Richard Osborn-Brooks

[The Wright Stuff]

I saw this yesterday and was absolutely livid.

All of the news articles are appalling: they spend most of the time explaining how it is perfectly reasonable to use force to defend yourself and your family, but then don't explain why this wasn't considered reasonable.

Frankly, that's one less burglar roaming around. Good. Something the police and the courts failed to achieve.

But what brings this home for me is that this could have been any one of us. Alone. Perhaps in a shed. Surrounded by sharp tools. What would I have done? Well, I've no idea, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been a considered and planned response. I'm not even sure conscious thought would have been involved at all!

[Peter Miller]

Yes, I agree. Makes you sick doesn't it.

[Dai Fledermaus]

With respect, since none of us know the facts, I don't think it sensible to speculate on this particular case

[Dave Hopkin]

Not sure why you felt livid - the law is clear you may use reasonable force to defend yourself

But there is a dead body that certainly didnt die from natural causes so the police are duty bound to investigate the circumstances and make a recommendation to the CPS who will make the decision to prosecute or not

If the police and the CPS believe "reasonable force" was used no charges should be brought against him

So getting livid at the moment is a little premature - wait until the CPS make a decision

[kenking-King Design]

Inevitably, during discussions of this sort, the question of 'Human Rights' will be raised. I prefer to refer to them as 'Citizens' Rights', and believe they must be EARNED by being a good citizen, abiding by the law, accepting any restrictions on our activities that the law prescribes and generally being of reasonable behaviour. They are not ours simply because we are human, and they are given up when we step outside the law, as these burglars have done.

These two men entered the house of a 78 year-old pensioner, uninvited, with bad intentions. In doing so they gave up their right to be treated as citizens. The householder, on the other hand, was accosted in his own home by much younger, armed intruders, one of whom forced him into the kitchen whilst the other went upstairs. I understand the householder's wife was in the house somewhere. He defended himself, as he had every right to do. He also had a duty to protect his wife if he could. I defy anyone to explain how, in the event of a sudden, unexpected attack in one's own home, the thought of measuring 'reasonable force' could enter the victim's mind. He had no way of knowing if they were drug-fuelled maniacs intent on sadistic murder, or common thieves. The shock of finding himself catapulted from a peaceful evening at home into a potentially life-threatening situation with two much younger oppponents could only result in a huge adrenaline rush and instinctive survival behaviour.

The intruders deliberately put themselves into this situation, and frankly deserve whatever results occur. It's a pity the police don't show more sympathy for the householder, who after all has just unexpectedly killed an armed man in self-defence, an extreme shock to anybody. HE is the one whose rights have been violated.

[Bob Cotsford]

As has been pointed out, a man has died, the police must investigate and the person suspected of inflicting the fatal wound must be cautioned pending the result of a full investigation. You can't argue the need to follow the rule of law and it's due process surely?

[The Wright Stuff]

Dave, I was livid because of the way it was reported in the BBC news. It is linked from this story: "Hackney Stabbing".

"It takes the number of people killed in the capital to more than 50 this year. The deaths follow two fatal shootings on Monday and the fatal stabbing of a suspected burglar on Wednesday."

To even suggest that the self-defence by a 78 year old pensioner was on a par with these other horrific crimes was lazy journalism at best, and downright obscene at worst.

And no, I do not consider that the use of 'reasonable force' is at all clear. The only person who can know with certainty what was reasonable in this instance is the defendant himself.

[Steve McIntosh]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 05/04/2018 08:37:59:

I saw this yesterday and was absolutely livid.

All of the news articles are appalling: they spend most of the time explaining how it is perfectly reasonable to use force to defend yourself and your family, but then don't explain why this wasn't considered reasonable.

Frankly, that's one less burglar roaming around. Good. Something the police and the courts failed to achieve.

But what brings this home for me is that this could have been any one of us. Alone. Perhaps in a shed. Surrounded by sharp tools. What would I have done? Well, I've no idea, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been a considered and planned response. I'm not even sure conscious thought would have been involved at all!

As has been pointed out the Police have a duty of care to ALL involved. They are also the reporting authority to HM Coroner where there are to be no criminal proceedings. By arresting him they afford him the full protection of the law and access to the duty solicitor scheme should he not be able to or have one an hand. Only by fully following due process can the full circumstances of this case be investigated and the old boy be either exonerated or punished if it is found that the facts are other than what has been offered so far. He is protected by S3 Criminal Law Act which confers on everybody exactly the same rights to use force(including lethal should it be proportionate and justified) as the Police. Whilst no(law abiding) citizen wants to be locked up I am fairly sure that the experience will have been handled as sensitively as can be. At the end of the day the Police are there to be impartial, investigate and then submit any evidence to the CPS for consideration of whether to prosecute.

[PatMc]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 05/04/2018 13:47:28:

Dave, I was livid because of the way it was reported in the BBC news. It is linked from this story: "Hackney Stabbing".

