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

Crossover · 2 May 2019

yorkie said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48134851

An excellent result.

Yes, I heard about this earlier - I agree with your sentiment

RailUK Forums

Mutant Lemming · 3 May 2019

I find it odd that people opposed to a judicial death penalty seem quite happy with a summary one. Whilst I agree with the verdict it is a situation where only two people know precisely what happened and one of those is dead. The message seems to be that although we won't execute brutal sadistic murderers who are a constant threat and will never change it is fine to kill someone who is burgling our (or maybe even someone else's) property.

baz962 · 3 May 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
I find it odd that people opposed to a judicial death penalty seem quite happy with a summary one. Whilst I agree with the verdict it is a situation where only two people know precisely what happened and one of those is dead. The message seems to be that although we won't execute brutal sadistic murderers who are a constant threat and will never change it is fine to kill someone who is burgling our (or maybe even someone else's) property.

I would perhaps guess that people are ok with self defence , but not revenge.

YorkshireBear · 3 May 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
I find it odd that people opposed to a judicial death penalty seem quite happy with a summary one. Whilst I agree with the verdict it is a situation where only two people know precisely what happened and one of those is dead. The message seems to be that although we won't execute brutal sadistic murderers who are a constant threat and will never change it is fine to kill someone who is burgling our (or maybe even someone else's) property.

If the homeowners version is to be believed he acted in self defence, this was not the execution of a burglar.

bramling · 3 May 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
I find it odd that people opposed to a judicial death penalty seem quite happy with a summary one. Whilst I agree with the verdict it is a situation where only two people know precisely what happened and one of those is dead. The message seems to be that although we won't execute brutal sadistic murderers who are a constant threat and will never change it is fine to kill someone who is burgling our (or maybe even someone else's) property.

Quite honestly, I’m fully comfortable with that message. If you choose to enter someone else’s home illegally, you takes your chances - it’s as simple as that. Hopefully this might make some would-be burglars think twice, though sadly it probably won’t. I’d certainly have little hesitation in doing what this homeowner did.

yorkie · 3 May 2019

bramling said:
Quite honestly, I’m fully comfortable with that message. If you choose to enter someone else’s home illegally, you takes your chances - it’s as simple as that. Hopefully this might make some would-be burglars think twice, though sadly it probably won’t. I’d certainly have little hesitation in doing what this homeowner did.

Absolutely agreed.

cactustwirly · 3 May 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
I find it odd that people opposed to a judicial death penalty seem quite happy with a summary one. Whilst I agree with the verdict it is a situation where only two people know precisely what happened and one of those is dead. The message seems to be that although we won't execute brutal sadistic murderers who are a constant threat and will never change it is fine to kill someone who is burgling our (or maybe even someone else's) property.

That's not the point, it was a unique set of circumstances, it is completely unacceptable to randomly kill burglars.
However if you feel your life is being threatened, and you have no other choice then it is acceptable to kill someone, however this must be proved in court.
In this case it was an accidental death, since the burglar actually walked into the knife.

AlterEgo · 3 May 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
I find it odd that people opposed to a judicial death penalty seem quite happy with a summary one. Whilst I agree with the verdict it is a situation where only two people know precisely what happened and one of those is dead. The message seems to be that although we won't execute brutal sadistic murderers who are a constant threat and will never change it is fine to kill someone who is burgling our (or maybe even someone else's) property.

But it is okay to kill someone who has entered your house with a knife, if there is reasonable suspicion that you might be in mortal danger.

I would have stabbed him too.

Geezertronic · 3 May 2019

Mutant Lemming said:
I find it odd that people opposed to a judicial death penalty seem quite happy with a summary one. Whilst I agree with the verdict it is a situation where only two people know precisely what happened and one of those is dead. The message seems to be that although we won't execute brutal sadistic murderers who are a constant threat and will never change it is fine to kill someone who is burgling our (or maybe even someone else's) property.

There was no intent by the homeowner to kill anyone in this instance. There was intent in the case against Tony Martin for example, which is why he was convicted

cactustwirly · 3 May 2019

Geezertronic said:
There was no intent by the homeowner to kill anyone in this instance. There was intent in the case against Tony Martin for example, which is why he was convicted

Nope, Tony Martin couldn't use self defence as a defense, as he shot the burglars as they were leaving the house, therefore he was convicted of Murder (which was later reduced to Diminished Responsibility Voluntary Manslaughter)

In order to use self defence, as a defense in court, there is a reverse burden of proof on the defendant, to prove that there was a threat to their life, and that the force used was reasonable in those circumstances

Mag_seven · 3 May 2019

Its all just a question of "reasonable force" isn't it?

OneOffDave · 3 May 2019

cactustwirly said:
Nope, Tony Martin couldn't use self defence as a defense, as he shot the burglars as they were leaving the house, therefore he was convicted of Murder (which was later reduced to Diminished Responsibility Voluntary Manslaughter)

In order to use self defence, as a defense in court, there is a reverse burden of proof on the defendant, to prove that there was a threat to their life, and that the force used was reasonable in those circumstances

Tony Martin's use of an unlawfully owned firearm and his pre-planning didn't help either

61653 HTAFC · 3 May 2019

bramling said:
Quite honestly, I’m fully comfortable with that message. If you choose to enter someone else’s home illegally, you takes your chances - it’s as simple as that. Hopefully this might make some would-be burglars think twice, though sadly it probably won’t. I’d certainly have little hesitation in doing what this homeowner did.

Though if the homeowner's account is to be believed (for the record I do believe him and agree with the verdict of the inquest) he didn't actually "act", as the burglar ran into the knife he was holding. If you were to act in the same way deliberately (i.e. to hold the knife in such a way that an intruder was likely to be impaled on it) the verdict of any inquest might be different. If you cited this case in your defence, in my opinion you'd be indicating intent or at the very least a degree of recklessness.

Master29 · 3 May 2019

underbank said:
The police are frightened of them. Nothing new either. I was in the police in the late 1980s and was basically told to ignore whatever they were doing unless it was something VERY serious such as killing or maiming someone. I arrested a few of them over a couple of years for "minor" things such as breaking into cars, pub fight assaults, etc., and each time was told in no uncertain terms by the custody sergeant to let them go without charge. One of the reasons I left was that I couldn't stand their double standards, when they'd happily arrest/charge other people for lesser things.

I`m willing to bet a high percentage of organized crime could be traced back to travellers. That`s not any form of racism, just plain and simple fact.

Esker-pades · 3 May 2019

Master29 said:
I`m willing to bet a high percentage of organized crime could be traced back to travellers. That`s not any form of racism, just plain and simple fact.

If it was a fact, you wouldn't need to bet on it...

Master29 · 3 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
If it was a fact, you wouldn't need to bet on it...

You do have a point.

Busaholic · 4 May 2019

Cowley said:
Yep. Good to see it working out in favour of the actual victim in this case. Although he never asked for any of this, and it must’ve been a truly terrible year for him.

Two people's lives ruined - those of Mr and Mrs Osborn-Brooks, who, in their twilight years, will never be able to return to their former home and have to live in fear of 'reprisals' from a group of people who consider, perhaps with good reason, they are above the law.

bramling · 7 May 2019

61653 HTAFC said:
Though if the homeowner's account is to be believed (for the record I do believe him and agree with the verdict of the inquest) he didn't actually "act", as the burglar ran into the knife he was holding. If you were to act in the same way deliberately (i.e. to hold the knife in such a way that an intruder was likely to be impaled on it) the verdict of any inquest might be different. If you cited this case in your defence, in my opinion you'd be indicating intent or at the very least a degree of recklessness.

Where does one (reasonably) draw the line with "intent"? Say I live in an area with a known history of aggravated burglary, and I keep a knife in my bedside drawer just in case. Then one night someone comes bursting into my bedroom, and the burglar ends up getting stabbed. Is that intent? What if the burglar is in the next room and I go in there and stab him? What if I "ask" him to leave and he refuses, does that change anything?

I'd say *any* case where someone unlawfully enters someone else's home with any kind of weapon should render the occupier able to use whatever means are available to defend themselves, and part of that defending themselves would be disabling the person and/or forcing them to leave. I'm quite comfortable with the possibility that this might have fatal consequences - quite honestly, good if it removes a burglar out of circulation or makes others hesitate. Good riddance.

61653 HTAFC · 7 May 2019

bramling said:
Where does one (reasonably) draw the line with "intent"? Say I live in an area with a known history of aggravated burglary, and I keep a knife in my bedside drawer just in case. Then one night someone comes bursting into my bedroom, and the burglar ends up getting stabbed. Is that intent? What if the burglar is in the next room and I go in there and stab him? What if I "ask" him to leave and he refuses, does that change anything?

I'd say *any* case where someone unlawfully enters someone else's home with any kind of weapon should render the occupier able to use whatever means are available to defend themselves, and part of that defending themselves would be disabling the person and/or forcing them to leave. I'm quite comfortable with the possibility that this might have fatal consequences - quite honestly, good if it removes a burglar out of circulation or makes others hesitate. Good riddance.

I fear you've missed my point. If the above scenario took place and the police/CPS (or whatever they're called now), in trying to determine whether/how to charge you, happen upon a post you made on an online forum. One in which you say you'd have no hesitation in holding a knife in such a way that woe betide any intruder who collides with that knife. That post wouldn't have you bang-to-rights but you might not come out smelling of roses if you'd previously claimed it was an accidental stabbing (even if that was technically true).

Tetchytyke · 9 May 2019

bramling said:
Where does one (reasonably) draw the line with "intent"?

Where caselaw has for the last 200 years, mostly. As with self defence.

If someone comes for you you're entitled to defend yourself. If you reasonably believe yourself to be in danger, you can even pre-emptively protect yourself. But if the danger has passed you can't.

In short, if you stab someone coming at you in your home you're ok. If you stab someone who hasn't come for you but is prowling around your home you're likely to be ok. If you chase after someone who's left your home in order to stab them, you're on dodgy ground. And if you're Tony Martin, shooting someone in the back from 50 yards away as they ran away, you're looking at a conviction for manslaughter at least.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member