[Closed] Murder or reasonable force?

Only one person knows, and his interpretation may be biased.

But if we're speculating wildly, a single stab wound would be more on the side of reasonable force.

If there were 50 stab wounds, I'd lean the other way.

You would have to assume there is a bit more information that the police have that has not been released that has lead them to holding the guy. Probably a need more facts situation rather then speculate from here, but off we go, tea in hand and a nice bit of choc shortbread ready here.

Murder or reasonable force?

That is for the justice system to decide, it is correct that it is investigated, and that the mans story is corroborated or not by any other evidence.

I think I'm roughly in agreement with the previous posts about not enough details and the justice system will decide, but stabbed in front, self defence, stabbed in back, (i.e. burglar had decided to have it away on his toes) not self defence.

However, I find it hard to muster much sympathy for the burglar.

However, I find it hard to muster much sympathy for the burglar.

What if there are no signs of forced entry, and they were both seen chatting in a bar earlier in the evening?

He has to be arrested, he killed someone. Wait to see if he's charged and what's presented at the trial.

The BBC headline has burglar in inverted commas. I suspect this is not a straightforward case.

whose knife was it?

burglar=self defence

homeowner=gonna have to explain that it was 'just there' and he didn't get it out of the knife drawer

2 guys enter his house one with a screwdriver in what appears to be an attempted burgarly, the old boy is feared and lashes out?

Reasonable force if that’s what happened.

I'd agree that there is not enough information to know.

What is the actual legal test for murder in this country? Does there have to be any premeditation involved?

Enough of this considered opinion. They should castrate all burglars, including the female ones.

What if there are no signs of forced entry, and they were both seen chatting in a bar earlier in the evening?

Was he threatening him with a screwdriver then too? I reserve my right to change my mind once all the details are known.

What is the actual legal test for murder in this country? Does there have to be any premeditation involved?

Yes, I think premeditation is the basic difference between murder and manslaughter. Doesn't have to be much for premeditation, getting a knife from a drawer as mentioned above may be enough, but if he pushed him back and fell on a knife that was sitting upright drying in a dishwasher basket, then manslaughter.

I'm not a lawyer though, that's how I understand it.

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

Don't know about murder but that's definitely karma.

I think once you're on somebody elses property, armed with something, with the intention of commiting a crime it's kind of tough shit what happens to you!

(Preface this with "I could be miles off the mark here...")

Is this not a minor bit of sensationalisation or a fairly simple procedural thing?

I'd assume that, as a person has died by another's hand, it's a matter of protocol that that other person (and their hand) are arrested on a 'suspicion' charge while things are investigated. If it was me, I think I'd probably accept the whole being-arrested-on-suspicion part just in case the surviving intruder wanted a second go for me offing his mate...

Excellent result, one dead scrote.

Awaiting the usual bedwetters blaming the tories that he had to go out burglarizing.

Reasonable force is not easy to define. If I found someone in my house against my will and they were carrying a weapon, while I'd like to think I'd have the clarity of thought to think "ah, he's turned, he must be in his way out, I'll stop now", I doubt very much I would.

It's also concerning that 12 of his peers might struggle to imagine themselves in that exact situation as well.

Without knowing the full facts ..full sympathy for the homeowner ..the burglar shouldn't have been in the house in the first place..and armed with a screwdriver ( as a weapon ?) was asking for confrontation ..that being the case I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever with the criminal ...but as said right at the beginning ..without knowing the full facts .

If anyone broke into my own house and I felt that my family was in danger I would take whatever steps necessary to protect both them and myself ..

Excellent result, one dead scrote.

Awaiting the usual bedwetters blaming the tories that he had to go out burglarizing.

Based on what? We don't know who the person was that dies, what is actual intent was or the circumstances except that somebody is dead. No need to wait for the uninformed to shout about the usual crap with no knowledge of the circumstances.

But if we’re speculating wildly, a single stab wound would be more on the side of reasonable force.

If there were 50 stab wounds, I’d lean the other way.

I'd be inclined to agree, but in the heat of the moment if someone came at you with a knife and you somehow got a hold of it and they came at you, would you just stab them once? Or would the adrenaline kick in.  That and I doubt after being stabbed* the average person who's broken int a flat armed is going to be calming down much. He's either going to die, or be very angry.

* gently, once, in self defense, in a loving and caring manner m'laud just to give him a message not to try again and to sit down nicely at the table with a cuppa tea to discuss the error of his ways until the police arrived.

the ending of any life - even an empathy free tory sympathiser internet hard man is a tragedy

homeowner=gonna have to explain that it was ‘just there’ and he didn’t get it out of the knife drawer

He is in his kitchen being threatened with a screwdriver by  an intruder. I think we are easily into the reams of i got it to defend myself

However there is so little information here its impossible to say anything with any degree of certainty

If the Scotland Yard statement is correct, any other outcome but reasonable force would seem to be perverse. Surprised they have put out such a detailed line at this stage, though, when they presumably only have one account of events. Perhaps they are already satisfied due to the identity of the dead man.

Hoover there is so little information here its impossible to say anything with any degree of certainty

Not enough Vax.

Excellent result, one dead scrote.

Awaiting the usual bedwetters blaming the tories that he had to go out burglarizing.

Found one:

I don't know any facts in this case but I see nothing wrong with stabbing a burglar.

Based on what?

Possibly based on that the only bedwetter to post on her (so far) is OldTalent

What I read was that they had charged him with a lesser offence first and then rearrested him on a charge of murder so there is definitely information we are missing

On the surface, without more information the 78 year old was assalted in his kitchen - so potentially no shortage of knives to pick up and defend himself with.

Seems the other burglar didn't hang about to help his mate which was nice of him.

My great aunt woke up in her house in Eccles with a man stood over her and a knife at her throat. She died not long after having never really recovered from the beating she got after being unable to provide him with anything worth taking. The lad was caught by neighbours as he left the house and escaped a prison sentence as he claimed he only went in through the (open) back window because he heard a commotion inside and the actual burglar was a third party. He was unable to explain why he was so far from home at 3.30am. The lawyer ripped my poor old aunt apart as a witness due to her age and declining mental state. It’s fair to say I’m not predisposed to think too highly of burglars picking on the oldest members of our community. And lawyers come to that.

The thing about getting into a fight when you think your life is at stake is that it's near impossible to restrain yourself when going at it full tilt. Most fights like this will be over in a matter of seconds not minutes and can be finished before you realise it's even started. A surprising number of people won't understand that as they have never been in that situation or even in a fight before.

I see nothing wrong with stabbing a burglar

We had this chat at work once and the IT  manager said he would kill a burglar  if they took anything, I started to list things and this included his microwave which was given to him and  did not work properly- what sort of person is willing to  kill others for  something of this value?

personally i value human life higher than my property.

What I read was that they had charged him with a lesser offence first and then rearrested him on a charge of murder so there is definitely information we are missing

The bloke was alive but taken to hospital where he later died - hence initial arrest on suspicion of GBH, then re-arrest on suspicion of murder. All standard stuff - he's not been charged with anything yet.

The test for using lethal force iirc is that you honestly and reasonably believed your life to be in danger and there was no other way to remove the danger. Jury are likely to be pretty sympathetic on that one.

Ah, thanks for that @martinhutch. Hadn't seen that. I'm guessing at the moment it is standard stuff where death by a weapon is involved (unless it's a car of course). Not fun for the old man though

It's worth reading up on the Tony Martin case (not the cyclist) who shot and killed an unarmed burglar in the back and was convicted of murder.

In this case, someone has died, another person is party to that death so an arrest is procedural and presumably required. He'll be questioned under caution with a solicitor present and probably released on police bail. Once the post mortem has been carried out he'll be questioned again, a bit more intensely if his original version of events aren't corroborated by the injuries sustained by the burglar.

You are allowed a "weapon of opportunity" ie if you pick up something to defend yourself with thats OK if it is just lying around.  If you go find a weapon then its not acceptable.  I have an antique ice axe on the wall in my hall - I think that might be pushing the definition.

Case law shows it reasonable force if they are coming towards you, not if they are going away.  Recently two chaps were prosecuted for using excessive force - they chased the burgler down the street and hit him with cricket bats to his permanent disablement.  If they had stopped when he left the house they would be OK

A acquaintance of mine was attacked by 3 men and chased back to his house when they forced entry.  He hit one with a hand axe hard putting him in hospital for major surgery..  He got a very light sentence - no imprisonment - he was a tree surgeon so the axe was considered a weapon of opportunity but he hit the man outside his front door so considered excessive.

The Court will decide it gets that far.

TBH if the police arrive at your home and find a corpse in the kitchen with a knife sticking out of it, it wouldn’t matter if you were the Archbishop of Canterbury, they’d want a word.

Excellent result, one dead scrote

Should we stab/kill all scrotes who are doing things that are illegal ?

And would that be just scrotes or anyone doing anything illegal ?

On the basis of innocent until proven guilty....

Given the small info at hand, i would come down on him being innocent, and his force being reasonable. There certainly isn't any info available to me that proves beyond reasonable doubt him guilty of murder (nor would i expect there to be at this stage)

Can I imagine a scenario where the known facts, coupled with additional info come to a summary of unreasonable force and a conviction of murder... yes...

For example, home owner is strong fit, black belt ex special ops that belies his age...

Burglar is small weak slightly "ill" individual, burglar and homeowner have pre-existing relationship and burglar is "recovering" item that actually belongs to them... knife used in attack is large hunting knife that homeowner keeps locked up in the home office draw. home CCTV shows burglar trying to run away.... etc etc....

That being said, my prejudice/assumption would be towards the benefit of the "home owner" rather than the "burglar" although I would hope that i would be swayed by evidence and facts to the contrary.

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

So arrested thereby giving the police the ability to properly interview him and collect the necessary evidence whilst also giving him some legal rights such as representation.  Sounds like an entirely reasonable course of action to me and if the details given in the news article are the whole truth I'd anticipate that he will be released without charge.  If on the other hand he is charged then I'd suspect that there is more to the situation than meets the eye and it'll be a matter for the courts, not the police or social media, to determine whether he is guilty of murder or not.

Should we stab/kill all scrotes who are doing things that are illegal ? <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">And would that be just scrotes or anyone doing anything illegal ?</span>

That would be going too far but when they do get killed/ kill themselves we should as a society be happy enough to see them for what they were.

There was a local case recently where a young man stole a car and went joy riding eventually hitting another car and killing both himself and the driver of the other car. The bbc ran a piece a few days latter of his mother singing his praises with the usual 'light and soul of the family, forever our little angel' bobbins. For weeks later there were flowers (and cans of beer) left at the side of the road where the crash happened not for the innocent other driver but for the joy rider that killed him.

Unless certain sub-societies are prepared to remember our dead scum as just that nothing will change. No, it's not ok to going killing them, but it is ok not to shed too many tears where the scales of justice maybe overtip once in a while.

Reading between the lines... definitely doesn't seem a straightforward self defence against a burglar.

I'm sure more details will emerge, so I'm not guessing what really happened. If (and its a big 'if') it was a burglar who got stabbed in a struggle, then good on the old fella.

I think that he was on someone else’s property with the purpose of committing a crime, if he had been caught by the police he would of got his wrists slapped but this time he lost his life . How many times has he robbed people’s houses before ? Can’t belive all the papers say or news as they never give the whole story.

Excellent result, one dead scrote.

Awaiting the usual bedwetters blaming the tories that he had to go out burglarizing.

Phew I was starting to think STW had gone soft.

But - Scrote. Burglarizing (with a zee)? Some mid-Atlantic strangeness going on there.

I think that he was on someone else’s property with the purpose of committing a crime, if he had been caught by the police he would of got his wrists slapped but this time he lost his life . How many times has he robbed people’s houses before ? Can’t belive all the papers say or news as they never give the whole story.

So you just make your own up, eh?

Can’t belive all the papers say or news as they never give the whole story.

BBC appears to have presented all the facts that they have been presented with. The Police will have more information but that may not be released for legal reasons. The only time you can really review these cases is post court case or release of all information.

To suggest the news it withholding is a little disingenuous

Reading between the lines… definitely doesn’t seem a straightforward self defence against a burglar.

Not seeing anything between the lines as yet. The arrest seems to be standard practise with this kind of incident. If everything is as it seems to be ( and that is an if) I'd be very suprised if the pensioner is charged.

Burglarize is a particularly horrible Americanism. Burglars are called burglarizers.

In general if someone forces entry into my house while wielding a weapon then they have to be prepared to accept the consequences. I'm going to assume that they're willing to use said weapon and therefore act appropriately. If there was time I'd definitely give them the option to run though. Unless they're already in my bike room of course in which case they've obviously forfeited any right to life...

In this case however I wouldn't have thought the most likely charge was murder so there may well be more to it. Usually I'd have thought manslaughter at worst and self-defence/reasonable force at best.

In general if someone forces entry into my house while wielding a weapon then they have to be prepared to accept the consequences.

