Forums - General Discussion - 78 year old arrested for murder of burglar, *Update: Cleared of all charge but still faces strife,

78 year olds self defence stabbing was

Justified. 26 74.29%
 
Unjustified. 3 8.57%
 
Unsure. 6 17.14%
 
Comments, other, me no give a shit... 0 0.00%
 
Total:35

I'm more concerned about that butchered thread title. That's criminal.



Around the Network

it's not like he ran towards the burglars and stabbed them while they were fleeing. That would be manslaughter.
In this case he was actively being attacked by them (or at least one of them), so definitely self defence.



palou said:
donathos said:

Excuse me, but if someone breaks into my home, why should I rely on what's supposedly in the criminal's interest and trust him to act rationally? The criminal is risking life and limb for the sake of stealing, at least; his actions already suggest to me that he has a poor grasp of what's in his interest, and rational action. He has further established that he's has no respect for me or my rights. His actions are careless, dangerous and malevolent. How can I trust such a person at that point -- and how can I risk my family's lives?

If you have family in the house, that's fundamentally a different question. However, what concerns just yourself - if you don't do anything, the chances are extremely slim that the thief will actively try to kill you (there are over 300k burglaries in the UK per year - less than a hundred result in a death), but *engaging* the thief will *assure* you a fight. How does that seem like a good idea?

I think you guys are debating something besides the point. He broke in to your home and is trying to steal something. Killing him should be 100% legal when he's trying to take something that is yours. There have been studies that have shown that public executions and cutting off of limbs for shop lifting/thievery have lead to reductions in those crimes in past societies. When someone breaks in to your home they know that there's a chance they will die. Whenever you do something that you know may result in such a consequence then you've essentially signed a liability waver for whatever happens.

 

HigHurtenflurst said:
Teeqoz said:

Unless the laws that are applicable in this case have changed lately, it's got nothing to do with "these days". You'll always have cases that are in a grey area, in fact one of the most important duties of the justice system is to cover those grey area cases. If all cases were clear cut, black and white, trials wouldn't be a thing.

Exactly, and always should be.

It's no doubt horrible to be arrested for something like this but there should always be an investigation. There can't be an automatic get out of jail just because the person you killed was in your home. It's the intent to kill that matters, and as far as I am concerned intent to steal someones life should always be considered beyond intent to steal someones possessions.

If someone breaks into a home it's perfectly reasonable to deter them (eg brandish a knife, point a gun) and if that person advances on you or threatens you in any way it's perfectly reasonable to defend yourself. If in the process of this you kill the burglar then so be it, it's not murder and I don't think it's manslaughter (not sure on the definition of manslaughter but I imagine there has to be negligence) so there should be no charge.

There has to be an investigation to find out what happened, you can't just take the word of the survivor.

The only investigation that should be needed is whether the the guy tried to burglar your home.

Peh said:
You can't just kill someone because he entered your home. He has to be a thread to your life i.e. trying to kill you, only then in self defense of killing someone by protecting your or the life of others is being justified.

Why not? Maybe that's what the law says in some places, but that doesn't make it right. He took the risk, he gets the consequences.



contestgamer said:

I think you guys are debating something besides the point. He broke in to your home and is trying to steal something. Killing him should be 100% legal when he's trying to take something that is yours. There have been studies that have shown that public executions and cutting off of limbs for shop lifting/thievery have lead to reductions in those crimes in past societies. When someone breaks in to your home they know that there's a chance they will die. Whenever you do something that you know may result in such a consequence then you've essentially signed a liability waver for whatever happens.

So, you support public executions?



VGPolyglot said:
contestgamer said:

I think you guys are debating something besides the point. He broke in to your home and is trying to steal something. Killing him should be 100% legal when he's trying to take something that is yours. There have been studies that have shown that public executions and cutting off of limbs for shop lifting/thievery have lead to reductions in those crimes in past societies. When someone breaks in to your home they know that there's a chance they will die. Whenever you do something that you know may result in such a consequence then you've essentially signed a liability waver for whatever happens.

So, you support public executions?

I support whatever the data says is effective. All crimes, except murder, have been falling in the Philipines since the executions of drug dealers and other criminals for example. 



Around the Network
contestgamer said:
VGPolyglot said:

So, you support public executions?

I support whatever the data says is effective. All crimes, except murder, have been falling in the Philipines since the executions of drug dealers and other criminals for example. 

Well, I guess another way to just make the data look better is to reduce the reporting of crimes.



It's bull .u have a right to defend ur home .I have a nice 12 gauge shotgun because I will shot who ever trys to do this



VGPolyglot said:
contestgamer said:

I support whatever the data says is effective. All crimes, except murder, have been falling in the Philipines since the executions of drug dealers and other criminals for example. 

Well, I guess another way to just make the data look better is to reduce the reporting of crimes.

I think it's logical that when you punish crime in a public and gruesome way it will lead to a reduction of it because no one wants to be the next guy out there. And studies bear out that cutting off of limbs reduces shoplifting. Deterrents work but they need to be severe and visually disgusting enough.



contestgamer said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, I guess another way to just make the data look better is to reduce the reporting of crimes.

I think it's logical that when you punish crime in a public and gruesome way it will lead to a reduction of it because no one wants to be the next guy out there. And studies bear out that cutting off of limbs reduces shoplifting. Deterrents work but they need to be severe and visually disgusting enough.

But if people are desperate enough they're not going to be thinking about the consequences because they already see their situation as hopeless. The best way to reduce it is by making them not feel the need to do it in the first place.



John2290 said:

I'm rather confused as to why he is being arrested here, it'll be interested to see if he is convicted and sentenced. British  and many other western countries need to update their laws in this regard especially in home defence cases.

 

http://www.thejournal.ie/london-stabbing-3940100-Apr2018/?amp=1

 

In Ireland we have had a few wins for the freedoms of people defending their selves, family and property in recent years with some clear prescientant made for the future but this could go anyway in the ever regressing UK.

Police everywhere in the world have to investigate otherwise you get cases where someone invites another person to their home and kills them claiming self defence from a forced entry, in this case the police have found it's a genuine self defence so have let him go.