Stevo985 Posted April 4, 2018 Author VT Supporter Share Posted April 4, 2018 1 hour ago, mottaloo said: The old boy who allegedly stabbed a burglar in his house this week....now, I'm not one for a Donald Trump style reaction but i honestly believe that the thief surrenders all rights once he/she trespasses (not that it's gonna be much use to him now). God forbid anything like that happens to me or mine but the last thought in my mind would be "careful Johnny, use reasonable force only !" as the adrenalin is pumping through my body. Fine line isn't it? I mean I kind of agree that a burglar forfeits some rights by committing a crime. But where do your draw the line? And would it open up horrible loopholes? Like drawing someone into your house and then murdering them. Then claim they were robbing you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 2 hours ago, mottaloo said: The old boy who allegedly stabbed a burglar in his house this week....now, I'm not one for a Donald Trump style reaction but i honestly believe that the thief surrenders all rights once he/she trespasses (not that it's gonna be much use to him now). God forbid anything like that happens to me or mine but the last thought in my mind would be "careful Johnny, use reasonable force only !" as the adrenalin is pumping through my body. if it's all going to pan out as I heard it described today, that the old guy was threatened and pushed about a bit, he'll be fine it's just a formality if it turns out the guy has been stabbed in the back 16 times and his guide dog has been curried... not so much 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) My views on law and order are shall we say a little right wing so I agree with @mottaloo on this, you step into my house I will go Tony Martin on your ass. Edited April 5, 2018 by Seat68 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, mottaloo said: The old boy who allegedly stabbed a burglar in his house this week....now, I'm not one for a Donald Trump style reaction but i honestly believe that the thief surrenders all rights once he/she trespasses (not that it's gonna be much use to him now). God forbid anything like that happens to me or mine but the last thought in my mind would be "careful Johnny, use reasonable force only !" as the adrenalin is pumping through my body. [IANAL] A householder can use disproportionate, but not grossly disproportionate, force against someone whom they genuinely believe to be an intruder/a trespasser (in or partly in a building - so not in the garden or running away up the drive) in order to prevent crime and defend themselves or someone else in their household. It obviously does not give a householder carte blanche to do anything they want to someone trespassing. For more information see the CPS website when they've got it sorted out. Edit: That may be slightly wrong - I think the heightened protection only applies to defending persons not defending property. Edited April 5, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 The burglar got what he deserved Well played pensioner 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, AshVilla said: The burglar got what he deserved Well played pensioner Agreed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottaloo Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 2 hours ago, snowychap said: [IANAL] A householder can use disproportionate, but not grossly disproportionate, force against someone whom they genuinely believe to be an intruder/a trespasser (in or partly in a building - so not in the garden or running away up the drive) in order to prevent crime and defend themselves or someone else in their household. It obviously does not give a householder carte blanche to do anything they want to someone trespassing. For more information see the CPS website when they've got it sorted out. Edit: That may be slightly wrong - I think the heightened protection only applies to defending persons not defending property. I agree to the theory of this situation but i think blind rage in a "how the f**k dare you" way coupled with my fear would make it difficult for me to stop using his head for batting practice......even if I was of the mindset of teaching him a lesson then I doubt I would stop in time. That old boy didn't deserve to be in that sort of situation so late in his life and now he has this to deal with however it works out for him. So much for happy retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Davkaus Posted April 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) He had to be arrested. Someone has died. The police have a duty to investigate how that happened, and whether a crime has been committed. Thankfully, we don't live in a country where the police just take a suspect's words at face value. They'll investigate, and if there's nothing to point to him using disproportionate force, there's close to 0% chance that he's going to be charged with anything. Unless he was pretty much chasing them out of the house and stabbing them in the back while they fled, he's going to be fine. Edited April 5, 2018 by Davkaus 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, mottaloo said: I agree to the theory of this situation but i think blind rage in a "how the f**k dare you" way coupled with my fear would make it difficult for me to stop using his head for batting practice......even if I was of the mindset of teaching him a lesson then I doubt I would stop in time. I'm not sure deciding, in advance, that anyone who enters your home as an intruder deserves to have grossly disproportionate force applied to them in order to 'teach them a lesson' would qualify as blind rage. I think there's a bit too much machismo that enters this kind of a conversation. I'm not sure that any decent person would like to have the death of someone else on their conscience for the rest of their lives regardless of whether or not they thought there was a legal excuse for their actions. Edited April 5, 2018 by snowychap 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted April 5, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted April 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm not sure that any decent person would like to have the death of someone