Burglar got killed

Garthy

darthed1981 said:

The whole attitude out on social media, though thank heavens more measured here, you would think the guy had been convicted.

Now, assuming that the situation is that an armed burglar broke into the guys house, and in a struggle said burglar got stabbed and died, then it is very unlikely the guy will be charged (because what with, manslaughter I suppose, but on what grounds), and almost zero chance of a conviction.  Legally, you are allowed to take reasonable measures to protect yourself and your property.

In Tony Martin's case, the robbers were running away and he shot one of them in the back, therefore was under no real threat at the time, so the case isn't comparable.

The police have to investigate, the guy is probably only being held to avoid contaminating forensics at his house, and will have to be released if not charged within the next 24 hours or so anyhow.

Only other choice police have, just say "sounds reasonable to stab the little scrote" and completely absolve responsibility for a violent killing.

Seems a non-story for me, I'm sure the guy won't be charged and has a few nice cheques from the papers to cash later when the calls come in.

He’s going to need those cheques when he has to declare to every Tom, Dick and Harry that he was arrested for murder.

Fretwired

Alvin said:

No sympathy for criminals , you break into someones property then you should be fair game . It's about time the laws were changed , the crime rate would go down .   These types don't care how there actions affect there victims -so why should they have any rights .   This man wasn't a vigilante , he didn't go after them he just took action in the heat of the moment .   Would the burglars have been bothered if it was the other way around ?
   Give the chap a medal .

Evidence that crime would go down please. I think it more likely that criminals would get tooled up. And criminals have rights under the Human Rights Act.

I love the fact that people have their mind made up about this case on the drivel written in tabloid newspapers based on hearsay from a few neighbours. I'll wait for the police to do their job before jumping to conclusions.

Fretwired

jonnyburgo said:

100% correct my friend, in America you can shoot trespassers keeping that particular country completely crime free, thanks for the well thought out statement.Alvin said:

No sympathy for criminals , you break into someones property then you should be fair game . It's about time the laws were changed , the crime rate would go down .   These types don't care how there actions affect there victims -so why should they have any rights .   This man wasn't a vigilante , he didn't go after them he just took action in the heat of the moment .   Would the burglars have been bothered if it was the other way around ?
   Give the chap a medal .

Spot on .. have a wis.

randella

Fretwired said:

I love the fact that people have their mind made up about this case on the drivel written in tabloid newspapers based on hearsay from a few neighbours.

Just dropped in to the Co-op for a pint of milk and skimmed the headlines while I was waiting at the till.  It's probably easy enough to guess the two worst perpetrators.

Anyway, as far as they and no doubt their readership are concerned, it's a done deal and anyone who says otherwise is some sort of Guardian-reading hippy not worthy of a nice blue passport.

Be nice if, just for once, the facts were allowed to pan out before the torches were lit and pitchforks sharpened.

Phil_aka_Pip

randella said:

Be nice if, just for once, the facts were allowed to pan out before the torches were lit and pitchforks sharpened.

The pitchforks should always be sharp, just in case ...

Sporky

Keep your pitchfork sharp, but your wits sharper.

Phil_aka_Pip

Garthy said:

He’s going to need those cheques when he has to declare to every Tom, Dick and Harry that he was arrested for murder.

He's unlikely to be looking for a job at his age. But I take your point, if this happened to someone of working age it would be a problem indeed. Especially if your job was as a carer or a teacher.

digitalscream

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Garthy said:

He’s going to need those cheques when he has to declare to every Tom, Dick and Harry that he was arrested for murder.

He's unlikely to be looking for a job at his age. But I take your point, if this happened to someone of working age it would be a problem indeed. Especially if your job was as a carer or a teacher.

Surely you only have to declare these things if you're actually convicted...?

Phil_aka_Pip

digitalscream said:

Surely you only have to declare these things if you're actually convicted...?

I may be wrong but I'm under the impression they've already cautioned him. I think a caution stays on your file whether you are subsequently convicted or not. And, some insurance companies don't ask "Have you been convicted for ..." they ask "Have you been arrested for ...". (Aside: One of my insurance policies is from a company that doesn't ask if I have HIV or AIDS they ask if I've ever been tested for it. I haven't so it doesn't matter, but if I had but the result was negative I don't see why I need to tell them. Insurers are unnecessarily intrusive and just looking for excuses to hike your premium.) Some employers are likewise: you can't get a job even if you're well mature and have a respectable track record, because of something you did when you were 16 and foolhardy.

VimFuego

being murdered was too good for him IMO, I'd have gone full on greek tragedy on him.


what he do anyways?

Bellycaster

Fretwired said:

Alvin said:

No sympathy for criminals , you break into someones property then you should be fair game . It's about time the laws were changed , the crime rate would go down .   These types don't care how there actions affect there victims -so why should they have any rights .   This man wasn't a vigilante , he didn't go after them he just took action in the heat of the moment .   Would the burglars have been bothered if it was the other way around ?
   Give the chap a medal .

Evidence that crime would go down please. I think it more likely that criminals would get tooled up. And criminals have rights under the Human Rights Act.

I love the fact that people have their mind made up about this case on the drivel written in tabloid newspapers based on hearsay from a few neighbours. I'll wait for the police to do their job before jumping to conclusions.

I hope I'm not included in those "people". Read back through my comments and you'll see I have not claimed to know exactly what happened in this particular incident. My comments reflect that I am unhappy in general about the way things work with Burglary in this Country. I hate the fact that a Burglar has rights, I don't care if it's the law, I don't have to like it. I'm also glad Tony Martin blew those scumbags to bits.

