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

[Stat Brother]

Has now been released on bail pending further inquires.

 

[happypig]

Has now been released on bail pending further inquires.

Waits for the more apoplectic posters to shout "Bail ! BAIL ?!?!? He should of got a meddle !"

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

I think the sensible among us can recognise that there would need to be some real evidence of premeditation and excess force for this case to make it to court, but we are concerned that the 'computer says no' mentaility may grab and run with a prosecution to the detriment and needless distress of the old chap.

Absolutely this. Your final sentence though is a genuine concern though with the modern world, which is why a lot of people are getting hot under the collar.

 

[Diablo]

Waits for the more apoplectic posters to shout "Bail ! BAIL ?!?!? He should of got a meddle !"

"have got a Medal"

 

[oldalbiongirl]

The police have to investigate when someone has been killed. We cant just say the man was 79 so its self defence. The police dont know the circumstances. Someone has been killed. Our law says that we are able to act with reasonable force. So the test will be if a reasonable person would have done the same then this is a defence. I really feel for the man and agree that its appalling that he has to go through all this if circumstances are as reported but the police are just investigating a violent death which obviously they have to do.

 

[GT49er]

Waits for the more dyslexic posters to shout "Bail ! BAIL ?!?!? He should of got a meddle !"

Corrected for you!

 

[Biscuit]

Holding a screwdriver isn't much of a weapon, so not really armed. If the pensioner kept a knife specifically to use against intruders, it can be construed as premeditated.
There are very few details in this case, so it's hard to discuss the rights and wrongs of it.

It's a very complicated law. Keeping a base-ball bat by the door in case someone breaks in is premeditated. Having simply left it there the night before and grabbing it in the heat of the moment.. that's different.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, one less burglar on the streets. Give the guy a medal I say.

 

[happypig]

"have got a Medal"

Whoooshh

 

[Weststander]

It's a very complicated law. Keeping a base-ball bat by the door in case someone breaks in is premeditated. Having simply left it there the night before and grabbing it in the heat of the moment.. that's different.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, one less burglar on the streets. Give the guy a medal I say.

Often said better to have golf clubs, rather than the proverbial baseball bat.

 

[A1X]

The judicial system needs to get a move on and recognise that, when someone makes the choice to enter a property which is not theirs, they lose all common and criminal law rights assigned to them had they not made that choice and that any subsequent action undertaken against them is outside of common or criminal law. Simples!

What an unbelievably stupid comment. So you believe that if someone has entered a property which is not theirs they are fair game for anything the homeowner chooses to do? There is literally nothing the homeowner could do which would be illegal in your eyes? They could hold them in some form of torture chamber for 25 years and that's perfectly fine with you?

Also, "makes a choice to enter a property which is not theirs". That strikes me as open to all sorts of interpretations. If I go round my mates house for a beer, I've made a choice to enter a property which is not mine. Do you therefore think he should be able to kill me legally?

The law is absolutely fine as it is.

 

[jakarta]

He should of got a meddle !"

On the grounds that One of These Days he's going cut you into little pieces?

 

[rippleman]

78 and he's still in custody ffs.

Exactly! As if the stress of being woken in the night to find two armed scumbags trying to rob and/or assault you wasn't enough, he gets nicked and banged up in a cell.

The old fella should have been given a cup of tea, a medal, and an invite to HM's next garden party at Buck House. I would like to shake his hand.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Exactly! As if the stress of being woken in the night to find two armed scumbags trying to rob and/or assault you wasn't enough, he gets nicked and banged up in a cell.

The old fella should have been given a cup of tea, a medal, and an invite to HM's next garden party at Buck House. I would like to shake his hand.

He's left the police station with bail conditions, but where does it say he was banged up? He was questioned under caution which will mean an interview room, probably seeing a doctor but not necessarily locked up in a cell.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I find the original uproar in some sectors that the man was arrested as slightly bizarre.

Someone has been killed. Of course he should be arrested 'on suspicion' of murder.

