Stabbing in Hither Green.

[Blah Blah]

I agree with the sensible posts above. It is normal procedure to arrest and question anyone responsible for the death of another, irregardless of the circumstances. Police then have a limit of 24 hours in custody before having to make a charge or bail. This pensioner will almost certainly be bailed in due course. The Police will refer his case to the CPS who will then decide if there are any charges to be answered. The CPS as part of that will weigh up the chances of said charges holding up in court.

I personally find it hard to belive that a pensioner attacked in his own home during a burglary will ever be convicted of anything, but if there were evidence that the burglar was killed in anything other than self defence, then there is a duty for Police to investigate that.

[Robert Poste's Child]

From the BBC:

'One suspect, armed with a screwdriver, forced the man into his kitchen where a struggle ensued and he was stabbed, Scotland Yard said.'

So it appears that this isn't a case of a householder arming himself and creeping up on a couple of burglars from behind, ie anything that could be called planned or intentional: one burglar (40 years younger than his intended victim) was armed with a screwdriver and attempted to keep him prisoner while the other one searched for things to steal, there was a struggle and the burglar was stabbed with his own weapon.

If that interpretation is correct, it's hard to imagine a judge deciding there is a case to answer.

[malumbu]

Dear EDF. Please save your ranting until after decisions have been made by the Rozzers, CPS etc. If after that you are still angry then continue the debate, sign petitions, write to your MP/PM etc. You'll find it is good for your blood pressure if you save your views until then. Meanwhile for those of you who disagree with me there is always the Daily Mail web site where you can vent your anger.

We're not bad a the rule of law in Blighty. Not perfect. By all means debate that.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Oh do stop preaching, Malumbu. My posts weren't ranting, they were exploring what has been reported and what that suggests. Other people are as entitled as you to share their views, surely.

[uncleglen]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Dear EDF. Please save your ranting until after

> decisions have been made by the Rozzers, CPS etc.

> If after that you are still angry then continue

> the debate, sign petitions, write to your MP/PM

> etc. You'll find it is good for your blood

> pressure if you save your views until then.

> Meanwhile for those of you who disagree with me

> there is always the Daily Mail web site where you

> can vent your anger.

>

> We're not bad a the rule of law in Blighty. Not

> perfect. By all means debate that.

The CPS are totally incompetent in my experience- the police will do their utmost but they may as well bang their heads on a brick wall- I feel sorry for them.

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Oh do stop preaching, Malumbu. My posts weren't

> ranting, they were exploring what has been

> reported and what that suggests. Other people are

> as entitled as you to share their views, surely.

I don't speak for Malumbu, RPC, but I'd hazard a guess his post wasn't aimed at you in the slightest but at the OP and certain other well-known frothers.

[apbremer]

Let's just accept that the Law is an Ass, and the lunatics are running the asylum.

[Robert Poste's Child]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Oh do stop preaching, Malumbu. My posts weren't

> > ranting, they were exploring what has been

> > reported and what that suggests. Other people

> are

> > as entitled as you to share their views,

> surely.

>

> I don't speak for Malumbu, RPC, but I'd hazard a

> guess his post wasn't aimed at you in the

> slightest but at the OP and certain other

> well-known frothers.

You may be right but as it followed mine and was addressed to everyone I took it to apply to me.

[DaveR]

"Let's just accept that the Law is an Ass, and the lunatics are running the asylum"

How about "let's just accept that so far, a single decision has been made i.e. to arrest, which on any view is not obviously unreasonable"?

And perhaps additionally "let's just accept that people who like talking about 'filth' and 'scum' are probably both unable to be rational or cautious in their opinions (as well as being, I would hazard, quite unpleasant individuals)"?

[JohnL]

The police and CPS have to go through the motions - I think the law says also that for a self defence defence you need to feel in imminent danger for your life.

[rendelharris]

apbremer Wrote:

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

> Let's just accept that the Law is an Ass, and the

> lunatics are running the asylum.

No let's not, let's accept that the police are doing their job, which is to investigate violent deaths fully, including questioning under caution all those involved, and that the only lunatics are those who appear to believe that due process should be replaced by some form of adhoc justice administered by the police.

[flocker spotter]

Burglars have more rights than the burgled these days - I know of one bloke who was sued by a burglar as the laptop he had stolen was not pat tested and gave him an electric shock when he tried to sell to cash converters. this is a 100% TRUE FACT.

The pensioners should have knocked the arresting policemans' hat off as they are legally unable to arrest you if this happens. this is also a 100% TRUE FACT.

