Totally disgusting south London police

TCR4x4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no suspicion of being guilty......

The Police do NOT prove guilt.

You are innocent until proved guilty OR admit guilt to a specified crime IN A COURT OF LAW
 
I’m arresting you under suspicion of murder(insert any other crime here)

How is that not suspicion of being guilty?
 
TCR4x4 said:
I’m arresting you under suspicion of murder(insert any other crime here)

How is that not suspicion of being guilty?
Click to expand...

It's on suspicion of committing the crime. Nothing further at that point.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
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.
Click to expand...

To be fair, no legal representation is required if the accused a) declines representation offered by the state and b) chooses not to procure their own.

Under those circumstances, questioning can proceed.
 
The police have a tough job, and as mentioned before are facing cuts.
They surely wouldn't just arrest someone without good reason.

I'm not saying what he did was wrong, I'm sure if put in a similar situation and pent with fury that my home was being targeted, I would possibly attack an armed intruder. But ultimately he killed someone....
 
viv1969 said:
To be fair, no legal representation is required if the accused a) declines representation offered by the state and b) chooses not to procure their own.

Under those circumstances, questioning can proceed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely but ‘due process’ means legal representation needs to be offered. If refused then the arrested person can be questioned.
 
viv1969 said:
It's on suspicion of committing the crime. Nothing further at that point.
Click to expand...

So under suspicion of being guilty of committing the crime?

Same thing, why can’t you see that.
 
Well could it be something indicated things did not go down as claimed?
Could it be that instead of just taking the claimed for granted the police had to investigate in the interest of all the involved
And could it be that a persons rights are better protected if thing are done that way.
Here in DK if you kill or injure someone you Will be charged accordingly but selfdefence can be claimed etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't there something about using equal plus a little more force to protect yourself?
But if course no one will tell you what that little bit extra is..

If someone comes at you with a screwdriver, using equal force would be using a screwdriver to defend yourself,
But would the "little bit extra" be threatening with a larger screw driver ( do people keep them in the kitchen? )
Or pre-empting a possible attack by doing unto others as they would do unto you, only do it first ..

Obviously its difficult to see in side the intruders mind, but if you go to rob a place carrying a weapon, surely the intent would be to use it,
if threatening didn't work?


From the UK Gov site https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders

You don’t have to wait to be attacked before defending yourself in your home.

However, you could be prosecuted if, for example, you:

  • carry on attacking the intruder even if you’re no longer in danger
Does it say anywhere how man times the guy actually stabbed the intruder?
If its once, ( going on the Gov. statement) I'd say he's "innocent"
If it was a few times, that may be a different matter ..
 
TCR4x4 said:
So under suspicion of being guilty of committing the crime?

Same thing, why can’t you see that.
Click to expand...

Suspicion of committing a crime, that is all. What crime will be what he will be charged with will be determined once the evidence has been gathered. At that point the paperwork on the matter will be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service {CPS) who will review the vidence and determine whether the case is strong enough to go forward for trial or dropped.

AT NO TIME do the Police or CPS have any reason for suspicion of guilt, they do not DETERMINE that nor will it appear in any notes or prosecution papers.

Guilt is determined after a trial wherein the evidence is presented, tested through argument/counter argument AND until that point that a jury determines their outcome the accuses is innocent until proven Guilty or admits Guilt at any time from the start of the trial.

Why can’t you see that? It is the due process.

Read up on the matter - there is no suspicion of guilt just suspicion of committing a crime.
 
Cobra said:
Isn't there something about using equal plus a little more force to protect yourself?
But if course no one will tell you what that little bit extra is..

If someone comes at you with a screwdriver, using equal force would be using a screwdriver to defend yourself,
But would the "little bit extra" be threatening with a larger screw driver ( do people keep them in the kitchen? )
Or pre-empting a possible attack by doing unto others as they would do unto you, only do it first ..

