Arrested for murder after killing burglar.. England.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/18/suspected-burglar-stabbed-death-stockport

A suspected intruder has been stabbed to death following a burglary at a house.

Police were called to the address in Bramhall, Stockport, on Saturday night following reports of a break-in.

A man in his late 30s was discovered with knife injuries and died a short time later. A 39-year-old man – understood to be the householder – has been arrested on suspicion of murder.

Greater Manchester police said it was believed two men had entered the house in Midland Road and threatened the 39-year-old occupant. The man was alone at the time, at about 7.50pm, but his wife and 12-year-old son returned during the incident. They escaped unharmed.

The second offender fled the scene and it is believed he may have driven off in a white Citroën van, registration MM02 XEY, that was parked nearby on Chinley Close. Detectives are urgently trying to trace the vehicle. The wanted man is described as being 6ft and of large build.

Shouldn't he arrested for manslaughter? It was hardly premeditated.. And then he should be acquitted for it and given a medal.

I suppose it depends if they were leaving or injured and then he decided to kill them or something, right?

But yeah if there's nothing more to it, should be manslaughter and preferably acquitted

johngalway

Ads by Google wrote: »

and given a medal.

Skip it all and just do the above.

W.Shakes-Beer

Burglar deserved it.

TheZohanS

It's probably just procedure, I doubt he'll do any time over it. If he does the system over there is fecked.

galwayrush

I don't see why a scumbag burglar should have any law on his side .
Man defends his property, thankfully he's ok.
No sympathy for the scumbag.

Temptamperu

I think you should be allowed protect your property by what ever means neccessary, like in the states.

Naomi00

It's not even murder anyway.

Murder has to be pre-meditated, that burgalar was obviously in the wrong. It's unfair that the law is on scumbags sides as usual.

Ghandee

Any cnut that enters my property (that I've worked bloody hard for) and threatens my wife, child and possessions probably could expect to be confronted by me too.
I'm by no means saying it'd end up the exact same way as this, ie the intruder stabbed, but by christ, they'd soon realise that when protecting my family and home, I would certainly defend them to my death!

Naomi00

TheZohan wrote: »

It's probably just procedure, I doubt he'll do any time over it. If he does the system over there is fecked.

It was the same here, but I think they changed the law a bit so that you can defend yourself if they have a weapon or something, not sure. It still isn't enough though really.

Sir Gallagher

Ghandee wrote: »

Any cnut that enters my property (that I've worked bloody hard for) and threatens my wife, child and possessions probably could expect to be confronted by me too.
I'm by no means saying it'd end up the exact same way as this, ie the intruder stabbed, but by christ, they'd soon realise that when protecting my family and home, I would certainly defend them to my death!

Gotta love Ironic usernames!

ResearchWill

Naomi00 wrote: »

It's not even murder anyway.

Murder has to be pre-meditated, that burgalar was obviously in the wrong. It's unfair that the law is on scumbags sides as usual.

While I understand the idea behind what you say, it can still be premeditated. Say for example a strung out junkie enters a house. You awake go downstairs armed with a poker, you see said junkie in your living room trying to lift your sky box, you shout, he puts box down and raises hands. You put him into a chair and tie him up. Then you start to hit him over the head until you kill him.

Take the other side, when you get down stairs the guy turns points a gun at you he misses, you lunge forward and strike him, he falls and hits his head of the TV, which being a big one topples over and smashes his head in.

The police do not know which it is, or where on the scale the death occurs. So they arrest for murder, investigate, if there is evidence to back up a murder charge or manslaughter charge it will be brought. A jury will decide after hearing the evidence if the person is guilty.

Ditch

Ads by Google wrote: »

Shouldn't he arrested for manslaughter?

As far as I know, it's just standard procedure. They make an arrest so that statements can be compiled and the whole thing investigated properly in the usual way.

I'll bet ye those gavvers are telling this mush, " Bloody well done, mate! Ye got the b@stard! "

Now it'll be up to the DPP to decide whether to actually prosecute the case. If so, it'll likely lead to a nicely staged show trial which will just allow the court to cement a legal precedent. That being that scum had better learn to accept what's coming to them when they try doing a Home Invasion

hatrickpatrick

Killing another human being is not ok. Vigilantism is not ok.

The only time it's ever acceptable is if you're directly saving someone else's life by doing so. I don't mean "he MIGHT have pulled a knife and stabbed me", I mean "I know he had a knife and he was going to use it."

Material possessions are not worth a human life.

hatrickpatrick

Temptamperu wrote: »

I think you should be allowed protect your property by what ever means neccessary, like in the states.

Yeah, because property = life

My name is URL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yeah, because property = life

It's not just about protecting property.. it's about protecting your ease of mind and feeling of safety while residing in said property. Being intruded upon in your home and threatened is devastating for most people. Laws reflect that by allowing a certain degree of leeway to those who attempt to protect their property from intruders. And rightly so tbh.

squod

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Killing another human being is not ok. Vigilantism is not ok.

The only time it's ever acceptable is if you're directly saving someone else's life by doing so. I don't mean "he MIGHT have pulled a knife and stabbed me", I mean "I know he had a knife and he was going to use it."

Material possessions are not worth a human life.

With you there. Still dunno how I'd react though. Certainly a murder charge is way OTT (it seems). If confronted or threatened then maybe I'd resort to killing.

galwayrush

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Material possessions are not worth a human life.

Mine are, i worked very hard for them.

Biggins

Standard procedure to arrest him - partly I suspect to see that any politically correct start crying.

Just for clarity:
He might be charged with second degree murder if he had the killing weapon(s?) in his home and as such might have planned for such an eventuality as what happened.

Manslaughter as a charge is more applied when something is done more in the heat of the moment BUT where in most cases, the killing weapon(s) haven't already been sought/bought and placed in an area as preparation for an eventuality.

---

Personally, I have no sympathy for those that break and enter.
Ye reap what you sow.

tallus

Pity he didn't kill the two of them. Dirty scumbags that they are.

hondasam

Two men entered the house, owner was alone, how did he get a knife and stab one of them. The one that got away is over 6ft and large build, how did the owner overpower both of them.

galwayrush

hondasam wrote: »

Two men entered the house, owner was alone, how did he get a knife and stab one of them. The one that got away is over 6ft and large build, how did the owner overpower both of them.

I am very happy the house owner wasn't harmed. :cool:
One less scumbag in the world, good riddance.

RMD

The story doesn't provide enough information on the death to confirm whether murder is justified or not. If he acted in self-defense which ultimately lead to the burglars death then manslaughter, but if he chased the burglar while he was trying to flee and ended up killing him that equates to murder.

The arrest on suspicion of murder does not mean he'll definitely be charged with murder, the article provides no information on the death and that's the essential part to determine what charge he'll receive.

Fukuyama

The man should be knighted.

If a scumbag enters your home you're no longer 'you'. The PC crowd can go on all they like - the caveman takes over. It's basic primeval instinct. Enter someone else's home without permission and expect to be greeted with force. Hopefully that force will be sufficient to either remove you from the property or even better, detain you. But like I said, in these cases, the red midst can descent.

Hopefully it's just procedure and the medal is being minted as we speak.

hondasam

galwayrush wrote: »

I am very happy the house owner wasn't harmed. :cool:
One less scumbag in the world, good riddance.

We really don't know what happened, The owner may well know these people.
It might not be a burglary, it could be something else.

strobe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Material possessions are not worth a human life.

It's not just about material possessions though is it? If someone breaks into your home they might just want to rob your DVD player but they might want to rape your daughter or slit your wife's throat or smash your brains in...

I live alone so would have a certain amount of restraint should someone break into my gaff but if I had kids or if a girlfriend was staying over I would put anyone entering my home illegally down in a way where I was 100% certain that they would be completely out of commission for the immediate future without any hesitation. In my opinion someone is completely justified in taking that stance.

Minstrel27

When you choose to break in to someone's home all rights should be gone.

Gummy Panda

hondasam wrote: »

Two men entered the house, owner was alone, how did he get a knife and stab one of them. The one that got away is over 6ft and large build, how did the owner overpower both of them.

Maybe he was upstairs practicing his stabbing and they disturbed him.

evercloserunion

Here we ****ing go.

There's nothing in the OP to suggest to me that he can't be charged for murder. If he intended to kill or cause serious harm to the guy, and he did kill him, then he is guilty of murder. He doesn't have to have planned the killing in advance for it to be murder, that's a common myth.

It could be manslaughter, if the guy didn't intend to kill him or cause serious injury, or if he was provoked. And no, the fact that the victim broke into his house doesn't mean he was provoked (legally speaking); he would have to be so angry that he essentially flipped out and lost control of himself.

Self-defence is an important part of our law and I would not hestitate to do everything necessary to protect a loved one, but self-defence does not extend to exacting violent retribution out on someone just because they messed with you and you want to teach them a lesson or prove your matcho credentials. No civilised society should allow that. (I'm not making any judgement as to what happened in this case, but people in this thread are defending the latter.)

hondasam

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Maybe he was upstairs practicing his stabbing and they disturbed him.

Maybe he always carry's a weapon just in case. Would you have time to go to your kitchen to get a knife if someone broke into your house.

Contra Proferentem

Reasonable force is the key, it has to be proportionate to the threat. Hence if someone is fleeing would hardly be proportionate.

I imagine he has only been arrest to allow a proper and necessary investigation of what actually happened. There a tons of different circumstances which have to be considered before it can be judged to be murder, manslaughter or reasonable force.

Biggins

strobe wrote: »

It's not just about material possessions though is it? If someone breaks into your home they might just want to rob your DVD player but they might want to rape your daughter or slit your wife's throat or smash your brains in...

I live alone so would have a certain amount of restraint should someone break into my gaff but if I had kids or if a girlfriend was staying over I would put anyone entering my home illegally down in a way where I was 100% certain that they would be completely out of commission for the immediate future without any hesitation. In my opinion someone is completely justified and ethically sound in taking that stance.

I agree - as a husband and father of four, I have to think of their lives, not just my own.
I certainly wouldn't care to take the gamble that a person breaking in might be still the gentlest creature in the world.
Sorry, I (like most here if possible I suspect) would defend first and be willing to pay for the consequences later, knowing my family are then safe from the person intruding.

Son Of A Vidic

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Gotta love Ironic usernames!

Are you confusing Ghandee with Gandhi?

Son Of A Vidic

It really has to be a case of fight and defend, then ask questions later.

Guy:Incognito

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Killing another human being is not ok. Vigilantism is not ok.

The only time it's ever acceptable is if you're directly saving someone else's life by doing so. I don't mean "he MIGHT have pulled a knife and stabbed me", I mean "I know he had a knife and he was going to use it."

Material possessions are not worth a human life.

Material posession are not worth MY life. Some scummer breaking in to the house? Meh.

Ask people who's houses have been broken in to if its as simple as just forgetting about it afterwards. Plenty of people are scared ****less for a long time.

mackg

evercloserunion wrote: »

Here we ****ing go.

There's nothing in the OP to suggest to me that he can't be charged for murder. If he intended to kill or cause serious harm to the guy, and he did kill him, then he is guilty of murder. He doesn't have to have planned the killing in advance for it to be murder, that's a common myth.

It could be manslaughter, if the guy didn't intend to kill him or cause serious injury, or if he was provoked. And no, the fact that the victim broke into his house doesn't mean he was provoked (legally speaking); he would have to be so angry that he essentially flipped out and lost control of himself.

