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

King85 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:31

Fenris said:
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.

How does it? Self defense/defending your family isn't a crime, neither is being in your home when someone breaks into it. If I were saying it's ok to proactively go out and harm someone then you'd be right but i'm saying it in a purely reactive sense.

King85 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:34

Calabi said:
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?

Exactly! They came into YOUR home! You didn't go out asking to be a victim of crime, they chose to perpetrate it, you didn't ask them to or lure them into it so they should suffer any rammifications from it.

Fenris · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:41

Oh god the stupidity of this thread is getting out of control.

You say a crime is a crime regardless of the circumstance of the one comitting it, and then go on to say murder is fine assuming a crime has been commited against you first, even if that crime did not have them attack or hurt you.

Self defense is just that, defense against an attack, if they attack you and you use reasonable force and that ends in their death then fair is fair. But saying that you have the right to MURDER someone with no reason other than they stepped on your property is sickening.

No wonder this happens so often.

King85 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:50

Fenris said:
Oh god the stupidity of this thread is getting out of control.

You say a crime is a crime regardless of the circumstance of the one comitting it, and then go on to say murder is fine assuming a crime has been commited against you first, even if that crime did not have them attack or hurt you.

Self defense is just that, defense against an attack, if they attack you and you use reasonable force and that ends in their death then fair is fair. But saying that you have the right to MURDER someone with no reason other than they stepped on your property is sickening.

No wonder this happens so often.

I never said try and murder them did I or that we have the right to, if that is a consequense of self defense though so be it the victim shouldn't be punished for it.

'Reasonable force' is another cop out statement aswell, the general public aren't trained for this sort of situation so how do they know how much force should be reasonable?

Let look at it another way, someone breaks in you and your partner/housemate/son/etc interveen and you think you've used 'reasonable force' and go to phone the police, they get up your partner is hurt/killed as the perp escapes, is that more reasonable response?

Also this wouldn't happen often if people didn't break into others homes.

Kraven · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:51

Fenris said:
Oh god the stupidity of this thread is getting out of control.

You say a crime is a crime regardless of the circumstance of the one comitting it, and then go on to say murder is fine assuming a crime has been commited against you first, even if that crime did not have them attack or hurt you.

Self defense is just that, defense against an attack, if they attack you and you use reasonable force and that ends in their death then fair is fair. But saying that you have the right to MURDER someone with no reason other than they stepped on your property is sickening.

No wonder this happens so often.

So you should wait to see what their reaction is when you spot them and they spot you, even though they may have a gun / knife. Right..., dont know about you but I care about my family and will stop anyone putting them in danger. If a burglar was smart they would do it when no ones home but if someones breaking in while my family is at home their intent could be anything.

Dont break into homes and its win win for all.

King85 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:53

Kraven said:
If a burglar was smart they wouldn't be a burglar

Fixed

rayer · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:57

Paul11 said:
i think you break into someone house, you get what you get

shame he got done for murder.

I think thats one of the BNP policys

scorza · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:59

Fenris said:
You say a crime is a crime regardless of the circumstance of the one comitting it, and then go on to say murder is fine assuming a crime has been commited against you first, even if that crime did not have them attack or hurt you.

Self defense is just that, defense against an attack, if they attack you and you use reasonable force and that ends in their death then fair is fair. But saying that you have the right to MURDER someone with no reason other than they stepped on your property is sickening.

Where does anyone say that murdering someone because they're in your home is ok? Remember that self defence is not murder. IMO violating another person's home is an extremely violent action, the line between murder and self defence must be set extremely high.

For example, there was a case a while ago where a man caught a burglar in his home, tied him up, wrapped him in carpet, drove him to some scrub land and set fire to him. A clear case of murder if ever there was one. On the other hand, if you catch a burglar in your home, a scuffle ensues and you use the nearest available weapon (e.g. a kitchen knife) and kill him it's clearly self defence and would be treated as such in any civilised country except Britain. How many cases have we seen where the nasty, vindictive CPS have prosecuted home owners "in the public interest" when in fact it's anything but?

One interesting snippet that came out recently is that the Director of Public Prosecution shirked his duty of being non-political and came out in support of the Human Rights Act which seeks to put criminals rights above those of the law abiding majority. No wonder the CPS is keen on prosecuting home owners who fight back. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318960.stm

Deific · 28 Oct 2009 at 12:02

Thieves pass up all rights when they come into my property tbh.

