Dog-amoto Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 (edited) This seriously pisses me off. Two men break into a house, the householder defends himself and his property and one of the burglars ends up dead http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14963811 So now the householder has been arrested on suspicion of murder, which is a bit harsh, as it should be manslaughter at the very worst, but what really fucks me off is that a lot of people who break into your house wouldn't think twice about doing you in in order to get what they need to feed their drug habit or whatever. How many stories do you read about where an OAP has been beaten up or even killed by burglars? The line that really made my piss sizzle though was this: Floral tributes to the dead man have been laid near the scene. What the fuck? This guy is a fucking lowlife who breaks into peoples' houses for a living. Good fucking riddance I say. Edited September 19, 2011 by Dog-amoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 There was a similar case where someone shot and killed a burglar. IIRC, it was declared as self defence and the guy was let off. I imagine this will go the same way. Still needs to be investigated though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 I thought the government had put in safeguards which help protect you legally if you're just protecting your property. I remember reading not too long ago about a case that had been dismissed due to it. The homeowner may likely be protected using this recently added protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 There was a similar case where someone shot and killed a burglar. IIRC, it was declared as self defence and the guy was let off. I imagine this will go the same way. Still needs to be investigated though. This. I'll get outraged if he's actually charged with anything (unjustly) but not before :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 The police have to conduct the investigation into what actually happened and an arrest preserves evidence. Being arrested does not prove you guilty, only that you are a suspect. There was another one in manchester a month or two ago and the home owner was released without charge as there was enough evidence for self defence. He killed a person so he is automatically a suspect for a murder but if the investigation proves it was self defence like other cases then he will be free to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 If somebody breaks into your house, you have to believe that they will cause you some harm. They're not coming in to make you a cuppa, lets put it that way. Whether they're coming to steal something or hurt you, they are putting you in danger. When you feel you're under threat, you're not going to think rationally. You're not going to think "I must just wound him, not kill him." At the time, you'll probably be thinking "shit, get out of my house, why are you here? Leave me alone." Not saying it's right for someone to kill another person. But, personally, I side with the true victim. The one sitting/sleeping at home, not breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 The charge of murder won't stand I'm sure of that. It will be an interesting case though to see how far the politics talk of defending those who really were the victims stands up in the face of a real situation. People laying wreathes nearby is ridiculous. That person was a scumbag for breaking into the house in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 The charge of murder won't stand I'm sure of that. It will be an interesting case though to see how far the politics talk of defending those who really were the victims stands up in the face of a real situation. Already has, the case i mentioned in my post above. Here is a link relating to an article stating NFA. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017669/Salford-householder-stabbed-burglar-death-faces-action.html As i said when a crime has been commited an investigation has to take place, the best way for a prompt and effective investigation is to have suspects arrested to preserve evidence at the scene and to question them. Police will review the evidence, the CPS will have a look and then decide. An arrest does not prove anyone guilty (with i think some people forget, i'm talking generally, not aimed at anyone on here) No matter what has happened a bloke has been killed which makes it a crime so an investigation happens. If the media are accurate in what they have realised regarding this then i agree and i am also confident that he will be free to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 There was a similar case where someone shot and killed a burglar. IIRC, it was declared as self defence and the guy was let off. I imagine this will go the same way. Still needs to be investigated though. But the media doesn't want you to know that. They want you to think he has been charged and wants you to be outraged and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 There was a similar case where someone shot and killed a burglar. IIRC, it was declared as self defence and the guy was let off. I imagine this will go the same way. Still needs to be investigated though. That was Tony Martin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29 It does seem unfair, that the law allows added violence when in fear of death/serious injury. But when it comes to defending your home from a (potentially violent) burglar, suddenly the law becomes more relaxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 It's crap really. It's your property, you should be allowed to defend it. You're not in the wrong, the intruder is. I agree, you hear of the senior citizens attacking burglars and getting "praised" for it. But, if i attacked a burglar, i would probably be in jail for it. It's one of the "law for one, law for another" situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieColeslaw Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Wtf @ the floral tributes, you'd think his family/friends/whoever's laying flowers around would be ashamed and not want to draw attention to it rather than be all self-righteous - considering what he was up to prior to his death... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Fuck offffff, someone has been killed. If that were my family member or close friend I'd leave flowers. (I wouldn't; flowers are for pussies.) And if someone said, "Oi, that dikhed robed sum bloke!", I'd reply, "Yes, fucked up indeed Sir. But that man also held my heart tightly in his dirty hands." Also totally on the home owner's side here. I think if someone breaks into your property you have the right to defend it to the extend of the crook being killed. Although it's a slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 All I'm going to say is that I support full castle doctrine and stand-your-ground legislation. One thing the Americans got right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 That was Tony Martin:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29 It does seem unfair, that the law allows added violence when in fear of death/serious injury. But when it comes to defending your home from a (potentially violent) burglar, suddenly the law becomes more relaxed. It is the same? The self-defence mitigating circumstance option is available in both situations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Breaking into someone's home = bad. Defending yourself & your property = good. Having to kill someone in order to defend yourself = very bad. What the police have to determine is was the force excessive. The report on the BBC suggests that the dead guy had multiple stab wounds. Unless they're actively and persistently doing the same to you, stabbing someone multiple times isn't defending yourself, it's trying to do them serious harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killthenet Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Precisely, if he were stabbing him once to disable him, then that's fair enough. But to attack him multiple times, there has to be more than panic there. He has murdered somebody, he should be punished for it. It doesn't matter if it was out of self-defence, unless there are mitigating circumstances like illness or if he had suffered a real physical trauma, then he should go to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Precisely, if he were stabbing him once to disable him, then that's fair enough. But to attack him multiple times, there has to be more than panic there. He has murdered somebody, he should be punished for it. It doesn't matter if it was out of self-defence, unless there are mitigating circumstances like illness or if he had suffered a real physical trauma, then he should go to prison. Usually that is possibly correct but you really need to know all the situation because multiple stab wounds may still be considered as necessary to repel an attacker. As for "he has murdered somebody, he should be punished" the defence of self-defence is the strongest of all and can acquit you of any offence if rightly proven. The main crux of the defence being that the force used must be "reasonable" in the situation, apparently it has been proven therefore the defendant (the victim) will face no more charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Didn't Cameron say that if somebody breaks into your house, then you can do whatever you want to defend yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I feel sorry for the 'lowlife' who had such a crappy messed up life he had to steal. Couldn't have been a happy one. That's possibly the reason why people left flowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Didn't Cameron say that if somebody breaks into your house, then you can do whatever you want to defend yourself? Here it is. Burglars "leave their human rights outside" when they break in to a property, Conservative leader David Cameron has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Saying that someone having multiple wounds means unreasonable force was used is a little bit short sighted in my opinion. It could easily take multiple hits to disable someone, and you really don't want to take any chances in the event that the burglar has a gun or other weapon. There's a reason that the police shoot people more than once when they shoot someone. Didn't Cameron say that if somebody breaks into your house, then you can do whatever you want to defend yourself? If he did, such a bill obviously hasn't passed yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Gibbs Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Saying that someone having multiple wounds means unreasonable force was used is a little bit short sighted in my opinion. It could easily take multiple hits to disable someone, and you really don't want to take any chances in the event that the burglar has a gun or other weapon. There's a reason that the police shoot people more than once when they shoot someone. Exactly you may go to stab them in the leg to hurt them, kind of a warning shot telling them not to come at you, but if it doesn't stop them you'd try again then its multiple stab wounds I certainly wouldn't stab someone once and stop out of fear that multiple stab wounds is frowned upon, i mean if you haven't incapacitated them the criminal will surely come at you and quite probably maim and/or kill you If he did, such a bill obviously hasn't passed yet. I don't think it has and anyway since Cameron said this there have been three people arrested for defending themselves, their families and homes! AND they have all been in Greater Manchester which i think is because after Cameron said that several police chiefs said it would lead to people taking the law into their own hands, its the police's job to defend them, it strikes me that the Chief officer in Greater Manchester is making a political stand there was 1 where 4 masked and armed men broke into the home of a man they believed to be a big bingo winner, and during the struggle (iirc) he stabbed one of them with their own weapon, and the rest fled. Then there was the old Jamaican man defending his shop a few weeks back, when two armed men came in 1 armed with a gun, he grabbed a knife and fought them off now this! the Americans have this right, you should be allowed to defend your own home by any means necessary with reasonable force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Actually in the US its a state thing. Different states have different laws as far as castle doctrine and stand-your-ground go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions Its actually somewhat funny that the UK doesn't have castle doctrine anymore, as the whole thing originated in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts