Homeowner arrested for stabbing burglar
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
oyster said:
If it turns out that he killed the burglar in self defence then he's a hero. If he did it out of vengeance then he's a thug who deserves punishment. The location of the crime makes no difference.
It was in his home at 1245 am- I see it that the burglar was looking for trouble, not the old boy. Under the circumstances I feel he should have the right to use whatever force he saw fit.Based on that, the location makes a huge difference.
Even if it ended up in court (which on the face of it, it should not), no jury in the land will find the homeowner guilty.
A Jury will think:
Of course he was in fear of his life. Of course he should be able to use whatever force he thought was required. Why are we here? Get the man a cup of tea and a medal, and send him home.
Unless of course anything else crops up. Like one of the intruders was actually living there, or in business with the guy etc etc. But I don't expect that.
oyster said:
One of these topics that brings out the outliers in society.
How on earth can you want to live in one of the world's most free countries, with globally-respected and stable laws, yet want the law of the land to stop at your front door?
If it turns out that he killed the burglar in self defence then he's a hero. If he did it out of vengeance then he's a thug who deserves punishment. The location of the crime makes no difference.
I'm going to take a wild, wild guess and surmise that the pensioner didn't invite the two chaps to pop round to his for a cup of tea late one evening, all the while concealing his favoured Stanley Pozidriv behind his back.How on earth can you want to live in one of the world's most free countries, with globally-respected and stable laws, yet want the law of the land to stop at your front door?
If it turns out that he killed the burglar in self defence then he's a hero. If he did it out of vengeance then he's a thug who deserves punishment. The location of the crime makes no difference.
motco said:
Two factors may have an influence: whose screwdriver was it, and was the dead man really a burglar. For all we know at the moment the 78 year old could be an old gangster and the dead man a rival's son from 'the old days'. Rarely are things as they seem at first glance. Breath bated in readiness...
Something isn't quite right about this. Even a fit 78 year old will be quite frail compared to someone in their 30's. WinstonWolf said:
TooMany2cvs said:
WinstonWolf said:
b
ks, TM had been burgled repeatedly and lived in a remote location.
Hardly that remote - 20 miles from Peterborough, 12 miles from Kings Lynn, 4 miles from Wisbech, 2 miles from the A47.ks, TM had been burgled repeatedly and lived in a remote location.TooMany2cvs said:
WinstonWolf said:
TooMany2cvs said:
WinstonWolf said:
bks, TM had been burgled repeatedly and lived in a remote location.
Hardly that remote - 20 miles from Peterborough, 12 miles from Kings Lynn, 4 miles from Wisbech, 2 miles from the A47.ks, TM had been burgled repeatedly and lived in a remote location.
Spalding is populous in comparison to the surroundings. What do you do when the old bill will take an hour, apologise to the burglar for inconveniencing them?Barras was a wrong un, Martin did society a service.
Willy Nilly said:
motco said:
Two factors may have an influence: whose screwdriver was it, and was the dead man really a burglar. For all we know at the moment the 78 year old could be an old gangster and the dead man a rival's son from 'the old days'. Rarely are things as they seem at first glance. Breath bated in readiness...
Something isn't quite right about this. Even a fit 78 year old will be quite frail compared to someone in their 30's. I see it as entirely plausible a 78 year old, in his own kitchen, was able to snatch something pointy, and use it in his own defence from an attacker.
Baring in mind tne horror stories in tne press of people tortured and beaten to give up valuables, etc or just for sadistic pleasure, hopefully he was entirely justified.
If tne buglar had survived and was proved to be burgling, i’d say give the oap a knife and a second chance to finish the job.
Absolute scum.
If tne buglar had survived and was proved to be burgling, i’d say give the oap a knife and a second chance to finish the job.
Absolute scum.
Dogwatch said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Remember Tony Martin? What people who hold him up as some kind of hero conveniently forget is that the scrote was shot in the back with an illegally-held gun, fired multiple times, while running away, by somebody who'd already had his licence taken away after shooting at somebody scrumping apples - not that a shotgun licence would have covered that pump-action shotgun anyway.
Yes, I remember the TM case. Pitch dark,no lights, in the middle of nowhere, but the official line at the time was always that any intruder was a police matter and the householder should just let them get on with it. Woe betide anyone who resisted, the intruder had human rights too y'know!Whatever the rights and wrongs of that case it did start a sea-change in the official thinking on defending your property and Tone even promised to amend the law on self defence!
He didn't (of course) but since then many burgled householders have had reason to be grateful to TM for being seen as the victims they were not the assailants.
/rant
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence...
cps said:
Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. The provision came into force on 25 April 2013 and applies to cases where the alleged force was used after that date. The provision does not apply restrospectively. It provides that where the case is one involving a householder (please see the section below for further details) the degree of force used by the householder is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate. A householder will therefore be able to use force which is disproportionate but not grossly disporportionate.
The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).
In deciding whether the force might be regarded as 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportioante' the court will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived) posed by the offender.
Section 76(7) sets out two considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether the force used was reasonable. Both are adopted from existing case law. They are:
that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;
that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.
This section adopts almost precisely the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) which emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack:
"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..."
The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).
In deciding whether the force might be regarded as 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportioante' the court will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived) posed by the offender.
Section 76(7) sets out two considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether the force used was reasonable. Both are adopted from existing case law. They are:
that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;
that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.
This section adopts almost precisely the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) which emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack:
"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..."
There was nothing wrong with the law before it was changed to allow more force to be used during 'householder cases' (as per the above quote). However, due to the change there are additional protections.
Arrest carries a negative connotation, but it's often the best way to gain control of a situation and gather evidence.
