78 year old pensioner arrested for for stabbing burglar (burglar later died in hospital)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ocean Breeze said:
Its stupid to put your life in danger over material objects.

Just let them take whatever then when they have gone call the police.
Click to expand...


That's the voice of defeat and acceptance of anyone robbing you. If we all took that attitude anarchy would reign. Thankfully we have men of spirit like Robert, who, where the British legal system had failed, brought a conclusive end to this bandit's life of crime against the elderly.
 
IronWarrior said:
To me he has used "reasonable force" in defending himself, more so, since he is older, it's at midnight and the burglars are armed and half his year.
Click to expand...
has anyone said otherwise?
most of the thread is several users saying he shouldn't even be arrested while evidence is gathered on what happened, whilst most others saying its normal and should happen, but fully expect him to be released without charge in a few days or so once police have finished an investigation.

and a few idiots saying they want to legalise vigilantism regardless of how, when, where.
 
IronWarrior said:
<SNIP>

The whole arresting thing arresting him, charging him whatever next is standard stuff you expect to happen after this. I'm expecting the CPS will throw it out and if it goes to trial. I'm expecting him to win.
Click to expand...

I wasn't in the least bit surprised or annoyed he was formally arrested, but I was somewhat shocked to read he'd been led away in handcuffs...
 
rebel rebel said:
What a family the guy who died had! So many convictions for crimes against the elderly.
Click to expand...

Yep, the real crime here was that he/they still had their freedom.

People, especially young people do deserve a chance of redemption, but if they repeatedly reject the opportunity, they should be locked up for good.
 
Dav4 said:
The Uk is such a joke when it comes to things like this it’s time for the laws to change. You should be able to defend your home at whatever cost if they enter your property! That’s why crime is so high because they can do whatever they want thanks to lawless Britain and no plod anywhere to be seen.
Click to expand...
Read the other replies.

You can use whatever level of force you could consider reasonable at the time to protect yourself.
They've arrested the guy because it's standard procedure as the police don't know what happened, and for some odd reason are unwilling to just accept someone's word when they've got a seriously hurt/dead person, almost like the Police have found not everyone is honest with them.

We actually have quite a good balance in the law between allowing self defence (especially in your own home), and the level of insanity that means in some parts of the US you can open fire at someone just because they're on your front path unexpectedly (gets a few holidaymakers and people with broken cars every year), or have looked at you funny/you don't like the look of in the street.
 
Yep seems the dead guy was a complete villain.

Justice has been served...
Chance of re-offending - 0%.
Rehabilitation 100%.
Deterrent - unknown but if it makes just one thieving scumbag think twice about violating someone else's property, job done.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Here's some evidence for you, spot the Fred Smith's amongst them....
Click to expand...
Cherry picked headlines? Well I never. You really continue to surprise me, Chris.

Lets have some actual statistics and information, instead of a useless list of headlines, shall we? I mean, they are even in your favour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom

There is strong evidence that, once stopped and searched, black people are no more likely than white people to be arrested, suggesting that they are disproportionately targeted. [21] This is arguably due to the fact that black male youths are more likely to commit certain types of crime. The black population of London in 2010 was just over 12%, yet black males were responsible for 54% of street crimes and 59% of gun crimes.
Click to expand...

So, as you see the numbers agree with you. But here's the problem, Chris. That's where you stop. You don't think any further. You draw a line right here, at this point, at the conclusion that because they are black, they will commit crime.

That is racism. That is what I take issue with, with bigots just like you. Instead of even asking "Well why is it that black males are so disproportionately commiting crime?" you conclude it must be the colour of their skin that does it, because you don't think any further. You don't even question how on earth could the pigmentation of someone's skin decide what laws and/or morals they will abide by. You're satisfied with the idea that it is just because of their colour.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Perhaps you should consider changing your forum name to VincentHanna #Me Too :)

For a supposedly worldly and educated man in the hierarchy of the police to expect a MALE voice choir to drop the male bit and enrol more females, or females with bass voices seems remarkably and deliberately "politically correctly motivated" and serves zero useful purpose save to wind people up and make him look churlish. It also makes claims from the police as to being grossly understaffed and overworked look risible if he can apply his time to such nonsenses.
Click to expand...

