Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/815666-killing-a-burglar-was-not-murder

He said he was a religious man who lived a peaceful life and only lashed out with knives in self- defence.

Two knives, as in... a knife in each hand... like a Samurai. A peaceful Samurai, wielding two kitchen knives, one in each hand...

Should he be charged with murder? Probably not. Was it murder? Yes, most definitely yes.

Murder with cherries on top, but obviously murder.

He was charged with murder and grievous bodily harm, put on trial, and acquitted of both charges.

David Cameron sees it the homeowners way. You loose your rights as soon as you commit the crime (in this case burglary).

The guy killed someone, that has to be a pretty big burden to bear.

Cameron was aiming for a cheap populist headline when he said that. He said afterwards that the householder's use of force must be proportionate.

If I was in my house and a burglar got in, my response would depend on the exact situation.

If I could ambush the burglar from behind, I would try and cripple his leg, to get him on the floor so he could not escape or attack me.

If he was jumping at me face on, I would try to kill him as quickly as possible, as I would be in fear of my own life.

This case seems to have been the second situation. Three burglars attacked the defendant and he fought back in a state of extreme fear.

Assuming it went down like the story said (you never can be too sure with tabloids) then it looks like a solid case of self defence to me.

Im far more concerned that this guy was worshiped as a hero in the tabloids for what can only be described as a vicious and sadistic revenge attack.

LuciusAR wrote:Assuming it went down like the story said (you never can be too sure with tabloids) then it looks like a solid case of self defence to me.

Im far more concerned that this guy was worshiped as a hero in the tabloids for what can only be described as a vicious and sadistic revenge attack.

I was thinking of him too. Self defence in the moment is one thing its a whole different route if you go after your assailant.

The trouble is I see another pattern, if you are ethnic and defend your home against burglars thats ok, if you are white and you defend your home, particularly against az disadvantaged minority you get put in prison.

I am not convinced either of these cases would have got the sympathy in court had the defendant not been a minority. At the very least its too dangerous to count on in our current dogmatised system.

Remember the law is a lottery, you might hit a burglar and get exonerated you might hit a burglar get hauled through the system and the burglar might get legal aid to sue.

See if you moved to a civilized location like Texas this wouldn't be an issue.

Orlanth wrote:The trouble is I see another pattern, if you are ethnic and defend your home against burglars thats ok, if you are white and you defend your home, particularly against az disadvantaged minority you get put in prison.

I am not convinced either of these cases would have got the sympathy in court had the defendant not been a minority.

Forgive me Orlanth, I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not seeing any pattern here. If you provided a clear example of a reversal in roles with a different outcome, then I would agree. But frankly, I doubt that would be the case. I don't see the British legal system stooping THAT low.

Frazzled wrote:See if you moved to a civilized location like Texas this wouldn't be an issue.

HAHAha... I was thinkin' the same thing about Mississippi.

Home invasion crime is high in the UK and is on a drastic rise in Australia since they gave up their guns.

And if you just injure or "wing them", as one of the Brits suggested, then they can sue you. I've read cases where burglars were injured while breaking in and sued for damages/hospital bills. So no, I won't be winging anyone, and I won't be using a Gensui unless the second clip is empty.

Coincidentally, there is NO home invasion where I live. Imagine that...

and while I'm pissin' everybody off...
Violent crime isn't even down in countries that don't have guns. They just use rocks and knives, and the government gets to watch it on CCTV.

With guns, we are citizens.
Without them, we are subjects.

Incidentally, I've read of similar cases. Which were in America.

I still love you, though, EF!

You can come shootin' anytime!

Not when YOU'RE the one toting that chainsawgun of yours, mate.

Awww. I'll let you pet her...

CitizenPrime wrote:Home invasion crime is high in the UK and is on a drastic rise in Australia since they gave up their guns.

That's rubbish.

There has never been a culture of gun ownership in Australia, and few weapons have ever been owned for self defence. The only notable force protesting the 1996 increase in gun control came from farmers, who wanted to keep their .22 rifes for work on the farms. There is almost no history of shootings in the defence of one's property in this country, the idea that home invasions were limited by the threat of being shot by the owner is absurd.

Home invasion has a direct link to levels of drug use and povery. As Australia is seeing increased levels of drug use, it is seeing increased levels of home invasion. And that's only if you assume there's been a 'drastic rise' in home invasion, which is a debatable claim.

Well i know I don't have a pistol but I have shotguns which are used for hunting. Someone breaks into my home, I'm loading up my 12 gauge with Triple Bs. Now I will warn the burglar to freeze and hold the gun on him while waiting for the cops to show. If he is armed and tries to turn around and attack he's getting 3 shells to the chest.

Looks like violent knife crime is on the rise in the UK... I think you should ban every knife with a blade over and inch in length.


On a more serious note....

After my sleep study next month, I think ill be picking both of these up with the money ill be makeing:



Bring on the home invasion!!!!!!

I'm for gun control, not gun bans here in the US of A. I belive fully in home defense.

Can somebody pull up a number of lawsuits of people who broke into a house got hurt and sued and WON.

As for Minorities not being arrested, I want what you are smoking.

Orlanth wrote:The trouble is I see another pattern, if you are ethnic and defend your home against burglars thats ok, if you are white and you defend your home, particularly against az disadvantaged minority you get put in prison.

I am not convinced either of these cases would have got the sympathy in court had the defendant not been a minority. At the very least its too dangerous to count on in our current dogmatised system.

Remember the law is a lottery, you might hit a burglar and get exonerated you might hit a burglar get hauled through the system and the burglar might get legal aid to sue.

Orlanth, what you say just isn't true.

The two most recent cases in the headlines are this one and the cricket bat people. Both were non-white defendants. One aquittal and one conviction resulted.

There was a difference, the cricket bat people involved the burglar being chased off property and then assaulted.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2864331/The-man-who-broke-into-a-millionaires-home-and-held-his-family-hostage-has-walked-free-from-court-again.html

Orlanth wrote:There was a difference, the cricket bat people involved the burglar being chased off property and then assaulted.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2864331/The-man-who-broke-into-a-millionaires-home-and-held-his-family-hostage-has-walked-free-from-court-again.html

So it was the circumstances of the assault that determined the courts decision, not the colour of the skin of the home owner and defender that was the deciding factor? Maybe the white man isn't keeping the white man down?

Guns are for show, knives are for pros.

avantgarde wrote:Guns are for show, knives are for pros.

Spoken like a dead man walking. Ancient buddha say, never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Frazzled wrote:
Ancient buddha say, never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Most wise words. reminds me of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark in which Indy simply draws and shoots a bad guy after the bad guy's swordplay display.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Was it murder? Yes, most definitely yes.

Murder with cherries on top, but obviously murder.

That's has to rival as one of the most, if not THE most ignorant statement I've ever heard in my life.

Murder: 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

A. Not unlawful (Not Guilty).
B. No malice.
C. No forethought (unless you want to try and tell me he KNEW they were going to break into his home).

And I believe "Murder with cherries on top" has yet to be defined in the criminal code.

I think its simple, you break into MY property to steal stuff or attack me your fair game.

Reasonable force is a load of BS as far as im concerned, Im in fear for my life and the safety of my love ones, we go to war for less so me stabbing or shooting some low life who has made a concious <sp!> decision to break into my home is a simple case of self defence, IMO of course

Oh and the stubby 12ga is GORGEOUS but in the uk were not even allowed toy guns any more, welcome to the police state...

Kilkrazy wrote:He was charged with murder and grievous bodily harm, put on trial, and acquitted of both charges.

Used the wrong word, sorry about that. I'll adjust that sentence.

Wrex wrote:Should he have been found guilty of murder?

The Green Git wrote:That's has to rival as one of the most, if not THE most ignorant statement I've ever heard in my life.

Good job.

Murder: 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

In my book, my understanding of this term, I could have used homicide instead, but I chose not to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

I am not a lawyer, or a judge, so I can use this term with a bit more flexibility, as it is generally flexible from country to country; though similar. I consider what this man did, to be with some amount of intent, though not in the sense that he maliciously attacked those men. He defended himself, and the end result was a person's death. As he said he was a peaceful, religious man, I doubt he would feel much differently.

Not trying to place blame on him, and I definitely don't consider him a murderer, though I feel he did kill in anger. Take what you will from that, I hope this man can get past all of the trauma caused by this event.

He is a Samurai though.

You can't have toy guns in the UK?

wow... just... wow...

Wut?