UK home defence

[pdg]

I don't know if this has been discussed, or if I'm in the right section, but hey.

This is about an ongoing case (it happened last night) - I don't have specifics other than what has been reported.

So two men, at least one of which was armed (with a screwdriver) break into the home of a 78 year old man.

Said septuagenarian is forced into his kitchen by the 'armed' assailant while the other goes upstairs - a scuffle breaks out and the 78 year old fatally stabs the assailant who is 40 years his junior.

Pensioner arrested on suspicion of murder, put in the cells - surviving assailant escapes...


So, as I previously said (and was told in no uncertain terms was bad information) if you defend yourself here you're in the wrong until someone can prove you acted reasonably.


Discuss

 

[hoshin1600]

you would need more detailed information. i dont know UK laws but often you have a "duty to retreat". so if the defendant (septu..whatever is to big of a word for me) was not in eminent danger and instead of being forced to the kitchen walked there on his own volition and grabbed a knife and went back upstairs or to the living room and stabbed the assailant AND there was a door in the kitchen for him to escape then yes he would be arrested pending charges.
many places do not have a duty to retreat but some do. was the assailant stabbed on the porch? castle doctrine usually only applies INSIDE the domicile and do not include porches.
was the assailant stabbed 157 times? that would be considered retribution and not self defense.

 

[pdg]

Here's a report - there are others with more 'details', but I can't speak as to their accuracy.

Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

It states "forced into kitchen by man armed with screwdriver", and that he sustained "A stab wound to the upper body".

The pensioner sustained bruising to his arms (doesn't say defensive bruising or whether from being manhandled, or a combination).



I've seen very few domestic kitchens that don't have an external door, but (surmising here) a lot in that sort of area only lead to an enclosed garden or yard with no immediate means of egress, and possibly/probably locked which introduces another delay.

 

[jobo]

well yes, but that doesn't change anything that was said previously. if someone is dead, who ever caused that is getting arrested, the police can't just say" oh that alright then, then need to gather eevidence first for the inquest and then for any prosecution.

we have an adversarial system, that is, the polices job is to gather enough evidence to prosecute, that is their job, not to gather enough evidence not to prosecute. so they are always going to work from a presumption of guilt. the decision to prosecute belongs to the CPs. they will look at the strength of the evidence AND if its in the public interests
to do so. then of course a jury

i this guy will get to court I don't know, but if the police can put him there, they will do, it would seem on the face of it, he gas strong grounds for self defence, . I can't see a jury convicting him, even if the police and the CPS think they should.

it's really a bad idea to kill or even badly injure someone, even if no conviction results its going to rip your life apart for months or even years

 

[pdg]

I've seen very few domestic kitchens that don't have an external door, but (surmising here) a lot in that sort of area only lead to an enclosed garden or yard with no immediate means of egress, and possibly/probably locked which introduces another delay.

Additionally to this, an addition to the news report:

"New security gates had also been installed to prevent trespassers accessing alleyways behind houses"

So even had he got out the back door, and out of his garden, his escape is further hampered by security gates...

 

[pdg]

well yes, but that doesn't change anything that was said previously. if someone is dead, who ever caused that is getting arrested, the police can't just say" oh that alright then, then need to gather eevidence first for the inquest and then for any prosecution.

we have an adversarial system, that is, the polices job is to gather enough evidence to prosecute, that is their job, not to gather enough evidence not to prosecute. so they are always going to work from a presumption of guilt. the decision to prosecute belongs to the CPs. they will look at the strength of the evidence AND if its in the public interests
to do so. then of course a jury

i this guy will get to court I don't know, but if the police can put him there, they will do, it would seem on the face of it, he gas strong grounds for self defence, . I can't see a jury convicting him, even if the police and the CPS think they should.

it's really a bad idea to kill or even badly injure someone, even if no conviction results its going to rip your life apart for months or even years

I won't disagree with anything you've said, but I can disagree with the deployment of the system...

Yes it needs to be investigated, was it reasonable, in that moment could he have reasonably acted differently, etc.

The burglar who died was found in a nearby street - which suggests to me that the pensioner stabbed him and he ran off, while the pensioner stayed put (not chasing and attacking).


The biggest bone of contention I have is arresting him for murder - the dictionary definition of murder contains "premeditated". I can't see that he planned to be invaded and forced into his kitchen...

Otoh, there are reports of "a recent spate of burglaries" in that area, so if when the police arrived he said something like "I've been leaving this knife on the side in case I needed to defend myself", then I suppose it could loosely fall under premeditation.


I can also disagree with the system itself - if someone enters your property without your consent and using threat - imo they should instantly waive their right to any lawful defence.


Whatever the investigative outcome one thing is crystal clear - there's now one less burglar.

 

[Tez3]

Ok, the householder has been detained for questioning, as right and proper.
Put yourself in to the police who arrived at the door situation, you have a report of a stabbing, you don't know the householder or the stabbed person. Do you automatically assume because the chap is the householder that he is telling the truth, that what he said happened is the truth? or do you take a neutral stance of taking everyone's statements, getting forensic in, questioning everyone and looking at the evidence? The latter is what the police are doing and doing it correctly unlike those who jump to conclusions based on a newspaper story.

The police are neutral in this crime by the way, their job in cases like this is to collect evidence not prosecute. While the police can prosecute minor crimes, major ones are the purview of the CPS.The Crown Prosecution Service - InBrief.co.uk
Jobo hates the police and loves trying to tell you they are always the bad ones.

If the householder is telling the truth it's unlikely it will come to court. Killing someone in self defence is allowed here and if the Crown Prosecution Service decide the evidence shows self defence they will not take it to court.
Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

A different crime but note the police comments, they will be the same for the case the OP has brought up. “Self-defence is a line of enquiry in this case, however, it is important that we remain open minded and carry out a thorough investigation to establish the truth and the facts. We will do that as quickly as possible.

Grays Murder: Police investigate possible self defence - Your Thurrock

 

[Tez3]

The biggest bone of contention I have is arresting him for murder - the dictionary definition of murder contains "premeditated". I can't see that he planned to be invaded and forced into his kitchen.

He hasn't been arrested for murder. The arrest was for suspicion of grievous bodily harm and suspicion of murder, he can easily be de arrested. He hasn't been charged.

Murder is a common law offence and there is no legal definition in statute, however the following requirements have been established through case law to identify murder as a criminal offence

For a person to have committed a murder in the eyes of the law they must satisfy all the below requirements: (The Actus Reus of murder)

1. The victim of the killing must have been a ‘person in being’ , this means a murder will only occur if a person is unlawfully killed and that the victim is a person who is independent from their mother (not still in the womb)
2. The victim must have died, If a person attempts to unlawfully kill a person but they survive the attack that person would most likely be guilty of attempted murder and not actual murder itself.
3. The victim’s death must have been caused by the act (possible failure to act) of the defendant. If a person dies of a disease, then this is not murder.

To summaries, the victim must be a person, who has died as a result of the defendants actions.

For a person to be guilty of murder they must also have the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (This is the Mens Rea of Murder)

 

[pdg]

Ok, the householder has been detained for questioning, as right and proper.
Put yourself in to the police who arrived at the door situation, you have a report of a stabbing, you don't know the householder or the stabbed person. Do you automatically assume because the chap is the householder that he is telling the truth, that what he said happened is the truth? or do you take a neutral stance of taking everyone's statements, getting forensic in, questioning everyone and looking at the evidence? The latter is what the police are doing and doing it correctly unlike those who jump to conclusions based on a newspaper story.

The police are neutral in this crime by the way, their job in cases like this is to collect evidence not prosecute. While the police can prosecute minor crimes, major ones are the purview of the CPS.The Crown Prosecution Service - InBrief.co.uk
Jobo hates the police and loves trying to tell you they are always the bad ones.

If the householder is telling the truth it's unlikely it will come to court. Killing someone in self defence is allowed here and if the Crown Prosecution Service decide the evidence shows self defence they will not take it to court.
Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

A different crime but note the police comments, they will be the same for the case the OP has brought up. “Self-defence is a line of enquiry in this case, however, it is important that we remain open minded and carry out a thorough investigation to establish the truth and the facts. We will do that as quickly as possible.

Grays Murder: Police investigate possible self defence - Your Thurrock

As I said, my only real gripe is arresting him for murder, which by definition implies premeditation.

That's tantamount to jumping to a conclusion.

Suspected manslaughter would have been more fitting imo.

Also, why detain? Unless the pensioner has a history of violent behaviour (ok, he might, I don't know) then what's wrong with "stay with a relative, don't leave the area"?

 

[Tez3]

As I said, my only real gripe is arresting him for murder, which by definition implies premeditation.

That's tantamount to jumping to a conclusion.

Suspected manslaughter would have been more fitting imo.

Also, why detain? Unless the pensioner has a history of violent behaviour (ok, he might, I don't know) then what's wrong with "stay with a relative, don't leave the area"?

He hasn't been arrested for murder. Why detain him? We don't know the story, what if it turns out they weren't burglars but drunken friends who had an argument and he stabbed one then everyone would be demanding why the police hadn't detained him, the law is supposed to treat everyone the same so why complain when it does?

 

[pdg]

He hasn't been arrested for murder. The arrest was for suspicion of grievous bodily harm and suspicion of murder, he can easily be de arrested. He hasn't been charged.

According to the report, he was initially arrested for GBH alone.

When the burglar was pronounced dead, he was re-arrested on suspicion of murder.

This is where I have a problem with the definition.

Why was the initial arrest not for attempted murder, and the subsequent re-arrest not for suspicion of manslaughter?

Does GBH carry the onus of premeditation?

 

[pdg]

He hasn't been arrested for murder

According to the information I have available, he has been arrested and detained on suspicion of murder.

If information you have available to you contradicts that I'll be happy to concede that point.

