78 pensioner arrested for fatally stabbing burglar in his own home

[SShaming]

2 burglars break into a 78 year old man’s home armed with screwdriver.

Forces owner into the kitchen whilst one of them goes upstairs.

A fight ensues, leaving pensioner with injuries to his arm and burglary is fatally stabbed. Perhaps with his own screwdriver although this is TBC.

Police arrest pensioner.

On what planet is this right?

The process is TO arrest. Why do you find that so hard to understand? It gives him protection in law and allows evidence to be gathered in the correct way.

He is a killer. That simply isn't in question. If you kill someone you should be charged and undergo a legal trial. That's the law of the land. You can't have different legal systems based on your opinion of the perpetrator of the crime.

We could argue over this but you are not a killer if someone dies unless you actually directly caused their death - and we don't know this. It is an emotive word and quite precise. Ask any lawyer

Surely the investigation is to establish whether charges should be brought or not? Not all killing is a crime which is why they don't all result in charges and legal trials.

@Alreadytaken, spamming an unrelated thread in this way would actually make me not want to sign the petition. Please stop.

Bluelady

If you kill someone you should be charged and undergo a legal trial. That's the law of the land.

I'm almost certain that the law does not in fact require every "killing" to go to trial. The authorities may choose to accept that an act was prima facie one of self-defence, and that going to trial is pointless since no jury in the land would convict him on a charge of murder.

No-one is saying we shouldn't investigate.
Of course the situation should be investigated.

So what are we all arguing about then? It’s under investigation at this point, he hasn’t been charged with any offence.

@WhalesOfYore if he wasn't arrested police would have no power to search him, his house or anything else for evidence to support the case for or against him, nor would they be able to take vital forensic evidence from him by way of swabs etc which again may support the case for or against. It's an arrest, not a charge. It's the way our justice system and the laws of our land works.

If fact, the whole point of the CPS is to decide whether or not a prosecution is "in the public interest". In my view - and, I would be willing to bet, in the view of any jury - it is not.

Every killing does not go to trial. If the evidence is not there to support a realistic prospect or conviction or if it is not in the public interest, then the case most likely will never see a court room.

Whales, unless you know all the facts of the case you can't possibly know whether it's in the public interest or not.

Desmondo2016

If he wasn't arrested police would have no power to search him, his house or anything else for evidence to support the case for or against him, nor would they be able to take vital forensic evidence from him by way of swabs etc which again may support the case for or against. It's an arrest, not a charge. It's the way our justice system and the laws of our land works.

If that's the case, then I'm willing to concede the point that an arrest is reasonable, although still an unnecessary indignity in my view.

No-one is saying we shouldn't investigate.
Of course the situation should be investigated.

The OP decries the fact the home owner was arrested - and the outrage has continued (from some).

Even though an arrest is standard in such situations and necessary to facilitate the investigation. He hasn't even been charged - and may not be.

Hallelujah

That's big of you, Whales.

Well, it's only taken 24 pages of people saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING to convince you, Whales...

Whales, I agree it is a terrible situation for the arrested person, if/when later found innocent. Unfortunately without a system of sorts, guilty offenders would be getting away with it. It's far from perfect but I'm not sure there's a better alternative with laws and policing powers/policies as they stand.

That's big of you, Whales.

I know

Don't expect it to become a habit!

The idea of you ever sitting on a jury terrifies me

Blimey.

I'm not the poster you are addressing this at, but it terrifies me.
A jury is a panel of peers, it represents a cross section of society. We are all entitled to our views, even the ones you don't like. The idea of an ordinary person not being worthy of it because of their views isn't right.

I realise you want to to let us see how woke you are, but it only shows ignorance and disrespect for the law system and for society.

Painted
He was arrested on suspicion of murder. Not manslaughter or any other lesser offence. Until the police establish the facts they have to treat him like anyone else arrested on suspicion of murder. Either the rules apply to everyone or to no one. If you have killed someone in circumstances where it is not clear that it wasn't murder then the police have to investigate the possibility that it might be murder.
So what Bertrand could have said is that he is under suspicion of having murdered the individual.

What makes people think murder requires premeditation - I thought that is an aggravating factor not a requirement.

Murder requires an intention to kill or to cause grevious bodily harm level injuries . If those intentions aren't there but as a result of an act a person dies, then it would be manslaughter or a different lower offence.

The idea of an ordinary person not being worthy of it because of their views isn't right.

I don’t know. When people equate following a legal process that offers the gentleman in question with protection to being “pro-burglar” it’s a worrying thought...

Do all the people kicked off the Daily Mail comments for being too irrational and extreme now get redirected to mumsnet or something?