I'm not questioning the re-arrest, simply the suspicion of murder. Obviously at this stage we aren't privy to information that the police might have, but going solely on what has been reported so far arresting someone for murder when it appears that it was self defence seems odd. Like I said earlier, let's wait and see what transpires.
78 year old pensioner arrested for for stabbing burglar (burglar later died in hospital)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
was about to ask which site has done that... but I've found it them, should have known... the Dail Fail, the Sun and the mirror.
It did. 2016, the use of disproportionate force (using something to hand to defend yourself which may end up killing the perp) would now be covered under self defense laws. A calculated action of revenge or grossly disproportionate force would still land you in trouble.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 3,584
- Location
- Exile
A dick move by all three... And there's possibly even grounds for legal action against them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 3,584
- Location
- Exile
Here we go..
A defamation of character lawsuit will only be successful if the information published is:
A defamation of character lawsuit will only be successful if the information published is:
- Untrue in some respect
- Exaggerated
- Reported in an intentionally misleading way
Rape is treated differently to other crimes, so that's not a relevant example.
Person A has killed person B. Person A says it was reasonable force in defence. Do you just take their word for it? Do you make a judgement based on age, sex, "race" or whatever? Or do you investigate? If you investigate, do you leave the killer there while you investigate, free to do a runner if it turns out they were lying to you? People do sometimes lie to the police.
Someone I know, let's call them X, was once found by the police (responding to an emergency call by a third party who was of course not identified) in a house with a machete in his hand and a person bleeding on the floor from what looked rather like an injury from a machete. X refused to drop the machete when told to do so by the police and refused to go to the police station to make a statement. The police arrested X. The initial investigation corroborated X's story - the wounded person attacked X with the machete, X disarmed the person attacking them and that person was wounded during that. X was then released without charge and their actions recorded as reasonable force.
Should the police have just left X there, machete in hand, and gone home solely because X said it was defence?
off topic but why did your mate, Mr X, refuse to drop the machete when told to do so by the police? and why did he refuse to go to the police station to make a statement?
Only if it is reasonably deemed necessary. I believe the wording was something vague like "residents can use disproportionate force against intruders if it was reasonably deemed necessary at the time."
In layman's terms this means they wrote into law that the heat of the moment may confuse things and proportionality is going to be very hard to determine. Shooting/stabbing an invader as they charge at you or your family would probably be seen as reasonable. Where as shooting a fleeing intruder in the back after they have left your property is not reasonable.
Well in this case he wasn't a killer at the time he was arrested, but Burnsey has kindly answered a few questions... I still can't say that I'm particularly fond of a 78 year old burglary victim who was seemingly forced into a situation through no fault of his own having to be taken under arrest to a police station in the middle of the night when he's otherwise cooperative. Though I'd rather have the UK police over pretty much any other country's force/system I do think that in other developed countries he'd perhaps not even be arrested (certainly not in plenty of US jurisdictions - not that their police forces are necessarily a shining example in many other areas).
Probably not, no. Though a rather different scenario.
Someone had just tried to kill him with a machete. He wasn't thinking straight, maybe not thinking at all. He had saved his own life by taking the weapon off the person who had tried to kill him and he had sight of the person who'd tried to kill him and could therefore assess the potential threat. Those two things made him safe and he was fixated on them both. Very primal stuff, no thinking required or useful. A simian situation - act immediately on instinct. He couldn't suddenly switch back from the primitive to the civilised to understand that the police were not removing the things that were making him safe, so he refused to give those things up because he refused to give his safety up.
We're apes with advanced minds stuck on top of primitive minds. Under some extreme circumstances, the advanced part is temporarily sidelined.
Did the police arrest X on suspicion of attempted murder or a lesser charge?
That wasn't really a change in the law. More like a sop for the bloodthirsty and the media people who profit from stoking that bloodlust. It's always been the case that disproportionate force was legal if reasonably deemed necessary at the time and it's always been the case that there is no requirement for a careful and accurate assessment of how much force is necessary.
Very interesting. Though can I ask who furnished you with the conclusions above as to his reasoning for not giving up the machete. Or is that your own take on it?
Correct, it was actually the "rejection" of a challenge from Denby Collins' father (Denby Collins being the alleged burglar that was found in a coma by police responding to reports of a break-in), who claimed that "householder defence" was in breach of the Right to Life from the Human Rights Article 21:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jan/15/high-court-rejects-challenge-to-householder-defence-law
I don't know. He didn't tell me the charge at the time and I haven't seen him for ages. I think it was probably a lesser charge than attempted murder because there wouldn't have been any indication of intent to kill.
His (afterwards) and mine. Both contain an element of speculation - I wasn't there and he wasn't reasoning at the time - but it fits the facts.
Murder doesn't require intent to kill, only that there is a death as the result of the defendant's actions. Proof of intent to grievously harm is usually enough to convict someone of murder (assuming the victim died as a result).
Attempted murder, though, is quite the different charge because that does require proof of intent to kill - though you aren't going to get far on a defence of "I only wanted to wing him with this gun, officer. I didn't think shooting him was going to kill him."
Attempted murder, though, is quite the different charge because that does require proof of intent to kill - though you aren't going to get far on a defence of "I only wanted to wing him with this gun, officer. I didn't think shooting him was going to kill him."
""
really? i thought it definitely did. no intent to kill is manslaughter.
Your right mainly, you can be charged with murder though if someone dies through your actions but you intended to harm somebody else.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
It's probably because people tend to associate themselves with others of a similar mindset. I know quite a few people, young and old, who would definitely try to disable a burglar who attempted to manhandle them or was carrying a weapon like a screwdriver.
You need some different friends with a bit of testosterone left
Last edited:
- Status