 

[Tez3]

Does GBH carry the onus of premeditation?

No.

Why was the initial arrest not for attempted murder, and the subsequent re-arrest not for suspicion of manslaughter?

Here you go, the Law isn't a simple as you'd like it to be. I spent many many months learning this lot, see how you go and answer your own question. Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

The Tour of the Basque Country is on live so I don't have the time to spend, a couple of hours at least, of why the police arrest for what they do. Bear in mind anyone who is arrested can be de arrested easily, being charged is the crucial thing.

 

[jobo]

I won't disagree with anything you've said, but I can disagree with the deployment of the system...

Yes it needs to be investigated, was it reasonable, in that moment could he have reasonably acted differently, etc.

The burglar who died was found in a nearby street - which suggests to me that the pensioner stabbed him and he ran off, while the pensioner stayed put (not chasing and attacking).


The biggest bone of contention I have is arresting him for murder - the dictionary definition of murder contains "premeditated". I can't see that he planned to be invaded and forced into his kitchen...

Otoh, there are reports of "a recent spate of burglaries" in that area, so if when the police arrived he said something like "I've been leaving this knife on the side in case I needed to defend myself", then I suppose it could loosely fall under premeditation.


I can also disagree with the system itself - if someone enters your property without your consent and using threat - imo they should instantly waive their right to any lawful defence.


Whatever the investigative outcome one thing is crystal clear - there's now one less burglar.

well yes and no no, its the intent to kill that has to be there, you only need to form that intent half a second before acti not a hours before, it also includes taking action which could foreseeable lead to death. so sticking a knife in domes chest is always going to be incl in the definition.

I can't disagree with your feeling on " the system" I've been on the wrong side of agresive, I'll prove you guilty if it kills me, police interviews myself.

always have a good so!icitor on speed dial, you don't know when you may need them

 

[Tez3]

I can't disagree with your feeling on " the system" I've been on the wrong side of agresive, I'll prove you guilty if it kills me, police interviews myself.

Ah there you go, prejudice against the police right there. Funny how guilty people always hate the police.

I shall now work out what crime sticking a knife in domes chest is.

 

[jobo]

According to the report, he was initially arrested for GBH alone.

When the burglar was pronounced dead, he was re-arrested on suspicion of murder.

This is where I have a problem with the definition.

Why was the initial arrest not for attempted murder, and the subsequent re-arrest not for suspicion of manslaughter?

Does GBH carry the onus of premeditation?

yes, it requires intent to cause injury,( or being reckless to injury being caused) , but knifings someone I S intent to cause injury, there is no other reason to do so

 

[jobo]

Ah there you go, prejudice against the police right there. Funny how guilty people always hate the police.

I shall now work out what crime sticking a knife in domes chest is.

I dislike the " system" as I wasn't guilty, if I was I'd say fair enough.

 

[pdg]

those who jump to conclusions based on a newspaper story

I wasn't jumping to conclusions, generally the BBC reports are based on information supplied by the police.

If that is indeed the case, then the police have the initial belief that this was a burglary (not an escalated argument between friends) and the actions of the pensioner were defensive (not a planned attack).

I believe my interim conclusions are usually fairly good. As and when new information or evidence presents itself I always reserve the right to adjust my opinion.

Here you go, the Law isn't a simple as you'd like it to be.

It should be.

The legal definitions should match the accepted dictionary definitions, and if they don't one or the other should be amended accordingly.


There's a great thing though - I can disagree with you, you can disagree with me, we can both agree or disagree with the system or legal definitions, there's no harm.

As long as my disagreement with any law doesn't lead me to breaking it (I'm not a subscriber to the freemen of the land balderdash) then I'm allowed to complain, and you're allowed to complain back.

 

[Tez3]

I wasn't jumping to conclusions, generally the BBC reports are based on information supplied by the police.

I didn't say you were I was referring to media reports.

The legal definitions should match the accepted dictionary definitions, and if they don't one or the other should be amended accordingly.

I'm sorry but that's very funny. Dictionaries aren't legal documents.

There's a great thing though - I can disagree with you, you can disagree with me, we can both agree or disagree with the system or legal definitions, there's no harm

How much legal or police training have you had? If you haven't had any compared to my 25 years plus then we aren't really agreeing or disagreeing are we? If you are disagreeing with legal definitions as I post from the legal bodies that define them, well you are wrong aren't you. I have explained police procedures, unless you have also carried out those procedures how can you say I'm wrong?

 

[jobo]

I didn't say you were I was referring to media reports.




I'm sorry but that's very funny. Dictionaries aren't legal documents.




How much legal or police training have you had? If you haven't had any compared to my 25 years plus then we aren't really agreeing or disagreeing are we? If you are disagreeing with legal definitions as I post from the legal bodies that define them, well you are wrong aren't you. I have explained police procedures, unless you have also carried out those procedures how can you say I'm wrong?

I think he is saying that the procedures are W RONG, not that you are wrong about the procedures, a view he or any one else is entitled to have and to express