Reasonable Force Self Defence

scorza · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:17

JBuk said:
Let me ask you this Scorza, the police don't have the full facts and can only go by what is presented to them at the scene , so going by your logic it would also have been wrong to arrest the gang of youths, right?

No, because the facts at the scene of the crime (i.e. vandalised van, badly beaten homeowner's son, homeowner's coherent statement, five known trouble-makers present with no valid reason and involved in a scuffle) are enough to suspect the youths of those charges.

JBuk · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:23

scorza said:
No, because the facts at the scene of the crime (i.e. vandalised van, badly beaten homeowner's son, homeowner's coherent statement, five known trouble-makers present with no valid reason and involved in a scuffle) are enough to suspect the youths of those charges.

So if that is the case then you would also arrest the man as the other facts were a youth has been stabbed and a man has admitted it , which is enough to suspect the man of attempted murder. You can't have it both ways.

Tefal · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:24

scorza said:
No, because the facts at the scene of the crime (i.e. vandalised van, badly beaten homeowner's son, homeowner's coherent statement, five known trouble-makers present with no valid reason and involved in a scuffle) are enough to suspect the youths of those charges.

but theres 5 of them so that means if they all say the guy and his son ran out and started attacking them, and they merely defended themselves from a knife weilding lunatic.

Surely they should be let off at the scene as it's 5v3 in testimony?

manic111 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:24

scorza said:
No, because the facts at the scene of the crime (i.e. vandalised van, badly beaten homeowner's son, homeowner's coherent statement, five known trouble-makers present with no valid reason and involved in a scuffle) are enough to suspect the youths of those charges.

And one of the youths having five stab wounds and the homeowner holding a sharp implement is enough to suspect that he may just have stabbed somebody.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:24

scorza said:
No, because the facts at the scene of the crime (i.e. vandalised van, badly beaten homeowner's son, homeowner's coherent statement, five known trouble-makers present with no valid reason and involved in a scuffle) are enough to suspect the youths of those charges.

Where does it say they there is no valid reason for the youths to be involved in a scuffle. What if the Dad attacked them because of an untreated mental heath issue and his family were trying to protect him? Would you not have even suspected the Dad and arrested him despite him have almost killed someone?

Police officers never have black and white fact when they get on scene.

scorza · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:25

manic111 said:
And one of the youths having five stab wounds and the homeowner holding a sharp implement is enough to suspect that he may just have stabbed somebody.

Sigh - stabbing somebody isn't against the law if it's self defence and reasonable force. There was no reason to suspect this guy of attempted murder.

Tefal · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:25

scorza said:
Would you be confident if you were him going to trial and jury consisted of Burnsy, Jokester, JBuk, Richie and Tefal?

yep. because i think all of us have said he was guilty.

we all just think he should be arrested till the facts are found out.

I'd rather the CPS made dessions like that rather than the police becoming judge and jury at the scene.

manic111 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:27

scorza said:
Sigh - stabbing somebody isn't against the law if it's self defence and reasonable force. There was no reason to suspect this guy of attempted murder.

As somebody else has already said, how would the police know that the man with the knife didn't attack the youths first, who kicked his son and vandalised the van in retaliation?

I fail to understand what is wrong with arresting the man, finding out the facts, and then deciding what to do.

Nitefly · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:27

Burnsy2023 said:
Where does it say they there is no valid reason for the youths to be involved in a scuffle. What if the Dad attacked them because of an untreated mental heath issue and his family were trying to protect him? Would you not have even suspected the Dad and arrested him despite him have almost killed someone?

Police officers never have black and white fact when they get on scene.

Spot on, Sir.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:27

scorza said:
Would you be confident if you were him going to trial and jury consisted of Burnsy, Jokester, JBuk, Richie and Tefal?

I'm not at any point suggesting that he is definitely guilty, just that there is a case to be answered for which a Jury must decide. Drawing a conclusion would be silly knowing the current facts.

scorza · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:29

Burnsy2023 said:
Where does it say they there is no valid reason for the youths to be involved in a scuffle.

Sorry, meant that they had no valid reason for being present at the crime scene.

Burnsy2023 said:
What if the Dad attacked them because of an untreated mental heath issue and his family were trying to protect him? Would you not have even suspected the Dad and arrested him despite him have almost killed someone?

I would suspect him if I thought he wasn't being honest in his replies to police questioning, or if elements of his story did not make sense, or if I considered him to be a flight risk. There's no evidence that any of these conditions were true, therefore the police's suspicion is entirely unwarranted.

Tefal · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:29

* nvm wrong button*

JBuk · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:31

scorza said:
Sorry, meant that they had no valid reason for being present at the crime scene.

I would suspect him if I thought he wasn't being honest in his replies to police questioning, or if elements of his story did not make sense, or if I considered him to be a flight risk. There's no evidence that any of these conditions were true, therefore the police's suspicion is entirely unwarranted.

And how can the police possibly ascertain what the truth is until there has been a full investigation? which is why he is arrested under suspicion and not for actual attempted murder

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:32

scorza said:
Sorry, meant that they had no valid reason for being present at the crime scene.

I'm sorry, of course they're not allowed to walk anywhere.

scorza said:
I would suspect him if I thought he wasn't being honest in his replies to police questioning, or if elements of his story did not make sense, or if I considered him to be a flight risk. There's no evidence that any of these conditions were true, therefore the police's suspicion is entirely unwarranted.

And if he made a convincing case that he didn't attack them and that they attacked him? And then attacked and killed someone the next night?

manic111 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:32

scorza said:
I would suspect him if I thought he wasn't being honest in his replies to police questioning, or if elements of his story did not make sense, or if I considered him to be a flight risk. There's no evidence that any of these conditions were true, therefore the police's suspicion is entirely unwarranted.

And you think that half an hour of police questioning is enough to establish this when somebody's been stabbed five times? Whether he stabbed them in the heat of the moment, or in a pre-meditated way out of revenge, is something that could only be brought out be some impressive forensics and psychology in court.

Anyway, how do you know he wasn't a flight risk? For all you know, had the police left him there, he may have cacked himself over what he had done and hopped on a plane to Mexico.

scorza · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:32

manic111 said:
As somebody else has already said, how would the police know that the man with the knife didn't attack the youths first, who kicked his son and vandalised the van in retaliation?

Because that doesn't make sense :confused:

manic111 said:
I fail to understand what is wrong with arresting the man, finding out the facts, and then deciding what to do.

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.

manic111 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:34

scorza said:
Because that doesn't make sense

Why? It's not impossible.

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.

As already mentioned above by a few people including myself, the facts cannot be established without extensive forensic work and questioning. The facts at the scene warrant an arrest, but not a proclamation of his guilt until a trial.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:35

scorza said:
Because the facts at the scene of the crime didn't warrant an arrest.

Think of it like this. The arresting officer probably knew only three things:

You know who is involved
You know someone has been stabbed and you know who stabbed him.
You have two conflicting accounts of what happened and whose fault it was.

That is most certainly grounds for arresting on suspicion.

JBuk · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:35

scorza said:
Because that doesn't make sense

Only because of what is known now, at the scene the police don't know jack **** so anybody could be telling lies

scorza · 28 Jul 2009 at 12:36

Burnsy2023 said:
I'm sorry, of course they're not allowed to walk anywhere.

I didn't say that.

Burnsy2023 said:
And if he made a convincing case that he didn't attack them and that they attacked him? And then attacked and killed someone the next night?

They did attack him, Mr Philpott's is free right now isn't he? He could kill tonight!