Teenager protecting his mother not charged with murder

[Office_Monkey]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7716137/Tee...

I really feel for this kid, not only did he witness his mother being stabbed (article doesn't mention if he was at her bedside when she died in hospital), he will most likely carry the guilt of killing someone with him forever.

[pokethepope]

I wish they'd say "we are not charging him because he acted lawfully in self-defence" rather than it being "inappropriate and not in the public interest".

Small point I know but it makes it sound as if he was acting in a grey area/illegally but under the circumstances wont be charged, rather than he was doing the right thing.

[Zod]

I hope that this area will be dealt with quickly by the new government - both the law and hte attitude of the Police.

[Jasandjules]

Poor kid. I can't imagine how he must have felt.

However, he appears to have used the knife that the neighbour brought in to the house, therefore it is a relatively clear case of self defence (if the neighbour wasn't stabbed in the back) as I see it. I hope that someone (i.e. the new home sec) will confirm that.

[ndtman]

Having been through a trauma that most of us will, thankfully, never experience this kid now needs help and support to come to terms with the violent loss of his mother and the fact that he has taken a life. I hope he gets it but I fear he will not.

[Rusty Arches]

Office_Monkey said:

he will most likely carry the guilt of killing someone with him forever.

I doubt anyone would have any guilt killing someone that killed their mother.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Zod said:

I hope that this area will be dealt with quickly by the new government - both the law and hte attitude of the Police.

Why?

The law is pretty easy not to fall foul of. The police I know are always sympathetic towards 'genuine' cases. Some cases need to be before a jury of YOUR peers as they are too close to call without cries of a cover up.

Changing the law to give people carte blanche to do as they please would be a retrograde step.

Kenneth Noye was able to multiply stab and thus kill an undercover police officer and rely on the law of self-defence.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

pokethepope said:

I wish they'd say "we are not charging him because he acted lawfully in self-defence" rather than it being "inappropriate and not in the public interest".

Small point I know but it makes it sound as if he was acting in a grey area/illegally but under the circumstances wont be charged, rather than he was doing the right thing.

What you mean like this....


''It is not in the public interest to send this case to court as our investigations have shown James was defending his mother and himself"


That's what the Supt says in the article...

[turbobloke]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

pokethepope said:

I wish they'd say "we are not charging him because he acted lawfully in self-defence" rather than it being "inappropriate and not in the public interest".

Small point I know but it makes it sound as if he was acting in a grey area/illegally but under the circumstances wont be charged, rather than he was doing the right thing.

What you mean like this....


''It is not in the public interest to send this case to court as our investigations have shown James was defending his mother and himself"


That's what the Supt says in the article...

Public interest does seem like a diluted form of legitimacy since it can also be used where people are very elderly with a terminal illness and they are spared trial and/or punishment.

If the degree of force (lethal) used was lawful in the circumstances then that could have been stated as the reason for not proceeding, with no mention of public interest then necessary.

[turbobloke]

As per the thread from Elroy Blue, hopefully the new administration will reverse the tide of political correctness that has swept over the police in the last ten years and more. If some politicised officers find this change is all a bit much, oh dear never mind.

[don4l]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

pokethepope said:

I wish they'd say "we are not charging him because he acted lawfully in self-defence" rather than it being "inappropriate and not in the public interest".

Small point I know but it makes it sound as if he was acting in a grey area/illegally but under the circumstances wont be charged, rather than he was doing the right thing.

What you mean like this....


''It is not in the public interest to send this case to court as our investigations have shown James was defending his mother and himself"


That's what the Supt says in the article...

Mr A, you usually write sensibly, but in this case your attitude is quite chilling - inhuman even.

I would prefer to see that the police had used the services of councillers and therapists. Instead, they chose to involve the CPS.

"Public Interest" has sod all to do with this case. The poor lad was in the room watching his mother get stabbed. Even if he had chased the guy down the road before killing the guy, I would not consider him a threat to society.