You should quaint yourself with the law in that case and be prepared to accept the consequences.

I’m going to assume that they’re willing to use said weapon and therefore act appropriately. If there was time I’d definitely give them the option to run though.

Which is why allowing them to get out is the resonable action, a confrontation or struggle will likely not end well for one of the parties, want to roll the dice?

Dezb - actually there is.  You are allowed to use reasonable force to protect your life and property.  Reasonable has a legal definition in that its what would be seen to be reasonable by the common man.  so you grab what you can and hit them until they leave or collapse and then you stop hitting them and you will be fine

If you go and find a weapon its not OK, if you keep on hitting them while they are no longer a threat ie on the ground or trying to leave then its not OK

Reasonable is all very well, but in tbe heat of the moment it's very hard to judge. Homeowners are usually given any benifit of the doubt. Good article here.

http://blog.verisure.co.uk/self-defence-law/

[i]Junkyard wrote:[/i]

However there is so little information here its impossible to say anything with any degree of certainty

12 pages

Inded they are Taxi - cos a jury of your peers has to be convinced it was unreasonable.  Homeowners do get a lot of lattitude

Unless they’re already in my bike room of course in which case....

... chain them up, and bring out the gimp!

The requisite mental element of the offence of murder is to intend to kill or intend to cause GBH.

The requisite mental element of the offence of murder is to intend to kill or intend to cause GBH.

Except in self defence?

[i]Not seeing anything between the lines as yet.[/i]

Not even the obvious 'burglar' in quotes headline? The unknown 'accomplice' still "at large"?

[i]Dezb – actually there is.[/i]

Don't think you mean me there.

You should aquaint yourself with the law in that case and be prepared to accept the consequences.

I am aware of the law but it is open to interpretation - especially as it primarily depends on whether you had cause to feel that you (or your family) were in danger of being killed or seriously injured. In my view if an armed burglar breaks into the house and doesn't attempt to leave when discovered, then it'd be very dangerous to make an assumption that they don't intend to use their weapon.

In this country it's probably pretty rare that someone actually dies thankfully, so suspect most of these cases don't result in charges for the homeowner or get reported - especially as the burglar probably usually scarpers.

Much clearer in the US of course where in many States it's pretty much directly legal to shoot an intruder in your home.

Except in self defence?

In self defence, it is assumed that there is no intention to kill or cause GBH, rather that the motivation is, err, self defence.

But you can intentionally kill someone in self defence?

But you can intentionally kill someone in self defence?

IANAL, and it’s splitting hairs, but I don’t think you can. Your actions may result in someone’s death, and your actions may well be considered reasonable and proportionate, but the intention must be defence, not killing. That’s my interpretation, anyway.

Not even the obvious ‘burglar’ in quotes headline? The unknown ‘accomplice’ still “at large”?

I'm assuming as the man in question was never charged let alone convicted of the crime of burglary you can't strictly call them a burglar, only an alleged burglar.

You have to unlawfully kill some one without justification or excuse, self defence is a justification and hence the killing would not be unlawful. You may well intend to kill (or cause GBH) but self defence renders the act of killing lawful.

Let's see how this plays out but from the current evidence I think the 78 year old man who has successfully defended his home against 2 attackers , at least 1 of whom was less than half his age and armed with a screwdriver deserves much respect . I am a pretty fit 61 year old 6 foot bloke but I would be very reluctant to get into any physical confrontation with one 37 year old unarmed burglar . If he was in my garage trying to steal my bikes it may be different 🙂

It's reasonable force.

Retaliation is an occupational hazard if you are breaking into people's homes with the intent of robbing them. I have precisely zero sympathy for the poor little criminal. I would do exactly the same if someone broke into my house whilst I was resident, irrespective of whether they were openly carrying a weapon. Self defence first, questions later.

Let’s see how this plays out but from the current evidence I think the 78 year old man who has successfully defended his home against 2 attackers , at least 1 of whom was less than half his age and armed with a screwdriver deserves much respect .

At this point I tend to agree. Lets see if anything else comes up.

You can be reckless about causing them damage or killing them in self defence ie use force not caring what happens.  You cannot intend to injure or kill

I’m assuming as the man in question was never charged let alone convicted of the crime of burglary you can’t strictly call them a burglar, only an alleged burglar

Well, yes exactly. But to me (guess I have to spell it out) it reads like the police have told the journalist not to report it as a burglary - but that is the old guy's story. I (can't remember what I was going to say now, cos someone interrupted my typing!) oh yeah, find it hard to imagine a 78 year old overpowering someone in their 40s who has a weapon, but maybe that's just me.

Don’t think that’s right TJ. In the military, we’re taught that you can shoot someone if you have an honest and reasonable belief they’re endangering your life or someone else’s, and there’s no other way to prevent it. The intention is to kill in self defence. This is under civil self defence law, the only difference for military personnel is being authorised to carry a firearm. Substitute the Knife in this case.

edit Koogia has it right above if my understanding is correct.

From the info that the cops handed out to us in the riots (on page one) I took it that I could do what ever I wanted as long as the weapons were to hand. We have a small shop and lots of sharp things are less than 10 foot away.

Gives a whole new meaning to Death by Chocolate 😆

Don’t think that’s right TJ. In the military, we’re taught that you can shoot someone if you have an honest and reasonable belief they’re endangering your life or someone else’s, and there’s no other way to prevent it. The intention is to kill in self defence. This is under civil self defence law, the only difference for military personnel is being authorised to carry a firearm.

It seems reasonable to me that if you feel threatened and are defending yourself then using the best available weapon is a sensible option - which for some people might mean a legally held firearm. For example say you have a gun-cabinet in the house, think you hear something downstairs then is it reasonable to arm yourself with say a shotgun before investigating?

you can intentionally kill someone in self defence?

I think context is important here

Man shouts at me in street walks towards me fists up saying " come here you rotter Queensbury rules" and then  I shoot him through the head  - not getting self defence on that one

Same man with knife I hit him with an object I pick up and he dies - can claim self defence

SO you can get away with  killing in self defence but you need to be able to justify the use of such levels of force for self defence. Them being armed is probably enough Feeling a bit scared is not enough.

To all the warriors I advise you to remember any criminal is much more likely than you to have fighting experience so why are you  so intent on having a fight with them?

I have trained in martial arts  for years and its the last resort for me ;I am fairly confident i can win  yet certain I can live if we dont fight.- why risk it are your possessions really worth dying or killing for ?

I'm inclined to agree with you epicsteve - if someone has forced or gained access to your home without invitation it is reasonable to defend yourself even if they are not openly carrying a weapon. People can conceal guns and knives so I would always assume the worse case scenario.

That said, if I had a shotgun, I would probably try to contain the situation without shooting them first, unless they pulled out a gun.

I believe a farmer a couple of years ago shot someone who had repeatedly burgled his house, but received a hefty term in jail, as he had lain in wait for them with his gun, and was thus deemed to have premeditated the killing.

I have trained in martial arts  for years and its the last resort for me ;I am fairly confident i can win  yet certain I can live if we dont fight.- why risk it are your possessions really worth dying or killing for ?

100% . I remember Andy Mcnab, or someone similar being asked what he'd do if someone approached him with a knife, "run away" came straight out.

Not having a go at anybody but if you've experienced/seen the consequences of serious violence, you'll know avoiding it unless it's much a very, very last resort is always the best option.

@bodgy - see my post about Tony Martin who was the farmer in question. He shot the guy, who was running away, in the back.

Oddly enough I'd have thought confronting a burglar when you're armed with a gun is less likely to end up in a conflict than if you're armed with something lesser and they then felt they had a chance.

The farmer in question (Tony Martin) shot the burglar (a 16 year old) in the back as they were running away - so difficult to make a case for self defence in that example. Plus the shotgun was illegally held (he didn't have a license for shotgun or a firearm - and it's the latter that would have been needed for the gun used) as he'd had his shotgun license revoked after shooting at someone previously. He actually got convinced for manslaughter in the end.

Based on that I suspect that if you used a legally held shotgun or firearm (that you'd retrieved from it's cabinet after becoming aware of someone on your property) to shoot an armed burglar who was facing you at the time, then a decent lawyer would ensure you didn't see any jail time even if you were charged.

Righty ho . . . .

Ah yes. Quite right too, whitestone. I'd forgotten it was in the back. Textbook error, that one.

I'd crush them to dust with my massive massive balls and the police would carry me on their shoulders to a pool party. Chris Ryan said so. Yeah!

Two intruders in the house armed with weapons with clear intention to use them, otherwise what's the point of carrying weapons.

Oldman at 78 defended himself against the two intruders and in the process stabbed one of the intruder who later died.

The verdict is simple, Oldman at 78 has legally defended himself from harm.