Myleene Klass + 2yo daughter confronted by intruders; warned by police

[Tefal]

There's calls for a change in the law about defending your home, so this is my proposition:

In your own home, anything goes; ANYTHING.

Knowing that residents can do whatever the hell they want with you with no legal comeback or personal injury claim might just put some would-be burglars off the idea.

And the postman, milkman, ambulance crews, fire-fighters, gas men, electricians, decorators and anyone who has to ever enter your home or property.

 

[Amnesia]

or the policemen who go to arrest criminals

 

[grudas]

What a joke, really. If they got into her home, what should she have done? Just let them steal her personal belongings without intervening?

yes.. thats the law

 

[Vonhelmet]

I would rather many guilty men go free, than one innocent man go to jail.

Eh? That's not really relevant and it doesn't answer my question. If you could kill anyone who was in your home without your permission then it would be trivially easy to get away with murder, provided you could get someone into your house.

Besides, it's not really a likely scenario is it? When it comes down to it, most people don't have what it takes to kill someone in cold blood like that.

The number of murders that occur stands in contrast to that.

 

[Vonhelmet]

yes.. thats the law

Except it's not.

 

[Yas786]

Myleene Klass annoys the crap outta me.

That is all.

 

[Andy90]

The BBC News website is now reporting that the Police Force involved are now stating Officially that despite Klass' assertions, they did not warn her.

Oddly her 'publicist' who apparently informed the media about the initial story, is now 'unavailable' for comment.....

 

[muon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8451877.stm

The charge of carrying an offensive weapon is found in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 but refers only to public places, says criminal lawyer Julian Young, of Julian Young & Co Solicitors. Klass's home is manifestly her private property, so it could not be argued that she had committed an offence.

Under the section of the Public Order Act 1986 labelled "Fear or provocation of violence" and subsequently amended to "Intentional harassment, alarm or distress", it says: "An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used... by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."

But under common law, waving a knife at someone might constitute common assault. Despite what most laymen might assume, you do not need to have touched somebody to be guilty of assault, says Mr Brown.
"Assault involves putting someone in fear for their personal safety. If I raise my fist at you [for instance]. Waving a knife at someone could amount to an offence."
But, as both Mr Young and Mr Brown note, the element of self-defence in this case would make an assault conviction unlikely. Klass was at home with a young child upstairs.
"If you are using reasonable force to protect your property or your family or yourself then you have an excuse," says Mr Young.

And for the record Hertfordshire Police say they didn't tell Klass off at all about her knife-waving.
"Officers spoke to reassure the home owner, talked through security and gave advice in relation to the importance of reporting suspicious activity immediately to allow officers to act appropriately," says a spokeswoman.
"For clarification, at no point were any official warnings or words of advice given to the home owner in relation to the use of a knife or offensive weapon in their home."

 

[platinum87]

The two young gentlemen in the case (Brendon Fearon & Fred Barras) had broken into Mr Martin's house but to the best of my knowledge they were running away when Fred Barras was shot in the back (they were empty handed but either way they presented no danger to Mr Martin at the time of his shooting at them).

When someone is running away, the most logical thing to assume is that they are running to cover, at which point they will be able to shoot back.

The homeower is no doubt angry and thus may mess with his/her judgement and not realise that, rather then shooting them in the back for the logical reason they shoot them in the back due to anger or any other reason...

regardless, the correct action was taken..

If a random guy takes out a black piece of wood, he would be shot by armed police officers (if they were already there, and thought he may be armed)... just because he didnt have a weapon doesnt mean those officers were in the wrong... Thus any evidence taken corresponding to after the "incident" would be logically invalid.. i.e. it turns out he didnt have any weapons, therefore checking whether he even had a weapon is pointless unless he survives.

So saying they were unarmed is irrelevent, and that they presented no threat is also irrelevent. Using your logic, being shot in the chest or back makes no difference, and thus there would be no chase when anyone shot anyone that would be justified for any reason..

Besides, it's not really a likely scenario is it? When it comes down to it, most people don't have what it takes to kill someone in cold blood like that.

Putting aside my viewpoint that only a DEAD person poses no threat, some people would have a lot of fear and panic, they react instantly and dont think about it, that is not cold blooded, cold blooded is if you tied them up, then lit up a smoke, sat there while they freak out, finish the cig, and then shoot them

 

[Vonhelmet]

When someone is running away, the most logical thing to assume is that they are running to cover, at which point they will be able to shoot back.

In what insane world is that the most logical conclusion regarding burglars in the UK?

 

[matt_fsr]

In what insane world is that the most logical conclusion regarding burglars in the UK?

It's the conclusion that only our fishfinger sandwich-munching keyboard warrior friend platinum87 could come up with!

 

[Rich_L]

And for the record Hertfordshire Police say they didn't tell Klass off at all about her knife-waving.

"Officers spoke to reassure the home owner, talked through security and gave advice in relation to the importance of reporting suspicious activity immediately to allow officers to act appropriately," says a spokeswoman.

