Boy who stabbed teenager caught burgling his mother's house is charged with murder

Werewolf · 28 Oct 2009 at 05:40

I love these threads where the Mail reports something that might have a passing resemblance to what happened and then people start calling for the right to kill anyone who steps into their front gardens, or looks at them funny.

I'll agree with some of the more sensible people, and wait for more details before I pass any judgement, however as I think I've said a few times in the past, the police arresting someone gives them a lot of rights, including free legal representation, and for the CPS to charge generally means they think there is something odd, or at the very least the situation is unclear*.

As normal I'll remind those that call the law stupid that the rules on self defence (especially in your own home) allow for reasonable force and you would have to go wildly over the top to go to jail for it.
It is worth noting that in at least once high profile case a plain clothes police officer in the course of his job was killed by someone claiming self defence on their own property, and the killer found not guilty, in another case it was a guy who grabbed a harpoon gun, and in many, many other cases it's been things like knives grabbed during a struggle, either off the intruder or from the kitchen.

*And one of the jobs for the courts in many countries is to decide what happened when the situation is unclear.

Meridian · 28 Oct 2009 at 06:41

Clum said:
Dont agree with that one bit mate. And having a degree in forensic science i've done a little reading on the subject.

Can I just nominate the worst Appeal to Authority I've ever seen? I am a forensic scientist, but I certainly wouldn't use that as any authority to claim I knew the law better than other posters. I'll gloss over how useless FS degrees are though - sorry.

Not for the first time, Werewolf has said most of the sensible stuff that needs saying. Despite what you may read in the papers, successful prosecutions for "defending" yourself/property are pretty much unknown. The handful of times it has happened involve vastly disproportionate force: shooting someone in the back as they ran away, and tying someone up and then setting fire to them are two cases. But I for one would want any such apparent case to be properly investigated, otherwise you get a murderers charter: invite your neighbour who you have a dispute with into your house, stab them to death, then tell the police you came downstairs and and found them there and killed them in "self-defence".

Usually people charged over these matters are out on bail- if they are not it means the police suspect that the real events are VERY different to what they were told. Like the recent case where a man lay in wait with a shotgun for a man who he suspected would break in, but didn't tell the police it might happen.

BTW Werefolf, in your excellent post (OBN please) you got the harpoon case slightly wrong: he was convicted first time, but freed on appeal. Again, the case was odd, with an existing feud apparently in place and some belief that he had stowed the spear-gun near the door expecting an attack. Which is premeditation if you don't tell the feds you are under threat when there is plenty of time to do so.

Note that the law does not even require you to be under threat, or for you to size up the threat and tool up accordingly: it is quite happy if you react by instinct and grab the first thing to defend yourself/house. But - it does not allow you to keep lethal weapons by the bed just on the off-chance. And you may certainly not keep attacking once any threat has clearly gone: burglar is running away or has fallen to he floor whimpering, say.

M

Richard_16v · 28 Oct 2009 at 07:51

Sawell said:
Fear is not a valid excuse for taking life, in nearly any context. If you are threatened with your own or someone else's life in a serious manner then there are laws to protect you.

It is better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6 as they say. If you fear your life is in danger then sometimes it is better to act before it's too late.

SexyGreyFox · 28 Oct 2009 at 08:07

Meridian said:
But - it does not allow you to keep lethal weapons by the bed just on the off-chance.

All these years I've been a criminal

MattTheTall77 · 28 Oct 2009 at 08:21

Sawell said:
Sure, but you get enough time to think 'if I insert this inside their flesh it's probably going to kill them'. You don't really do that unless you're a little bit evil. There's a difference between waving a knife at a 14 year old because you're intimidated and plunging it into his body.

well let's just hope you never find yourself in the same situation. In situations like that thought is secondary to reaction I imagine, if someone is in your house and comes at you I don't think you're going to weigh up options and consequences. The lad should never have been put in that situation by the burglars, and now he's not only having to live with killing someone but now being prosecuted for it as well.

edscdk · 28 Oct 2009 at 08:28

Sawell said:
In the UK there are 0.0140633 murders per 1,000 people. I think people are forgetting the fact that murder is a resort only used by murderers. You're deliberately ending someone's life, he didn't slip on his knife and kill himself. 733,000 burglaries are committed every year in the UK, how many of which do you think involved 'immense fear'? Let alone the thousands of other circumstances (mugging, assault etc) in which an individual faces 'immense fear'.