else on their conscience for the rest of their lives regardless of whether or not they thought there was a legal excuse for their actions. This is the key for me. I'm not sure how I'd react in that situation (I've had huge anger issues in the past so probably not too level headedly) however, even though this guy did what many people think is the right thing in defending his property etc he will still have to live with killing someone. I wouldn't wish that on anyone in that situation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 43 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm not sure deciding, in advance, that anyone who enters your home as an intruder deserves to have grossly disproportionate force applied to them in order to 'teach them a lesson' would qualify as blind rage. I think there's a bit too much machismo that enters this kind of a conversation. I'm not sure that any decent person would like to have the death of someone else on their conscience for the rest of their lives regardless of whether or not they thought there was a legal excuse for their actions. No one wants death on their hands but if you feel you or your family is in danger and need to protect them you will do anything necessary to save them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted April 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Demitri_C said: No one wants death on their hands but if you feel you or your family is in danger and need to protect them you will do anything necessary to save them. FFS, why does this always happen whenever this topic is discussed? It goes around and around in circles because people complain about something that isn't the case, i.e. that you can't do anything. No one says that people can't do what they genuinely feel is necessary in order to defend themselves (and others) in such a situation. What they are saying (what the law says, too) is that they can't go beyond that and do what they want regardless of whether or not it is necessary, e.g. they can't use grossly disproportionate force. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottaloo Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 1 hour ago, snowychap said: I think there's a bit too much machismo that enters this kind of a conversation. I'm not sure that any decent person would like to have the death of someone else on their conscience for the rest of their lives regardless of whether or not they thought there was a legal excuse for their actions. Granted but i can only speak for myself and I am in no way a haughty peacock, fanning out my feathers and not wanting to lose face by not pummelling the intruder..... I'm sure you weren't suggesting I was by the way. I don't want to tempt fate but let's hope I don't need to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, mottaloo said: Granted but i can only speak for myself and I am in no way a haughty peacock, fanning out my feathers and not wanting to lose face by not pummelling the intruder..... I'm sure you weren't suggesting I was by the way. I don't want to tempt fate but let's hope I don't need to find out. I was speaking generally. Let's hope not, too (and that's with the safety of you and your family as the first concern). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 5, 2018 Author VT Supporter Share Posted April 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: He had to be arrested. Someone has died. The police have a duty to investigate how that happened, and whether a crime has been committed. Thankfully, we don't live in a country where the police just take a suspect's words at face value. They'll investigate, and if there's nothing to point to him using disproportionate force, there's close to 0% chance that he's going to be charged with anything. Unless he was pretty much chasing them out of the house and stabbing them in the back while they fled, he's going to be fine. It really is as simple as this, and this kind of thing drives me mad that it causes such uproar when it's clearly the right thing to do. Do people just expect the police to say "Well this guy is dead, but I'm sure everything was above board, have a good day" They'll investigate it and the Pensioner will (probably) be let off. End of uproar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 5, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted April 5, 2018 It's important to be 'right on'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 He's already been released on bail, so it's looking alright for him. Well, alright-ish. I wouldn't be keen on going back alone to a house where I'd been through that, poor bloke. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, snowychap said: FFS, why does this always happen whenever this topic is discussed? It goes around and around in circles because people complain about something that isn't the case, i.e. that you can't do anything. No one says that people can't do what they genuinely feel is necessary in order to defend themselves (and others) in such a situation. What they are saying (what the law says, too) is that they can't go beyond that and do what they want regardless of whether or not it is necessary, e.g. they can't use grossly disproportionate force. isn't that what i have just said? And also you dont ahve a lot of time to react how do you know if a intruder is armed or not? Edited April 5, 2018 by Demitri_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 on the BBC news website, the following Quote A 37-year-old man, armed with a screwdriver, forced the homeowner into his kitchen where a struggle ensued and the suspect was stabbed, the Met said. If that report stands up to a basic bit of routine policing, then everything will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCDAN Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) The home owner can say whatever they want in these situations but I'm sure the evidence will speak for itself in these sort of cases. Signs of struggle and where it started, number of wounds and placement on the victim, DNA/Blood evidence and its location, method of entry into the house, wounds to the home owner or lack of. Edited April 5, 2018 by AVFCDAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts