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

[MrSix]

If somebody broke in to my house unarmed then I would attempt to beat them unconscious then call the police around to arrest them. If they had a screwdriver / weapon of any sort then I would gladly arm myself to defend against them.

Rule is don't break in dumbfarts.

 

[UHT]

Ultimately you are not a right person if you feel that killing someone is justification for having material possesions stolen.

How would you recommend the public go about determining if the intruders are intending to steal material possesions or do something worse?

 

[Calabi]

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.

Well your arguing over a nonsense sentence. We are not taught exactly what is right and wrong and in what circumstance.

I'm not arguing over collateral equal to collateral, you do not know what they are after, that they wont take more or are after something else. Its about the threat, they are causing a threat to those sheltered in a house. I dont know how anyone would determine exactly what the burglars are up to. The could take my clothes my boots and motorcycle, but could I be sure thats all they want?

Just because the CPS have come to that determination does not mean they are right and infallible, and he has yet to be labelled as a murder.

 

[Meridian]

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?

As has already been stated, are you suggesting that we simply always take the householder's word for what happened? To quote my own example: having trouble with the neighbour? Invite him over late at night, stab him to death and then tell the police you surprised him mid-burglary. In your scenario the police would nod sagely and just take the body away. In a more sensible country, it would be left to a jury to decide if killing someone was reasonable or not. Like it is here. Yes, it means stress for the victim, but to do otherwise is a murderer's charter. It's interesting that you quote the carpet case too, because that's one of a very small number of cases where a person has been convicted of murder of a home invader. The papers love to trumpet when charges are brought, but go very quiet when they are dropped three months later.


M

 

[the_jetsetwilly]

Did the remaining guy get done for trespass and burglary?

 

[Sawell]

How would you recommend the public go about determining if the intruders are intending to steal material possesions or do something worse?

Use their heads. Over 700,000 burgalries are reported every year in the UK, how many people do you think die as a result of them? That's right, there are some people left with common sense.

Well your arguing over a nonsense sentence. We are not taught exactly what is right and wrong and in what circumstance.

I'm not arguing over collateral equal to collateral, you do not know what they are after, that they wont take more or are after something else. Its about the threat, they are causing a threat to those sheltered in a house. I dont know how anyone would determine exactly what the burglars are up to. The could take my clothes my boots and motorcycle, but could I be sure thats all they want?

Just because the CPS have come to that determination does not mean they are right and infallible, and he has yet to be labelled as a murder.

Sigh. I don't really know what you want to come from this argument. I'm sure your mentality will help you learn a lesson in life about your perception on right and wrong, theory and fact are obviously too fallible for you. You want the easy way out but you don't really want to justify it. I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were shot in the face for tresspassing in America. Oh no, you'd be dead.

You can't have one set of rules for one circumstance and let everyone else off. You kill someone who tries to steal from you, you pay the price. Knock them out, run away, lock the door, call the police. All of those are alternative options. But no, I'm sure you'd rather just kill them

 

[Von Smallhausen]

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,

That sounds like the incident where Kenneth Noye stabbed DC John Fordham to death, claimed self defence and got found not guilty ?

 

[Glaucus]

You missed out the part where I said in nearly any context. By law you are allowed to defend yourself with lethal force if you are being threatened with your life. This, however, is a murder case.

That very much depends on the circumstances. You only need to precieve the threat. Killing a burglar is not automatically murder, nor is killing an unarmed burglar. It very much depends on what the person says he felt and what forced he used. Remember one whack around the head with a heavy object can and does causes death. Just because it is goign to court also does not automatically mean he has done anything wrong. Just that the CPS might think he has used unreasonable force and so will leave it to a jury.

 

[kwerk]

It's quite simple really... if you don't wish to be stabbed, bludgeoned or shot, don't break in to people's houses. Simple rule of thumb.

Over here they have what's called the castle doctrine which is a law that says you can't be sued for killing an intruder. Also you have no obligation to hide or run away. If you find a stranger in your house at 3AM then you are within your rights to assume they are there to do you harm and you can shoot them dead. The NRA magazine has dozens of these stories collected from around the country every month.

 

[Efour]

CHARGED WITH MURDER but found not guilty by jury,will be the outcome.

You kill somone, there should be an enquirey, end of story: we are not animals.

If a burgler knows he can be killed, he will come armed and if challenged kill or be killed back. it escaltes it way out of proportion, tho its a messed up situation it needs to be done on a case by case basis, not giving people a mandate to kill.