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 burglar lost his rights when he entered the mans house to burgle him.

The notion of "outlaw" was dropped centuries ago, and no longer exists.

Had a quick wimble around the internet for 'Pensioner defends self' and excluded London from search results. Found this:

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16137737.when-the-going-gets-tough-singing-legend-70-fights-off-carjackers-with-a-spanner/?ref=ar

Nobody was killed so not a direct comparison by any means, but it just shows the difference between local press reporting vs media frenzy of the nationals.

"you seemed to be on the criminals side, some of your comments are unbelievable"

What comments?

The Police had to arrest the householder. Law is a process that applies to everyone. They have to get statements, secure and investigate the crime scene and gather evidence to make a charging decision, usually in a 24 hour period.

The custody team and officers dealing with the householder will have got him checked over by medics and arranged for any regular medication to be provided - they have a duty of care which they take very seriously and will have immediately classed him as a vulnerable person.

If they don't follow procedure to the letter on this, it would be very hard to bring a prosecution against Burglar #2 and to protect the householder from legal/civil action by the family of the deceased at a later date.

The DM has an article on the burglar's history and family... from what it says, society is much better off without him. A,though his family look like they might start harping on about human rights...

inexplicably hostile to the elderly victim.

Yes, cards on the table everyone. We just hate elderly people. They're so....old. And some of them don't dress well and have opinions from the 50s....lock 'em up, I say.

Bertrand, the way you speak about him, and your 9:44 post, about wanting him to go to court and not the Police to decide. Isent that the job of the Police, to investigate and decide if he was acting unreasonably. I bet your do good attitude wound waver if people broke into your home and tried to hurt you or your kids. Very easy to have those views behind a keyboard.

Yes Kris I have seen that picture of the burglar and his nasty family. Dragged up springs to mind here.

Aeroflotgirl

Sorry, I think that was the previous poster who mentioned the burglar and family.

Henry Vincent's cousin has said she doesn't know what happened inside that house but 'something went wrong' and her cousin shouldn't have died. To her, he was a loving person. She is also angry that Mr Osborn Brooks has been bailed!

It's her cousin that 'went wrong'.....badly wrong. A loving person doesn't burgle houses and target old people.
Apparently, many of Vincent's family make a career of it.

The law should always side with the person who is the victim. In this case, the pensioner is the victim and the burlgar is the aggressor.

If someone breaks into your home, you don't know what their intentions are. This is why the law does, and must, side with the homeowner. The innocent person doesn't know if they will be robbed, raped or murdered (yes, all three things happen, even to the elderly).

Therefore the law allows disproportionate force in cases like this. The victim doesn't know that the intruder is not armed with a gun, therefore the victim is entitled to take down the intruder by any means available.

It's a shame that the police even arrested him, but they are in an awkward position - remember the Trayvon Martin case in the US where the police were pilloried because they decided the person who killed him was acting reasonably. The media complained, so he had to be charged, though of course was found innocent because he'd done nothing wrong. (In that particular case, anyway.)

If someone breaks into your home and threatens you, it is better to risk killing them than to have you and your partner raped and murdered. I would strengthen the homeowner's position further to allow any form of violence other than repeatedly assaulting the perpetrator once they are dead/unconscious.

Sorry it was Trumpdump

"Bertrand, the way you speak about him"
Ah, right. Just bollocks then.

And I have already said that I have no idea how I would react in similar circumstances. Probably with unreasonable force. But I would not expect the rule of law to be ignored if I did.

I can't say I feel any sympathy whatsoever. One less feral scumbag in the world, the family also sound like the absolute dregs of society.

You do want the rule of law to be ignored though. You don't want the usual process of the police and CPS deciding whether there is sufficient cause to charge and go to trial to be applied to him.

I am not saying the law should be ignored, I hope that Police do not charge him and he is let off.

Sorry Aero my post was for Bert who is saying that the rule of law should be applied whilst also saying that he should automatically go to trial. If the police find that the evidence supports self defence I have no idea why a trial would be needed but that question hasn't been answered.

I know stitched, I hope Police investigation find him acting in self defence and he is cleared. Poor man will have that guilt on him, the nasty scumbags those robbers. Saw the pictures of them, nasty the lot of them. Dragged up, knowing their rights, but not responsibilities. They got what they deserved. Let that be a lesson to them, yiu go robbing and thieving into people's houses, you might get hurt by people defending themselves and their families.

The notion of "outlaw" was dropped centuries ago, and no longer exists.

A great pity - time to bring it back, and tip the scales of justice away from the criminals and towards their victims.

“The law should always side with the person who is the victim.”

It absolutely shouldn’t. Why do you think the figure of Justice is blindfolded?

Yes Aero just reading the account of another of his victims, very upsetting. It seems he deliberately targetted pensioners. Sorry for referring to them as such when it is apparently patronising, but I'd say it's pretty relevant that he specifically chose a group more likely to be vulnerable and physically weaker. Utterly repulsive.

I'm currently more interested in the police tracking down the second man - the one that went upstairs to rob and terrify a woman with dementia and that left his 'mate' to die on the pavement whilst he drove off to save his own sorry arse.

This and to add, there is an assumption he was going upstairs to steal, we have no idea what his intentions were, and neither would have her husband

Had he lived and been tried. How long would he have got 2 years with half knocked off or a suspended sentence or The famous community service.

exactly.^^ bloody so called justice system.

and now burglars family saying he didn't deserve to die- have you read/seen news about his criminal life? bloody deserved it.

and the pensioner should get a medal.

“I'd say it's pretty relevant that he specifically chose a group more likely to be vulnerable and physically weaker. Utterly repulsive“

Yes it is relevant and repulsive. But not a reason to call Mr Osborn-Brooks “the pensioner”.

Why do you think the figure of Justice is blindfolded?

Because you'd have to be blind to convict this old age pensioner () of murder?