End of.

I'll do whatever I feel the situation calls for.

King85 · 28 Oct 2009 at 12:02

rayer said:
I think thats one of the BNP policys

Oh dear god, how on earth have you managed to shoe horn that in?

drunkenmaster · 28 Oct 2009 at 12:05

scorza said:
Why would there be more to the story? According to some here it's in the public interest to be vindictive and always prosecute these cases, even in clear cases of self defence. You fight back in this country you should expect to be looking at a life sentence - no exceptions.

Meanwhile our fantastic justice system has decided that one of Baby P's killers doesn't deserve an indeterminate sentence after all and can be let out after 6 years. It really does make one despair

People have suggested that, cases like these should be investigated and maybe go to trial otherwise you get lots of people killing people and claiming self defence thinking its a cakewalk excuse out of any problems. No ones saying fight back and you should instantly get a life sentence, people are saying, its proper procedure to investigate and maybe go to trial and let people see all the evidence and see if it was self defence.

As for Baby P, the guy had an indetermined sentence, which afaik is in and of itself illegal, he had every right to know how long his prison term was. As I understand it his initial term was unditermined in length but NO LESS THAN 3 years. As I understand it how, he is to serve NO LESS THAN 6 years, his setence has been increased, the time he likely spends in jail has been doubled as he probably would have been released after the minimum term before. So you could get outraged for letting him off, or realise they effective doubled his sentence while changing a basically illegal sentence.........oooo the outrage.

drunkenmaster · 28 Oct 2009 at 12:10

Deific said:
Thieves pass up all rights when they come into my property tbh.

End of.

I'll do whatever I feel the situation calls for.

There shouldn't be a problem for me, if someones commiting a crime they forego all rights, or at least, they should. But what if you don't lock your front door and someone utterly drunk gets the wrong door, stumbles in, should they automatically lose rights and an owner, seeing a guy all but passed out on their floor can go get a knife, stab him and face no consequences.

Its right and proper that we look into these incidents, someone saying its self defence, doesn't mean it was, likewise these kids might be for instance being beaten by an abusive family and being forced to burgle houses by a evil dad. Did they give up, did they ask for help, did they threaten the guy in court, who knows, these are questions that HAVE to be asked, and at some stage a judgement is made. If its a detective down at the local police station who judges it was self defence and doesn't take the case forwards, what if he really can't decide, what if theres no proof either way.... well thats what courts are made for, get a bunch of people together, both sides can present their case, and with 12 people you hope you get a fair answer.

aardvark · 28 Oct 2009 at 12:21

well, they can charge him all they like but the circumstances would have to be pretty severe for a jury to convict. If there are no witnesses and the guy says it was in self defence, then barring anything ridiculous (like stabbing him 20 times or cutting off his head and sticking it on a pike in the middle of his lawn) then i doubt a jury would ever convict him.

Sawell · 28 Oct 2009 at 12:25

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.

That is such a hypocritical paragraph. So basically you're saying it's alright because it's a crime, and crime is crime. Crime is scum-like and unacceptable so the only righteous action is to meet it with another, much worse crime. Nice logic, why don't you wake up?

This whole thread is just filled with hypocrisy, everyone's so angry at the thought of someone breaking into their home because it's such a crime, so their response is to dish out a higher crime? I thought you hated criminals?

As I have said, countless times, acting in sync with the force that is put onto you is fine. If you're in danger of your life you fight back, if you're in danger of your TV being stolen and you claiming it back on contents insurance then you don't kill them.

Calabi said:
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?

Do you really need me to answer that for you? You don't understand the difference between material possession and life?

The phrase is not stupid, the phrase is the reason we have a structured society in which people can life equally and freely. Two wrongs do not make a right. Or would you rather live in a culture ran by revenge? Perhaps the waiter can punch you in the face next time you complain about your food? Or someone can set fire to your car if you crash into them? Maybe if you're out and ever spill a drink on someone that means they can smash their glass over your face? Yeah, sure, let's live in that kind of world.

