Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner

scorza · 23 Jul 2011 at 08:40

nonhelmet said:
The police don't need evidence to arrest someone. They need a suspicion.

That suspicion has to be reasonable though, they can't just say "hmm, dead body - the householder must had done it. Arrest him!".

Brian8bit · 23 Jul 2011 at 08:41

Jesus tap dancing Christ.

RDM · 23 Jul 2011 at 08:41

scorza said:
That suspicion has to be reasonable though, they can't just say "hmm, dead body - the householder must had done it. Arrest him!".

Wasn't it more "Hmm, dead body and the householder said that he has done it." Which seems to be more than enough for reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been commited.

Von Smallhausen · 23 Jul 2011 at 08:44

scorza said:
No offence, but so do the police - especially when it comes to News International

Some police perhaps and that is in the process of being redressed but that isn't the topic of discussion here.

Von Smallhausen · 23 Jul 2011 at 08:47

scorza said:
Absolute rubbish, what I cannot comprehend and what no-one has given a satisfactory answer to in 18 pages of nonsense is why the police had to arrest the householder? No, a dead body is not reasonable grounds - the police must have *evidence* that the householder acted unreasonably for an arrest and as we've heard there was no evidence to suggest that was the case.

Your argument that not arresting householders unless there's reasonable grounds for suspicion will lead to an epidemic of murderers inviting their victim round for tea is frankly laughable.

There are satisfactory answers in this thread but you won't accept them.

Mucky_Pup · 23 Jul 2011 at 09:10

Energize said:
This guy. He's going to have to answer "yes" to those "have you ever been arrested" questions, which would adversely affect him in the future even though he's done nothing wrong.

He's 59, how many job interviews do you think he's going to be applying for?

Meridian · 23 Jul 2011 at 09:58

nonhelmet said:
The police don't need evidence to arrest someone. They need a suspicion.

Exactly. It's the job of the CPS to decide if there is evidence. The police simply need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. A dead body and a man admitting killing them, seems pretty reasonable to everyone except scorza.

M

kylew · 23 Jul 2011 at 10:10

scorza said:
That suspicion has to be reasonable though, they can't just say "hmm, dead body - the householder must had done it. Arrest him!".

Your problem seems to lie in the word "arrested". Would "taken in for questioning and assessment" make you happy, even if they did everything they do when arresting some one, but called it "taken in for questioning and assessment"?

I really can't understand why you find it so bizarre that they needed to question him over a death that he admitted causing, the fact that they call doing just that "arresting" doesn't seem to be a problem at all except with you. It's like you think arrested means "instant prosecution without a trial".

Dolph · 23 Jul 2011 at 10:14

Meridian said:
Exactly. It's the job of the CPS to decide if there is evidence. The police simply need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. A dead body and a man admitting killing them, seems pretty reasonable to everyone except scorza.

M

What amazes me though is his double standards around how to treat former news international employees, how they should be arrested and blacklisted from employment on hearsay only, yet he wishes to simply accept someone saying 'self defence gov' when there is a dead body on the ground.

Somewhat skewed priorities I think...

scorza · 23 Jul 2011 at 10:27

RDM said:
Wasn't it more "Hmm, dead body and the householder said that he has done it." Which seems to be more than enough for reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been commited.

Did he say he'd murdered him or acted in reasonable self-defence? If the latter, what were the reasonable grounds to suspect that wasn't the case?

Dolph · 23 Jul 2011 at 10:52

scorza said:
Did he say he'd murdered him or acted in reasonable self-defence? If the latter, what were the reasonable grounds to suspect that wasn't the case?

Because someone invited in then murdered would look exactly the same?

Glaucus · 23 Jul 2011 at 10:56

Nd to top this incident off, the body wasn't even found at the house.

Dead body + I killed them + moved body.

But why are we still arguing with scorza he's lost the plot and as said with notw he doesn't want any evidence at all.

Burnsy2023 · 23 Jul 2011 at 10:56

scorza said:
Absolute rubbish, what I cannot comprehend and what no-one has given a satisfactory answer to in 18 pages of nonsense is why the police had to arrest the householder? No, a dead body is not reasonable grounds - the police must have *evidence* that the householder acted unreasonably for an arrest and as we've heard there was no evidence to suggest that was the case.

Your argument that not arresting householders unless there's reasonable grounds for suspicion will lead to an epidemic of murderers inviting their victim round for tea is frankly laughable.

I stopped reading there. I think Von Smaulhausen's comments are an understatement.

Danthus · 23 Jul 2011 at 10:58

Burnsy2023 · 23 Jul 2011 at 11:01

scorza said:
Did he say he'd murdered him or acted in reasonable self-defence? If the latter, what were the reasonable grounds to suspect that wasn't the case?

Ok, something from training about reasonable suspicion:

If there were a scale from 1 -10 and 1 was you don't have a clue and 10 is you are absolutely, categorically sure that someone has committed an offence, where do you think reasonable suspicion comes on the scale?

[1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10]

SciNeT · 23 Jul 2011 at 11:03

Just heard on the radio this chap's deemed as having acted in self-defence and did not break the law, absolutely made my day, superb & proper outcome.

scorza · 23 Jul 2011 at 11:06

Burnsy2023 said:
Ok, something from training about reasonable suspicion:

If there were a scale from 1 -10 and 1 was you don't have a clue and 10 is you are absolutely, categorically sure that someone has committed an offence, where do you think reasonable suspicion comes on the scale?

[1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10]

Clearly you're instructed to arrest at 1. Does it ever occur to police officers to question their whether their policies are right or not?

Glaucus · 23 Jul 2011 at 11:06

Edit -wrong thread

fLux_ · 23 Jul 2011 at 11:07

It's funny when people dig themselves into a hole on forums.

Rather than just admitting they got it wrong or accepting someone elses view, they continue to try defend what they've said with each further response getting more ridiculous

Burnsy2023 · 23 Jul 2011 at 11:08

scorza said:
Clearly you're instructed to arrest at 1. Does it ever occur to police officers to question their whether their policies are right or not?

You're wrong by the way, but I don't think I can have a reasonable discussion with you so I won't bother.