Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner

Tefal · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:05

you realise he wasn't in a prison cell all this time don't you scorza? he was released on bail after like a day or so.

Some people are going to look pretty silly now.

and vonhelmit is correct the police did not decide if it was reasonable force or not the CPS did.

It happened exactly how most people said it would arrested, questioned, bailed, investigated, not charged.

Wicksta · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:06

Oh dear scorza, this didn't go to plan did it.

Burnsy2023 · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:10

Tefal said:
It happened exactly how most people said it would arrested, questioned, bailed, investigated, not charged.

Exactly how it should happen.

scorza · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:11

Tefal said:
you realise he wasn't in a prison cell all this time don't you scorza? he was released on bail after like a day or so.

Yep - police bail, almost like being on holiday with no worries about the future at all.

Tefal said:
and vonhelmit is correct the police did not decide if it was reasonable force or not the CPS did.

It happened exactly how most people said it would arrested, questioned, bailed, investigated, not charged.

Vonhemet (and others) contended that only a jury..of..your..peers could possibly be qualified to determine what was reasonable force - that is plainly not true. If the CPS can make that decision, why can't the police? Why does there always have to be an assumption that unreasonable force was used and therefore the police must always arrest the house holder in these cases?

Besides, I guarantee you if there hadn't been a huge public outcry at this case the CPS would have prosecuted and taken their chances of getting a favourable jury.

Glaucus · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:14

Lolscorza. Why would. They do that.

Also there was a debate about jury, but if you read back. Someone quickly new or found other cases that didn't go to court. So that's an old and done argument.but yet you still bring it up. Even though that aspect was put to bed pages ago.

Burnsy2023 · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:16

scorza said:
If the CPS can make that decision, why can't the police? Why does there always have to be an assumption that unreasonable force was used and therefore the police must always arrest the house holder in these cases?

Simple reason really: the police are there to investigate the incident and discover the facts of the case. This evidence is then sent to the CPS who decide whether there is enough evidence to charge as well as if the case passes the public interest test. If the CPS decide it can go to court then it will, but you need the isolation of investigation and charging decision in cases such as these to ensure impartiality.

The arrest is part of being able to secure evidence.

Vonhelmet · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:37

scorza said:
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.

Why do I look silly?

The CPS have decided whether there was a case to prosecute, as I said in other posts was their prerogative. You've managed to find a quote in which I've argued against one person making a decision about guilt, in which I said a jury should make such a decision. The CPS have not made a decision regarding guilt. They have made a decision regarding where there was a case to prosecute. My point stands.

Besides, do you really think it was one person - as you defended - at the CPS making that decision? On yer bike.

Vonhelmet · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:42

scorza said:
If the CPS can make that decision, why can't the police?

Um... Because they have entirely different jobs?

Why can't a car mechanic do a tax return? Why can't a circus ringmaster run a shop? Why can't a fighter pilot plumb a boiler in?

Burnsy2023 · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:56

Spektor said:
The gang could just have easily fled as soon as they realised anyone was home.

I think the fact that they brought a weapon means that they didn't care if anyone was in.

Edit: Whoops. That was on page one not page three

Burnsy2023 · 22 Jul 2011 at 16:58

nonhelmet said:
Um... Because they have entirely different jobs?

In all fairness, the Police used to have that job until the CPS was created.

Tefal · 22 Jul 2011 at 17:01

Burnsy2023 said:
In all fairness, the Police used to have that job until the CPS was created.

because the police were incapable of doing it properly.

iropnicaly in this case if it was the police that decided like scorza wants the case would have been more likely to have gone to court

Vonhelmet · 22 Jul 2011 at 17:02

Burnsy2023 said:
In all fairness, the Police used to have that job until the CPS was created.

Fair enough... Want to bet that scorza knew that?

In any case, they don't have the job any more, not that I'm arguing with you.

Burnsy2023 · 22 Jul 2011 at 17:02

Tefal said:
because the police were incapable of doing it properly.