Obviously its difficult to see in side the intruders mind, but if you go to rob a place carrying a weapon, surely the intent would be to use it,
if threatening didn't work?


From the UK Gov site https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders

You don’t have to wait to be attacked before defending yourself in your home.

However, you could be prosecuted if, for example, you:

  • carry on attacking the intruder even if you’re no longer in danger
Does it say anywhere how man times the guy actually stabbed the intruder?
If its once, ( going on the Gov. statement) I'd say he's "innocent"
If it was a few times, that may be a different matter ..
Click to expand...
Yes but it still has to be tried in court
 
soeren said:
Yes but it still has to be tried in court
Click to expand...

Not if the CPS decide he has no case to answer

The it would be open for the dead person’s family to seek a private prosecution but it would not be for murder.
 
Cobra said:
Isn't there something about using equal plus a little more force to protect yourself?
But if course no one will tell you what that little bit extra is..

If someone comes at you with a screwdriver, using equal force would be using a screwdriver to defend yourself,
But would the "little bit extra" be threatening with a larger screw driver ( do people keep them in the kitchen? )
Or pre-empting a possible attack by doing unto others as they would do unto you, only do it first ..

Obviously its difficult to see in side the intruders mind, but if you go to rob a place carrying a weapon, surely the intent would be to use it,
if threatening didn't work?


From the UK Gov site https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders

You don’t have to wait to be attacked before defending yourself in your home.

However, you could be prosecuted if, for example, you:

  • carry on attacking the intruder even if you’re no longer in danger
Does it say anywhere how man times the guy actually stabbed the intruder?
If its once, ( going on the Gov. statement) I'd say he's "innocent"
If it was a few times, that may be a different matter ..
Click to expand...

Difficult one.

The get out of jail is ‘reasonable force’ but what is reasonable?

I doubt that this will go forward unless Burglar 2 decides to come forward as a witness.

If he/she has ‘previous’ it would weaken evidence voracity.

There have been cases where Police Officers have sait that they would have dumped the body far away if excessive force was used.
 
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...
Having chased them for half a mile

I’m not sure what your description of ‘reasonable force’ is to justify self defence, but IMHO the reduction to manslaughter was bowing to popular pressure.
 
Phil V said:
Having chased them for half a mile
Click to expand...
On the evening of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and 16-year-old Fred Barras (both Irish Travellers from Newark-upon-Trent in Nottinghamshire) – broke into Martin's house. Shooting downwards in the dark with his shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.

Source
 
neil_g said:
As usual, I'm glad the Internet is privy to all the same information the police and experts are so that they can make an unbiased judgement.....
Click to expand...
Internet , Its the modern day equivalent, of the ducking stool or at the very least Stocks and Pillories, don't cha know?
:D
 
All that the police knew, at the time of arrest, is that someone had died as the apparent result of violence, so they had no choice other than to arrest and investigate, it would be wrong not to treat everyone exactly the same in these circumstances, regardless of any sympathy that any individual police officers may have for the gentleman.
Once they have carried out their prelimary investigations, the CPS will decide on whether he should be charged, and if so with what offence.
In the extremely unlikely event that they authorise any charge, he appears at first sight to have a strong defence of self defence.
Basically, anyone who suffers from criminal violence or truly believes that s/he is at real risk of criminal violence (or that someone else present is at risk) has the right to use reasonable force in order to end the violence. "Reasonable" means what is reasonable in the circumstances, together with what the person using this force truly and not unreasonably believed to be reasonable at the time, and this is the potential grey area - it can be reasonable for an elderly person under attack by one or more armed, young and powerful assailants, to use deadly force, and to use it in a preemptive way, on the basis that if he waiting to be attacked it might be too late for him. But it would be much more difficult for, say, a 16 stone 30 year old man to suceed with that defence against a physically inferior assailant....
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...
No, that was very different, and was murder. He shot and murdered a man who was trying to get away and who presented no threat to him, after lying in wait with an illegally held S.1 shotgun. He failed to call the police, failed to get medical help, ran away and hid.
 
