Spot on. Its not like they are going to question him for the next few weeks and regularly beat him up, they just need to know whats gone on from his point of view and then gather evidence around this.
78 year old pensioner arrested for for stabbing burglar (burglar later died in hospital)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
Spot on. Its not like they are going to question him for the next few weeks and regularly beat him up, they just need to know whats gone on from his point of view and then gather evidence around this.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 7
I bet he's having a right cushy time at the police station being waited on hand and foot.
The officers will be treating him as a hero.
The officers will be treating him as a hero.
I think part of the perception is that elsewhere in the civilised world, you know, like America, people are generally only arrested after an investigation has been carried out to establish if a crime has actually taken place.
As I understand it, the worst abuses of "Pre-charge bail" have been ended, (see what happened to Christopher Jefferies) but given the recent revelations in the media on how Police forces across the country seem to have systematically perverted the course of justice on an industrial scale the element of trust has almost irretrevably become lost.
Is that perception based on fictional TV shows, by any chance?
I don't understand the big deal of the pensioner getting arrested, he is the only witness to the crime (not sure if the dead burglar's accomplice has been caught yet). If there were two witnesses in America and one was dead, I'm pretty that party would be arrested also.
he was arrested before anyone was dead, he was just the victim of a burglary who had (seemingly) defended himself and then called the police himself at the point he was arrested
The issue IMO is mostly in the case where he's done nothing wrong, if it turns out there were some additional yet to be released reasons for his arrest then fine, but it does seem off that the victim who is an elderly individual and has just had his house invaded, his life threatened and been the victim of an assault is arrested for defending himself. Given he called the police I'm sure he'd be more than happy to answer questions (under caution if necessary), but to take a 78 year old burglary victim off to a cell in the middle of the night when he's just suffered a pretty traumatic event is a bit worrying. If they need to cordon of his kitchen (or even the rest of his house) for whatever reason then fine, that doesn't necessitate him being arrested... he can just as easily go stay with a relative and report to the police station in the morning. Some people are saying "they're just doing their jobs/following procedure" - perhaps they are, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
I mean do they treat rape victims who've fought back in this way too? Or people who've suffered serious assaults, kidnapping or murder attempts and defended themselves? If the attacker is injured then even though the victim called the police and is likely going to co-operate do they, as a matter of procedure, get arrested anyway, taken off to the cells in the middle of the night? I'm genuinely interested.
Obviously there are other possibilities, like this guy has said something to give the police reason to think it was more than self defence etc.. we'll have to see.
Last edited:
Doesn't matter if he wasn't dead, he was the only witness, standard procedure.
The High Court ruled in a landmark case that homeowners are allowed to use disproportionate force against an attacker. The old man was forced into his kitchen and did exactly what the law has said he can do. As was mentioned earlier, he didn't have to be arrested on suspicion of murder, but he has. If the police have no intention of charging him with murder, why re-arrest him for the far more serious offence which indicates a level of premeditation? Obviously if he is charged that's a whole different matter, but arresting him for murder? Really?
he's not the only witness, there were two burglars (then one died)
if it is "standard procedure" then that doesn't change my post... I don't know whether it is or isn't but regardless my objection to it remains the same (if it turns out the guy has acted reasonably)
suppose it was instead your girlfriend and she'd been raped at knifepoint but fought back... you rush to go and see her but she's been locked away in a cell for the night even though she's the victim, she called the police and she's currently traumatised... would you be happy with it because it is "standard procedure" (supposedly)
taking away the victim of a traumatic crime in the middle of the night and putting them in a cell ought to be done with good reason and not because "it is procedure"
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Unfortunately the British law on self defence and defence of one's home is still vague and subject to imperfect interpretation, unlike the US States with the Castle Doctrine or Stand your Ground laws that make the law very clear. Hell, some States would give him a commendation! That and the seemingly biased towards the miscreant attitudes of UK police hierachy, if not the bobby on the beat, and the more Liberal judiciary, makes the situation of people in this seemingly very unfortunate elderly man's predicament somewhat tenuous. I hope he is able to resume a blame free, peaceful existence again soon, it's not what you need or should expect in your twilight years.
But they don't know whats gone on and won't until they have investigated? Who's to say he didnt call the guy there and the other is made up? Who is also to say that a rape 'victim' hadnt called the 'attacker' there, did the business and then stabbed him? Should we just believe someones word at face value? Thats a dangerous precedent to set...
how is not arresting him preventing them from investigation or questioning him if he's cooperative... those are some rather convoluted scenarios tbh.. but regardless, if they need to cordon off the kitchen or the rest of the house that doesn't necessitate putting the victim in a cell
The High Court ruling doesn't however say that people who use disproportionate force should not be arrested, interviewed or otherwise investigated. Are you seriously expecting the police not to arrest someone who has caused life-threatening injuries?
Yes, really. A person was stabbed and then died, therefore it becomes a murder investigation until the full facts can be established. I'm not sure why certain people are assuming the police are looking to stitch the guy up for this or implying they won't have his welfare in mind. They have a job to do but it's fair to say they'll also be very sympathetic towards the man whilst getting on with it, and will be providing support as needed. They need to establish the initial facts very quickly and the arrest helps secure evidence and get that initial account of events which would help to clear him of any wrongdoing.
How is the enquiry supposed to progress if the only available witness - and the person who just stabbed someone - is tucked up in bed somewhere? The investigation can't just be paused for 8 hours until he's had his Corn Flakes.
You said before your issue with his arrest is "mostly in the case where he's done nothing wrong". What if he has?
The police despise burglars, especially those who prey on the vulnerable. Try to have at least a bit of faith in the fact that the man will be getting looked after despite the procedures he's being put through.
Say the burglary victim has phoned the police, provided descriptions of the burglars etc.. and is willing to cooperate etc.. why the need to drag him down to a police station in the middle of the night for a full interview? What is wrong with that part of the investigation progressing the next day?
Instead he gets locked in a cell, presumably woken an hour or so later when a duty solicitor arrives and then informed that he's being arrested again for murder as the burglar has died... he's nearly 80, has had a pretty traumatic time as it is - is really necessary to put him through more stress in the early hours of the morning when he'd likely be happy to pop along the next day.
then the opinion I posted which was conditional on that not being the case obviously doesn't apply
Last edited:
Because of life-threatening injuries sustained by one of the persons involved. He wasn't "dragged" anywhere.
I guess my point was more, we don't really know so have to be on the side of caution. I do somewhat agree though, maybe a cell isnt ideal in these kind of instances where the story is being pieced together.
dragged was a figure of speech, he was made to come under arrest, no choice in the matter, in the middle of the night, after a traumatic event
you've given a non-answer.. why the urgency? Why couldn't he give a full interview in the morning voluntarily?
because someone has been stabbed and subsequently died, arrest to enable prompt and efficient evidence gathering
his body/clothing/the house will be a minefield of dna and other evidence you don't want it getting contaminated
- Status