Totally disgusting south London police

the black fox

the black fox

Messages
15,445
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
just read that a 78 year old has been arrested for murder after struggling with a armed burgler that broke into his property early hours of the morning ,two bugalars armed with screwdrivers and the old boy gets arrested for defending himself and his property .
I always thought murder was supposed to be pre.meditated at worst this can only be involuntary manslaughter with mitigating circumstances .
Down to me I would give the old boy a medal for getting more scum s***houses off the streets
 
Seems today's police would rather you do nothing and just stand back and let them stab you to death. The law is a ass.
 
Last edited:
Do you want to share where you read this?
 
He's been arrested, he's not been charged has he? I would imagine that this is procedure as they have to investigate or are you suggesting that they should just take his word for it and do nothing?

I'll have to remember that if there's anybody I hate and I invite them to my house.
 
What struck me as well was the reference to murder, as noted above I thought that charge was reserved for situations where premeditation was suspected...........and you would not have thought that a late night intruder infered premeditation on the part the homeowner especially where evidence of him being attacked/defending himself was present.

Makes me think there is more to the story than meets the eye.........possibly that the intruder who died was known to the homeowner.?
 
Box Brownie said:
Makes me think there is more to the story than meets the eye.........possibly that the intruder who died was known to the homeowner.?
Click to expand...


wow!

Just wow!
 
Think we need to give this one time and see how it plays out, if i killed an intruder being arrested would come as no surprise until things where sorted out, i wouldnt be happy about it but.
 
Reminds me of Tony Martin, convicted of murder, reduced to manslaughter on appeal. All because he shot them as they were leaving his place.
 
boyfalldown said:
I wonder if you're reading too much into it there? arrested for and charged with aren't they same
Click to expand...

Fair point...... therefore is the default position always to arrest for the 'highest level of offence' ???
 
Marc said:
Where does it say "Murder"?
Click to expand...

on the newspaper linked in post #5 it says

"He was initially arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm but re-arrested on suspicion of murder. He was in custody at a south London police today."

So suggests something of/about the incident changed the charge?
 
MatBin said:
Reminds me of Tony Martin, convicted of murder, reduced to manslaughter on appeal. All because he shot them as they were leaving his place.
Click to expand...
Bit different though? We don't know the full story but it's said the householder was forced into the kitchen with a screwdriver. One wonders if its that which stabbed the burglar

The self defence laws changed in 2013.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime

I wonder if he's charged because he's said something when interviewed along the lines of he seized the opportunity to attack the person and shows no remorse?
 
Totally disgusting that he was arrested, if he is charged it should NOT be for murder at all. What the hell is wrong with this country if you can not stand up and fight for your home and loved ones. My parents got done over too yrs ago, he is now locked up. I`d say let the old man go :)
 
As said above this is procedure. If the police had done anything else they would have been open to accusations of/from

(a) dereliction of duty (I don't know if that is the correct term). I assume the pensioner admitted he had stabbed the burglar in the struggle, in which case the police could not ignore it, and
(b) the family of the dead man,

and perhaps other charges.

Again as above let us just wait and see.

Dave
 
When officers arrived they said they found that the homeowner had got into a struggle with one of two suspected burglars after he'd been forced into the kitchen with a screwdriver

A spokesman said: "A struggle had ensued in the kitchen during which one of the males found inside the property sustained a stab wound to the upper body."
The 38-year-old suspected burglar died after a single stab wound, police have confirmed. The pensioner has bruising on his arms.

The second burglar fled the scene.
 
Bit early for a pitchforks reaction.

Initially arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm, dead guy wasn't yet dead.

Then he was, hence the change of charge to murder, which isn't unusual given the early lack of evidence other than one person being dead at the hands of another person.

As usual the press ramp it up to garner maximum outrage at the earliest opportunity, and folks are quick to jump on board.
 
viv1969 said:
Bit early for a pitchforks reaction.

Initially arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm, dead guy wasn't yet dead.

Then he was, hence the change of charge to murder, which isn't unusual given the early lack of evidence other than one person being dead at the hands of another person.

As usual the press ramp it up to garner maximum outrage at the earliest opportunity, and folks are quick to jump on board.
Click to expand...


Don't know what you mean - the Daily Wail are calling him a hero... :D
 
MatBin said:
Reminds me of Tony Martin, convicted of murder, reduced to manslaughter on appeal. All because he shot them as they were leaving his place.
Click to expand...
Not really, Martin shot a fleeing child in the back and killed them. The CPS offered his defence team manslaughter but they went with murder as they thought no jury would convict him of murder. They were wrong.

In this case so far we have an arrest. As I write this there has been no charge reported on the BBC website and there certainly hasn't been a trial. I have no time for and no trust in the police, not since the Damian Green leak by police officers, but they should be allowed to get on with their job.
 
Box Brownie said:
on the newspaper linked in post #5 it says

"He was initially arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm but re-arrested on suspicion of murder. He was in custody at a south London police today."

So suggests something of/about the incident changed the charge?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, missed that but he still hasn't been charged, just arrested on suspicion of which is very different.
 
If an hgv driver runs someone over or crashes and kills someone, they are immediately arrested. No one bats an eyelid at that.

It’s then investigated and if deemed they were not at fault, they are de arrested..
Standard procedure.

The old guy killed someone, until proven how and why, it’s murder.
 
It seems harsh to be arrested fending off intruders in your own house but as others have pointed out, it all needs to be investigated. The title of your thread is a hard on the police. They get such stick and deal with people at their worst times. How about toning it down?
 
