Here's to another one being released without charge, hopefully...

Dugganator · 20 Sep 2011 at 13:29

You have made that judgement which I'm telling you is wrong I have no reason to be dishonest why would I. Once again if I had stated something based purely on that reason and then back tracked you would make complete sense. I havent done that I just stated something and added a comment which says the same thing but reworded. Apologies that you feel that way but I have no reason to continue explaining myself to someone thats just now trolling.

ubersonic · 20 Sep 2011 at 13:39

Robbo said:
Wasn't David Cameron going to clarify home invasion laws (or whatever they're called) fairly soon, or has he done it already? Perhaps now would be a good time to do so.

TBH its pretty straight forward atm, if a person believes that his life or life or their loved ones is being threatened that individual is entitled to protect themselves or others, they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so, the level of violence may include killing the assailant and an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.

The CPS has stated that people who act reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts.

The law of self-defence can even excuse an assault, or a death, when the individual was wrong in their belief that they had to act in the way they did - when there was never any real danger. If the person genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence that can be enough.

Castiel · 20 Sep 2011 at 13:41

Duggan said:
You have made that judgement which I'm telling you is wrong I have no reason to be dishonest why would I. Once again if I had stated something based purely on that reason and then back tracked you would make complete sense. I havent done that I just stated something and added a comment which says the same thing but reworded. Apologies that you feel that way but I have no reason to continue explaining myself to someone thats just now trolling.

Easy to accuse someone of trolling when you clearly are on the defensive. You were clearly trying to make some point as to the nature of the stabbing, you got all defensive when it was pointed out that the your statement doesn't add anything conclusive.

I don't think I am wrong in my judgement, you are simply not willing to admit it.

Clearly you felt that quoting that particular statement was important, you cannot seem to clarify why, so it seems reasonable to think that you were placing undue importance and making veiled implications on that statement and are now denying it.

Vonhelmet · 20 Sep 2011 at 13:45

ubersonic said:
TBH its pretty straight forward atm, if a person believes that his life or life or their loved ones is being threatened that individual is entitled to protect themselves or others, they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so, the level of violence may include killing the assailant and an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.

The CPS has stated that people who act reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts.

The law of self-defence can even excuse an assault, or a death, when the individual was wrong in their belief that they had to act in the way they did - when there was never any real danger. If the person genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence that can be enough.

Indeed.

To be honest, I'm not sure what needs clarifying. The nature of the situation means that everything will have to be judged on its merits. It's not like you can "clarify" it down to "you can hit someone with a baseball bat twice, or you can stab them with up to a 6 inch blade 3 times, but you mustn't do both".

Dugganator · 20 Sep 2011 at 13:49

Yes your right it was important reason for quoting as I have already stated because others had the view point that if it was more then one it was a bad thing. I was hoping it would create more of a dicussion based on their early statements. I'm defensive because you think and presumed I may add that I think the same way. I dont and have stated what I have thought a number of times. The reason I have said you are trolling is because you keep bring up the same stuff over and over again when I have already explained. Its like your reading and missing bits of what I'm posting or choosing to base what you think more then what I think. I have no reason to change what I have said for those reasons because I didnt form an optintion on that statement.... end of really.

Dugganator · 20 Sep 2011 at 13:50

Vonhelmet said:
Indeed.

To be honest, I'm not sure what needs clarifying. The nature of the situation means that everything will have to be judged on its merits. It's not like you can "clarify" it down to "you can hit someone with a baseball bat twice, or you can stab them with up to a 6 inch blade 3 times, but you mustn't do both".

Agreed better worded then what I said earlier

Castiel · 20 Sep 2011 at 13:58

Duggan said:
Yes your right it was important reason for quoting as I have already stated because others had the view point that if it was more then one it was a bad thing. I was hoping it would create more of a dicussion based on their early statements. I'm defensive because you think and presumed I may add that I think the same way. I dont and have stated what I have thought a number of times. The reason I have said you are trolling is because you keep bring up the same stuff over and over again when I have already explained. Its like your reading and missing bits of what I'm posting or choosing to base what you think more then what I think. I have no reason to change what I have said for those reasons because I didnt form an optintion on that statement.... end of really.

It is that lack of opinion that leads to the negative implication on your reasoning to quote the coroners statement in isolation.

The fact is that the statement holds no importance whatsoever in isolation and as you did not, and still have not sufficiently clarified why it was important to point out the nature of the injury to the deceased it is difficult to believe you had no ulterior motive in doing so.

Dugganator · 20 Sep 2011 at 14:17

Castiel said:
It is that lack of opinion that leads to the negative implication on your reasoning to quote the coroners statement in isolation.

The fact is that the statement holds no importance whatsoever in isolation and as you did not, and still have not sufficiently clarified why it was important to point out the nature of the injury to the deceased it is difficult to believe you had no ulterior motive in doing so.

Castiel that’s your view you have made your mind up I have tried to explain to you but you keeping missing the fact that I have explained why I stated it and what I personally thought on the subject. my primary reason for the statement was in hope that the people that had said earlier about understanding if the robber was stabbed once. I was hoping to inject a bit more discussion based on that as i don’t agree with them. Admittedly I could have put more information with regard to that but at that point I hadn’t made my judgement due to lack of facts. I can’t say anymore then that but I think your being to one sided with what you think more then what you know for sure.

edscdk · 20 Sep 2011 at 14:20

Free frag sweet!!!

wonder when someone will get a multi kill....

or head shot!