Garry Edwards said:
All that the police knew, at the time of arrest, is that someone had died as the apparent result of violence, so they had no choice other than to arrest and investigate, it would be wrong not to treat everyone exactly the same in these circumstances, regardless of any sympathy that any individual police officers may have for the gentleman......
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
 
Wow how much rage without knowing the details.
A death is a very serious crime regardless of how it happened and needs extensive investigation.
The man will have been arrested as standard procedure until the facts are determined.

calm down people.
 
onomatopoeia said:
It doesn't, it is Daily Mail-esque pitchforks and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Just took a peep at the DM Online - usual p-poor reporting and petrol on the fire to release the mock-rage animal. Naturally no reference to the reality of proportionality changes made in 2013 which allowed for a more robust reaction to burglars/housebreakers..... next will be “we need firearms”.....
 
The householder has been released on bail.

As expected
 
An arrest is no indication of guilt.

It is right and proper that the death of anyone be investigated fully, there are reasons why a police force would arrest murder, resources being one. Stunned as to why anyone would jump to any conclusions until a full investigation has been carried out.
 
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...

And those cases affect this case how? This is the epitome of whataboutery.
 
Gogster said:
An arrest is no indication of guilt.

It is right and proper that the death of anyone be investigated fully, there are reasons why a police force would arrest murder, resources being one. Stunned as to why anyone would jump to any conclusions until a full investigation has been carried out.
Click to expand...

Yes

As detailed in many posts above but many do not understand the full process. With the householder now released subject to his bail conditions, the next process is to bring all of the ‘evidence’ together, evaluate the SOCO reports snd pull it together for the CPS to evaluate and decide the what next.

The Police will be looking for the second character who broke in.

His ‘story’ could be crucial in this case but I think the householder will not face court.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Yes

As detailed in many posts above but many do not understand the full process. With the householder now released subject to his bail conditions, the next process is to bring all of the ‘evidence’ together, evaluate the SOCO reports snd pull it together for the CPS to evaluate and decide the what next.

The Police will be looking for the second character who broke in.

His ‘story’ could be crucial in this case but I think the householder will not face court.
Click to expand...

If there was any indication that this was a murder, it is highly unlikely bail would have been granted, it has.

Whether the person arrested faces any lesser charges will be dictated by the force presented and the force used. It's far too early to make any predictions on potential charges, though that won't stop people from doing so.
 
I think that one of the problems with these situations is that some people just don't understand that everyone has the right not to lose their life because of physical violence. The state has stopped killing murderers now, but some people still feel that suspected criminals are fair game, shouldn't have any rights and that it's perfectly OK for people like themselves to use force against them, and that the police should just shake them by the hand and thank them for killing someone who was doing something that they should not have been doing. Maybe, at some point in history, it used to happen like that, or that the local Lord of the Manor or whatever would never be investigated and would always be believed, simply because of his status, but thankfully those days have long gone.

And it doesn't help that the police cannot explain themselves. All that they do is to make a media statement, to the effect that "A [insert age here] year old [insert gender here] has been arrested following an incident that occurred [insert date here]. They do this because they cannot say more than that.
 
neil_g said:
As usual, I'm glad the Internet is privy to all the same information the police and experts are so that they can make an unbiased judgement.....
Click to expand...

Oh some are definitely out. The momentum rep for Slough for instance

upload_2018-4-5_11-18-7.png
https://BANNED/paulkilby87?lang=en
 
It's being reported that the dead burglar was found collapsed in Further Green Road, near to the South Park Crescent address where the suspected burglary took place, in the early hours of Wednesday. A single stab wound. The pensior has been identified as Richard Osborn-Brooks, the dead man hasn't been identified.

So it could be he was stabbed in the kitchen in a struggle and staggered out? It's said that burglar took Osborn-Brooks into the kitchen whilst the other went upstairs. Theres reports his wife was upstairs and has dementia
 
Gogster said:
If there was any indication that this was a murder, it is highly unlikely bail would have been granted, it has.

Whether the person arrested faces any lesser charges will be dictated by the force presented and the force used. It's far too early to make any predictions on potential charges, though that won't stop people from doing so.
Click to expand...

Wrong in the first part. The investigation in ongoing and until the facts are gathered, sorted, checked snd put into order for presentation to the CPS. Whilst that is being done, bail is normal where the arrested person is considered to be unlikely to flee and his bail conditions will, in this case, include his handing over his passport and will be required to attend the police station at set times.

At this point he has not been remanded and is guilty of nothing at this stage.

The CPS will determine the actual charge he will face when they get the Police report.

We have no picture of what actually happened at this point in time.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Wrong in the first part. The investigation in ongoing and until the facts are gathered, sorted, checked snd put into order for presentation to the CPS. Whilst that is being done, bail is normal where the arrested person is considered to be unlikely to flee and his bail conditions will, in this case, include his handing over his passport and will be required to attend the police station at set times.

At this point he has not been remanded and is guilty of nothing at this stage.

The CPS will determine the actual charge he will face when they get the Police report.

We have no picture of what actually happened at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

Bail can be denied, irrespective of pre-charge, when it is appropriate to do so, depending on risk to victims, public and course of justice.

Source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail

Bail decisions for murder was removed from magistrates under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which also states:

Section 114 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amends Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976. Section 114(2) provides that bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person. In coming to that decision, the court must have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the suspect's character and antecedents and his record in relation to previous grants of bail.
Click to expand...

Basically, not having done it before isn't a guarantee of bail, if you have, bail is exceptional.

You can read into that what you wish, but it stands to reason that the decision is based on the evidence thus far.

I have been out of the police for 20 years (this year) now, a lot has changed, but if you have some reference for your opinion I'd be interested to hear it as you seem quite knowledgeable.
 
Last edited:
Gogster said:
Hi Steve,

Bail can be denied, irrespective of pre-charge, when it is appropriate to do so, depending on risk to victims, public and course of justice.

Source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail

Bail decisions for murder was removed from magistrates under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which also states:



Basically, not having done it before isn't a guarantee of bail, if you have, bail is exceptional.

You can read into that what you wish, but it stands to reason that the decision is based on the evidence thus far.

I have been out of the police for 20 years (this year) now, a lot has changed, but if you have some reference for your opinion I'd be interested to hear it as you seem quite knowledgeable.
Click to expand...

I gave the basic version. Many things have changed in recent years and continue apace.
Those changes started during my training and carry on constantly.

PACE is the start point but much of the process is recognisable from your days in the Police.

I covered much of this process when I served as magistrate. It was part of the training as many such cases are processed through the magistrates court and are pushed up to Crown Court

Totally aware of the granting of bail process as it changed (thankfully) during my panel days.

The simple issue is if he is to be charged, what that charge will be or no case to answer.

There is a push to avoid holding people in remand as the whole system is overloaded so the bail issue, though changed, is a low hanging fruit risk based approach. Mental Health issues - no bail except even that has been messed up.

I will have a dig through my old papers, I had a really good flow chart of the revised bail process/conditions given to me back in the day.

Steve
 
The issue of charging will be a matter for the CPS.

I think it's important in threads like these to address those that throw their hands up and claim 'ridiculous!' 'Should be freed immediately,' the police have a process and a duty to investigate.

It is not ridiculous.

It is not the police overreacting.

It is the right and proper process when, until the facts are known, it appears a crime has been committed, EVEN IF there is a decision not to charge.
 
Mr Bump said:
Wow how much rage without knowing the details.
A death is a very serious crime regardless of how it happened and needs extensive investigation.
The man will have been arrested as standard procedure until the facts are determined.

calm down people.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If I killed someone in self defence, I would expect to be arrested. An arrest is not the same as a charge.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top