arrested than merely questioned. You are in a better position as arrested under police custody than voluntarily go in and answer questions.

scorza · 26 Jun 2011 at 19:48

vonhelmet said:
Do you object to all suspects of serious crimes being arrested?

I don't object to anyone being arrested if there's reasonable grounds for suspicion. In the case of a householder killing someone while defending their home, I think the police should have reasonable grounds to suspect unreasonable force was used by the householder, or some other reason for suspicion before making the arrest.

There of plenty of occasions where the police suspect someone of a serious crime but don't arrest them, because there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion. Why should it be different for these type of cases?

Raymond Lin · 26 Jun 2011 at 20:03

scorza said:
I don't object to anyone being arrested if there's reasonable grounds for suspicion. In the case of a householder killing someone while defending their home, I think the police should have reasonable grounds to suspect unreasonable force was used by the householder, or some other reason for suspicion before making the arrest.

There of plenty of occasions where the police suspect someone of a serious crime but don't arrest them, because there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion. Why should it be different for these type of cases?

Well, they need to question him. They suspect he killed the intruder.

A person was killed here, there was a weapon. There was a suspect, what do you suggest the police do? Invite him over for cookies and milk?

Von Smallhausen · 26 Jun 2011 at 20:12

Raymond Lin said:
Scorza, I suggest you read up on criminal law, PACE and some case laws. You seemed to be oblivious on how the whole system works. The system wasn't created in 1 day, it was evolved through the last few hundred years. There are reasons for the law, it might seem strange and baffling to you but they are there because of past events and there for a reason.

He also doesn't realise that one has more rights being arrested than merely questioned. You are in a better position as arrested under police custody than voluntarily go inane answer questions.

An officer and solicitor agree.

:eek:

Glaucus · 26 Jun 2011 at 20:32

scorza said:
I don't object to anyone being arrested if there's reasonable grounds for suspicion. In the case of a householder killing someone while defending their home, I think the police should have reasonable grounds to suspect unreasonable force was used by the householder, or some other reason for suspicion before making the arrest.

There of plenty of occasions where the police suspect someone of a serious crime but don't arrest them, because there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion. Why should it be different for these type of cases?

Defence, the body wasn't even at the scene. Also as said, you seem to be totally clueless about the system.

Tombo · 27 Jun 2011 at 00:25

Why do you bother arguing with him when he won't listen

Abraham · 27 Jun 2011 at 09:26

scorza said:
I don't object to anyone being arrested if there's reasonable grounds for suspicion. In the case of a householder killing someone while defending their home, I think the police should have reasonable grounds to suspect unreasonable force was used by the householder, or some other reason for suspicion before making the arrest.

They don't know it was defending the home, there is in fact at this point in time (the time of arrest) no evidence beyond the suspects initial statement to suggest that it was.

A body has been found stabbed in the street, this guy has admitted doing it, SAYING that he had broken in and had 3 accomplices who carried him away after he'd been stabbed.

The assumption of the situation has to be reasonable worst case, that he has gone into the street and stabbed this guy. For which he's obviously arrested.

Again there is NO evidence at the point of arrest to suggest he is acting in defence of his home, primarily because the body is nowhere near his home.

Abraham · 27 Jun 2011 at 09:26

Tombo said:
Why do you bother arguing with him when he won't listen

It's really hard seeing people being wrong.