Castiel · 20 Sep 2011 at 14:36

Duggan said:
Castiel that’s your view you have made your mind up I have tried to explain to you but you keeping missing the fact that I have explained why I stated it and what I personally thought on the subject. my primary reason for the statement was in hope that the people that had said earlier about understanding if the robber was stabbed once. I was hoping to inject a bit more discussion based on that as i don’t agree with them. Admittedly I could have put more information with regard to that but at that point I hadn’t made my judgement due to lack of facts. I can’t say anymore then that but I think your being to one sided with what you think more then what you know for sure.

How did you think that quoting the statement in isolation would offer any understanding as the veracity of a self defence position?

I fail to see how I am the one being one-sided as my opinion on the matter is very clear, it seems to me that you are attempting to play both sides and are disingenuous in your tactics regardingbthe statement you made. I am not ignoring your rather sparse explanations, I simply don't believe you. I think you had an agenda in your reasons for quoting, I explained that multiple stab wounds do not necessarily mean unreasonable force and you got defensive and decided to backtrack on your original intention. That is the truth as I see it desipite your rather vague explanations to the contrary.

PermaChanged · 20 Sep 2011 at 14:42

I read somewhere there were 6 stab wounds, all to the arms and legs. One in particular in the thigh caused him to bleed to death. I think leg and arm stabs are reasonable given the burglary, stabbing someone in the chest, head and stomach are much more likely to cause death in my mind.

Dugganator · 20 Sep 2011 at 14:49

I didnt saying anthing about your view lol. You jumped on my statement and I pointed out that wasnt my view I was just stating so others would see and maybe discuss what they said earlier. If you choose to look back my post before that states quite openly that I dont like the term reasonable force as its hard to understand ie is it equal force you can do want they do to you or can you do more. Also note in that same post I put it should be geared more in the house owners favour. Which in my mind points out that I dont feel any difference between one stab wound or many it all depends on what happened at the time which as we dont know yet we cant draw any conlustions yet. unless the news has been updated since I last looked. I'm happy to agree to disgree if you are as this seems a bit pointless and is over taking a thread

jaybee · 20 Sep 2011 at 15:00

I think each case should be judged individually, which they are. In this case it sounds like the homeowner should be let off. I think the leaving flowers and stuff outside his house was completely stupid and shouldn't have been allowed.

UncleRuckus · 20 Sep 2011 at 15:07

Could any posters who work in the Police answer this for me...

How would the family find out the exact address to lay flowers, is it something the Police generally tell the families while it's still being investigated?

Von Smallhausen · 22 Sep 2011 at 00:14

sbi5ar said:
I didn't, was very amusing

However, you do wonder that if this becomes more common place and people get away with defending their property, that this might be abused and then the joke may become reality.

The electrician came in to my house and his prices were murder.... So I killed him

(ok ok ok, not like that, but people being taken against their will to a house, stabbed and then they say he/she was breaking in).

I agree that you should be able to defend your own home... However the weapon of choice for me is not a knife (too scared they will rip it out of my puny hands and use it on me!), it is my trusty 6 cell maglite that always stays by the side of my bed Give them a good clobber and then call the police.

I think a lot of media a spin has clouded the issue in recent years because you always could defend your home, property and people in it but the response should be reasonable and common law states you can strike first if you perceive the threat to be genuine.

Von Smallhausen · 22 Sep 2011 at 00:16

UncleRuckus said:
Could any posters who work in the Police answer this for me...

How would the family find out the exact address to lay flowers, is it something the Police generally tell the families while it's still being investigated?

The police would not usually release the address details but the press will get wind of such matters by jungle drums and fair means or foul and once police activity as well as press is plain to see, it wouldn't take much to find the address in the scenario you mention.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2011 at 00:33

Von Smallhausen said:
The police would not usually release the address details but the press will get wind of such matters by jungle drums and fair means or foul and once police activity as well as press is plain to see, it wouldn't take much to find the address in the scenario you mention.

Why would the Police allow it though, it seems rather insensitive, even intimidating for the innocent people living in the house.

Angilion · 22 Sep 2011 at 01:39

Vonhelmet said:
Well, hopefully you'll never have to defend that position.

To be honest, I'm a bit torn on the point, as it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that you would keep something reasonably hefty in an accessible place in case the worst happens...

Imagine a case of that type did get to court and you were on the jury. Would you be able to declare that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt that it was unreasonable? Probably not. And probably not for other people in a jury.

The very few people who have been convicted in this country after "defending" themselves have done things like knocking the intruder out, throwing them in a pit and setting fire to them (yes, that is a reference to a real case).

In reality, the defence laws in the UK are very strong (and strongest in your own home). It's pure fantasy that people here don't have a right to defend themselves (or others), apparently perpetrated by those who want to be allowed to torture people to death for their own pleasure and those in the media who pander to them.

Von Smallhausen · 22 Sep 2011 at 01:50

Castiel said:
Why would the Police allow it though, it seems rather insensitive, even intimidating for the innocent people living in the house.

Tbh I'm not aware of legislation that wouldn't allow it.

As for being insensitive, you are preaching to the converted and I mean no offence in saying that.

bloodline76 · 22 Sep 2011 at 05:21

Longbow said:
I've been reading around since the post I made, and can't actually find any law against it. If you kept a bat, and instantly hit someone who broke in to your house could be against the law, but only if the intruder posed no threat. Keeping the bat by your bed seems to be completely irritant in the equation.

If i'm not mistaken I think it all depends on what you use and why it was there.

If you beat the day lights out of an intruder with a cricket bat then that is frowned upon. If you say you had been playing cricket that day and you grabbed whatever was at hand, then that is ok.

Personally if a man broke into my house, if the dog didn't get him then I wouldn't have have any issues beating him until he stopped moving. I wouldn't try and kill him but I wouldn't have any problems if it happened.

You also don't know how many people are with him, could be two or three of them. Taking one down increases your chances of not being over powered and putting your family at risk.