Don
--

[Mr_annie_vxr]

don4l said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

pokethepope said:

I wish they'd say "we are not charging him because he acted lawfully in self-defence" rather than it being "inappropriate and not in the public interest".

Small point I know but it makes it sound as if he was acting in a grey area/illegally but under the circumstances wont be charged, rather than he was doing the right thing.

What you mean like this....


''It is not in the public interest to send this case to court as our investigations have shown James was defending his mother and himself"


That's what the Supt says in the article...

Mr A, you usually write sensibly, but in this case your attitude is quite chilling - inhuman even.

I would prefer to see that the police had used the services of councillers and therapists. Instead, they chose to involve the CPS.

"Public Interest" has sod all to do with this case. The poor lad was in the room watching his mother get stabbed. Even if he had chased the guy down the road before killing the guy, I would not consider him a threat to society.

Don
--

The police never referred this to the CPS. Public interest has everything to do with this case as what is in the publics interest is common sense applied to circumstances. Public interest is the 'common sense' test if you like. In this case it was common sense that he acted either in self defence or completely reasonably given the circumstances. The police have to speak with him and have to go through a process to confirm what has happened. Once they did they have quickly decided its common sense he should face no charge.

As for your insult about me being chilling or inhuman. I would like you to quantify that. All I did was correct another posters comments.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

turbobloke said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

pokethepope said:

I wish they'd say "we are not charging him because he acted lawfully in self-defence" rather than it being "inappropriate and not in the public interest".

Small point I know but it makes it sound as if he was acting in a grey area/illegally but under the circumstances wont be charged, rather than he was doing the right thing.

What you mean like this....


''It is not in the public interest to send this case to court as our investigations have shown James was defending his mother and himself"


That's what the Supt says in the article...

Public interest does seem like a diluted form of legitimacy since it can also be used where people are very elderly with a terminal illness and they are spared trial and/or punishment.

If the degree of force (lethal) used was lawful in the circumstances then that could have been stated as the reason for not proceeding, with no mention of public interest then necessary.

I would suggest that there may be reasons why that term was not used as you would need some form of backing from the court. This case is going to the coroner to investigate. It will be seen as prejudicing his verdict if the Supt was to make such a direct statement.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

turbobloke said:

As per the thread from Elroy Blue, hopefully the new administration will reverse the tide of political correctness that has swept over the police in the last ten years and more. If some politicised officers find this change is all a bit much, oh dear never mind.

Political correctness, I would suggest, has little impact on this tragic case.

Political correctness would probably have seen the poor lad charged for attacking the 'unfortunate' offender.

[Chris71]

Rusty Arches said:

Office_Monkey said:

he will most likely carry the guilt of killing someone with him forever.

I doubt anyone would have any guilt killing someone that killed their mother.

It's such an alien experience to most people that thankfully we'll never know. I suspect any normal human being will be traumatised after killing anyone though - hardened soldiers find it bad enough dispatching their enemy from hundreds of yards away, god knows how a kid stabbing the next door neighbour must feel.

Glad to see the police have taken a sensible attitude towards it and I trust some of the money that's usually used to send real criminals on diving holidays to the Red Sea can be diverted to giving him some counselling.

I think it was completely the right thing to do in this instance. I'm not sure how far I'd go on related 'right to defend your property' argument though - that raises the possibility that next time the burglars will come prepared.

[turbobloke]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

turbobloke said:

As per the thread from Elroy Blue, hopefully the new administration will reverse the tide of political correctness that has swept over the police in the last ten years and more. If some politicised officers find this change is all a bit much, oh dear never mind.

Political correctness, I would suggest, has little impact on this tragic case.

Political correctness would probably have seen the poor lad charged for attacking the 'unfortunate' offender.

Agreed about your last point. But I would suggest it has had an effect if only on the words chosen by the senior BiB, that was my point - no more or less impact than that.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

turbobloke said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

turbobloke said:

As per the thread from Elroy Blue, hopefully the new administration will reverse the tide of political correctness that has swept over the police in the last ten years and more. If some politicised officers find this change is all a bit much, oh dear never mind.