You can treat someone who has killed another as a witness / victim from the off, but then that relies on the witness / victim to voluntarily provide clothing, swabs. Voluntarily provide an account, remain with police officers etc. If they decide to leave and the circumstances subsequently change (they become a suspect) then vital evidence can be lost.
There have been circumstances where 'burglars' have been killed and it's turned out to be people who were invited around etc. On the face of it, it doesn't seem that like here and a 78 year old hardly conjures up that image.
Hopefully he'll be able to give a sold account of self-defence and be released and cleared quickly.
Arrest carries a negative connotation, but it's often the best way to gain control of a situation and gather evidence.
You can treat someone who has killed another as a witness / victim from the off, but then that relies on the witness / victim to voluntarily provide clothing, swabs. Voluntarily provide an account, remain with police officers etc. If they decide to leave and the circumstances subsequently change (they become a suspect) then vital evidence can be lost.
There have been circumstances where 'burglars' have been killed and it's turned out to be people who were invited around etc. On the face of it, it doesn't seem that like here and a 78 year old hardly conjures up that image.
Hopefully he'll be able to give a sold account of self-defence and be released and cleared quickly.
Let’s not beat around the bush with this human rights stuff, if someone is killed burgling your home, then it really should be tough st. No ifs or buts. This human rights nonsense is half of the reason this country is in such a mess. Nobody really gives a crap if a piece of low life scum loses their life while inflicting misery on others.
Hope the old fella gets the right outcome from this. As for the dead scrote, diddums.
t. No ifs or buts. This human rights nonsense is half of the reason this country is in such a mess. Nobody really gives a crap if a piece of low life scum loses their life while inflicting misery on others.Hope the old fella gets the right outcome from this. As for the dead scrote, diddums.
pgh said:
Its far more than that - being arrested is actually a future barrier to several things, including travel & should not be used lightly.
Especially being arrested on suspicion of murder. Good luck explaining that to the immigration officer at the start of your US holiday. Also would make getting security clearance for many kinds of work harder and residency in many countries trickier, though probably not going to affect him at his age
Munter said:
Willy Nilly said:
motco said:
Two factors may have an influence: whose screwdriver was it, and was the dead man really a burglar. For all we know at the moment the 78 year old could be an old gangster and the dead man a rival's son from 'the old days'. Rarely are things as they seem at first glance. Breath bated in readiness...
Something isn't quite right about this. Even a fit 78 year old will be quite frail compared to someone in their 30's. I see it as entirely plausible a 78 year old, in his own kitchen, was able to snatch something pointy, and use it in his own defence from an attacker.
Especially when I see people in the 30s today who can't even see their feet!!
When you reach (IF you reach) your 60s and 70s, apart from looking in the mirror take it from me you feel very little different to when you were in your 30s. Just add a few aches and pains - but then, thinking about it I had those back in my 30s too!
And just to add, if the story is correct, then imo it's one low-life gone. GOOD!
Someone mentioned about traumatism. The 'old' guy will have also been traumatised by his arrest simply for simple reasons. It was HIS home, not the scum's. He didn't INVITE them in. It was the EARLY hours. Give the guy a medal. He's done everyone (who tries to live a lawful life, that is) a great service by ridding us of one who doesn't live lawfully, and doesn't give a toss for anything, nor anyone. Good f. riddance.
Should it turn out the old guy is the nasty piece of work I'll apologise.
Those mentioning immigration etc are quite right, an arrest can have consequences. However, we can't let the irrational positions of other countries impact what's best for our investigators in the circumstances. I was thinking more insular i.e. the UK it's pretty neutral thing to occur, although could cause issues on an enhanced DBS check (although there are greater protections against that now).
I think the police have done the right thing, as long as they're treating the old boy kindly. Anyone with half a brain can see what's happened, but the only FACTS of which they can be certain is that one person (albeit a ) is dead and another person probably killed them.
When this bloke is found innocent you want to make sure that every I is dotted and every t is crossed. So maybe they do have to go through this pantomime. You don't want Scrotey Mcwker's lot trying to poke holes after the fact, the loss of earnings from his promising young football career, etc...
I just hope it's all done soon and isn't too traumatic for the chap.
) is dead and another person probably killed them. When this bloke is found innocent you want to make sure that every I is dotted and every t is crossed. So maybe they do have to go through this pantomime. You don't want Scrotey Mcw
ker's lot trying to poke holes after the fact, the loss of earnings from his promising young football career, etc...I just hope it's all done soon and isn't too traumatic for the chap.
crofty1984 said:
I think the police have done the right thing, as long as they're treating the old boy kindly. Anyone with half a brain can see what's happened, but the only FACTS of which they can be certain is that one person (albeit a ) is dead and another person probably killed them.
When this bloke is found innocent you want to make sure that every I is dotted and every t is crossed. So maybe they do have to go through this pantomime. You don't want Scrotey Mcwker's lot trying to poke holes after the fact, the loss of earnings from his promising young football career, etc...
I just hope it's all done soon and isn't too traumatic for the chap.
You say the only fact is that some 'c---' is dead but how do you know that for sure ? How do you know that is the truth ?) is dead and another person probably killed them. When this bloke is found innocent you want to make sure that every I is dotted and every t is crossed. So maybe they do have to go through this pantomime. You don't want Scrotey Mcw
ker's lot trying to poke holes after the fact, the loss of earnings from his promising young football career, etc...I just hope it's all done soon and isn't too traumatic for the chap.
As far as I can see the only facts are that someone has died and the person who is responsible claims he was a burglar. Everything else, until the truth comes out, is conjecture.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff