Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner

Abraham said:
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.
Click to expand...

And we're back to ... presumption that the householder used unreasonable force.
 
scorza said:
And we're back to ... presumption that the householder used unreasonable force.
Click to expand...
No, the assumption is worst case, the ONLY thing there is evidence of is that a man has been killed and someone admitting killing them.

What other evidence do you think there is to suggest at that point that anything else has happened, even if the body was in the house with a weapon the initial assumption has to be that he has killed the dead man in cold blood.

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the measure required for conviction (by a judge/jury), the threshold at the other end of the process is almost the opposite, it's if there's a chance they might be guilty. There are other reasons for arrest, as have been explained to you again and again, preventing collaboration on stories, destruction of evidence, absconding etc.

I'm quite willing to bet that you are objecting to the arrest of this guy a lot more than he ever will have.
 
Abraham said:
No, the assumption is worst case, the ONLY thing there is evidence of is that a man has been killed and someone admitting killing them.

What other evidence do you think there is to suggest at that point that anything else has happened, even if the body was in the house with a weapon the initial assumption has to be that he has killed the dead man in cold blood.

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the measure required for conviction (by a judge/jury), the threshold at the other end of the process is almost the opposite, it's if there's a chance they might be guilty. There are other reasons for arrest, as have been explained to you again and again, preventing collaboration on stories, destruction of evidence, absconding etc.

I'm quite willing to bet that you are objecting to the arrest of this guy a lot more than he ever will have.
Click to expand...

So you finally admit that the police assume the householder has used unreasonable force which is why they always arrest i.e. a presumption of guilt exists? I say this is wrong and contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. Funny that I don't remember anything about the power of arrest being used if there's a chance that a suspect is guilty, I always thought it was used where there were reasonable grounds for suspicion i.e. evidence to suggest the suspect may have committed a crime.

It's all very well for politicians and the legal establishment to say you can reasonable force to defend yourself but what sort of a message does it send when the police always assume you didn't use reasonable force and arrest you for murder?

There is no reason why collaboration on stories, destruction of evidence and absconding will happen if you don't arrest the householder.
 
scorza said:
So you finally admit that the police assume the householder has used unreasonable force which is why they always arrest i.e. a presumption of guilt exists? I say this is wrong and contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. Funny that I don't remember anything about the power of arrest being used if there's a chance that a suspect is guilty, I always thought it was used where there were reasonable grounds for suspicion i.e. evidence to suggest the suspect may have committed a crime.

It's all very well for politicians and the legal establishment to say you can reasonable force to defend yourself but what sort of a message does it send when the police always assume you didn't use reasonable force and arrest you for murder?

There is no reason why collaboration on stories, destruction of evidence and absconding will happen if you don't arrest the householder.
Click to expand...
The only evidence is that a crime of homicide has been committed.
Can you explain what other evidence there is to cause less than reasonable suspicion to arrest on suspicion of murder?
"I didn't mean to do it guv" is not sufficient evidence.
 
scorza said:
So you finally admit that the police assume the householder has used unreasonable force which is why they always arrest i.e. a presumption of guilt exists?
Click to expand...

Hasn't this been said many times already?

The threshold of guilt/suspicion level for the police is very low for making an arrest.

The threshold of guilt for the courts is very high to secure a conviction.

Arrest =/= Guilt. Arrest = investigation into an event.
 
Tefal said:
in court or did the police/cps just not press charges?
Click to expand...

No prosecution, so not cleared of manslaughter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097
A man who fatally stabbed a burglar at his home in Salford will not be prosecuted, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said.
Peter Flanagan, 59, who was confronted by machete-wielding intruders, "did what he believed necessary" to defend his home in Pendlebury, the CPS ruled.
 
AcidHell2 said:
No prosecution, so not cleared of manslaughter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097
A man who fatally stabbed a burglar at his home in Salford will not be prosecuted, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said.
Peter Flanagan, 59, who was confronted by machete-wielding intruders, "did what he believed necessary" to defend his home in Pendlebury, the CPS ruled.
Click to expand...

thought it would be more likely to have never made it to court.
 
AcidHell2 said:
No prosecution, so not cleared of manslaughter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097
A man who fatally stabbed a burglar at his home in Salford will not be prosecuted, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said.
Peter Flanagan, 59, who was confronted by machete-wielding intruders, "did what he believed necessary" to defend his home in Pendlebury, the CPS ruled.
Click to expand...

Good news anyway, but to be frank the papers plasting this all-over meant he was never going to get a fair trail (biased to the defendent)
 
Now lets see if the "no cnharges" makes the front page like the "omg hero arrested going to be jailed for 20 times as long as murderers" style report did.
 
What took them so long? I'm sure Mr Flanaghan's parting words as he was finally freed from the prospect of life in prison were "Thanks for arresting me lads, it's all been worth it".

Some people are going to look pretty silly now.

nonhelmet 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.

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...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom