Support NeoGAF

[infinitys_7th]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43639183

A 78-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of murder after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death.

The homeowner discovered two intruders in South Park Crescent, Hither Green, south-east London, at about 00:45 BST.

One suspect, armed with a screwdriver, forced the man into his kitchen where a struggle ensued and he was stabbed, Scotland Yard said.

The 38-year-old was taken to hospital by paramedics but was pronounced dead at 03:40.

The pensioner, who suffered bruising to his arms, has been arrested on suspicion of murder.

The burglar obviously attacked the man, 40 years his senior, and drove him to the kitchen. A screwdriver is a deadly weapon in a situation like this.

What really stuck out to me are these statements:

"I feel terrible for the man that was burgled. He doesn't deserve to be punished for defending himself," [a neighbor said].

Local ward Councillor Mark Ingleby described the killing as a "tragedy" and said it had come "out of the blue".

I guess the attitude is just confusing to me. The near-octagenerian was attacked with a deadly weapon and barely fought off his attacker, yet his neighbors are not particularly adamant that he did not commit murder (i.e. illicit homicide, not homicide in self defense) and the politician he funds through tax money sounds more sorry for the 40 year old burglar who was killed than the burglar's intended victim.

Is this just standard practice in the UK? Do they always arrest first and do a investigation, even in obvious circumstances? I know in the US the consensus would be that a tragedy was avoided, particularly with the burglar being an older man and not a 18-20 something who may have just made a mistake.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I'm going to hold out for more details. In the UK the laws on self defense are very clear that the action most only be done in proportion to the threat.

We saw this about a decade ago when a farmer was robbed by two burglars and he shot one in the back as he was running away.

The police could have screwed up, but my experience with them has been they only go for an arrest if they have reasonable evidence to conclude it wasn't entirely self defense.

 

[manfestival]

Something about this doesn't quite seem right. I kinda feel like the police are onto something arresting this man. Would be nice to get some more details

 

[TrainedRage]

If it's as simple as the story implies, then good for that almost 80 year old guy. Defend yourself and your home! Should be justifiable IMO.

 

[sunnz]

read this eairler. Something does seem off. If what is said was done then I don't see why he was arrested and didn't deserve to be arrested.

But maybe it was more like that film were he trapped them in and killed him...

Breaking in an 80 years OAP house at 1am and keeping him hostage questions why does he get any sympathy if he was killed after a stuggle.

Hoping for more info on why he was actually arrested.

 

[camelCase]

That's retarded and reminds me of the scene from liar liar where a burglar falls thru the skylight and wins a hundred thousand dollar settlement

 

[crisdecuba]

That's retarded and reminds me of the scene from liar liar where a burglar falls thru the skylight and wins a hundred thousand dollar settlement

Only because I *love* Liar Liar, there isn't a scene where that happens. Rather Fletcher's secretary, Greta, tells him that story. Her friend had to pay the burglar $6,000, and Greta asks "Is that justice?" Fletcher says "No!" and then, despite his best efforts, adds, "I'd have got him ten."

 

[buizel]

What shocked me (kinda unrelated) is I was watching a documentary called 'Fear Thy Neighbour' - and in 2 cases a man shot and killed someone else who was invading his home property.

Now I was under the impression that if someone enters your property, you can shoot them (in the US) - yet in these cases im talking about, both were jailed and one was even considered for the death penalty. That confused me, thought if a burgler broke in you can shoot them , or is it just 'to wound'?.

Anyway im aware this is a UK case, I live in Scotland, so obv laws are different in here. Anyway dude had the right to defend himself, wtf at the police. This doesnt sound usual. Then again, I was involved in a domestic dispute where my step dad attacked my mum. I defended my mum and police came and locked all 3 of us up that night :/

 

[Marlenus]

This is pretty standard tbh. The police will arrest so they can investigate fully and provided the story is as stated in the article he will be released.

The law is pretty generous to homeowners defending themselves but the police need to find the facts first by doing a thorough investigation.

 

[Troy1]

What shocked me (kinda unrelated) is I was watching a documentary called 'Fear Thy Neighbour' - and in 2 cases a man shot and killed someone else who was invading his home property.

Now I was under the impression that if someone enters your property, you can shoot them (in the US) - yet in these cases im talking about, both were jailed and one was even considered for the death penalty. That confused me, thought if a burgler broke in you can shoot them , or is it just 'to wound'?.