Being arrested on suspicion of something and being charged are two HUGELY different things.

 

[btnbelle]

The police have to investigate when someone has been killed. We cant just say the man was 79 so its self defence. The police dont know the circumstances. Someone has been killed. Our law says that we are able to act with reasonable force. So the test will be if a reasonable person would have done the same then this is a defence. I really feel for the man and agree that its appalling that he has to go through all this if circumstances are as reported but the police are just investigating a violent death which obviously they have to do.

Someone who is 79 would feel more vulnerable than a younger man. A person has died who unlawfully broke into a property. If you wake in the middle of the night to an intruder your flight or fight response kicks in. Reasonable defense means nothing in such circumstances. Mr Richard Osborn-Brooks has had his identity made public. All he did was stay at home and defend himself, his wife who he was a carer for and his home. If his force was deemed excessive, I don't blame him at all. The law should account for all UK citizens to treat their homes as their castles.

 

[pauli cee]

I stood there saying stupidly, What are you doing in my kitchen?

The police assured me that most intruders/burglars run away as they're mainly cowards.

Sounds about right!
(Them being cowards I mean)

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The law should account for all UK citizens to create their homes as castles

It does.

I'll be amazed if he's charged with anything. But it's also perfectly reasonable for the police to establish the facts of what happened, and the only way to do that is by taking the steps that they have. If nothing else, there will be an inquest into the death of this apparent burglar, and therefore the circumstances of his death need to be known.

 

[btnbelle]

It does.

I'll be amazed if he's charged with anything. But it's also perfectly reasonable for the police to establish the facts of what happened, and the only way to do that is by taking the steps that they have. If nothing else, there will be an inquest into the death of this apparent burglar, and therefore the circumstances of his death need to be known.

And this poor pensioner is thrust into the public glare without his consent. I thought we had a right to a private life until it is established a crime has been committed, his identity should be private.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Any householder is allowed to use reasonable force in self-defence. But what is "reasonable"?

In 2013 the law was changed so that someone, confronted by a burglar, who genuinely fears for their safety or that of their family, and in the heat of the moment uses force that is reasonable in the circumstances - but which in the cold light of day seems disproportionate - will not be guilty of an offence. That may, for instance, include picking up and using a weapon.

The law doesn't expect you, in the heat of a traumatic event, to make fine judgements over the level of force. But it doesn't give householders carte blanche either. You will be prosecuted if you use what the law terms "grossly disproportionate" force.

So, laying a trap for a burglar and using extreme force, a calculated act of revenge, or using a gun on an unarmed intruder, could be deemed grossly disproportionate.

All cases turn on their facts, so each has to be carefully investigated to determine whether the force used was reasonable or grossly disproportionate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43652308

The law sounds pretty sensible to me.

I find it pretty depressing and disturbing that some people seem to be happy that an intruder has died, and that they deserve it for trying to burgle someone's house. They have made a bad life choice - yes, but I don't think that means someone in their own home should be allowed to deliberately kill them if it's not required for their protection. It is always hoped that criminals are able to be rehabilitated. Further, we don't know what has led them into that situation - their personal circumstances or mental illness, for example. In another thread a video was posted of Australian police officers beating up a person having a psychotic episode after he was no longer a threat (he had attacked people and tried to rob a pharmacy prior to being apprehended). Of course, everyone was saying the police were over the top. And they were. Deliberately killing someone when it's not necessary to do so would also be over the top and someone in their own home should not be protected by the law in such a case. Equally, there are times where extreme force is needed and someone in their own home might not be trying to kill someone, but it accidentally happens when using the force required to protect themselves or others. The law should protect such individuals, and it does.

 

[carlzeiss]

Armed burglar', 37, 'stabbed to death by 78-year-old OAP' is from career criminal family who have conned frail pensioners out of HALF A MILLION pounds and he was previously jailed for 10 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5580925/Pensioner-78-stabbed-burglar-bailed.html