Political correctness, I would suggest, has little impact on this tragic case.

Political correctness would probably have seen the poor lad charged for attacking the 'unfortunate' offender.

Agreed about your last point. But I would suggest it has had an effect if only on the words chosen by the senior BiB, that was my point - no more or less impact than that.

I can see why you may think that, based on the PCism that flows through the public sector, however I would suggest as I said above the fact this has to go to a coroner and his court to have a ruling on the matter that would be the reason for the lack of use of the term 'lawful'. To avoid prejudicing the outcome. Or being accused of so doing.

[turbobloke]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

turbobloke said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

turbobloke said:

As per the thread from Elroy Blue, hopefully the new administration will reverse the tide of political correctness that has swept over the police in the last ten years and more. If some politicised officers find this change is all a bit much, oh dear never mind.

Political correctness, I would suggest, has little impact on this tragic case.

Political correctness would probably have seen the poor lad charged for attacking the 'unfortunate' offender.

Agreed about your last point. But I would suggest it has had an effect if only on the words chosen by the senior BiB, that was my point - no more or less impact than that.

I can see why you may think that, based on the PCism that flows through the public sector, however I would suggest as I said above the fact this has to go to a coroner and his court to have a ruling on the matter that would be the reason for the lack of use of the term 'lawful'. To avoid prejudicing the outcome. Or being accused of so doing.

Yes possibly so, but to avoid the weasel words 'not in the public interest' which can hide all manner of sins, could police not say something along the lines of 'in the view of officers dealing with this case, and subject to the verdict at inquest, the degree of force used in self-defence was reasonable and as a result at this time we are not considering bringing any charges'.

Police are after all allowed to use their judgement (discretion) and though it's seen to introduce inconsistency there's a strong case for the degree of inconsistency being equal to the degree of fairness as circumstances are not always the same.

After 13 years of watching and hearing certain susceptible elements in the police force service becoming increasingly politicised meaning politically correct, there's a degree to which some change away from that particularly stifling linguistic form of control freakery is expected.

Elroy Blue's thread kicked off memories of the days when senior coppers were still there to be thief takers in spirit not weasel wordsmith politicians in uniform

[don4l]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

don4l said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

pokethepope said:

I wish they'd say "we are not charging him because he acted lawfully in self-defence" rather than it being "inappropriate and not in the public interest".

Small point I know but it makes it sound as if he was acting in a grey area/illegally but under the circumstances wont be charged, rather than he was doing the right thing.

What you mean like this....


''It is not in the public interest to send this case to court as our investigations have shown James was defending his mother and himself"


That's what the Supt says in the article...

Mr A, you usually write sensibly, but in this case your attitude is quite chilling - inhuman even.

I would prefer to see that the police had used the services of councillers and therapists. Instead, they chose to involve the CPS.

"Public Interest" has sod all to do with this case. The poor lad was in the room watching his mother get stabbed. Even if he had chased the guy down the road before killing the guy, I would not consider him a threat to society.

Don
--

The police never referred this to the CPS. Public interest has everything to do with this case as what is in the publics interest is common sense applied to circumstances. Public interest is the 'common sense' test if you like. In this case it was common sense that he acted either in self defence or completely reasonably given the circumstances. The police have to speak with him and have to go through a process to confirm what has happened. Once they did they have quickly decided its common sense he should face no charge.

As for your insult about me being chilling or inhuman. I would like you to quantify that. All I did was correct another posters comments.

First, I didn't mean to insult you, so I apologise.

The wording suggests that the lad might have done something wrong, but that it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute him. In other words, they considered bringing an action against him. This is chilling and inhuman.

There doesn't seem to be any sense of natural justice in the police these days. It all seems to be about "targets". This isn't the fault of the BiB of course. However, I am surprised that we hear the BiB defending this state of affairs.

Don
--

[Defcon5]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It seemed to me the police turned up to find two bodies and the kid holding the knife. Cant see why there would be a load of witnesses?