Well, that's debatable, but although the CPS are often a PITA, I don't have a problem with the current system.

Andy90 · 22 Jul 2011 at 18:24

Far more cases ended up at Court when the Police took the decision to prosecute. The CPS was 1 year old when I joined the Police in 1987 (as was the Police and Criminal Evidence act).

It was fairly common to find Inspectors who had the job of prosecuting cases at Court prior to the formation of the CPS and they would always give a job a go at Court even on fairly weak evidence.

Today there are so many rules for the CPS to follow it can be a nightmare to get things to Court.

For instance

General Principles

The decision whether to prosecute

The Full test code

The Threshold test

As for the man who stabbed the Burglar - well it has been decided he will face no charges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097

scorza · 22 Jul 2011 at 20:32

Listen to what Mr Nazir Afzal, North West chief crown prosecutor said about the decision not to charge Mr Flanaghan:

All the evidence indicates that in the frightening circumstances that he faced, Mr Flanagan did what he honestly and instinctively believed was necessary to protect himself and his home from intruders

*All* the evidence, in other words there was *no* evidence to suggest that Mr Flanagan acted unreasonably at any point. So why did the police arrest Mr Flanagan as well as his son and his son's girlfriend? Over to Chief Superintendent Kevin Mulligan of Greater Manchester Police:

We had a duty of care to John Bennell's family, the occupants of the house and to the coroner to fully investigate this death to determine whether or not it was a criminal act or one of self-defence

A duty of care??? WTF? You arrested him. Quite frankly I hope Mr Flanagan takes the police to the cleaners for false arrest.

Glaucus · 22 Jul 2011 at 20:34

Good god, sue them for what.
You really can't grasp this simple thing can you.

Werewolf · 22 Jul 2011 at 20:46

AcidHell2 said:
Good god, sue them for what.
You really can't grasp this simple thing can you.

I get the distinct impression that Scorza thinks that the police magically gather the evidence, and no one would ever lie to them, or try to destroy evidence.

As has been said many dozens of times, the Police arrest someone when there is what is a potentially very serious crime to give them time to collect the evidence (before it's lost/destroyed), give them the chance to question people with legal representation, and basically ensure they do the investigation properly.

At the point at which the Police arrested the guy, they had not got all the evidence, well apart from a dead body, and a guy who has admitted he was involved...

scorza · 22 Jul 2011 at 21:23

Werewolf said:
I get the distinct impression that Scorza thinks that the police magically gather the evidence, and no one would ever lie to them, or try to destroy evidence.

As has been said many dozens of times, the Police arrest someone when there is what is a potentially very serious crime to give them time to collect the evidence (before it's lost/destroyed), give them the chance to question people with legal representation, and basically ensure they do the investigation properly.

At the point at which the Police arrested the guy, they had not got all the evidence, well apart from a dead body, and a guy who has admitted he was involved...

Wrong again. The police can only arrest someone when they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the suspect has committed the crime. I think the police should tell us what those reasonable grounds were. They don't need to arrest anyone to secure a crime scene.

It's a shame that the police aren't as quick to arrest suspects in say for example, newspaper hacking allegations.

Danthus · 22 Jul 2011 at 21:33

scorza said:
Wrong again. The police can only arrest someone when they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the suspect has committed the crime. I think the police should tell us what those reasonable grounds were. They don't need to arrest anyone to secure a crime scene.

It's a shame that the police aren't as quick to arrest suspects in say for example, newspaper hacking allegations.

Allegations and and corpse on the floor, i can see why one is easier to investigate than the other.

Dolph · 22 Jul 2011 at 21:35

scorza said:
Wrong again. The police can only arrest someone when they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the suspect has committed the crime. I think the police should tell us what those reasonable grounds were. They don't need to arrest anyone to secure a crime scene.

It's a shame that the police aren't as quick to arrest suspects in say for example, newspaper hacking allegations.

Are you actually suggesting that, with a body on the floor, the police should simply accept a 'yep, I killed him, was self defense gov, honest'?