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.
Right, let's forget about good taste and get right down to the important bit. Express your prediction of the outcome in no more than 100 words, we will seal it up in this thread, and when judgement is passed we'll all come back here and see who wins the Horrible Thing Sweepstake. Winners get one internet point, losers are expected to Think About It.
Me: I think the arrest strongly suggests that there's more to it and that it isn't de facto self defence- I'll go out on a limb and say the fatal wound/s isn't consistent with self defence. For my bonus ball I predict multiple stab wounds in the back.
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.
I agree - if it's just me in the house. It usually isn't though and I don't think my wife and kids would appreciate me running away and leaving them to deal with the intruder! Wife is military so might not mind as much, but my son only has basic martial arts training and my daughter (while quite decent with a handgun) has no self defence training at all.
Me: I think the arrest strongly suggests that there’s more to it and that it isn’t de facto self defence- I’ll go out on a limb and say the fatal wound/s isn’t consistent with self defence. For my bonus ball I predict multiple stab wounds in the back.
You've stolen my prediction - although I was going to add that there was some kind of prior relationship (e.g. bad blood or the like) between the victim and the person who stabbed them. If this was CSI then it'd be an attempt at the perfect murder i.e. lure someone onto your property then kill them, calling them a burglar and saying it was self defence. Although the perfect murder is easier for a 78 year old i.e. run them over with your car and blame your cataracts.
I normally err on the side of letting justice taking its natural course, except these days we don’t live in anywhere near a society that lets due diligence and trial by jury take place. We live in a society that is media intrusive and speculative and trial by media is the only important scoring for ratings.. the evidence is secondary to the amount of gossip and chatter mongering news such as this can invoke..
I think the arrest strongly suggests that there’s more to it and that it isn’t de facto self defence- I’ll go out on a limb and say the fatal wound/s isn’t consistent with self defence. For my bonus ball I predict multiple stab wounds in the back.
This.
The arrest does not suggest anything. They arrested as they found a guy a who had been stabbed in someone’s house, so they arrested the suspect that’s all.
Nowhere near enough details. But http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-41308817 was reasonable force. The details of the case were dreadful, and the occupants in fear of their lives. Shotgun was unlicensed and that was what the occupant pleaded guilty to. There was no charge of murder.
Minimum sentence is five years unless exceptional circumstances. Gregory was sentence to 10 months, and will be released presently.
One suspects there will be no charge in the case the OP has highlighted, but due procedure has to be followed.
I'll go with charges being dropped against the pensioner. The arrest is a precaution, not a charge.
Tony Martin (the farmer) didn't help matters by after shooting someone, calmly got into bed, instead of calling the police. I wonder if something similar, ie, a delay in calling the emergency services, happened here.
if the police turn up at your house and find only you and a stabbed corpse of course they are going to arrest you
It means nothing at all except they found you next to a corpse.
Nowhere near enough details. But http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-41308817 /a> was reasonable force. The details of the case were dreadful, and the occupants in fear of their lives. Shotgun was unlicensed and that was what the occupant pleaded guilty to. There was no charge of murder.
He got 10 months for having an unlicensed shotgun. The burglar who survived got 10 years.