Stabbing in Hither Green.

[apbremer]

Unbelievable.

Pensioner attacked by two scum burglars in his home. He fights back and in the struggle stabs and kills one (pity not both). Police, who have given up on theft and burglaries, and with London streets littered with bodies,arrest the householder.

I despair of this country.

[Sue]

They had to arrest him.

That's the law.

[flocker spotter]

You might want to edit the OP to remove your joined up thinking - it could affect any resultant case.

[rendelharris]

Somebody's killed in a stabbing and the police should have just made their own judgement on the spot, taken the word of the person who's killed someone else (whether justifiably or not) that it was self-defence and leave them alone? Do you seriously not see how absurd that would be?

[Robert Poste's Child]

It'll never come to court - a pensioner defending himself against two attackers in his own home, and one is fatally injured in the course of committing a crime.

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It'll never come to court - a pensioner defending

> himself against two attackers in his own home, and

> one is fatally injured in the course of committing

> a crime.

Absolutely - but the decision will be made by the CPS, APB seems to be complaining that the police didn't make an on-the-spot judgement and leave him alone.

[Mick Mac]

Hither Green is within SE13

This road, on the corner of Waterloo Plumbing is SE12 and therefore I think its Catford.

https://news.sky.com/story/pensioner-held-after-man-stabbed-during-burglary-11316275

[apbremer]

Perhaps these proselytising bleeding hearts might feel a little differently if it was their house and family invaded and threatened in the night by this vicious filth?

[uncleglen]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps these proselytising bleeding hearts might

> feel a little differently if it was their house

> and family invaded and threatened in the night by

> this vicious filth?

I daresay they would- but they would never admit to it!

[Robert Poste's Child]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It'll never come to court - a pensioner

> defending

> > himself against two attackers in his own home,

> and

> > one is fatally injured in the course of

> committing

> > a crime.

>

> Absolutely - but the decision will be made by the

> CPS, APB seems to be complaining that the police

> didn't make an on-the-spot judgement and leave him

> alone.

According to the news just now they arrested him 'on suspicion of GBH' which sounds like an attempt to be seen to do the right thing while allowing room for him to be let off or receive a suspended sentence. TBH I'm all for the former but with police budgets under pressure the Home Sec may feel the need to demonstrate that people can't take the law into their own hands, which, let's face it, must be on the increase as visible police presence drops. If said pensioner is fined I'll be tempted to chip in.

[flocker spotter]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps these proselytising bleeding hearts might

> feel a little differently if it was their house

> and family invaded and threatened in the night by

> this vicious filth?

So what do you know of the incident that has not been released to the press already ? are you privy to inside information that we should know about?

[rendelharris]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps these proselytising bleeding hearts might

> feel a little differently if it was their house

> and family invaded and threatened in the night by

> this vicious filth?

Presuming that's me, I would defend my family to the utmost degree - but if I stabbed someone to death in the course of doing so I would accept that the police have to follow procedure and investigate fully. It's called the rule of law, something everyone has to abide by - something frothing rightwing types are always claiming to fully support, unless of course they've decided on the basis of a couple of news reports that they know all the ins and outs of a case, then apparently it's OK to disregard the law and for them and their ilk to act as judge and jury.

From the reports thus far it sounds as if this gent was defending himself and if so hopefully all charges will be dropped - after a full and properly conducted investigation. That's how it works, you see. Funny for a bleeding heart liberal to be more supportive of the law of the land than those who reckon themselves great defenders of same, isn't it?

[DaveR]

"Perhaps these proselytising bleeding hearts might

> feel a little differently if it was their house

> and family invaded and threatened in the night by

> this vicious filth?

I daresay they would- but they would never admit to it!"

Calm down boys, sounds like you're getting a bit over excited.

Can you just clarify who you're having a go at here? Are you blaming the Plod on the basis that they are the 'bleeding hearts' or have otherwise gone soft? Or are some other bleeding hearts to blame i.e. the Plod would have been happy to let the old boy alone (and even given him a slap on the back) but they're hamstrung because of people like us, with our 'due process' talk and political correctness (gone mad)?

Either way, I'm afraid to say you sound like a couple of excited schoolboys, who have no clue about the realities of policing and the criminal law but just love saying (typing) things like 'scum' and 'vicious filth' and 'string em up' (anticipated). Which is a bit sad for two blokes of reasonably advanced age (I'm guessing).

[SpringTime]

So the old boy appears to be made the victim twice. People should have every right to defend themselves and theirs. I hope that the law sides with the gentleman and acts as a precedent that favours victims of crime as opposed to lending further licence to criminals.

[robbin]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From the reports thus far it sounds as if this

> gent was defending himself and if so hopefully all

> charges will be dropped - after a full and

> properly conducted investigation.