"It takes the number of people killed in the capital to more than 50 this year. The deaths follow two fatal shootings on Monday and the fatal stabbing of a suspected burglar on Wednesday."

To even suggest that the self-defence by a 78 year old pensioner was on a par with these other horrific crimes was lazy journalism at best, and downright obscene at worst.

And no, I do not consider that the use of 'reasonable force' is at all clear. The only person who can know with certainty what was reasonable in this instance is the defendant himself.

I see nothing wrong with the quoted report, it's brief, factual & makes no comparison between the deaths other than the cause.

[The Wright Stuff]

Steve, my more inflamed comments were aimed more at the media than the police. None of your explanation in the above post featured in the news stories.

My point is that by the time this chap is either cleared or convicted, the damage is already done: mental stress, reputation, quality of life. And guess what, by the time May comes around, the papers will have lost interest!

[PatMc]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 05/04/2018 14:28:48:

Steve, my more inflamed comments were aimed more at the media than the police. None of your explanation in the above post featured in the news stories.

The first BBC report that you linked has a brief explanation & includes a link to the CPS website which gives the full explanation.

[The Wright Stuff]

I don't agree, PatMc. It's not so much explanation as interpretation that is the missing link. Steve's post above about his arrest affording him the protection of the law was more informative than the entire BBC article, which basically said:

1) You can legally defend yourself.

2) He was arrested for murder.

The inference, then, is that he did not act legally. Now I appreciate that may seem a subtle point, and I appreciate you may not care, but evidentially at least one person was offended by it: me. And that is how the majority of 'casual' readers would interpret it. If it was me in that police cell, I would not appreciate being written about as if I'd acted unlawfully. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 05/04/2018 15:47:08

[PatMc]

The BBC article gives a brief outline of the law but also contains the CPS site link which contains a comprehensive explanation.

The BBC article states that "A 78-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of murder after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death."
That's a fact not an inference of guilt.
If any "casual" readers interpret that wrongly then they are guilty of ignorance of the law, which isn't the fault of the BBC or their reporter. And of course they have been too lazy, or not been interested enough, to follow the the CPS link

No one has been charged therefore no one's innocence is being questioned.

[Bucksboy]

So, the Police are called, there's someone dead and the house owner says it was self defence. I've absolutely no doubt this may turn out to be true. But, should the Copper just say ok and walk off? The moment he starts to investigate and ask questions the law cuts in and the Copper has to follow certain actions and procedures. All of which are laid down by Parliament not the Police themselves.

How do I know? Because I was a Policeman and turned up at a house at 2 am with a householder holding a knife and a dead man in the hall. What to do? You're on your own, help is 20 minutes away and you've got to make a decision that everyone else will debate for hours after consulting the law books for weeks. A luxury I didn't have.

Newspapers are there to sell newspapers, nothing else is allowed to get in the way, the more salacious the story the better.

The report on the Manchester Bombing was very telling. There was a huge section in the report which savaged the Press and their behaviour. What did the Press report? That the Manchester Fire and Rescue Service held off due to a breakdown in communication. What about the coverage reporting their disgraceful behaviour? Not a word.

Hopefully the Police treated the man with all due respect and dignity but he had to be arrested so he could give an account of himself, after taking legal advice if need be. The account needs to be tape recorded otherwise we'll have years of arguing about who said what. There are a hundred reasons, all of which are law, as to why he had to be arrested.

Good luck to him.

[kc]

None of us are safe in our houses if the police act like this. The failure to bother to investigate many burglaries gives the burglars the upper hand anyway and this makes it worse.

However surely the reason the police want householders to be unable to injure intruders is that sometimes it's the police or security services that are ( legally) the intruders! You often see on TV that police etc make dawn raids on suspects and the policemen could be killed -legally?- by the householder. Better to take this right of intrusion away from the police even if it means a few drug dealers etc get away with crimes. We could then protect ourselves better from burglars and intruders.

[Steve McIntosh]

KC that is the biggest pile of wotsit I have read so far. The failure to investigate is down to lack of numbers plain and simple. As a result they have to prioritise and allocate troops where they can. Nobody is saying the Police don't want you to injure intruders. Of course they, and I 'm sure all of us would, rather that a)nobody commited burglary in the first place and b) you didn't have to defend yourself/property. However. You as a private citizen can exercise the same amount of force as the Police in accordance with S3 CLA. However it has to reasonable and justified. Where the disagreement comes is that what you deem minimum amount of force at 3am is not necessarily the same as what is deemed minimum 6mths later at 10am in Crown Court. As a result the Police are required to investigate and if warranted submit a file of evidence to the CPS for them to make a charging decision. People are arrested on suspicion of an offence. Only a Court can deem guilt.

As for removing power of entry for Police. Have you ever been on an early morning knock(or been subject to one). First thing as officers pile in is shouting "Police" and identifying themselves. Almost always at least the first few in will be uniformed. Offenders have in the past used the excuse they didn't know it was the Police and been aquitted. However, burglars try in sneak in, the Police usually make a huge amount of noise. I know because I was a cop for 30yrs.

[Pete B]

Well, the Great British Public have filled both decks of the outrage bus for this one - to the point where they're hanging off the back and tumbling out of the windows...

Just try and accept that the job is being done properly.

It is being investigated in accordance with established procedures by professionals, who will present their findings for a decision to be made in due course, and that (I have no doubt) the arrested person will be being dealt with by trained people who have the utmost concern and sympathy for his situation, if the circumstances are as being reported.

I've been first on the scene at suspicious deaths and latterly spent many, many hours painstakingly examining such scenes - and it takes time, a lot of time, to eliminate all the variables. If the police were to accept everything at face value, they'd be accused of shallowness and neglect of duty. They can't win with the public, can they?

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 05/04/2018 18:00:00:

Well, the Great British Public have filled both decks of the outrage bus for this one - to the point where they're hanging off the back and tumbling out of the windows...

Just try and accept that the job is being done properly.

It is being investigated in accordance with established procedures by professionals, who will present their findings for a decision to be made in due course, and that (I have no doubt) the arrested person will be being dealt with by trained people who have the utmost concern and sympathy for his situation, if the circumstances are as being reported.

I've been first on the scene at suspicious deaths and latterly spent many, many hours painstakingly examining such scenes - and it takes time, a lot of time, to eliminate all the variables. If the police were to accept everything at face value, they'd be accused of shallowness and neglect of duty. They can't win with the public, can they?

Pete

I believe the Public would like more police Pete, majority are on their side.

[kc]

Well Steve, the police are not prioritising in the way that is satisfactory to the public -I am sure the public want 100 percent of burglaries investigated properly and the culprits sought. Take the policeman off guarding politicians and royalty instead if necessary.

[Don Fry]

Right KC, as a staunch Repuplican, if Lis is dead on the pavement, Ms Dick can rely on, in interview with the Mail, "right gov, well we were doing things with kids, guarding knife surrender boxes, working out if the leave campaign broke the rules, or whether Corbin is an antisemite, ad infinitum"

Old saying, you get a police force you deserve.

I for one doubt if that householder got the brass knuckle treatment so beloved of Hollywood, which is the base knowledge base of too many people.

[Pete B]

Posted by john stones 1 on 05/04/2018 19:19:19:

I believe the Public would like more police Pete, majority are on their side.

As one of many former officers who look aghast at what has happened in the past seven years, I wholeheartedly agree, John

KC - Yes, I agree the priorities are wrong - a direct result of the politicising of the Police - which the public unwittingly were welcoming some time back. They now know what it means....

Pete

[Steve McIntosh]

KC the reality is that in general the public want the Police only to focus on their particular problems. IE rape victims only want the Police to look at that. Burglary victims likewise even victims of youth disorder only care about that and understandably so. The Police are pulled twixt pillar and post. There are only so many to go around. A few years ago I worked on a shift of about 25. That same shift now is only about 9 and out of those generally 1-2 will be off sick, 1 annual leave, 1 on a course or other training, meaning that shift is probably only turning out maybe 4-5 if lucky. That will be to cover a large area. Now the public want the traditional bobby on the beat walking the streets. that is not going to happen. They are so busy reacting to things happening NOW(all of which generally require an immediate response) and have no time left for proactive policing. Targeting known criminals, stop and search(theres a real hot potatoe) and generally making life uncomfortable for known criminals. The core bog standard Mk1 copper is still generally trying their damndest to do right by the public.

[stu knowles]

"the stick wasn't simply a walking stick, but a sword stick" and therein lies the problem. An offensive weapon, illegally carried in a public place. Self Defence/Reasonable Force is a defence available to all but requires the observance of some parameters, such as not using and illegal weapon and not using excessive force when the felon is fleeing (Tony Martin scoring double top in that respect)

Edited By stu knowles on 05/04/2018 20:42:22

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2018 16:11:25:

That's a fact not an inference of guilt.
If any "casual" readers interpret that wrongly then they are guilty of ignorance of the law, which isn't the fault of the BBC or their reporter. And of course they have been too lazy, or not been interested enough, to follow the the CPS link

No one has been charged therefore no one's innocence is being questioned.

Sorry, but no. You don't convince me of that at all. I would say that being publicly accused of murder very much questions innocence. Many careers have been ruined, personal lives irreparably affected, and stress-induced mental illnesses caused by poorly handled cases and media attention, even if no charges are subsequently brought.

You may be right that casual readers who interpret it wrongly are guilty of ignorance, but so what? Hardly helps the accused, does it?

Anyway, back to the main point, the problem I have with this case in particular, is that (if the reported facts are correct) it is a pretty much textbook case of exactly the sort of incident that the current legislation is designed to accommodate. This is no Tony Martin shooting kids with a shotgun, or Pistorius firing a handgun through a bathroom door, this is a perfect example of an OAP defending himself and his wife from an armed intruder in his home. Therefore the perceived 'heavy handling' of him after the event does not put that CPS stance on self-defence in a very good light.