British Pensioner 78, Arrested For Murder Against Home Intruders

[Matt Black]

Because it is relevant to the conduct of the arresting officers: they didn't find him inside the house in the act of burgling it, they found him outside having been stabbed, with the 'perpetrator' (as they would have initially seen him) nearby. So, not a 'neat' 'home invasion', as you would have it

So, you lock them up for breaking no law and interrogate them.
Just so you understand U.S. law a little better, we can only interview or interrogate a person with their consent. They can say don't want to talk, I am done talking, and it ends there.

As they can here. But the law says they can only be questioned under caution (having been made aware of their rights), so they have to be arrested to safeguard those rights. They don't have to answer the questions, but their answers will only be evidentially admissible if they are under caution.

 

[agedman]

This is one of the main points of that declaration that was written to your government.

A colonial would be arrested, taken over to that island, and held until they could prove themselves innocent at their own expense, and then at their own expense (should they be found innocent) return home.

The rights of the innocent are violated if they are detained without probable cause leading to arrest.

Frankly, I even have problem with how some view probable cause.

In my view, unless a crime is proven to have occurred, no arrest or “taken in for questioning” should occur.

Leave me alone unless I have broken the law.

My silence does not give you permission to think me guilty or guiltless.

In England, you have no such right.

If you don’t speak up and then rely latter on speaking up, you are chargeable under their law.

Their view of the law is that failed Puritan background.

 

[kyredneck]

He was found in the street

...lol, well now, I guess that could muddy the waters for LEOs arriving on the scene, lol....

 

[Matt Black]

This is one of the main points of that declaration that was written to your government.

A colonial would be arrested, taken over to that island, and held until they could prove themselves innocent at their own expense, and then at their own expense (should they be found innocent) return home.

The rights of the innocent are violated if they are detained without probable cause leading to arrest.

Frankly, I even have problem with how some view probable cause.

In my view, unless a crime is proven to have occurred, no arrest or “taken in for questioning” should occur.

Leave me alone unless I have broken the law.

My silence does not give you permission to think me guilty or guiltless.

In England, you have no such right.

If you don’t speak up and then rely latter on speaking up, you are chargeable under their law.

Their view of the law is that failed Puritan background.

The police here need 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime has been committed by the arrested individual (I don't know how that compares to your 'probable cause'), otherwise they can find themselves on the end of a law suit for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment

 

[agedman]

What happened to the other burglar?

I picture him running scared of an old man.

 

[Reynolds]

Because it is relevant to the conduct of the arresting officers: they didn't find him inside the house in the act of burgling it, they found him outside having been stabbed, with the 'perpetrator' (as they would have initially seen him) nearby. So, not a 'neat' 'home invasion', as you would have it

As they can here. But the law says they can only be questioned under caution (having been made aware of their rights), so they have to be arrested to safeguard those rights. They don't have to answer the questions, but their answers will only be evidentially admissible if they are under caution.

So there you go, they arrested the poor man so they could attempt to use his statements against him.

 

[Reynolds]

The police here need 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime has been committed by the arrested individual (I don't know how that compares to your 'probable cause'), otherwise they can find themselves on the end of a law suit for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment

Reasonable suspicion falls far short of probable cause.

 

[agedman]

Reasonable suspicion falls far short of probable cause.

The concept of one is guilty unless they can show evidence of innocence is the ultimate driving thinking of the English law.

Where American law was based upon the sense of innocence as innocence unless shown to have actually broken the laws.

So where one would not be "taken in for questioning" in America, the British see it as a formal way to gather information.

Same with the right of search and seizure.

The British empire spread their judicial system into countries around the world, which makes for interesting problems when an American is confronted thinking that all things English are the same as American.

Same I suppose as when yankees come to Texas and think all things American are the same as Texas.

Many Decades ago, a west Texan came from the fields to find his wife in extremely very poor condition. He loaded her into the truck and was driving to the hospital many miles away. She slipped ever closer to death.

A freight train was stopped blocking the road, and the man got out of the train, ran up to the engineer and conductor, told them the emergency, and said they needed to move the train.

The conductor and the engineer both refused, saying they had to have permission from the bosses and as they were out to lunch during that time and not to be disturbed, that Texan would just have to wait.