Self-defence is an important part of our law and I would not hestitate to do everything necessary to protect a loved one, but self-defence does not extend to exacting violent retribution out on someone just because they messed with you and you want to teach them a lesson or prove your matcho credentials. No civilised society should allow that. (I'm not making any judgement as to what happened in this case, but people in this thread are defending the latter.)

Where?

amacachi

Ditch wrote: »

As far as I know, it's just standard procedure. They make an arrest so that statements can be compiled and the whole thing investigated properly in the usual way.

Aye, being arrested for something is completely different from being charged with something.


Anyway, with the way the law is in the UK only a gimp could actually get done for murder of an intruder. Real life isn't like CSI and proving a murder when the person who did the killing has a big part of the law on their side is extremely difficult.

Liam Byrne

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Material possessions are not worth a human life.

Well if the scumbags get that message then they might reconsider trying to get other people's material possessions.

The_Thing

Burglars are nothing but scum and should be put to death.

evercloserunion

mackg wrote: »

Where?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74469425&postcount=4
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74469457&postcount=6
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74469529&postcount=7
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74470547&postcount=20
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74470597&postcount=22
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74470619&postcount=24
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74470657&postcount=27
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74470881&postcount=35
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74471475&postcount=39

To be fair, a lot of people here aren't espousing that line, but at the same time most people don't seem to be aware of the concept of proportionality.

Outkast_IRE

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Material possessions are not worth a human life.

Get a haircut hippy

Biggins

evercloserunion wrote: »

...To be fair, a lot of people here aren't espousing that line, but at the same time most people don't seem to be aware of the concept of proportionality.

So you retract what you have said earlier?

I would say all of us are aware of the concept of proportionality - we will defend our home/lives and can only judge what force to be used as and sadly when such events occur.
The point you seemed to have missed being said is that we would react towards someone coming in - not going outward.
We DO have the brains the tell the difference and with that would use the concept of proportionality as you put it.

evercloserunion

Biggins wrote: »

So you retract what you have said earlier?

No--some people are taking the extreme view, some aren't.

opinion guy

Ok this:

strobe wrote: »

I would put anyone entering my home illegally down in a way where I was 100% certain that they would be completely out of commission for the immediate future without any hesitation.

- does not equal killing them.

hollypink

amacachi wrote: »

Anyway, with the way the law is in the UK only a gimp could actually get done for murder of an intruder. Real life isn't like CSI and proving a murder when the person who did the killing has a big part of the law on their side is extremely difficult.

I'm not so sure, theres the case of Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer who killed an intruder, and was convicted of murder in 1999. It was dark and he shot the intruder in the back.

looky loo

come into my house uninvited I will introduce you to my rolling pin...end of.

Kadongy

More bloodlust.

Not judgemental of the man. His family were going to be home and he had no way of knowing what the burglars might do. The instinct is to protect and he acted on that. Doubt he feels like he should be given a medal though. He's probably horrified.

I think the appropriate response here is sadness rather than jubilance.

strobe

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok this:



- does not equal killing them.

Oh don't get me wrong. If I cracked them as hard as humanly possible in the back of the head with a lump hammer I would really really genuinely prefer if they both survived and suffered no lasting permanent injuries. But should they die, well, that would be unfortunate but acceptable to me.

amacachi

hollypink wrote: »

I'm not so sure, theres the case of Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer who killed an intruder, and was convicted of murder in 1999. It was dark and he shot the intruder in the back.

12 years ago, in the back, quite a distance away from the house.

I should've been more specific and said "in the house". :pac:

michael999999

Any scum bag that breaks into a house deserves any beating they get!

galwayrush

strobe wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong. If I cracked them as hard as humanly possible in the back of the head with a lump hammer I would really really genuinely prefer if they both survived and suffered no lasting permanent injuries. But should they die, well, that would be unfortunate but acceptable to me.

Better they die, cheaper on you and the state. Injuring a burgler only means the low life piece of **** gets to rob you through the courts for damages.