[News] Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

My lawyer would be instructed to act on my behalf.

Ok. So you wouldn't be maintaining your right to silence as you will be using your legal representative to talk on your behalf.

 

[happypig]

Maybe, I would be mortified personally to be arrested, (I am a law abiding citizen) and if I found myself in this situation, I would only talk while not under arrest. Arresting me would mean, I would maintain my right to silence.

Of course you have every right to take this course of action but it would be likely to see you held for much longer. Do you think that the police would say "Oh well, if you won't answer our questions, you'd better be on your way then, sorry to have disrespected you" ?
If only Harold Shipman had had you looking out for him he'd still be knocking off old dears.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Hang on. So you would be arrested for something you know you are innocent of. The police allow you the chance to seek legal advice to make sure you correctly portray the events and demonstrate that this was just a horrible situation in which you were scared, protecting your family and unfortunately someone died...........and you would choose the No Comment route!!!

Great decision that.

Put far more succinctly than I could.

 

[drew]

My lawyer would be instructed to act on my behalf.

What exactly do you think your solicitor will do? He can't answer questions about an event that he wasn't at. The only thing he could do is read a prepared statement. Beggars belief that you think the route to go down is one of silence. Probably been watching too much of 24 hours in Police Custody!!!

 

[rippleman]

What "beggars belief" is that a 78 year old man, in his own home with his disabled wife, is arrested and banged up for murder because an ARMED scumbag career criminal who broke into his property in the middle of the night came off worse and ended up dead.

The trauma of going through that ordeal, exacerbated no doubt by knowing that he had killed someone, was surely enough without it being compounded by his arrest and locking up.

To prove "murder" you have to show that that there was an intention to kill or seriously injure the "victim". On that basis, how many defending his treatment would now agree that his arrest for murder was correct?

We should be applauding this fella as a hero. Not trying to justify his shabby, uncaring treatment.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What "beggars belief" is that a 78 year old man, in his own home with his disabled wife, is arrested and banged up for murder because an ARMED scumbag career criminal who broke into his property in the middle of the night came off worse and ended up dead.

The trauma of going through that ordeal, exacerbated no doubt by knowing that he had killed someone, was surely enough without it being compounded by his arrest and locking up.

To prove "murder" you have to show that that there was an intention to kill or seriously injure the "victim". On that basis, how many defending his treatment would now agree that his arrest for murder was correct?

We should be applauding this fella as a hero. Not trying to justify his shabby, uncaring treatment.

He wasn't banged up for murder. Stop sensationalising the facts, to appear such a hero for standing up for a pensioner.

I very much doubt he will be charged, but a proper investigation has to be done by law.

 

[Dr Bandler]

I find it interesting that in any debate like this, those who would probably be classified as "left-leaning" or "liberal" will enthusiastically hang on to the minutiae of the wording and principle of the current law, and quote chapter and verse as to why it was correct that this old chap should have been arrested. They will ignore that this seems to go against a common sense and compassionate view of what this man (and other burglary victims) have had to go through - this stance is taken by others. I am not sure that the same adherence to legal principles would be adopted as enthusiastically if the issue at hand didn't suit their political and politically-correct worldview. I will not give potential examples - I am sure we can all think of some.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

What "beggars belief" is that a 78 year old man, in his own home with his disabled wife, is arrested and banged up for murder because an ARMED scumbag career criminal who broke into his property in the middle of the night came off worse and ended up dead.

The trauma of going through that ordeal, exacerbated no doubt by knowing that he had killed someone, was surely enough without it being compounded by his arrest and locking up.

To prove "murder" you have to show that that there was an intention to kill or seriously injure the "victim". On that basis, how many defending his treatment would now agree that his arrest for murder was correct?

We should be applauding this fella as a hero. Not trying to justify his shabby, uncaring treatment.

1 He wasn't banged up for murder
2 No one has to 'prove murder' to arrest someone on 'suspicion'
3 Yep, I still agree it was the correct procedure.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

What I love is that some people clearly have a skewed picture of what "being arrested" entails,

It's not always pinned to the floor, cuffed and shouted at, then bundled into a van, before being interrogated down at 'the nick' and thrown into 'the slammer' by THE COPS.

Being arrested can be an extremely unexciting process where the legal wording is correctly read out and then questioning at the station is done in a sympathetic and sensible manner to simply ascertain all the facts in a case where, no matter what, a man has died.

It's like some people believe life is like NCIS.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

The perfect murder:

Convince an associate of yours who has recently fallen out of favour to break and enter a property that is unwittingly owned by an elderly associate of yours. If his wife has a disability even better. Prearrange with your elderly associate to have a nice big kitchen knife ready at an allotted time on an agreed night. Promise of financial gain or threat of blackmail are reliable methods of ensuring said elderly associate’s involvement. After the knife is plunged, flee the scene and leave the elderly associate to concoct a plausible night time break-in story. The Outraged of Britain brigade will ensure your elderly associate is not questioned by the police as it would be insensitive to arrest him after the ordeal he has been through. Your newly deceased associate will be judged as ‘thieving scum’ who ‘got what was coming to him’ on social media.

 

[btnbelle]

Ok. So you wouldn't be maintaining your right to silence as you will be using your legal representative to talk on your behalf.

I would be silent. My legal team will fight my case in court.

 

[Easy 10]

Maybe, I would be mortified personally to be arrested, (I am a law abiding citizen) and if I found myself in this situation, I would only talk while not under arrest. Arresting me would mean, I would maintain my right to silence.

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".

Answering "no comment" to every question when being interviewed by police whilst under caution can certainly cause harm to your defence. I was on a jury where the defendant, on a charge of ABH and assault, did exactly that when they were being interviewed following arrest (with a solicitor present). They then sang like a canary in the stand giving chapter and verse on their version of events, trying to pin everything on the victim of the assault, whilst painting themselves as the victim.

If you know in your own mind that you are innocent, or at least acted in a justifiably manner given the circumstances, then the wise thing to do is to give your version of events as honestly and as best you can when being interviewed. Keeping schtum with the "no comment" to everything just makes it look like you're (a) covering up and/or (b) trying to compile your own version of events first, without dropping yourself in it, so that it'll stand up in court under questioning and cross-examination.

If I'm ever arrested and I know I've done nothing wrong, or feel I have acted in self defence or with proportional force given the situation, I would absolutely give my version of events when being interviewed. Why wouldn't I ?

 

[Weststander]

The perfect murder:

Convince an associate of yours who has recently fallen out of favour to break and enter a property that is unwittingly owned by an elderly associate of yours. If his wife has a disability even better. Prearrange with your elderly associate to have a nice big kitchen knife ready at an allotted time on an agreed night. Promise of financial gain or threat of blackmail are reliable methods of ensuring said elderly associate’s involvement. After the knife is plunged, flee the scene and leave the elderly associate to concoct a plausible night time break-in story. The Outraged of Britain brigade will ensure your elderly associate is not questioned by the police as it would be insensitive to arrest him after the ordeal he has been through. Your newly deceased associate will be judged as ‘thieving scum’ who ‘got what was coming to him’ on social media.

Especially when the invited guests have convictions for aggrevated burglaries of ladies in their 80’s.

Perfect indeed.

 

[btnbelle]

Of course you have every right to take this course of action but it would be likely to see you held for much longer. Do you think that the police would say "Oh well, if you won't answer our questions, you'd better be on your way then, sorry to have disrespected you" ?
If only Harold Shipman had had you looking out for him he'd still be knocking off old dears.

I am not interested in what they would say.

 

[Easy 10]

I would be silent. My legal team will fight my case in court.

Your silence would not be "a good look" when it came to court.

 

[lost in london]

I would be silent. My legal team will fight my case in court.

You'd let it go all the way to court rather than put your side of the story in what is likely to be the most sympathetic police interview there could ever be?!

You're a buffoon.

 

[btnbelle]

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".

Answering "no comment" to every question when being interviewed by police whilst under caution can certainly cause harm to your defence. I was on a jury where the defendant, on a charge of ABH and assault, did exactly that when they were being interviewed following arrest (with a solicitor present). They then sang like a canary in the stand giving chapter and verse on their version of events, trying to pin everything on the victim of the assault, whilst painting themselves as the victim.

If you know in your own mind that you are innocent, or at least acted in a justifiably manner given the circumstances, then the wise thing to do is to give your version of events as honestly and as best you can when being interviewed. Keeping schtum with the "no comment" to everything just makes it look like you're (a) covering up and/or (b) trying to compile your own version of events first, without dropping yourself in it, so that it'll stand up in court under questioning and cross-examination.

If I'm ever arrested and I know I've done nothing wrong, or feel I have acted in self defence or with proportional force given the situation, I would absolutely give my version of events when being interviewed. Why wouldn't I ?

May harm your defense. I would not say no comment. Just state I am not answering questions under arrest. I am happy to talk prior to arrest. After arrest my defense team will be in charge. The police have been known to fit people up for murder.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I find it interesting that in any debate like this, those who would probably be classified as "left-leaning" or "liberal" will enthusiastically hang on to the minutiae of the wording and principle of the current law, and quote chapter and verse as to why it was correct that this old chap should have been arrested. They will ignore that this seems to go against a common sense and compassionate view of what this man (and other burglary victims) have had to go through - this stance is taken by others. I am not sure that the same adherence to legal principles would be adopted as enthusiastically if the issue at hand didn't suit their political and politically-correct worldview. I will not give potential examples - I am sure we can all think of some.

Drivel

 

[carlzeiss]

Oh dear it seems that the deceased may be from a traveler family .

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5988134/richard-osborn-brooks-burglar-killed-hither-green-family-rant/

'OLD B*****DS DESERVE IT' Sickening rant by relative of burglar ‘killed by OAP Richard Osborn-Brooks’ as it’s revealed career criminal family stole veteran’s war medals

 

[Dr Bandler]

Drivel

Triggered?