Depends on what state you live in. Some states have a castle doctrine which allows you to use deadly force against intruders in your home with no duty to retreat. In some states, self defense rights are governed by common or case law, and certain criteria must be met in order for use of deadly force to be deemed justified. TLDR; depends on where you live.

 

[Living the Dream]

The 80 year old didn't set out that evening to steal or rob anyone. Threat came to him and he handled it. He should not be charged for anything except being a hero for removing horrendous person from the gene pool.

 

[Ridcully]

This is pretty standard tbh. The police will arrest so they can investigate fully and provided the story is as stated in the article he will be released.

The law is pretty generous to homeowners defending themselves but the police need to find the facts first by doing a thorough investigation.

Yeah, this seems the most likely scenario. I think most reactions are down to people being overused to the American version of this story.

 

[Tumle]

The 80 year old didn't set out that evening to steal or rob anyone. Threat came to him and he handled it. He should not be charged for anything except being a hero for removing horrendous person from the gene pool.

Do we even know if charges has been pressed?
Maybe he has just been taken in to custody until the investigation is over?
Either way I hope he is ok.. it can never be fun to have to take another persons life..

 

[Kadayi]

I'd say it's just SOP. The fact of the matter is the Police need to verify the facts as to what has happened, and people are put under arrest. Sure it's easy to say 'well it's obvious that it was self-defence', but what if it was a girl or a guy who'd stabbed an estranged partner instead, and claims they broke in and it was self-defence. The law is there for everyone and myriad scenario's.

 

[HoodWinked]

curious what the guy looked like so found the same story on other sites and they have him pictured double fisting guinness LOL

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/

 

[Durask]

Why arrest him? Why not just have him come over later to police station for an interview?
It is not like he is a flight risk or anything.

 

[Durask]

What shocked me (kinda unrelated) is I was watching a documentary called 'Fear Thy Neighbour' - and in 2 cases a man shot and killed someone else who was invading his home property.

Now I was under the impression that if someone enters your property, you can shoot them (in the US) - yet in these cases im talking about, both were jailed and one was even considered for the death penalty. That confused me, thought if a burgler broke in you can shoot them , or is it just 'to wound'?.

The answer is "that depends".

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

There is no such thing as shoot to wound since it is realistically impossible.

 

[Corrik]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43639183



The burglar obviously attacked the man, 40 years his senior, and drove him to the kitchen. A screwdriver is a deadly weapon in a situation like this.

What really stuck out to me are these statements:





I guess the attitude is just confusing to me. The near-octagenerian was attacked with a deadly weapon and barely fought off his attacker, yet his neighbors are not particularly adamant that he did not commit murder (i.e. illicit homicide, not homicide in self defense) and the politician he funds through tax money sounds more sorry for the 40 year old burglar who was killed than the burglar's intended victim.

Is this just standard practice in the UK? Do they always arrest first and do a investigation, even in obvious circumstances? I know in the US the consensus would be that a tragedy was avoided, particularly with the burglar being an older man and not a 18-20 something who may have just made a mistake.

Not a single neighbor said the older man was at fault or deserved to be punished. Neither did the politician. Where are you getting this from? It is like you just made it up out of thin air based on the article I read.

 

[Corrik]

Why arrest him? Why not just have him come over later to police station for an interview?
It is not like he is a flight risk or anything.

Because if he really is a murderer that you just let walk so he can run away or kill someone else that would be bad policework. He is being detained under suspicion. They will investigate then release him if story is as stated. In the United States, you have to be charged by 24 hours or be released.

 

[Corrik]

UK Law:

The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you. They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you're suspected of a serious crime, eg murder. You can be held without charge for up to 14 days If you're arrested under the Terrorism Act

 

[DiscoJer]

This is not uncommon in the UK. There was the famous case of Tony Martin, who shot intruders with a shotgun and was jailed for life (though later this was reduced to 3 years).

There is Munir Hussain who got 2 1/2 years for beating a burglar to the point of causing brain damage. In his case, he was tied up but escaped and chased the burglar and beat him to a pulp (along with his brother who got 3 1/2 years).

The thing is, in the UK, a lot of laws are carry overs from the Norman invasion, where the English were subjects of the Normans and had very little rights

 

[infinitys_7th]

Not a single neighbor said the older man was at fault or deserved to be punished. Neither did the politician. Where are you getting this from? It is like you just made it up out of thin air based on the article I read.

I never said they did. I said the neighbors were not as adamant as I would expect, based on my experience in the South US, and that no politician where I am from would call this a tragedy. It would be referred to as an averted tragedy.

 

[NickFire]

Not a good look for a city whose mayor says terrorism is part of city life. Without a proper explanation, it could be construed as getting robbed by two men with at least one weapon is something the city needs to learn to accept.

 

[Marlenus]

This is not uncommon in the UK. There was the famous case of Tony Martin, who shot intruders with a shotgun and was jailed for life (though later this was reduced to 3 years).

There is Munir Hussain who got 2 1/2 years for beating a burglar to the point of causing brain damage. In his case, he was tied up but escaped and chased the burglar and beat him to a pulp (along with his brother who got 3 1/2 years).

The thing is, in the UK, a lot of laws are carry overs from the Norman invasion, where the English were subjects of the Normans and had very little rights

Tony Martin shot the intruders in the back as they were running away. He also did not have a certificate for his shotgun as it had been revoked due to a previous incident.

Minor Hussain as you said chased the intruders down the road and beat them to a bloody pulp. If he had done that in his home we would have been fine but he went well beyond that.

OTOH if you look into the Welby farm shooting where the farmer had a legally owned shotgun and shot intruders who were opening a draw that contained knives. The intruders were arrested and charged, the farmer and his wife were arrested but then released without charge.

There are other cases of people defending themselves using guns to wound or kill and they don't get charged for murder. If the gun is owned illegally then they can get charged with that and in one case the homeowner was a cannabis farmer so was done for that.

Or you can look at the case of Peter Flannigan who stabbed an intruder dead and was released without charge. That was before the law was changed to allow homeowners to use disproportionate force in defending themselves at home.

TLDR it is easy to cherry pick and say things out of context. Don't, it makes you look stupid.

 

[MisterFalcon]

It's no suprise the police comes down hard on this. If the old man was killed by the intruder it's just another murder but him killing the burglar is vigilantism which is seen as a threat to police authority. Like that story where someone calls the police that there is an intruder and they keep him on hold until he says 'it's OK, I killed the guy' at which point the police arrive immediately.

 

[Scopa]

Something similar happened to a distant cousin of mine many years back. After he was dragged through the court system, the local government stepped in and changed the laws to further protect people defending themselves in their homes.

 

[NovumAngel]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43648896

A 78-year-old man arrested on suspicion of murder after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death has been bailed.

The man, named locally as Richard Osborn-Brooks, found two intruders in South Park Crescent, Hither Green, south-east London, early on Wednesday.

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.

Mr Osborn-Brooks has been bailed until May pending further inquiries.

 

[MrRogers]

I wouldn't be suprise if the story is, as it sounds. It is the same country that found nazi pug jokes worth criminal punishment after all.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43648896

So it looks like it was just for inquiries. Feels a bit daft arresting him, but I imagine they do it in most cases like this.

 

[Jmarshall]

It's following procedure, you don't just find a dead man and take someones word for the fact it was Self defence.

 

[sunnz]

Just read the guy killed was wanted for burglary after he robbed another elderly person too

 

[jadedm17]

We saw this about a decade ago when a farmer was robbed by two burglars and he shot one in the back as he was running away.
.

Good.

This isn't out in public, this is MY HOME; I don't care if you entered without permission and held a plastic spoon up at me, you deserve anything you get coming. You accepted that by entering where I sleep illegally. No sympathy.

America had a case of a few teens breaking in and a man slitting their heels when they entered a basement. He then shot them after they fell. Excessive, yes, but they entered his HOME.

Stealing a car, robbing a bank, whatever... You dont deserve to die; I have no wiggle room when it comes to my home.

 

[LOLCats]

Good Job old man.

 

[ickythingz]

Old man did the right thing. Someone breaking into your house is a scary situation. There should be no law stopping the owner from executing the intruder.

 

[Dice]

If we can't have a safe home, we have nothing. If someone has already crossed the line of breaking into your home, you have no way of knowing what else they are capable of or if they have friends or if they'll come back. Same as with a person you don't know attacking you unprovoked on the street, it is completely reasonable to let the person defending do whatever they have to do to make sure the attacker can't do it anymore and as quickly as possible since one hit or drawn weapon can be the end of you in a second. If that is drawing near to killing them (and it does) then that is the fault of the psycho who decided to step outside of the most basic boundaries of human civilization and throw the situation into the animal kingdom of self-preservation and survival. It is absurd to expect a person to give a robber the chance to attack them and then also the chance to get away and then rely on police to keep them safe. That isn't how reality works. If someone is there you have to deal with them there or the police could just be showing up to run a report on your dead body. I am 100% in favor of castle doctrine and am glad to live in a state that supports it as well.

 

[infinitys_7th]

So, this is my perspective and where this came from originally:

Growing up, we bought hay off this one legged guy. My mom told me how he lost his leg - he broke the window in this farmer's bedroom (in the 1960s) and the farmer woke up, grabbed a shotgun, and blew his leg off when he stepped through the window.

I've heard a bunch of people talk about that, and there is never really any hesitancy to jump to the defense of obvious protective situations. Now, chasing down a fleeing thief and shooting them was considered wrong, but people had the attitude "They took the risk when they broke in". The police don't really push when this kind of thing happens either, unless there are suspicious circumstances that indicate the "defender" was complicit in another crime (e.g. defending drugs) or they pursued (e.g. shooting off property, in the back).

 

[iamblades]

I'm going to hold out for more details. In the UK the laws on self defense are very clear that the action most only be done in proportion to the threat.

We saw this about a decade ago when a farmer was robbed by two burglars and he shot one in the back as he was running away.

The police could have screwed up, but my experience with them has been they only go for an arrest if they have reasonable evidence to conclude it wasn't entirely self defense.

Even if you think proportionality is a good rule(I don't, why should an innocent person be forced to accept any risk of bodily harm because of someone else's criminality), the guy was 78. Literally any violence initiated against him is effectively deadly force, meaning the response was 100% justified.

Relatively mild violence has killed people far younger than this guy, which is why proportionality is a bullshit standard. Almost any level of violence can be lethal if you get hit just right or you fall and hit your head, so the standard is either meaningless or completely unjust.

 

[WaterAstro]

They'll have to CSI to find out if it's murder. Multiple stabs would be suspect.

You can defend yourself, but if the perpetrator is down, you don't "finish him off" to make yourself safe. That's actually murder.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Even if you think proportionality is a good rule(I don't, why should an innocent person be forced to accept any risk of bodily harm because of someone else's criminality), the guy was 78. Literally any violence initiated against him is effectively deadly force, meaning the response was 100% justified.

Relatively mild violence has killed people far younger than this guy, which is why proportionality is a bullshit standard. Almost any level of violence can be lethal if you get hit just right or you fall and hit your head, so the standard is either meaningless or completely unjust.

I have a few issues with what you've put, but the point about proportional response is to stop people using the smallest excuses as justification to kill.

If a thief steals from your car, that doesn't give you the right to kill them. If someone breaks into your home, gives up and then you kill them, doesn't count as self defense.

Are you for the Stand your ground law in the US?

 

[Boss Mog]

I'm going to hold out for more details. In the UK the laws on self defense are very clear that the action most only be done in proportion to the threat.

We saw this about a decade ago when a farmer was robbed by two burglars and he shot one in the back as he was running away.

The police could have screwed up, but my experience with them has been they only go for an arrest if they have reasonable evidence to conclude it wasn't entirely self defense.

Yeah because if somebody breaks in to your place you know exactly what level of threat they represent right? I'm honestly sick of people constantly defending criminals; it's the major reason society is crumbling. If you break into somebody home, it's a choice you made and you have to deal with the consequences even if that means being killed by the home owner defending his family and property. Thank god the perp in this case is white at least, otherwise I'm sure they would've tried to spin it with a "racism" angle.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Yeah because if somebody breaks in to your place you know exactly what level of threat they represent right? I'm honestly sick of people constantly defending criminals; it's the major reason society is crumbling. If you break into somebody home, it's a choice you made and you have to deal with the consequences even if that means being killed by the home owner defending his family and property. Thank god the perp in this case is white at least, otherwise I'm sure they would've tried to spin it with a "racism" angle.