"For clarification, at no point were any official warnings or words of advice given to the home owner in relation to the use of a knife or offensive weapon in their home."

In light of this, it wouldn't surprise me if this was either

a) Her agent stirring up some PR - wait MK supposed to be hosting a new show, starting in the next couple of weeks
b) Completely made up by the Daily Mail

Or probably c), a combination of both.

That said, I look forward to David Cameron's next speech on how the NuTories will put an end to such OUTRAGES.

 

[scorza]

In light of this, it wouldn't surprise me if this was either

a) Her agent stirring up some PR - wait MK supposed to be hosting a new show, starting in the next couple of weeks
b) Completely made up by the Daily Mail

Or probably c), a combination of both.

That said, I look forward to David Cameron's next speech on how the NuTories will put an end to such OUTRAGES.

More likely that the police are lying imo - either institutionally or an individual who has then lied to cover himself in the face of a media storm.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

That said, I look forward to David Cameron's next speech on how the NuTories will put an end to such OUTRAGES.

Well they will they cut the defecit, slash spending, turn water into wine and so forth.

 

[semi-pro waster]

When someone is running away, the most logical thing to assume is that they are running to cover, at which point they will be able to shoot back.

Que? Back up a second, in a war situation you're probably correct people will go for cover before shooting back. Here we've got a couple of lads who've broken in and one of them has been shot in the back while running away then left to die. It's not the same thing in any conceivable way.

The homeower is no doubt angry and thus may mess with his/her judgement and not realise that, rather then shooting them in the back for the logical reason they shoot them in the back due to anger or any other reason...

regardless, the correct action was taken..

I'm sure Mr Martin was angry and scared with justifiable reason but that is not exculpatory, it is at best a mitigating factor and even then cannot and should not excuse that he failed in his duties under the law.

Shot them in the back for the logical reason? We really need to define what logic is because it appears we have a very different definition.

If a random guy takes out a black piece of wood, he would be shot by armed police officers (if they were already there, and thought he may be armed)... just because he didnt have a weapon doesnt mean those officers were in the wrong... Thus any evidence taken corresponding to after the "incident" would be logically invalid.. i.e. it turns out he didnt have any weapons, therefore checking whether he even had a weapon is pointless unless he survives.

So saying they were unarmed is irrelevent, and that they presented no threat is also irrelevent. Using your logic, being shot in the chest or back makes no difference, and thus there would be no chase when anyone shot anyone that would be justified for any reason..

In your first paragraph there you are talking about reasonable belief, if the police could justify their belief that someone was armed and posing a threat then they could under certain circumstances shoot them. It doesn't mean that they have entirely free reign to do so or that they should never be subject to any inquiry into the matter.

How have you deduced that from my logic? If someone is posing a threat to you and you have a legitimate fear for your safety then you may use reasonable force against them, this includes pre-emptive strikes - I don't believe that many of your posited views on this or similar subjects come anywhere close to the possible views of that legendary legal fiction of the ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus.

 

[Gaygle]

In light of this, it wouldn't surprise me if this was either

a) Her agent stirring up some PR - wait MK supposed to be hosting a new show, starting in the next couple of weeks
b) Completely made up by the Daily Mail

Or probably c), a combination of both.

I saw this too, and was about to post it. My opinion is that it was chinese whispers - the story changed with every person that passed it on.

However, it won't matter that Herts Police have denied it - the damage is done. From now on, we'll start hearing about this story in threads like this in the future - and guess what? The story will change again when it is told in those threads. People who believe everything they hear/read in a newspaper are my no.1 pet hate.

Has anyone seen that Ricky Gervais thing in Extra's, with the disabled ("mongoloid") kid that he "has a go at"? Although satiricalised i think it shows a great amount of accuracy when it comes to newspapers reporting on "celebrities" or anything else for that matter!

(watch the first 2 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BNeqqSZ3sA)

 

[rypt]

In what insane world is that the most logical conclusion regarding burglars in the UK?

How do you know that they aren't armed?

 

[semi-pro waster]

How do you know that they aren't armed?

Most logical conclusion does not necessarily follow it being a possible circumstance.

I've certainly got to admit when someone runs away from me I don't tend to expect them to turn round and start shooting at me. Maybe that'll be my downfall in the future but we'll have to see.

 

[Tefal]

How do you know that they aren't armed?

Because they would have just shot you then and there instead of running for cover?

And if they have a knife what are they going to do from cover, throw it at you?

 

[rypt]

If someone is prepared to attempt to "invade" your property you must assume that they have a plan for what to do should they happen to meet you, I know I certainly would have a plan as to how to what to do if I meet the owner of wherever it is I'm invading.

Following from that, it is safe to assume that they may well assume that a typical house owner they meet may well have access to a knife, as such they would come with something that can trump a knife in a meeting situation.

To me the most obvious object to trump a knife is a gun of some kind.

And if you (yourself armed with some sort of pistol) come across the owner armed with a shotgun, you would first run for cover (so as to not get shot), and then attempt to shoot the owner so as to carry on with your intended activity (probably burglary)