Jet · 28 Oct 2009 at 12:30

scorza said:
This bit is particularly vindictive by the CPS:

That's not how it sounds. He was remanded by a district judge in the magistrates court because the CPS feel that if granted bail he will either commit more offences, fail to surrender or interfere with witnesses (as well as some others). The CPS then has 48 hours with which to list the case in the Crown Court and a Crown Court judge will make the decision. If the grounds aren't made out then he is released. The CPS don't have the power to keep people in prison. Surely it's a good thing that the CPS have the ability to challenge the decision of the magistrates with a higher court if they feel that a mistake has been made?

rayer · 28 Oct 2009 at 13:25

King85 said:
Oh dear god, how on earth have you managed to shoe horn that in?

What until the opportunity arises, and throw it in as fast as you can, then quickly retreat to a safe distance

Vonhelmet · 28 Oct 2009 at 13:38

King85 said:
'Reasonable force' is another cop out statement aswell, the general public aren't trained for this sort of situation so how do they know how much force should be reasonable?

"Reasonable" appears everywhere in legislation. In cases like these it means what a reasonable person would have done, so it's essentially a case of trying to assess what your average person would regard as reasonable.

Hence, the CPS make an initial judgment and if needed, 12 reasonable people can decide whether your actions were, in fact, reasonable.

xxalxx · 28 Oct 2009 at 13:56

Whilst I suppose there may be 99% of burglars out there who would never dream of hurting the people inside the house, there are unfortunatly some others :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8281322.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7204736.stm

And I presume its thoughts like these that enters someones head when he hears something downstairs in the middle of the night .......

Just a quote from that last link ..

Earlier the same evening the three are alleged to have beaten to death 65-year-old Chinese restaurant owner Kam Chung at her nearby home when she refused to tell them where she kept her savings

Al

Calabi · 28 Oct 2009 at 16:16

Sawell said:
....

The phrase is not stupid, the phrase is the reason we have a structured society in which people can life equally and freely. Two wrongs do not make a right. Or would you rather live in a culture ran by revenge? Perhaps the waiter can punch you in the face next time you complain about your food? Or someone can set fire to your car if you crash into them? Maybe if you're out and ever spill a drink on someone that means they can smash their glass over your face? Yeah, sure, let's live in that kind of world.

But you could say there is no subsequent wrong. Why exactly dont two wrongs make a right? What is the equation, what does make a right? All it is something people say, because it sounds good. Do we really owe our civiliation to that phrase?

Its up to people what they do in each situation, the consequences will play out as it does. If persons in their own home are attacked then they have the right to defend themselves, however they can. We're not talking about murder which is a premeditated act but a reflexive defensive action.

edit: If more people took the response that guy did above then there would be a lot less burglars. Its all very well saying do what they want, capitulate and whatever, but you dont know what they want. Give them it and they might want more. There is no garauntees in these sorts of situations, these persons could be just out to kill, you could do everything they want, but they still want more. When you concede to them, your life is in their hands, and their unpredictable whims.

Sawell · 28 Oct 2009 at 16:31

Calabi said:
But you could say there is no subsequent wrong. Why exactly dont two wrongs make a right? What is the equation, what does make a right? All it is something people say, because it sounds good. Do we really owe our civiliation to that phrase?

Its up to people what they do in each situation, the consequences will play out as it does. If persons in their own home are attacked then they have the right to defend themselves, however they can. We're not talking about murder which is a premeditated act but a reflexive defensive action.

Well now you're aruging semantics. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is something you learn from an early age. Reacting to robbery with murder is a wrong, and if this thread didn't exist and we created a new topic titled 'should you kill someone that robs you', if people are being honest, the answer would be no. Because we know what is right and what is wrong. And that's what takes us above the scum that we try to enforce law on.

Ultimately you are not a right person if you feel that killing someone is justification for having material possesions stolen. And that is what has happened here. The article clearly tries to steer you in the direction that the sheep on this thread have taken, stating how great it is that he got what he deserved and that the guy shouldn't go to prison blah blah blah (sorry guys but really?). If you use your head you see that he was charged with murder, which means that it has been determined by professionals (fortunately not people that work for the daily mail) to have been a situation outside the realm of self defence.

It's far too easy to be drawn into that article due to the way it is written. The only fact you need to take from it is the word murder. The guy isn't a hero, he's a murderer.