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?

No, of course not, Jaques, but opinions and beliefs will influence the understanding of a case.

'Reasonable force' when there are two men in your house - a home invasion, not just a burglary, you have yourself and your wife to protect, who knows what the other man was doing while he fought this one in the kitchen, you're not going to think logically about how to reasonably subdue them, you're going to be fighting for your life and your wife's, nothing to do with property.

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

It wasn't because of her views. It was because she couldn't grasp what she was being told. You have to be able to understand logic and take direction from a judge. Your personal views and opinions are not relevant in a court of law., otherwise, for instance, people who are prejudiced against certain people will ignore evidence and facts and decide they are guilty. You have to separate your opinions from the facts.

** Chardonnay

you describe a jury as two essentially conflicting things.

I think I understand how a jury is drawn. In actual fact the prosecuting counsel will do their absolute best with the number of deletions they can make to obliterate any of the accused’s “peers” as they identify and will be more likely to go for a cross section of society. In the case of murder it will mean keeping as many Fail readers as humanely possible. Unless of course the accused is this man in question and it goes to trial then they’ll be keeping the guardian readers in

*gottagetmoving

Quite.
Though from reading this thread I think there a few folk that dream of it being like something out of Perry Mason or Inside Number Nine

you're not going to think logically about how to reasonably subdue them

That's not what reasonable force means.

I read some of this thread earlier and was agog

Whilst i hope that this man - if all turns out to be as it is speculated - is released without charge I also believe that the rigours of the law and technical process have to followed to protect the statutory enshrinement of self defence.

Think I’ll go and check out the house sitting thread now 😉

Carousel
"Reasonable Force" means the force reasonable in the context of the threat you believed you were facing.

The test takes into account the fact that an individual might be in a situation they find terrifying where they believe that they or a loved one are going to die. The question would then be was the force used reasonable in a situation when someone was fighting for their life /life of another.

That is why people have being able to use self-defence successfully when they have killed someone (even potentially when mistaken as to the real threat level).

It's certainly caused a stir - lots of crowd funding, petitions and #freerichardosbornbrooks trending on twitter:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/petitions-launched-to-support-brave-pensioner-accused-of-stabbing-burglar-to-death-a3806731.html%3famp

In actual fact the prosecuting counsel will do their absolute best with the number of deletions they can

I thought jury challenges have been severely curtailed ?

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jury-vetting

Your personal views and opinions are not relevant in a court of law.

Except for jury nullification ...

And ultimately I would hope views and opinions are relevant - otherwise why bother with a jury ? It would just be a load of automatons following a book (and we know how dangerous that is).

I really don't care what the law is - my conscience would never let me find anyone guilty of a crime if they were to be executed.

And I would go to jail for that.

I stand corrected, I laboured under the incorrect assumption that the crown could still challenge in less restrictive circs.

It actually means there’s even less chance of a panel of peers though: hurrah!

I stand corrected, I laboured under the incorrect assumption that the crown could still challenge in less restrictive circs.

My late DM was called to do jury service at the Old Bailey in the early 80s. She was initially called into a rape case, but there were 3 defendants which allowed 9 challenge-without-causes which the defence barristers were using to throw women and people of the same ethnicity as the defendants off the jury.

As my DM was challenged and went to leave the lady behind her had started saying the oath (apparently they do not mess around !!!!). The defence tried challenging her, but the Judge was very harsh about procedure and she stayed.

Eventually my DM was put on a fascinating theft case ....

No premeditation mentioned.

Premeditation is not required for a killing to meet the test for murder, there just has to be intent to kill or seriously harm.

Premeditation is something taken into account in sentencing, if things are still the same as they were 30 years ago, when I worked in criminal law.

No, I don’t use conflicting definitions.

It’s a selection of equals/peers who represent all walks of life.

The jurors must take guidance in matters of law, but they all have their own opinions and beliefs, how can they not? That is what makes them who they are, so yes, it does matter and that’s the point of having a jury.

The late Lord Devlin, arguably the greatest judge of the century, was a powerful defender of trial by jury.

He said: "Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives."

Well, Lord Devlin, like all intelligent people, almost certainly over-estimated the thinking power of his fellow human beings.

When you have a bunch of people too dim to understand basic law, and too arrogant to listen to explanations, sitting in judgement of anyone, there’s a problem.

I hope all those defending the burglaring scum get a real life opportunity to signal their virtue when they come face-to-face with an intruder in the dead of night

Of all the comments on here, this has to be the most ignorant.

We are defending the law & pointing out that the police have a requirement to follow it.

They had a dead body and a man who (presumably) acknowledged being responsible for the death. And you think that they should have...what? Listened to the proffered explanation, undertaken no investigation & looked for no evidence but instead just said, “Oh, OK. He was a burglar. Well, good on ya, mate. We’ll just clear up the body for you while you head back to bed. Sorry to disturb you”.

For fucks sake.

“Oh, OK. He was a burglar. Well, good on ya, mate. We’ll just clear up the body for you while you head back to bed. Sorry to disturb you”.

For some reason this reminded me of Naked Gun, where Frank Drebin is celebrating his 1,000th drug dealer kill:

"Actually, I backed over the last two in my car - luckily, they turned out to be drug dealers."

"Burglaring scum"?

"Burglaring scum"?
Yes burglaring scum. That's what burglars are utter scum bags cunts. Dregs on society. How else would you describe them.

He's been identified and he was a career criminal with a history of targeting pensioners and was wanted in connection with other recent burglaries. I'd say scum is pretty accurate.

I haven't seen anyone here offering any sympathy for the dead burglar.

I did hear one of his relations doing so on the radio earlier which led to me turning it off.

I heard her too... going on about how lovely he was and how the pensioner should have handled it differently. I switched off too.

Billy burglars 'mate' left him at scene and made off.
True friend
He would not keep his mouth shut for long and hopefully be arrested soon.

I think I may have heard a relative or friend of the deceased complaining why the pensioner got bail.