I haven't read anywhere that he has been charged with anything (so there's no charges to drop). He's only been arrested, which means he will presumably be interviewed and eventually the CPS will make a charging decision based on the facts known to them. The police have a job to do, which is to investigate - where someone has died, they cannot take things at face value without first checking what is being said/what might have happened.

[apbremer]

Yes Dave R, let's just lock the old chap up for a few weeks as he's obviously a danger to the burglar community, whilst the ever so politically correct CPS fiddle around deciding if this psychopathic pensioner should be charged.

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > From the reports thus far it sounds as if this

> > gent was defending himself and if so hopefully

> all

> > charges will be dropped - after a full and

> > properly conducted investigation.

>

> I haven't read anywhere that he has been charged

> with anything (so there's no charges to drop).

> He's only been arrested, which means he will

> presumably be interviewed and eventually the CPS

> will make a charging decision based on the facts

> known to them. The police have a job to do, which

> is to investigate - where someone has died, they

> cannot take things at face value without first

> checking what is being said/what might have

> happened.

Yes sorry, my error - should have said if it's determined he was defending himself then no charges will be brought, after (agreeing with you again!) a full investigation.

[flocker spotter]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes Dave R, let's just lock the old chap up for a

> few weeks as he's obviously a danger to the

> burglar community, whilst the ever so politically

> correct CPS fiddle around deciding if this

> psychopathic pensioner should be charged.

Can't you find something more productive to rage about ?

[rendelharris]

SpringTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the old boy appears to be made the victim

> twice. People should have every right to defend

> themselves and theirs. I hope that the law sides

> with the gentleman and acts as a precedent that

> favours victims of crime as opposed to lending

> further licence to criminals.

People do have every right to defend themselves with reasonable force (and that can include force that results in death). But when they do, clearly it is necessary for the circumstances to be fully investigated. If I call the police and they find a dead person in my hall, and I say they attacked me in the course of a burglary and I stabbed them in self defence, should the police then say right you are sir, we'll be on our way? Or is it their duty, and the duty of the legal process, to check my story's true by a full and thorough investigation (this including, as per procedure, placing me under caution and taking me to a police station - this has to be done for "anything you say may be used in evidence" purposes). I really don't see why it's so difficult for this to be understood, particularly as several of those frothing away above are those who are continually bemoaning the decline in the rule of law.

[DaveR]

"Yes Dave R, let's just lock the old chap up for a few weeks as he's obviously a danger to the burglar community, whilst the ever so politically correct CPS fiddle around deciding if this psychopathic pensioner should be charged."

Have you ever heard of custody time limits? Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011? Thought not.

Why do you lecture people about things you don't know anything about? Do I come to your place of work and tell you how to sweep up?*

*© Billy Connolly

[DaveR]

"People should have every right to defend themselves and theirs. I hope that the law sides with the gentleman and acts as a precedent that favours victims of crime as opposed to lending further licence to criminals"

Crikey, it really is amateur hour round here.

The law doesn't side with anyone - it's applied by judges who (in criminal trials) give directions on law to juries. But before it gets to a trial someone has to be charged, a decision made by a prosecutor.

Legal precedents, put simply, are cases that decide issue of law and are then applied in future cases. What happens in this case will only set a precedent if (at some future stage) it ends up in the Court of Appeal, say.

I don't know what you mean by 'further licence to criminals" - do you?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sue, Rendel and RPC nailed it in the first few posts.

[SpringTime]

Sorry - I'm not a lawyer, obviously. As less than an amateur I mean "the law" in a broader sense to include police, judge and jury, the lot - and hope that the result of the legal process falls in favour of the victim (not a deceased burglar). It's too much for people to have to worry about murder charges when someone's burgling their homes, and if that mentality persists violent intruders have the upper hand.

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "People should have every right to defend

> themselves and theirs. I hope that the law sides

> with the gentleman and acts as a precedent that

> favours victims of crime as opposed to lending

> further licence to criminals"

>

> Crikey, it really is amateur hour round here.

>

> The law doesn't side with anyone - it's applied by

> judges who (in criminal trials) give directions on

> law to juries. But before it gets to a trial

> someone has to be charged, a decision made by a

> prosecutor.

>

> Legal precedents, put simply, are cases that

> decide issue of law and are then applied in future

> cases. What happens in this case will only set a

> precedent if (at some future stage) it ends up in

> the Court of Appeal, say.

>

> I don't know what you mean by 'further licence to

> criminals" - do you?

[JohnL]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unbelievable.

> Pensioner attacked by two scum burglars in his

> home. He fights back and in the struggle stabs and

> kills one (pity not both). Police, who have given

> up on theft and burglaries, and with London

> streets littered with bodies,arrest the

> householder.

> I despair of this country.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/showkey-murder-trial-teenager-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-rapper-at-party-a3471571.html

Remember this case - not guilty and identity protection for life.

[OutOfFocus]

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Police, who have given

> up on theft and burglaries,

Police I've just knocked on my door about a burglary. Or perhaps I'm just dreaming.