Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Yes but the police officers didn't know that at the time.
Reasonable Force Self Defence
- Thread starter Teki187
- Start date
Yes but the police officers didn't know that at the time.
Because that doesn't make sense
Because the facts at the scene of the crime didn't warrant an arrest. The facts could have easily been determined without arresting this man and putting him through the trauma he's suffered.
scorza you need to start realising that you have one view of events and are basing them as fact, in your opinion. That is all your posts are, your own opinion, now many other people have explained about the legal rights, due process, but you just seem to ignore them and harp on
What if a police officer knew one of the kids, had never seen him do anything bad, thus suddenly decided that the homeowner had stabbed him for no reason then kicked his son a bit and damaged his van to make it look like they attacked first. Unlikely but it could be done to look like this, and a few random bobbies could see it this way, or any other way that entered their head. Who are they to be judge and dury after only seeing the end result and not knowing any other facts.
It should have quickly become obvious to them if they were doing their jobs correctly.
Why should the police only take what mr Philpott says as fact? what makes him so much more trustworthy than anybody else?
what if the 5 guys said that he attacked them first?
Surely the police must take the word of 5 people more seriously than 1 or 3?
scorza you need to start realising that you have one view of events and are basing them as fact, in your opinion. That is all your posts are, your own opinion, now many other people have explained about the legal rights, due process, but you just seem to ignore them and harp on
What if a police officer knew one of the kids, had never seen him do anything bad, thus suddenly decided that the homeowner had stabbed him for no reason then kicked his son a bit and damaged his van to make it look like they attacked first. Unlikely but it could be done to look like this, and a few random bobbies could see it this way, or any other way that entered their head. Who are they to be judge and dury after only seeing the end result and not knowing any other facts.
I don't care about what if's - I'm commenting on the facts presented in the OP's article, which do not warrant the suspicion cast upon Mr Philpotts. Some people here seem to think it's perfectly logical and reasonable to arrest someone for attempted murder even when the facts don't support it, happy to waste tax payers money until either an overworked lawyer in the CPS, or a jury of 12 random nutters decide otherwise. Some are even arguing that being arrested is a good thing.
They did do their jobs correctly which you fail to agree with, facts do not become obvious, they have to be investigated, and when presented with a stab victim and somebody confessing then the most likely scenario is a suspected attempted murder, it's not rocket science
5 known trouble-makers with no valid reason to be outside Mr Philpott's house at 4am with a vandalised van and a badly beaten son vs. Mr Philpott and his coherent story. Yes it's difficult to decide who is the more trustworthy
But these facts where not known at the scene they where found out later.
The arresting officer would have to be a clairvoyant to do what your saying :/
Unless this police officer had personal previous experience with them, at the scene they where not known trouble makers.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 433
- Location
- NI
Are there any facts as to where on the body he stabbed the little git?
I mean if he stabbed him 5 times in the chest or head , he was meaning to do serious harm
BUT
If he stabbed him in the arms / legs to try and "disable" his ability to fight
then it would be justifiable.
I mean if he stabbed him 5 times in the chest or head , he was meaning to do serious harm
BUT
If he stabbed him in the arms / legs to try and "disable" his ability to fight
then it would be justifiable.
5 times in the chest.
You do realise that the article was written after the event? And that at the time the man was arrested all of the facts were not known and, potentially, couldn't be found out without further questioning which could only happen with an arrest.
No, the facts as we know them now don't support arresting him. But the facts as they were at the time do. It is you who is talking about what ifs, not us; we are talking from the point of view of the police officers as they knew the event at the time. You are talking from the point of view of somebody who knows all of the facts.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Please tell me you are kidding scorza ?
Police CANNOT use discression where someone has been stabbed and is someone is highlighted or accused of doing so then an arrest has to be made.
The facts of the matter in such a scenario are obtained by a thorough investigation and this cannot be done in 5 minutes on the street. It is done by specialist detectives who gather all available evidence and submit this to the CPS who decide if a charge is warranted.
Also consider this. What if the stabbed person dies ? You have just cuffed a homicide at the scene and wrecked any potential forensic that may help decide the outcome if your theory was followed. It simply does not work that way.
To blame the police is blinkered and ignorant scorza and please do not take that personally.
Scorza, you dont seem to have much faith in the police to do their job correctly BUT you still want them to be judge and jury on this case and base their decision on the facts presented to them as they see it on arrival? Take the guys word for it that he is innocent and let him go without investigation? As has been mention several times, at the TIME of the incident they will have been getting conflicting stories from all involved, the only way to get to the bottom is round them all up, take them to the station, gather the information and then and only then can you make a decision on what has happend.
1. Yes
2. Yes, that he acted with undue restraint.
3. Depends on the context. In this situation, if the article is accurate, his stepson was on the ground with five people kicking him, including in the head. Therefore they are attempting murder or at least acting without regard for the potential consequences (i.e. death, brain damage). Therefore they forfeit any right to consideration. They then turn on him. In my mind, he is entitled and justified to kill them all using whatever means he can. Not only that, but it can only be a good thing if he suceeded. I am not being hyperbolic, I genuinely believe that (based on the article, which I'm sure does not tell the whole story)