After some exchange declaring the emergency, the Texan ran back to his truck, pulled out his gun, and pointing at the engineer again demanded that the train be moved.

The engineer refused.

The Texan shot the engineer dead on the spot. Turning to the conductor, while pointing the gun at him, ask, "You going to move the train, or will I?"

The conductor quickly moved the train.

Later at the hospital, the man was questioned, admitted to the situation, and then taken in to the judge.

The judge and jury, upon hearing the statements, knowing that the man's wife was going to die without immediate help, and knowing the foolishness of the engineer to block the Texan from acquiring such aid, found the man not guilty.

Folks have a sense of justice here in Texas, that the modern age sure is perverting with their Yankee and English thinking!

I have seen in my own lifetime such a decline of justice and righteousness, and it even is infesting Texas!

 

[Benjamin]

We arrested a man here in rural Georgia for home invasion burglary. The owner of the home held him at gunpoint until we arrived. At sentencing, the judge threw out the plea deal and threw the book at the intruder. Judge told him, "I don't like how this turned out. I wish he had shot you dead instead of waiting for the Sheriff. If you broke into my house, I promise you I would have killed you."

So, the judge thinks it's okay to murder someone even though you have the situation under control and have the drop on them?

It's okay for a sitting judge to make wishes that openly demonstrate he has no value for life?

About the judge's promise, which seems to take nothing else into consideration other than his castle was intruded upon and this gives him the justification he needs to kill someone, ,,,that seems to be the very shallow thinking of a murderous man with no grace in his heart.

While showing my new Sig P320 that I am carrying in my Jeep to my neighbor boys the other day one of them started telling about the neighborhood he has recently moved in and confrontations happening at convenient stores. He went into some situations where I agreed that he could probably justify using deadly force, but I said to him, "Just because I can legally justify deadly force doesn't mean I should use it, as a Christian I live by higher laws." But then I explained that I don't overreact to violence being I actually grew up in the neighborhood he is now living and seen plenty, but it is good to understand that many cowards carry guns for that reason, they are afraid of any sort of violence, and in today's world the threat of a bloody nose will give a coward a reason to kill you rather than take the bloody nose he might even deserve. Not much is more dangerous than a coward with a gun that has no intention of showing grace...

P.S., if an intruder came into my castle and threatened in any way he is dead meat, but if it is a kid going through my drawers that I got the drop on, I promise, thinking I can justify killing him is not going to be my first response.

 

[David Kent]

Why do you say a republic is "commie"?

Because republics are based on whichever Greek philosopher invented communist republics. (His name escapes me at present) Thought the state was all powerful and that children were the property of the state, not of the parents.

 

[David Kent]

Typical of England. "Guilty until you can prove you are innocent."

The only government on the planet that is worse is, well, maybe Uganda, or one of the SA banana republics.

I thought you as a christian leader may have more common sense than that. But then what can we expect from US Baptists. It seems OK over there fore police to murder people with impunity, we don't need any lectures from you.
Anyone in UK who kills somebody will be investigated whether it is police or public.

 

[Matt Black]

Because republics are based on whichever Greek philosopher invented communist republics. (His name escapes me at present) Thought the state was all powerful and that children were the property of the state, not of the parents.

Plato I believe

 

[Reynolds]

So, the judge thinks it's okay to murder someone even though you have the situation under control and have the drop on them?

It's okay for a sitting judge to make wishes that openly demonstrate he has no value for life?

About the judge's promise, which seems to take nothing else into consideration other than his castle was intruded upon and this gives him the justification he needs to kill someone, ,,,that seems to be the very shallow thinking of a murderous man with no grace in his heart.

While showing my new Sig P320 that I am carrying in my Jeep to my neighbor boys the other day one of them started telling about the neighborhood he has recently moved in and confrontations happening at convenient stores. He went into some situations where I agreed that he could probably justify using deadly force, but I said to him, "Just because I can legally justify deadly force doesn't mean I should use it, as a Christian I live by higher laws." But then I explained that I don't overreact to violence being I actually grew up in the neighborhood he is now living and seen plenty, but it is good to understand that many cowards carry guns for that reason, they are afraid of any sort of violence, and in today's world the threat of a bloody nose will give a coward a reason to kill you rather than take the bloody nose he might even deserve. Not much is more dangerous than a coward with a gun that has no intention of showing grace...