TCR4x4 said:
If an hgv driver runs someone over or crashes and kills someone, they are immediately arrested. No one bats an eyelid at that.

It’s then investigated and if deemed they were not at fault, they are de arrested..
Standard procedure.

The old guy killed someone, until proven how and why, it’s murder.
Click to expand...

Technically incorrect.

You can only be de-arrested if you have not yet been fully processed into custody and interviewed, and it becomes apparent there is no case to answer.

Someone arrested, processed and investigated, is then released without charged if there is no evidence.

Not pedantry. They're different things.
 
TCR4x4 said:
If an hgv driver runs someone over or crashes and kills someone, they are immediately arrested. No one bats an eyelid at that.

It’s then investigated and if deemed they were not at fault, they are de arrested..
Standard procedure.

The old guy killed someone, until proven how and why, it’s murder.
Click to expand...


I think that you may have misunderstood English law - innocent until proven guilty?

Taking this case at face value, without trying to invent reasons why the burglars were there in the first place (knew the owner of the house), how does the law expect innocent people to behave when confronted with extreme violence/danger?
Without trying to prejudge the case, what is the difference between this case, a member of the public in their own house, being threatened by two armed men, and a member of the public in the street, taking on a knife weilding terrorist and killing them?
 
andy700 said:
I think that you may have misunderstood English law - innocent until proven guilty?

Taking this case at face value, without trying to invent reasons why the burglars were there in the first place (knew the owner of the house), how does the law expect innocent people to behave when confronted with extreme violence/danger?
Without trying to prejudge the case, what is the difference between this case, a member of the public in their own house, being threatened by two armed men, and a member of the public in the street, taking on a knife weilding terrorist and killing them?
Click to expand...

Should the police not arrest anyone until they're proven guilty?
 
Chipper said:
It seems harsh to be arrested fending off intruders in your own house but as others have pointed out, it all needs to be investigated. The title of your thread is a hard on the police. They get such stick and deal with people at their worst times. How about toning it down?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, there are many people, including myself, who have witnessed the police making bizarre decisions (Menezez case, where an innocent man was shot dead by armed police), or failing to act, follow up crimes, fail to keep victims of crime updated.
 
Marc said:
Should the police not arrest anyone until they're proven guilty?
Click to expand...

That is not what I was inferring.
At the end of the day, it is down to the CPS whether or not charges are brought which then result in the defendent being taken to court. Unless there is very compelling evidence, I would be very surprised and shocked if this resulted in the homeowner being taken to court, facing a charge of murder.
 
andy700 said:
With all due respect, there are many people, including myself, who have witnessed the police making bizarre decisions (Menezez case, where an innocent man was shot dead by armed police), or failing to act, follow up crimes, fail to keep victims of crime updated.
Click to expand...

That's as maybe but calling the police disgusting for simply doing their job and following procedure is way over the top.

andy700 said:
That is not what I was inferring.
At the end of the day, it is down to the CPS whether or not charges are brought which then result in the defendent being taken to court. Unless there is very compelling evidence, I would be very surprised and shocked if this resulted in the homeowner being taken to court, facing a charge of murder.
Click to expand...

The point is that "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to trial, not arrest or even charge.

End of the day, we don't actually know what happened.
 
andy700 said:
That is not what I was inferring.
At the end of the day, it is down to the CPS whether or not charges are brought which then result in the defendent being taken to court. Unless there is very compelling evidence, I would be very surprised and shocked if this resulted in the homeowner being taken to court, facing a charge of murder.
Click to expand...

In many cases, that's not the procedure.
Often as not the police bring charges without referring to the CPS.

The CPS do, however, decide whether to prosecute.
 
andy700 said:
With all due respect, there are many people, including myself, who have witnessed the police making bizarre decisions (Menezez case, where an innocent man was shot dead by armed police), or failing to act, follow up crimes, fail to keep victims of crime updated.
Click to expand...

Well, just like goalkeeper in any sport that don’t get noticed until something unusual happens, it’s easy to remember instances where things go wrong. Their numbers have been cut and cut by this government and, just like any government agency, they are spread too thinly. It is still way too harsh and early abusive language when procedures have to be followed and the facts are not known.
 
andy700 said:
I think that you may have misunderstood English law - innocent until proven guilty?

Taking this case at face value, without trying to invent reasons why the burglars were there in the first place (knew the owner of the house), how does the law expect innocent people to behave when confronted with extreme violence/danger?
Without trying to prejudge the case, what is the difference between this case, a member of the public in their own house, being threatened by two armed men, and a member of the public in the street, taking on a knife weilding terrorist and killing them?
Click to expand...

If you are arrested, you are under suspicion of being guilty. That’s whole point of being arrested. It’s up to the police to prove your guilt, you are being detained as they have reason to believe you have committed a crime, so in that case is boiled down to guilty until proven innocent.
 
viv1969 said:
Bit early for a pitchforks reaction.

Initially arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm, dead guy wasn't yet dead.

Then he was, hence the change of charge to murder, which isn't unusual given the early lack of evidence other than one person being dead at the hands of another person.

As usual the press ramp it up to garner maximum outrage at the earliest opportunity, and folks are quick to jump on board.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree

The arrest process allows the investigation process to commence and for a solicitor to be present.

The householder could not, at the point of arrest, refuuse to go. To the police station and no questioning could take place without cautioning and the presence of a legal representative and tape recording made.

Until a charge is made the arrested person is just that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top