Fear is not a valid excuse for taking life, in nearly any context. If you are threatened with your own or someone else's life in a serious manner then there are laws to protect you.

the law protects you? sweet so I just tell the robber its against the law and its all sorted?

fear is not rational... fear will set you to 'fight or flight' mode (or maybe hide if possible) unless you have trained for the situation like the army / police.

Sawell · 28 Oct 2009 at 08:33

edscdk said:
the law protects you? sweet so I just tell the robber its against the law and its all sorted?

fear is not rational... fear will set you to 'fight or flight' mode (or maybe hide if possible) unless you have trained for the situation like the army / police.

As in, the law will protect you from harsh prosecution if you kill them.

I think people are getting confused by my posts. If someone gets charged with self defence, fair enough... they were in a life threatening situation. That's where the law will protect you. But for the law to condone it as murder, it's not going to be anything like the picture the mail is painting.

Mucky_Pup · 28 Oct 2009 at 08:36

Good drills, least the lad is still alive, and there's one less scumbag in the world. I'd rather not chance some people doing riverdance on my head by hesitating to stab them.

Redrum · 28 Oct 2009 at 08:51

Hikari Kisugi said:
Don't be absurd, this is the UK.
This is the place where we need to lobby our MPs to change the laws, until thats done, this is and will remain a case of murder.

....

Unfortunately our elected officials think something completely different and for more than 30 years there has been no cohesive action from them to lobby for change or present bills allowing for changes to the current law.

....

The law should eb changed to come into line with that of the US. That needs to happen first.

Has it occurred to you that the reason MPs are not lobbying for a change in the law is that most people are perfectly happy with it and understand that they can use force, but don't want anyone to be allowed to become a judge, jury and quite literally an executioner when they see someone breaking a law?

And to say our justice system needs to become more like the US's system is ludicrous. In my opinion, the US has the worst, least effective and most unfair justice system in the developed world, and I do not want to see the U.K. doing anything to try and emulate it.

agnes · 28 Oct 2009 at 08:59

Well, I think he got what he deserved to be honest, if he was unarmed then yes, hugely excessive so some punishment should be sentenced but if both were armed it's self defence.

ags

gjrc · 28 Oct 2009 at 09:01

not enough information to pass judgement on this case.

but if i was in fear for my life in my own home i am not sure how far i would go or what i would do on the spur of the moment.

maybe nothing!!

Fenris · 28 Oct 2009 at 09:09

Well, without more info then its hard to make a judgement, but my first thought would be yes, he deserved to be charged with murder but with very careful consideration of the circumstances.

Mucky_Pup · 28 Oct 2009 at 09:16

agnes said:
Well, I think he got what he deserved to be honest, if he was unarmed then yes, hugely excessive so some punishment should be sentenced but if both were armed it's self defence.

ags

Just lie down on the floor here, and I'll demonstate how much unarmed damage I can do with just the soles of my boots. It always isn't always as black and white, as; "he hasn't got a knife or a weapon, so isn't a threat to me".

Calabi · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:02

I have a question what is the purpose of the law? Is it for vengence, protection of the public, or for control of the public?

If someone was defending their own home and they killed the persons in a non premeditated manner, even if it was a premiditated manner in that he knew they were coming and armed himself accordingly to hurt them. If that person has never been in trouble with the law, has posed no threat to anyone outside or anywhere, excepting those persons that did trespass upon their property. What is the purpose of the conviction?

Sawell · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:05

Calabi said:
I have a question what is the purpose of the law? Is it for vengence, protection of the public, or for control of the public?