P.S., if an intruder came into my castle and threatened in any way he is dead meat, but if it is a kid going through my drawers that I got the drop on, I promise, thinking I can justify killing him is not going to be my first response.

As a peace officer, I was justified on many occasions to use deadly force. I always avoided using it even at risk to my own safety. On the other hand, if you invade my house I am not going to risk losing the confrontation because that would put my family in jeopardy.

 

[TCassidy]

On the other hand, if you invade my house I am not going to risk losing the confrontation because that would put my family in jeopardy.

That is why I love Texas. If a person unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter my occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment, Texas law will presume that I acted reasonably and was justified in using force or deadly force. Therefore, in order for me to be convicted of any crime, a prosecutor would have to overcome this presumption in order to prove that I did not act reasonably. Overcoming this presumption is nearly an impossible task in a court of law due to the wording of the Texas Castle Doctrine.

 

[Adonia]

I read an update on this lowlife who was killed. It seems he and his whole family are serial criminals and their specialty was going after the elderly. The gang consisted of him, his father, and five uncles, with the deceased having been recently jailed for four and a half years.

 

[Adonia]

That is why I love Texas. If a person unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter my occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment, Texas law will presume that I acted reasonably and was justified in using force or deadly force. Therefore, in order for me to be convicted of any crime, a prosecutor would have to overcome this presumption in order to prove that I did not act reasonably. Overcoming this presumption is nearly an impossible task in a court of law due to the wording of the Texas Castle Doctrine.

Same for me in Florida.

 

[Benjamin]

Same for me in Florida.

It would also be the same in Arizona and most anywhere in the country when it comes to defending against someone intruding in another's "occupied habitation", but then I addressed that justification above:

" He went into some situations where I agreed that he could probably justify using deadly force, but I said to him, "Just because I can legally justify deadly force doesn't mean I should use it, as a Christian I live by higher laws." But then I explained that I don't overreact to violence being I actually grew up in the neighborhood he is now living and seen plenty, but it is good to understand that many cowards carry guns for that reason, they are afraid of any sort of violence, and in today's world the threat of a bloody nose will give a coward a reason to kill you rather than take the bloody nose he might even deserve. Not much is more dangerous than a coward with a gun that has no intention of showing grace... "

 

[Benjamin]

As a peace officer, I was justified on many occasions to use deadly force. I always avoided using it even at risk to my own safety. On the other hand, if you invade my house I am not going to risk losing the confrontation because that would put my family in jeopardy.

I'm glad you had the courage to refrain, it's pretty apparent too me that all too often peace officers don't have that self control. I wouldn't expect one to risk losing the confrontation, only judge situation rationally and not use it as an excuse to commit murder when other options are clearly available.

 

[TCassidy]

So now we blame the victim?

I am in my 70s and in ill health. Being attacked by a man 50 years younger than I, and 50 pounds heavier, and allowing him to beat me to death makes me a hero, but defending myself from his aggravated battery, with a disparity of age, weight, and health, makes me a coward?

And defending my wife, who is about my age and in poor health, from being raped and murdered makes me a coward.

So be it. I would rather be a living coward, with a living wife, then a dead hero with a dead wife.

 

[Benjamin]

So now we blame the victim?

I am in my 70s and in ill health. Being attacked by a man 50 years younger than I, and 50 pounds heavier, and allowing him to beat me to death makes me a hero, but defending myself from his aggravated battery, with a disparity of age, weight, and health, makes me a coward?

And defending my wife, who is about my age and in poor health, from being raped and murdered makes me a coward.

So be it. I would rather be a living coward, with a living wife, then a dead hero with a dead wife.

Try not to be drama queen and misrepresent my position, I'm saying its better to judge the situation rationally, as in, if you got the drop on a kid that is in your house going through your drawers you might just want to consider holding him for the cops rather than getting yourself in such a tissy that that you'd take advantage of justifying killing him rather restrain him at the end of a gun.