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> The police and CPS have to go through the motions

> - I think the law says also that for a self

> defence defence you need to feel in imminent

> danger for your life.

It doesn't - there's no such requirement. You may use (objectively) reasonable force to defend yourself. It's use also has to be justified and necessary. Since the much publicised change in the law in 2013 (Crime and Courts Act), as a homeowner, you are entitled to use disproportionate force to defend yourself.

[robbin]

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> Burglars have more rights than the burgled these

> days - I know of one bloke who was sued by a

> burglar as the laptop he had stolen was not pat

> tested and gave him an electric shock when he

> tried to sell to cash converters. this is a 100%

> TRUE FACT.

>

> The pensioners should have knocked the arresting

> policemans' hat off as they are legally unable to

> arrest you if this happens. this is also a 100%

> TRUE FACT.

Funniest posting of the day - 100% TRUE FACT

(I love the hat 'fact' but I'm guessing you may not be a lawyer?!)

[flocker spotter]

in a thread of baseless hyperbole and red faced macho fury, it seemed rude not to stir it a little

[adonirum]

"lids" and "suits", flocker spotter, "lids" and "suits"

[robbin]

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> in a thread of baseless hyperbole and red faced

> macho fury, it seemed rude not to stir it a little

If you think this thread is full of baseless hyperbole and fury you should try going to the Brexit thread and typing "on reflection, I'm not sure that Brexit will be such a bad thing for the country in the long run" and stand back!

[Robert Poste's Child]

Depressing that no one but me seems to have an issue with the use of 'lunatic'. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been an acceptable label in the lifetime of anyone using this forum.

[Jules-and-Boo]

well, there was the other incident where the property owner shot a young burglar and ended up in prison

it's a huge debate - and is key to the gun laws in America (the right to defend)

In SA, it's pretty much the same but it doesn't seem to be challenged - the right to defend and protect yourself seems accepted

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The police and CPS have to go through the

> motions

> > - I think the law says also that for a self

> > defence defence you need to feel in imminent

> > danger for your life.

>

> It doesn't - there's no such requirement. You may

> use (objectively) reasonable force to defend

> yourself. It's use also has to be justified and

> necessary. Since the much publicised change in

> the law in 2013 (Crime and Courts Act), as a

> homeowner, you are entitled to use

> disproportionate force to defend yourself.

Seems to be true after checking - not a change in the law but a precedent case set by judges

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jan/15/high-court-rejects-challenge-to-householder-defence-law

With my Celtic temperament I'd try not to go down that route because I'd be afraid of not seeing the line once I went off on one - I'd chuck the kitchen sink at them, then the bath and then the toilet (in films don't forget they always get up again).

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Depressing that no one but me seems to have an

> issue with the use of 'lunatic'. I'm pretty sure

> it hasn't been an acceptable label in the lifetime

> of anyone using this forum.

It's not - for describing people with mental illness. As a common epithet for silly - "The lunatic plan for a garden bridge" - I've never seen it suggested before that it's wrong to use it. It's all context, one wouldn't call a child with learning difficulties stupid but that doesn't mean it's offensive to say "that's a stupid plan." Nor have I ever seen it suggested that the phrase "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" as used above is offensive, it's certainly still in common use. Bad news for Funboy Three residuals if it's wrong.

[flocker spotter]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> well, there was the other incident where the

> property owner shot a young burglar and ended up

> in prison

>

> it's a huge debate - and is key to the gun laws in

> America (the right to defend)

>

> In SA, it's pretty much the same but it doesn't

> seem to be challenged - the right to defend and

> protect yourself seems accepted

If that is Tony martin you are referring to, he had previous for unloading weaponry, had his licence revoked and shot & killed a burglar in the back with an unlicensed pump action shotgun as he was running away from the property.

[Jules-and-Boo]

he did - but it opened a huge debate on the issue of defending yourself

[JohnL]

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > well, there was the other incident where the

> > property owner shot a young burglar and ended

> up

> > in prison

> >

> > it's a huge debate - and is key to the gun laws

> in

> > America (the right to defend)

> >

> > In SA, it's pretty much the same but it doesn't

> > seem to be challenged - the right to defend and

> > protect yourself seems accepted

>

> If that is Tony martin you are referring to, he

> had previous for unloading weaponry, had his

> licence revoked and shot & killed a burglar in the

> back with an unlicensed pump action shotgun as he

> was running away from the property.

And his murder conviction was downgraded to manslaughter I think

[flocker spotter]

diminished responsibility due to personality disorder IIRC . there were rumblings of other firearms issues after release but not sure why these did breach his extant licence conditions or were not raised for official review. different basket of fish to this case though