The problem I have is that where do you draw the lines without this?

What's to stop you just killing person and faking a break in?

Or what if you beat an intruder unconscious and then kill them? How can you justify self defense if the intruder is unconscious?

I don't think it's unreasonable to require a justifiable proportional response. So much can be justified under the condition of if they break in, you can do whatever. Do you draw the line at torture?

 

[Scopa]

The problem I have is that where do you draw the lines without this?

What's to stop you just killing person and faking a break in?

Or what if you beat an intruder unconscious and then kill them? How can you justify self defense if the intruder is unconscious?

I don't think it's unreasonable to require a justifiable proportional response. So much can be justified under the condition of if they break in, you can do whatever. Do you draw the line at torture?

I totally get what you are saying, but that’s what forensics are for.

You can fake a self defense murder right now, but you are risking the forensic team discovering that you are lying.

 

[Boss Mog]

The problem I have is that where do you draw the lines without this?

What's to stop you just killing person and faking a break in?

Or what if you beat an intruder unconscious and then kill them? How can you justify self defense if the intruder is unconscious?

I don't think it's unreasonable to require a justifiable proportional response. So much can be justified under the condition of if they break in, you can do whatever. Do you draw the line at torture?

What I'm saying is that people need to give the benefit of the doubt to the home owner and not the criminal. That the homer owner shouldn't be arrested and have to prove his innocence. The police should conduct a lengthy proper investigation and the burden of proof should be on them to prove if the home owner was guilty of a crime or not before charging him.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I totally get what you are saying, but that’s what forensics are for.

You can fake a self defense murder right now, but you are risking the forensic team discovering that you are lying.

True, but I like having that proportional response law, because it makes lying about a murder so much harder. I also see your point about the right defend yourself and it's entirely valid. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

What I'm saying is that people need to give the benefit of the doubt to the home owner and not the criminal. That the homer owner shouldn't be arrested and have to prove his innocence. The police should conduct a lengthy proper investigation and the burden of proof should be on them to prove if the home owner was guilty of a crime or not before charging him.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Most people usually do, but the reason why so many at the start of the thread wanted to wait for more details, is that it's pretty rare to see something like this. Maybe the police just screwed up in this case.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

This is pretty standard tbh. The police will arrest so they can investigate fully and provided the story is as stated in the article he will be released.

The law is pretty generous to homeowners defending themselves but the police need to find the facts first by doing a thorough investigation.

Bingo you can’t just take the guy at face value.

Come into someone’s home they have every right to defend themselves. That is the scariest thought to me a home invasion.

 

[Marlenus]

BBC

Released without charge.

 

[Marlenus]

Even if you think proportionality is a good rule(I don't, why should an innocent person be forced to accept any risk of bodily harm because of someone else's criminality), the guy was 78. Literally any violence initiated against him is effectively deadly force, meaning the response was 100% justified.

Relatively mild violence has killed people far younger than this guy, which is why proportionality is a bullshit standard. Almost any level of violence can be lethal if you get hit just right or you fall and hit your head, so the standard is either meaningless or completely unjust.

The test for defending yourself in your home is disproportionate force against what you subjectively felt. So if you genuinely feared for your life and killed an intruder that was not already incapacitated or running away then you will be fine.

The other point to remember is that if you a legal amount of force, eg pushing an intruder out the door or to the ground, and they end up banging their head on something and dying that is still okay.

 

[SadlerX84]

The test for defending yourself in your home is disproportionate force against what you subjectively felt. So if you genuinely feared for your life and killed an intruder that was not already incapacitated or running away then you will be fine.

The other point to remember is that if you a legal amount of force, eg pushing an intruder out the door or to the ground, and they end up banging their head on something and dying that is still okay.

Not to mention we don't know what was said between the man and the police interviewing him... just by saying something out of remorse like "I think I killed him" would be enough to get you arrested until they could conclude their initial investigation.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Honestly feels like a lot of gun owners in the US have a gun for a home invasion with the hopes and dreams to use it to kill someone one day and be considered a hero for it.

 

[Durask]

Honestly feels like a lot of gun owners in the US have a gun for a home invasion with the hopes and dreams to use it to kill someone one day and be considered a hero for it.

I am sure there are people like that, but I doubt they are the majority or even a sizeable minority.