I don't like the fact that I'm made to feel scared of the Law if I have to defend myself on the street or in my own property. I object to being told I have to carry out a risk assessment before I respond to an intruder in my house. People cannot measure "Reasonable" it is unquantifiable when under attack.

Body chemistry (adrenaline) takes over and is involuntary, fight or flight and all that. Some people run and hide, some go Caveman. It is natural instinct to protect yourself/your family.

While we are at it, I'm sure you will know the answer to this:

Has it always been the case that the homeowner is automatically arrested if there is a fatality with a Burglar? Serious question, I seem to recall this wasn't procedure way back, maybe 1970's etc?

Anyway, whatever happened at this particular incident will come to be known, but please gloat the other way if the Burglary was a smoke screen for a Murder. I didn't reach a verdict on this event.

Edit. I do not read Comics Newspapers either.

Chalky

I read the story like this - a 78 year old pensioner is woken up by a strange noise, goes downstairs wondering if he dreamt it, suddenly attacked, grapples and lashes out.

Probably took less time than it takes to read that paragraph.

Shocked and scared shitless, knackered and shaking through lack of sleep he is arrested and taken to the nick where he is kept awake all night by police questioning him over and over again about what happened in those 15 seconds.

I very much doubt he is thinking about 'cheques'....

darthed1981

Chalky said:

I read the story like this - a 78 year old pensioner is woken up by a strange noise, goes downstairs wondering if he dreamt it, suddenly attacked, grapples and lashes out.

Probably took less time than it takes to read that paragraph.

Shocked and scared shitless, knackered and shaking through lack of sleep he is arrested and taken to the nick where he is kept awake all night by police questioning him over and over again about what happened in those 15 seconds.

I very much doubt he is thinking about 'cheques'....

All true but they will provide some compensation when he is inevitably let off.

The burglar was probably a little c**t and the incident probably went off exactly like you said.

But a person killed another person, surely the police are obliged to investigate?

I'm not saying you are saying they aren't BTW, but the jist of many comments seems to be the police should have said "hooray, one less little c**t" and all bought the guy a beer.

Not necessarily the basis of a civilised society.

digitalscream

Bellycaster said:

Has it always been the case that the homeowner is automatically arrested if there is a fatality with a Burglar? Serious question, I seem to recall this wasn't procedure way back, maybe 1970's etc?

I believe it's down to the officer's discretion, which gives a lot of leeway for interpretation. Basically, they could have asked him to voluntarily appear for interview, but if there's any doubt at all or there's a need to keep the scene free of contamination or modification, then an arrest is the most prudent course of action.

As has been said, though, an arrest is not a conviction (or even a prosecution). The newspapers are (irresponsibly, it has to be said) conflating all three for the purposes of outrage marketing.

Chalky said:

I read the story like this - a 78 year old pensioner is woken up by a strange noise, goes downstairs wondering if he dreamt it, suddenly attacked, grapples and lashes out.

Actually, from reading on it elsewhere, it seems as though he came home to find two strangers in his house, helping themselves to his stuff.

amarok1971

Let's spare a thought for the poor old lad who has to live with this for the rest of his days, I wouldn't like to have to have that on my conscience, self defence or not    I bet it will haunt him forever.

77ric

If he has disturbed the burglars and a struggle has occurred in his home which has resulted in the burglars accidental death, then he clearly has nothing to worry about (well apart from living with it as has been said before). 

Now obviously we don’t have all the details to make any sound judgment in this case at the moment, but it would seem the dead man was found in a nearby street, and that possibly the weapon was recovered from a drain, which if true may well cast some doubt as to whether it was indeed self defence.

I dare say that we will not know all the evidence until it comes to court, assuming that it does of course, the CPS may well decide that there isn’t enough evidence of anything other than self defence. 

BigBearKris

amarok1971 said:

Let's spare a thought for the poor old lad who has to live with this for the rest of his days, I wouldn't like to have to have that on my conscience, self defence or not    I bet it will haunt him forever.

....which is in my opinion enough of a punishment. I feel sorry for that gentleman.

strtdv

I'd happily pay money towards his bail bond.

IMO the "stand your ground" law is one of the few pieces of legislation the USA has got right.
If a burglar, particularly if armed, breaks into your house then I would regard any force as proportionate in the circumstances.

goldtop

And when it's the unfortunate chap next door, who got really sh1tfaced this time, got the wrong house, couldn't get the key to work and decided to climb in through a window - just one of those things?

Escalating vigilante justice element to fix the failures of the criminal justice system is going to create collateral damage. Who provides justice for those victims?

Alvin

Fretwired said:

Alvin said:

No sympathy for criminals , you break into someones property then you should be fair game . It's about time the laws were changed , the crime rate would go down .   These types don't care how there actions affect there victims -so why should they have any rights .   This man wasn't a vigilante , he didn't go after them he just took action in the heat of the moment .   Would the burglars have been bothered if it was the other way around ?
   Give the chap a medal .

Evidence that crime would go down please. I think it more likely that criminals would get tooled up. And criminals have rights under the Human Rights Act.

I love the fact that people have their mind made up about this case on the drivel written in tabloid newspapers based on hearsay from a few neighbours. I'll wait for the police to do their job before jumping to conclusions.

     I should have said  PERHAPS the crime rate would go down and yes this is referring to intruders/burglaries . Clearly not an answer to end all crimes . 

              Quote   " I think it more likely that criminals would get tooled up"          

     Do you think burglars break into properties carrying feather dusters ?       They are scum and have no conscience, they don't care who they hurt .