I listened to the choir master on TV yesterday explaining about this. The CC thought that in this day and age the choir should be inclusive in line with 'current Police policy'. I was sat ranting at the TV but did manage to hear most of what was said. The Choir Master said that he had no objection to a mixed choir and in fact he himself sings in one. However, there are currently 30 male members in the choir and to balance out the tone he would need to recruit 50 women, which would possibly take around a decade. In the interim the choir in that format just wouldn't work.

There is also the issue of it being a 'male voice choir'. There are lots of male voice choirs in the UK especially in Wales and they have a sound like no other. This small but important nugget appeared to be completely lost on the Chief Constable. The world has gone mad and some people in high positions have completely lost the plot.
 
Please don't take this as legal advice but in layman's terms and the best I can explain it.

If someone breaks into your home then it is safe to assume that they are armed and intend to do harm if disturbed. The best advice is always to stay in your bedroom and call the police, do not intervene.

That said, if you do become involved in a situation then you can use whatever force is necessary. That means if you so happen to have a cricket bat laying around you can go to town. What you can't do is continue the beating until they are dead, nor should you pursue a fleeing burglar to dispense further "justice".

Keeping a cricket bat, baseball bat, hammer, samurai sword, anything in your room for the explicit purpose of using as a weapon is illegal.

I actually can see the logic in this. Most burglars will assume that you are completely unarmed and will likely not carry anything beyond what they need to enter your home. It's highly unlikely that an intruder will be armed with a sawn off shotgun, but that's not saying it doesn't happen.

Should burglars be of the understanding that homeowners will absolutely be armed either with a firearm or some sort of handheld weapon then they will be encouraged to up the stakes in the arms race and come with a bigger weapon.
 
The law is quite clear about this, it's all about proportionate force and protecting yourself. Example, if you were involved in a scuffle inside your property with an intruder and both were armed with knives then you would be within your rights to use the weapon in order to defend your life. If however, the intruder was on the floor and no longer posed a threat but you decided to stab him anyway then you could find yourself charged with a serious offence.
 
Faustus said:
The law is quite clear about this, it's all about proportionate force and protecting yourself. Example, if you were involved in a scuffle inside your property with an intruder and both were armed with knives then you would be within your rights to use the weapon in order to defend your life. If however, the intruder was on the floor and no longer posed a threat but you decided to stab him anyway then you could find yourself charged with a serious offence.
Click to expand...

Actually 'disproportionate force' is also allowed.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Disproportionate force is allowed in certain circumstances, but not grossly disproportionate and it must be reasonable in the situation.

The CPS doe have the best resource I can find that is understandable by most. It's not short, but the topic is complex: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime
Click to expand...

Seems clear enough to me!

"Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home."
 
rebel rebel said:
What a family the guy who died had! So many convictions for crimes against the elderly.
Click to expand...

If only the remainder of the scum in his family could kill themselves in their grief the world would be a better place. Criminals are bad enough, but to constantly target the elderly is disgusting.

Maybe its me but I seem to be lacking any sympathy for the dead armed (ex)burglar?
 
No idea what happened in that house.
However there is a difference between someone just standing next to you mildly threatening you with a screw driver whilst his mate scouts out the house for stuff to rob and someone coming at you quickly with the full intent to stab you.

In the first instance I would cooperate to not put myself at risk.

In the second instance I would use whatever force necessary to protect my life.

You need a very good reason to kill someone. I would expect to be in trouble if I killed a man in the first instance.
 
Ocean Breeze said:
No idea what happened in that house.
However there is a difference between someone just standing next to you mildly threatening you with a screw driver whilst his mate scouts out the house for stuff to rob and someone coming at you quickly with the full intent to stab you.

In the first instance I would cooperate to not put myself at risk.

In the second instance I would use whatever force necessary to protect my life.

You need a very good reason to kill someone. I would expect to be in trouble if I killed a man in the first instance.
Click to expand...
You have no idea if the accomplice is going about pouring petrol around the house and they intend to tie you up and torch the place once they have filled their loot bags. You cannot make assumptions as to the intentions of an intruder, you are obliged to fear the worst until the incident is over.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing too, you don't know what your instinct will compel you to do. There's an argument anyway to say that the pensioner would not be of sound mind during the robbery due to the high stress of the situation and that should be taken into consideration.
 
Umptee pages debating and berating the Police / Justice System, ultimately they had a job to do and an arrest does not mean guilt nor charges pending.


Right result, Don’t RIP scumbag!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom