You honestly believe that the gang held up there hands and told the police that the other party was perfectly within in his rights to stab their mate in self defense?
Reasonable Force Self Defence
- Thread starter Teki187
- Start date
The police can ask witnesses and victims what happened without a legal representative present. That's exactly how Mr Philpotts should have been treated by the way, as a witness and a victim, not a suspect. But hey, I guess at least that officer is one closer to his monthly arrest target, so the police must be doing their job well.
Being arrested might grant you certain extra legal rights, but it also deprives you of a fairly important one - your liberty. Please stop trying to argue that being arrested was to Mr Philpott's advantage, that's completely nonsense and you know it.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Given that he had just stabbed someone 5 times he cannot, realistically, expect to keep his liberty until the matter had been resolved. This is a real basic - why won't you accept it?
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
There hasn't been any mention of what the assailants said to the Police, but they would have been asked.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,712
That's exactly the point; we are only being told one account of what happened. So why treat it as a 100% true account, without omissions or embellishment and given by an unbiased witness?
Not really; you've taken the account in the article as the facts of the case and based what you think should happen on that. If the police followed your logic in freeing people at the scene then we would have far more murderers walking the streets.
they didn't need to ask, the guy admitted to the stabbing which gives the police no choice but to arrest him so they can fully investigate the incident, now they know the facts he has been bailed without charge (up to now)
I really don't understand how you can not see it
Oh so you can't defend yourself or your family without expecting to lose your liberty for a period of time now? What a great system we live under
Oh so you can't defend yourself or your family without expecting to lose your liberty for a period of time now? What a great system we live under
And how exacxtly were they police to know this is what happened at the time without conducting a full investigation?
get real, you're just trolling now imo
I don't really blame him for attacking them like this. They could well have killed his stepson by the sound of it, sooner kill one of them than that happen; they hardly sound like worthwhile members of society tbh.
If at all possible, I'd much rather take a blunt object (bat, club type thing) than any type of blade as you're less likely to kill someone with these, more control over what you're doing. Doesn't sound like he had much time to decide and grab something though. Certainly don't blame him for arming himself with at least something, there were several of them acting very violently, why risk yourself as well?
If at all possible, I'd much rather take a blunt object (bat, club type thing) than any type of blade as you're less likely to kill someone with these, more control over what you're doing. Doesn't sound like he had much time to decide and grab something though. Certainly don't blame him for arming himself with at least something, there were several of them acting very violently, why risk yourself as well?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,712
Monthly arrest target? Oh dear.
That's one of the most idiotic things I've heard in a while.Again, the police cannot know that he has acted reasonably without knowing the full facts, which you think they shouldn't have no interest in properly investigating.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Oh so you can't defend yourself or your family without expecting to lose your liberty for a period of time now? What a great system we live under
Scorza you're being silly now. I've tried to explain it to you, surely you must see that the Police have to follow their procedures? It's not a permenant loss of liberty, it's a temporary loss.
Aren't you blowing this particular aspect of the discussion a little out of proportion?
So they just decided he'd probably acted unreasonably and arrested him, which apparently is a good thing to happen to you now.
If the police were simply following their procedure then you must see that their procedure is quite simply wrong.
And how should they proceed?
Let everybody go and then ask questions nicely over a cup of tea?
Having legal representation is probably handy to have if you're facing a potential attempted murder charge.
Why would it be wrong? He might have been a vigilante, yet you would have him released and just take his word for it.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
Nothing wrong with the human rights act, whats wrong is the lack of human responsibilities act. ie... you will not act in such a manor, if you do you then loss your right to the human rights act.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I have a suggestion for you. Go to your local police station and ask to be an observer for an afternoon. You'll see how very wrong you are.
What if the guy kicking his son were under duress? If, for example, his family were being held, and if he was told "unless you kick that kid to death they will die". I'm not saying this is the case, and assume that it isn't, but it's a useful example.
My point, though, is that if you are allowed free rein to do whatever you wanted to people who enter your house, there would be the potential for a number of people to get killed, without being responsible for their actions. Nobody should blame the guy who was trying to kill his son, if it was a choice for him between doing that and watching his family die; yet under your idea of "just kill anyone who is a threat", he would be dead through no real fault of his own. This is why the law about reasonable force is so important.