Intruders getting stabbed

[strange6]

I see another burglar has been stabbed to death in manchester tonight and the owner arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. I have no doubt whatsoever that the owner will get released without charge and correctly so in my opinion. The only way these people will learn is if they come to realise that they will be at risk of meeting lethal force should they trespass in another persons property in which sleeps his family. And quite right too!

 

[Bungle73]

No and no. You can't give people carte blanche to do what ever they like with intruders. That would give people the green light to commit murder, then claim the victim was an "intruder". That's why the householder has to be arrested while the police investigate exactly what happened.

 

[Liam]

That's why the householder has to be arrested while the police investigate exactly what happened.

And rightly so. But, if it is proven they acted in self defence, i.e. if their life was threatened, then and only then they should be released without charge.

 

[yorkie]

I hope he is released quickly and that the accomplice burgler is given an appropriate sentence (no chance of that - but we can wish). My thoughts are with the burgled couple and their family at this worrying time for them.

I wish I could say I had full faith in our justice system to do justice, unfortunately I am not entirely convinced, and can only hope for the best.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And rightly so. But, if it is proven they acted in self defence, i.e. if their life was threatened, then and only then they should be released without charge.

No, I totally disagree. it should be innocent until proven guilty. It may not be possible to prove innocence, but that should not have to be proven.

 

[ainsworth74]

As far as I'm concerned once someone enters your house/dwelling without permission you should be free to take whatever step you deem necessary to protect yourself, your family and your property from them. If that means stabbing them with a kitchen knife then fair enough. If they've fled the scene and are no longer in your house then you obviously can't chase them down but as long as they're inside any and all means can be used. I also agree that it's reasonable for the police to take the defender into custody and investigate to be sure that there is no foul play but otherwise castle doctrine is the way to go.

So in this case I would hope that the owner will be released shortly assuming that the Police investigation shows no foul play (though as yorkie says innocent till proven guilty).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The other person who was involved with the housebreaking ran away after the incident, but the police tonight have announced that he is being questioned. No news as if he was caught or if he handed himself voluntarily to the police.

 

[AlterEgo]

The other person who was involved with the housebreaking ran away after the incident, but the police tonight have announced that he is being questioned. No news as if he was caught or if he handed himself voluntarily to the police.

BBC Five Live suggested earlier that he was caught up by the police and then arrested.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, I totally disagree. it should be innocent until proven guilty. It may not be possible to prove innocence, but that should not have to be proven.

Quite! And thankfully that is how our country's judicial system works. It is never necessary to prove innocence. Innocence is assumed until proof of guilt can be found.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

BBC Five Live suggested earlier that he was caught up by the police and then arrested.

Thank you for that clarification. Incidentally, the incident occurred in Bramhall, which is a "posh" part of Stockport. Some of the media have referred to Manchester.

 

[Grantham]

Of course this needs investigation every yime this happens, but every incidence needs to be taken individually.

Just what would you do if you were terrified, confronted by criminal strangers who had broken their way into your own house, your mrs and kids are screaming and you're holding a knife?

Equally, what better scenario to hide the perfect crime?

I'm glad I'm not a copper or a beak.

Mick

 

[ralphchadkirk]

All force has to be proportional. If someone is brandishing a knife in your face, then incapacitation is proportional. If someone is trying to strangle you, then stabbing is proportional. You should only use enough force necessary to stop the crime from being committed. If someone is going through your garden shed, with no risk of them even entering your house then killing is not proportional and thus not legal.

 

[Hydro]

All force has to be proportional. If someone is brandishing a knife in your face, then incapacitation is proportional. If someone is trying to strangle you, then stabbing is proportional. You should only use enough force necessary to stop the crime from being committed. If someone is going through your garden shed, with no risk of them even entering your house then killing is not proportional and thus not legal.

Unfortunately, proportionality is difficult to judge, as incapacitation can easily lead to killing without that being the intended outcome. How can someone being strangled with their hands on a knife judge what will be an incapacitating blow and what will not? I will argue that any violence against another person could be potentially lethal (e.g. punched to the ground leading to death, a stab wound causing major blood loss) and that the distinction between "incapacitating" and "lethal" is not as clear cut as believed.

The same works the other way - a "lethal" act may not kill. People can survive quite horrible trauma.

It is because of these questions and arguments that so-called "Shoot-to-kill or Shoot-to-wound" policies are regarded as crap, as any shot could potentially kill or wound depending on so many variables. Police and Security forces now use the term "Less Lethal" rather than "Non Lethal" as any electrical or kinetic trauma (Taser/rubber bullets) can still potentially kill, though judged to be less likely to than live ammunition.

Security forces can make better judgements on what force is necessary to remove the threat due to their roles and equipment at hand. Your average householder will only have what is in their house. Bear in mind that a person in fear for their life or the life of their family will not spend much time, if any, thinking about proportionality.

 

[passmore]

I see another burglar has been stabbed to death in manchester tonight and the owner arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. I have no doubt whatsoever that the owner will get released without charge and correctly so in my opinion. The only way these people will learn is if they come to realise that they will be at risk of meeting lethal force should they trespass in another persons property in which sleeps his family. And quite right too!

Sorry but if you fight fire with fire, then expect severe consequences. There are better ways in dealing with an intruder than reaching for the nearest stabbing weapon. There is such a thing as 'necessary force' and it will be a disappointing day for justice if the owner is charged but not sentenced at least.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry but if you fight fire with fire, then expect severe consequences. There are better ways in dealing with an intruder than reaching for the nearest stabbing weapon. There is such a thing as 'necessary force' and it will be a disappointing day for justice if the owner is charged but not sentenced at least.

You cannot possibly make comments like that without knowing the specifics of the case.

Like me, you have no idea exactly what went on in that house.

 

[passmore]

You cannot possibly make comments like that without knowing the specifics of the case.

Like me, you have no idea exactly what went on in that house.

You can say the same for the journalists who broke the story. We can only make an opinion on what we've been told in the news and my post was never intended to be anything but a personal opinion.

If it's misguided or wrong, show me another news source which tells the same story but from a different angle.

 

[HST Power]

The Government recently introduced new legislation that enables you to defend yourself if an intruder is present in your house. As I understand it, the point raised by ralphchadkirk is correct. You may use force, but the force must be reasonable. If somebody jumps over your fence to steal a pot plant, it would obviously be unnaceptable to shoot them with a sawn off.

If the intruder is in your house then we reach a new level. I have heard that if somebody is on your top floor then you may kill them outright, though I stress that I am not sure of this. Though the fact of the matter is simple, you are fully within your right to use force. If somebody comes into my house and refuses to leave, I can take whatever steps I feel appropriate to remove them. If they end up in hospital then so be it. If they don't get out, then it's their own fault. You can't argue with that.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You cannot possibly make comments like that without knowing the specifics of the case.

Like me, you have no idea exactly what went on in that house.

And that is what the police are trying to establish, hence the arrest.

 

[AlterEgo]

You can say the same for the journalists who broke the story. We can only make an opinion on what we've been told in the news and my post was never intended to be anything but a personal opinion.

If it's misguided or wrong, show me another news source which tells the same story but from a different angle.

The news stories mostly tell of facts. That a man was found with stab wounds after gurgling a house, and that the occupant has been arrested.

Any news story which leads with nonsensical opinion isn't actually news at all. And yes, if journalists are jumping to conclusions and moralising about lethal force without knowing the facts (that will come out after a criminal investigation), then they too deserve equal criticism.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that is what the police are trying to establish, hence the arrest.

Exactly my point.

 

[passmore]

Yes I can see the misunderstanding here. I'm making an opinion on an assumption that the intruder was stabbed by the occupier. For that reason, I hope the police ascertain the facts either way.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes I can see the misunderstanding here. I'm making an opinion on an assumption that the intruder was stabbed by the occupier. For that reason, I hope the police ascertain the facts either way.

But stabbing an intruder may be defined as reasonable force. The occupant must have had a genuine fear for his own life to be able to justify such an act.

We don't know if it was one opportunist, defensive stab at close quarters that had fatal consequences, or twenty stabs in the back. The latter could not be justified.

 

[90019]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the owner will get released without charge and correctly so in my opinion.

If he was in no immediate danger, and the stabbing is considered to be in excess of reasonable force then he will likely be charged with murder, and rightly so.

The only way these people will learn is if they come to realise that they will be at risk of meeting lethal force should they trespass in another persons property in which sleeps his family. And quite right too!

America is the other side of the Atlantic.

But stabbing an intruder may be defined as reasonable force.

That depends very much on the situation.


This may be of interest, it was posted on another forum recently by a Police Officer explaining about this sort of thing.

A Kills B (at this point he has completed the act and the crime of manslaughter/murder has been comitted)
Police Arrest A, interview, obtain evidence etc.

The CPS then have a decision making process to follow:
1) Did A kill B?
2) Does A have a defence to that act? There are a number of statutory defences - insanity, being forced to under duress, or in this case, self defence.
3) Did A Have lawful authority to Kill B? Any other "excuse?"
4) Is it in the public interest, all things considered, to prosecute A.

Now, outside of the context of the riot, lets say someone walks into a corner shop and says "Give me all your money". The shopkeeper takes his machete out and decapitates the wannabe robber. The decision in those circumstances could be to prosecute: The shopkeeper has not been directly threatened, and you could argue that his use of force was plainly excessive in the circumstances. He has no defence, and prosecution is in the public interest as we don't want shopkeepers thinking they can escalate to such levels of violence unprovoked.

Fast forwards to the Riots: Shops and livelyhoods are buring all around, a man is trapped into his shop as he tries to board up by a pack of youths, who begin to assault him. For all he knows he is going to be beaten unconscious and left in his burning shop... The stakes have changed and I would suggest that he would be mad NOT to use all means at his disposal to defend himself. He has a defence in law (self defence) and a sucessful conviction is higly unlikely.

But that doesn't change the fact that a crime was comitted intially, but that the perpertator could not be found guilty of it.

It apes the court process:
Prosecution set out their stall. They give their best proof that the crime happened as they say.
Defence raise their case: This may well include such defences as self defence. In murder, that's pretty much standard.

 

[Grantham]

All force has to be proportional. If someone is brandishing a knife in your face, then incapacitation is proportional. If someone is trying to strangle you, then stabbing is proportional. You should only use enough force necessary to stop the crime from being committed. If someone is going through your garden shed, with no risk of them even entering your house then killing is not proportional and thus not legal.

Proportional...Going through my garden shed...WHERE MY GARDEN TRAINS ARE????

I'LL KILL THEM!!!!!



Mick

 

[185]

It is a local passtime in Manchester.

Lewes has a bonfire, Wensleydale has cheese festivals, Manchester we eat our pets and batter the burglars.

 

[Buttsy]

I read this on the BBC website and the final line was that floral tributes were being left for the dead man. Does anyone else find this a little disturbing as it seems to be gloryfying criminality? It seems to imply 'he was a great bloke, and so what if he did a little house-breaking, everyone does it'.

I will admit that it does not make it clear if the tributes are only from family, which would put a different perspective on things.

 

[Madge Wildfire]

I find it rather strange that we have to allow the intruders into our property before they can be run through with the carving knife, but on an international scale we happily spend trillions of taxpayers money on a deterrent which we say we might use without them even setting foot in our country, if we think they are bad enough.

 

[Kernowfem]

I once soaked a theif after i caught him mid attempt trying to nick my Landrover. I simply drenched him with the hose pipe. Someone on here accused me of being a "little excessive" for doing so.

Then a few months later i answered a knock on my door only to have it shoved back in my face by a man who then proceeded to put his arm in the door and try to drag my keys out of the lock. At which point i put all my force behind the door ensuring that his arm was trapped. I was lucky, i fought him off.

But let me assure you HAD this scum bag managed to gain access to my property, i would have used anything to get him back out!

When something like that happens you don't think "Hmmmm he may just want to take my possesions and not hurt me, so i'll let him in!" You think, jesus christ im in danger here and then the adrenalin kicks in, you do what your instincts tell you to do....fight!

I live alone, and i have a very desirable vehicle, popular with thieves. I shouldn't have to live in fear of being battered/burgled because i work my bum off to be able to afford what i've got.

You enter my house without an invite for whatever purpose and you will get more than you bloody bargained for. I Can't comment on this specific case as i don't know the ins and outs, but i can relate to what it must have been like to find a stranger in your property. It's scary.

 

[Greenback]

I once soaked a theif after i caught him mid attempt trying to nick my Landrover. I simply drenched him with the hose pipe. Someone on here accused me of being a "little excessive" for doing so.

Then a few months later i answered a knock on my door only to have it shoved back in my face by a man who then proceeded to put his arm in the door and try to drag my keys out of the lock. At which point i put all my force behind the door ensuring that his arm was trapped. I was lucky, i fought him off.

But let me assure you HAD this scum bag managed to gain access to my property, i would have used anything to get him back out!

When something like that happens you don't think "Hmmmm he may just want to take my possesions and not hurt me, so i'll let him in!" You think, jesus christ im in danger here and then the adrenalin kicks in, you do what your instincts tell you to do....fight!

I live alone, and i have a very desirable vehicle, popular with thieves. I shouldn't have to live in fear of being battered/burgled because i work my bum off to be able to afford what i've got.

You enter my house without an invite for whatever purpose and you will get more than you bloody bargained for. I Can't comment on this specific case as i don't know the ins and outs, but i can relate to what it must have been like to find a stranger in your property. It's scary.

You are quite correct. It is often impossible to judge the real danger to yourself and family when an uninvited guest is discovered in your home. People can argue the in's and out's later, but you may have a split second to make a decision on trying to incapacitate that person with whatever means might be to hand.

Every case or incident needs to be judged on its merits; this is why we have an independent prosecution service, courts and judge, the former will first look at the circumstances and decide how or if to proceed.

 

[passmore]

I once soaked a theif after i caught him mid attempt trying to nick my Landrover. I simply drenched him with the hose pipe. Someone on here accused me of being a "little excessive" for doing so.

Then a few months later i answered a knock on my door only to have it shoved back in my face by a man who then proceeded to put his arm in the door and try to drag my keys out of the lock. At which point i put all my force behind the door ensuring that his arm was trapped. I was lucky, i fought him off.

But let me assure you HAD this scum bag managed to gain access to my property, i would have used anything to get him back out!

When something like that happens you don't think "Hmmmm he may just want to take my possesions and not hurt me, so i'll let him in!" You think, jesus christ im in danger here and then the adrenalin kicks in, you do what your instincts tell you to do....fight!

I live alone, and i have a very desirable vehicle, popular with thieves. I shouldn't have to live in fear of being battered/burgled because i work my bum off to be able to afford what i've got.

You enter my house without an invite for whatever purpose and you will get more than you bloody bargained for. I Can't comment on this specific case as i don't know the ins and outs, but i can relate to what it must have been like to find a stranger in your property. It's scary.

It may have been scary but there's a fine line between reasonable and unreasonable force. If it is determined that the occupier stabbed him in self-defense, then that most certainly is not reasonable force, even though it was entirely self-defense. Often it's best to do nothing, that way, you don't compound one crime with another.

 

[Grantham]

It may have been scary but there's a fine line between reasonable and unreasonable force. If it is determined that the occupier stabbed him in self-defense, then that most certainly is not reasonable force, even though it was entirely self-defense. Often it's best to do nothing, that way, you don't compound one crime with another.

Do you have a wife and children?

 

[passmore]

Do you have a wife and children?

Widowed. If my wife were still alive and we were burgled in our quiet street, I would not put her in danger by confronting the burglar.

Assuming that is what happened here.

 

[GB]

If it is determined that the occupier stabbed him in self-defense, then that most certainly is not reasonable force, even though it was entirely self-defense.

Does anyone else find that sentance rather contradictory?