If someone was defending their own home and they killed the persons in a non premeditated manner, even if it was a premiditated manner in that he knew they were coming and armed himself accordingly to hurt them. If that person has never been in trouble with the law, has posed no threat to anyone outside or anywhere, excepting those persons that did trespass upon their property. What is the purpose of the conviction?

To show that you can't just kill people that break into your home, and that two wrongs do not make a right.

King85 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:05

Hitman_Leon said:
He was 14,

14 can = mouthy, stupid, impulsive, no respect, risk taking-(imortal view of teens), preoccupied with status-(commit crime to 'big up' to social circle).

Not one of the above, any combination of the above or all of the above require he should be killed.

Why do people seem to have sharp things to hand so much these days, break in my house im going to put my fist in your face, set the dog on you, hit you with something heavy, 999 times out of a 1000 your going to regret it and be sore.

Unless the guy took the knife off the burglar mid fight and it was an accident or hit him with a breakable which cut him deep and it was an accident its going to be a tough call on how things are going to turn out.

If I wake up and someone is in my house i'm instantly going to worst case scenerio of them being there with the intent to cause harm to me or my family and i'm going to do everything within my power to stop them with the nearest object than could do this, if they get hurt and killed so be it, they would have come onto MY property and threatened ME/MY family, i'm never in a million years going to give them forewarning or the benefit of the doubt. They crossed the rubicon when they broke in, anything after that is on their head.

I'm a complete pacifist and am completely none violent and would hope that this situation would never occur but I honesty can't understand how anyone could put the safety of a criminal before themselves or their family.

Sawell · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:10

King85 said:
If I wake up and someone is in my house i'm instantly going to worst case scenerio of them being there with the intent to cause harm to me or my family and i'm going to do everything within my power to stop them with the nearest object than could do this, if they get hurt and killed so be it, they would have come onto MY property and threatened ME/MY family, i'm never in a million years going to give them forewarning or the benefit of the doubt. They crossed the rubicon when they broke in, anything after that is on their head.

I'm a complete pacifist and am completely none violent and would hope that this situation would never occur but I honesty can't understand how anyone could put the safety of a criminal before themselves or their family.

Yeah, but perhaps the burglar is about to be evicted from his home and is trying anything in his power to ensure that his family are not left out on the street. Perhaps he's broken into your home and feels terrible about it, but hopes to hell that your contents insurance will cover it. Perhaps he's at his limit and doesn't know where to turn.

You can't put a limit on human compassion, you just don't kill eachother to avoid misunderstanding.

I'm not saying robbery is acceptable, and if your life is genuinely threatened then you should act in equal force. But killing someone over a robbery is murder.

King85 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:22

Sawell said:
Yeah, but perhaps the burglar is about to be evicted from his home and is trying anything in his power to ensure that his family are not left out on the street. Perhaps he's broken into your home and feels terrible about it, but hopes to hell that your contents insurance will cover it. Perhaps he's at his limit and doesn't know where to turn.

You can't put a limit on human compassion, you just don't kill eachother to avoid misunderstanding.

I'm not saying robbery is acceptable, and if your life is genuinely threatened then you should act in equal force. But killing someone over a robbery is murder.

Wake up mate, crime is crime regardless of motive (or in the above case sob story) and as I said in the short time frame of realising what's going on i'm going worst case everytime rather than trying to evaluate the situation and risking it.

Fenris · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:27

King85 said:
Wake up mate, crime is crime regardless of motive (or in the above case sob story) and as I said in the short time frame of realising what's going on i'm going worst case everytime rather than trying to evaluate the situation and risking it.

So after saying that crime is crime regardless of motive or reason, can you justify causing harm or murdering someone because they did something wrong first?

That makes you a hypocrit and a fool.

Calabi · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:29

Sawell said:
To show that you can't just kill people that break into your home, and that two wrongs do not make a right.

That phrase is stupid its like a hypnopedia sentence from Brave New World, everyone says it, but no one really knows what it means. Its a nonsense phrase. Its easily used because there is no real answer to it, no way of testing it.

Why cant you kill burglars that trespass in your home and threaten the occupants?