• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,726
The behaviour of the police here is morally far worse than that of a lot of the people that get taken to court.

Parliament has made its intention in cases like this clear, and they have no right to go against it.

It's beyond comprehension that someone that has suffered the terror of being threatened in their own home (a terror that could easily have killed someone of that age) should them also be threatened by the state.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tony_mac

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
3,626
Location
Liverpool
The behaviour of the police here is morally far worse than that of a lot of the people that get taken to court.
as has been pointed out since the very beginning of this thread, we don't know for sure what happened - the police are finding out, which is why the arrest is necessary.

For example, what if they let him go home then they later found out that the 'burglar' may have actually been staying in the house? They can't be 100% sure without investigating, and in the case of a possible murder, they really do need it to be 100%, which takes a little while.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,643
Location
Isle of Man
The behaviour of the police here is morally far worse than that of a lot of the people that get taken to court.

The police are paid to investigate whether a crime has happened. Arresting someone is part of that process if there's a suspicion a crime has happened.

We should be expecting our police to investigate the crimes that have been committed. They're supposed to be impartial.

Doesn't mean we're not all glad to see a dead burglar though.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,275
The behaviour of the police here is morally far worse than that of a lot of the people that get taken to court.

The behaviour of the police is morally correct. Multiple crimes have been committed including a potential manslaughter or murder. Therefore a full investigation is required.

Otherwise what is to stop me killing someone in my own home then claiming they tried to burgle me.

Once the full facts of the matter come out then a decision will be made on whether to present a case to the CPS, who may decide to take things further, or to take no further action.

IMO the news reporting is slanted. We don't know exactly what went on. Until then, we should not speculate.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
The behaviour of the police here is morally far worse than that of a lot of the people that get taken to court.

Parliament has made its intention in cases like this clear, and they have no right to go against it.

It's beyond comprehension that someone that has suffered the terror of being threatened in their own home (a terror that could easily have killed someone of that age) should them also be threatened by the state.

Threatened by the state?

He's been taken to the police station to help them establish exactly what happened.

What else would you expect the police to do?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,441
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Shades of farmer Martin - plagued by intruders, then retaliated by shooting them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

And, again, it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than it would have been better had the scum never been born in the first place. Even if perhaps Martin was a little trigger happy, the fact is again they shouldn’t have been there and were present with criminal intent - good riddance.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
6,387
Location
Wennington Crossovers
I'm fast approaching 70 and, for a few years, lived in Hither Green and then for a few more years a couple of miles away, so this particularly resonates with me. I also worked for the Probation Service for some of this period, though not in S.E. London.

This is a tragic situation: tragic that someone has died, obviously, but perhaps even more tragic for a 78 year old whose life will never be the same again, regardless of whether he is ever prosecuted.

There are many countries where burglary of an occupied house at night (or one that is very likely to be occupied) results in very long prison sentences, even life if not a first offence. Occupiers of houses/flats too have far more protection in law in these countries if a confrontation results, which is indisputably true in this case. Factors to be taken into account include the age/vulnerability etc of the householder and the 'fear' factor. It is, after all, the householder whose life is being violated (and may be in danger of losing his/her life if not complying with the demands of the violator). We don't have to go down the route of the USA where you just shoot and ask questions afterwards (if at all) but the present legal situation is most unsatisfactory. 'Justified homicide' may not be exactly the route to go down to the end, but a balance has to be redressed.

Just a final thought from an old Londoner - a 78 man is in custody for the suspected murder of someone who chose to break into his house, while the drive-by murderer of a female youth worker aged 17 remains at large, together with the murderer of a 16 year old boy the same night in Walthamstow. I know which deaths I feel the police should be directing most attention to.

And as you well know, the police are capable of investigating more than one crime at once...
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
And as you well know, the police are capable of investigating more than one crime at once...
Quite clear the Met Police are overwhelmed at present: it's fortuitous that there've been no recent terrorist incidents. An equal or worse murder rate than New York would have been considered an improbable nightmare not so long ago, given the levels of gun ownership throughout the U.S.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,948
Location
Fenny Stratford
This is a slightly different to the normal law on self defence. Householders have a wider latitude to react “in the heat of the moment” even though that reaction might be seen as disproportionate in the cold light of day.

As long as the use of force is not "grossly disproportionate" then you are correct. That still doesn't offer the carte blanche some posters seem to want to see nor does it remove the need for the police to investigate that use of force.

The headline message is and remains clear: a householder will only be able to avail himself of the defence if the degree of force he used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

I don't think that will be an issue here as long as the media reporting is accurate. If the evidence is as the media suggests I doubt there will be a charge.

There will not be a trial because it will not be in the public interest.

IF the situation is entirely as the media suggests.

Someone who enters someone else's house isn't a human being - in my view they're just complete scum. If their death avoids distress to others, then whilst I wouldn't be cracking open the champagne to celebrate as such, it's certainly not a bad outcome IMO.

Any potential burglar cannot fail to be aware of what could happen, and it's not like one can force one's way inside someone else's home by accident.

they are still human beings and they still have rights. The deceased here is the victim of an act greater than burglary. I know this will upset you but the act of burglary does not allow you to simply have the right to kill someone. That said I don't have much in the way of sympathy for burglars if they get duffed up.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
The suspect has been bailed whilst the investigation continues.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,948
Location
Fenny Stratford
The suspect has been bailed whilst the investigation continues.

of course they have. There is no need to hold them. They aren't a flight risk and there is no danger to others or to evidence or witnesses. I would hope the investigation will be concluded quickly.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,840
of course they have. There is no need to hold them. They aren't a flight risk and there is no danger to others or to evidence or witnesses. I would hope the investigation will be concluded quickly.

They obviously don't have enough evidence to charge him so the police have no choice other than to release him. Apparently he is due to return to the police station in May but the investigation could well be concluded before then.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,655
Location
LBK
Ah yes, shot someone in the back using an illegally owned firearm then left them to bleed to death. Made no attempt to contact any of the emergency services. Such a role model for us all

Well said. I'll never get why Tony Martin is so feted.

Nobody likes burglars and if confronted with one in a struggle in my own home I would be at risk of killing them. But it wouldn't be with an illegally-held firearm and I would call an ambulance once the situation was under control.

We don't know many facts about the case in the OP. It seems like the deceased had only a single stab wound (it is reported in the press as "a" stab wound) and we will have to wait for the facts to come out.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,957
Location
York
The suspect has been bailed whilst the investigation continues.
I still don't like that. Of course enquiries have to be made, but the presumption in a case like this should be that the householder is innocent, not that he should be arrested on suspicion of attemtped murder and then bailed with the suspicion hanging over his head. An armed intruder has died of an injury sustained whilst in the act of burglary, and we haven't heard yet that he was stabbed in the back or anything like that. Investigation should start from a presumption that he was the single criminal party.
I find the question of "resonable force" a difficult one in these circumstances. Is one supposed to hit an intruder just hard enough to keep him quiet till the police (eventually) arrive and run the risk that he recovers enough to attack again and injure the householder? Far better to use overwhelming force so as to avoid any possibility of injury to oneself, and if that kills the intruder, so be it—that person has sacrified any "rights" they might have by the act of intruding.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,948
Location
Fenny Stratford
so be it—that person has sacrified any "rights" they might have by the act of intruding.

but they haven't scarified any rights. I know you, and others, find that hard to take but it is the current position under the law. You might wish it were different but it isnt. You cant just kill someone because they broke into your home. You can use reasonable and proportionate force to defend yourself and that definitions has been taken by the courts at its widest meaning (as suggested above) but here are still limits on your behavior.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
The deceased here is the victim of an act greater than burglary.

We don’t know that yet. If, as many of us hope, the 78yo either isn’t charged or is charged and found not guilty because he was acting in self defence, then no crime will have been committed and the burgler will have been lawfully killed.

You can use reasonable and proportionate force to defend yourself

Depending on the situation, you can also use disproportionate force so long as you acted in a way appropriate to the situation, and the force isn’t grossly disproportionate.

EDIT: I agree this doesn’t mean that if someone breaks into your home you have carte blanche to “go medieval on their a*s”*, even though they may deserve it!

*Tarrantino fans will know where this line is from.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,655
Location
LBK
I still don't like that. Of course enquiries have to be made, but the presumption in a case like this should be that the householder is innocent, not that he should be arrested on suspicion of attemtped murder and then bailed with the suspicion hanging over his head. An armed intruder has died of an injury sustained whilst in the act of burglary, and we haven't heard yet that he was stabbed in the back or anything like that. Investigation should start from a presumption that he was the single criminal party.
I find the question of "resonable force" a difficult one in these circumstances. Is one supposed to hit an intruder just hard enough to keep him quiet till the police (eventually) arrive and run the risk that he recovers enough to attack again and injure the householder? Far better to use overwhelming force so as to avoid any possibility of injury to oneself, and if that kills the intruder, so be it—that person has sacrified any "rights" they might have by the act of intruding.

He IS presumed innocent!

The reason he was arrested is so the police can conduct an effective and swift investigation, which includes a forensic search of the property. It also means he cannot tamper with any evidence, intentionally or otherwise, and protects him also from that allegation.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,948
Location
Fenny Stratford
We don’t know that yet. If, as many of us hope, the 78yo either isn’t charged or is charged and found not guilty because he was acting in self defence, then no crime will have been committed and the burgler will have been lawfully killed.

Agreed - that' s why i said act.

Depending on the situation, you can also use disproportionate force so long as you acted in a way appropriate to the situation, and the force isn’t grossly disproportionate.

quite right - thanks for the clarification. If things are as suggested in the media there doesn't seem to be an issue with this case. The Tony Martin case, say, might still fail this test.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
8,424
Location
UK
I still don't like that. Of course enquiries have to be made, but the presumption in a case like this should be that the householder is innocent, not that he should be arrested on suspicion of attemtped murder and then bailed with the suspicion hanging over his head. An armed intruder has died of an injury sustained whilst in the act of burglary, and we haven't heard yet that he was stabbed in the back or anything like that. Investigation should start from a presumption that he was the single criminal party.
I find the question of "resonable force" a difficult one in these circumstances. Is one supposed to hit an intruder just hard enough to keep him quiet till the police (eventually) arrive and run the risk that he recovers enough to attack again and injure the householder? Far better to use overwhelming force so as to avoid any possibility of injury to oneself, and if that kills the intruder, so be it—that person has sacrified any "rights" they might have by the act of intruding.

He is innocent until the jury in a court decide he is guilty, no one else including the police can decide guilt.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,620
but the presumption in a case like this should be that the householder is innocent, not that he should be arrested on suspicion of attemtped murder and then bailed with the suspicion hanging over his head. An armed intruder has died of an injury sustained whilst in the act of burglary, and we haven't heard yet that he was stabbed in the back or anything like that. Investigation should start from a presumption that he was the single criminal party.

And once again, the police have a dead body, a suspect, and the "weapon" that killed the guy. What do you suggest the police do? Not arrest the person they think killed someone? It is perfectly right that if someone kills another, regardless of reason, they are arrested while the investigation takes place. Otherwise you'll get actual murderers not being arrested because they claim to have been the victim in one of these incidents!
 

Hornet

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2013
Messages
749
Interesting parallel to what happens in Ireland where there is the defence of using the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011, which removed an obligation on householders to retreat, and allows for the use of reasonable force against intruders. A person was cleared of murdering a burglar last month.

A court has upheld the right of a person to use reasonable force to defend themselves against a home intruder.

In a landmark decision, a Central Criminal Court jury acquitted Martin Keenan (20) of the murder of an unarmed man he stabbed to death with broken garden shears after finding him in his bedroom.

It is the first time a murder charge has been defended using the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011, which removed an obligation on householders to retreat, and allows for the use of reasonable force against intruders.

The legislation was introduced in the wake of the Padraig Nally case, where a farmer was accused and later acquitted following two trials of the unlawful killing of a notorious criminal he found trespassing on his property.

Mr Keenan said he was frightened to find "two junkies" in his bedroom and hit Wesley Mooney (33) with half a pair of garden shears after he came running at him.

The defence relied on the act and a Court of Criminal Appeal judgment, which stated burglary was an act of aggression.

wm.jpg
22
Wesley Mooney
Defence counsel Séamus Clarke SC said the act specified that nothing should require the homeowner to retreat from his or her dwelling. He said that an intruder had chosen to invade a person's home and that there was latitude to the homeowner.

"Mr Keenan didn't go home that night looking for trouble," he said. "Trouble was waiting for him when he got home."

In his closing speech, Mr Clarke had also quoted from a Court of Criminal Appeal judgment given by the late Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman: "Common knowledge will have told the homeowner that certain burglaries are committed by drug addicts, whose behaviour may be randomly vicious or wholly unpredictable."

Mr Clarke said his client had described the man in his home as a scary-looking junkie.

The prosecution had alleged Mr Keenan's account was contrived to justify what he'd done.

It alleged the force used had been unreasonable and there was no need or justification for the use of the weapon.

Mr Justice Paul Butler had told the jury that under the 2011 act there was a right to use reasonable force, where a person believed the other entered the dwelling as a trespasser, especially in the context of committing a crime.

"That's certainly a reasonable belief in this case," he said.

The judge said if they were satisfied Mr Keenan felt in danger, he was entitled to defend himself using force and if that force was not disproportionate, then he was not guilty.

Mr Keenan, a member of the Travelling community from Cardiffsbridge Avenue, Finglas, Dublin, had pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Mooney at St Joseph's Park halting site, Dunsink Lane.

The trial was told that on June 5, 2016, Mr Mooney and his girlfriend Ciara Tynan went to Mr Keenan's mobile home after being invited to go there by another person for a drink.

Ms Tynan said they had followed this person's directions to the empty and unlocked mobile home and had gone into the bedroom because it was the only room with a light on.

She admitted she had handled items and opened cupboards in the living room.

She said the owner returned and told them to "Get the f*** out" and that they did so.

However, as they were leaving, the accused stuck something into her boyfriend. Mr Mooney sustained two stab wounds, one below the left armpit with a depth of 27cm that went through both lungs and sliced two blood vessels.

Mr Keenan told detectives he got a fright when he and his wife arrived home around 11.45pm to find someone in their bedroom.

"They were two junkies and I was frightened," he said, adding the man had attacked him. "He came running at me so I picked up some kind of a tool yoke and I hit him with it."

Mr Mooney had a range of drugs in his system. He had convictions for a burglary, threatening to kill and carrying an imitation firearm, while Ms Tynan had a conviction for robbery.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...ith-shears-is-cleared-of-murder-36706959.html
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,957
Location
York
He IS presumed innocent!

The reason he was arrested is so the police can conduct an effective and swift investigation, which includes a forensic search of the property. It also means he cannot tamper with any evidence, intentionally or otherwise, and protects him also from that allegation.
You can't simultaneously suspect someone of attempted murder (arrested on suspicion of attempted murder) and presume them to be innocent of the same crime. The accusation of guilt is made by the arrest.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
8,424
Location
UK
You can't simultaneously suspect someone of attempted murder (arrested on suspicion of attempted murder) and presume them to be innocent of the same crime. The accusation of guilt is made by the arrest.

Maybe, but the that's the police's job!
They have to investigate the death to make sure that it was a lawful killing.
If you've just killed someone, lawfully or not you can expect to get arrested and be questioned under caution about it.

BTW guilt can only be decided by a jury!
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,655
Location
LBK
You can't simultaneously suspect someone of attempted murder (arrested on suspicion of attempted murder) and presume them to be innocent of the same crime. The accusation of guilt is made by the arrest.

The suspect is presumed innocent regardless of any suspicion or reason for their arrest.

The police's job at this stage is to collect evidence, which may support or undermine the case against the person they have arrested. If they collect enough evidence the person will be charged, if not, the case is dropped.

What would you do in this case then, given the chance to ignore the law and police procedure? Would you decide to not arrest the bloke, let him live at home in the middle of a potential crime scene, and either give him the chance to destroy evidence or expose him to the risk of being accused of destroying evidence?
 

43021HST

Established Member
Joined
11 Sep 2008
Messages
1,565
Location
Taunton
Interesting parallel to what happens in Ireland where there is the defence of using the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011, which removed an obligation on householders to retreat, and allows for the use of reasonable force against intruders. A person was cleared of murdering a burglar last month.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...ith-shears-is-cleared-of-murder-36706959.html

I imagine such a law opens up a can of worms in regards to trespassing/breaking and entering. If such a law were implemented here, what's to stop say a farmer getting away with shooting someone who strays off a poorly marked footpath?
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,562
Location
Somewhere
No body is suggesting that the police should not investigate or just send the man off with a pat on the back. His house can still be declared a crime scene without an arrest, he can still be interviewed under caution at a police station without an arrest, the police can still take whatever cloths or dna they need (providing he agrees) without an arrest and the police still have the power of arrest at a later date if needed.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,655
Location
LBK
No body is suggesting that the police should not investigate or just send the man off with a pat on the back. His house can still be declared a crime scene without an arrest, he can still be interviewed under caution at a police station without an arrest, the police can still take whatever cloths or dna they need (providing he agrees) without an arrest and the police still have the power of arrest at a later date if needed.

Without an arrest...

How do the police prevent the person from simply leaving during the interview? How do they prevent them from living in the middle of the crime scene?

Are you really suggesting forensic evidence should only be given over "if he agrees"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top