Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

pt.2 To find floral tributes being left for Harry Vincent offensive

999 replies

lostjanni · 11/04/2018 20:35

We reached the post limit so if anyone wants to carry on the discussion...

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Alpineflowers · 13/04/2018 13:30

I believe the world will be a better place without this man. It would be a better place without many of the adult males in the family. Without them the women and children would have a chance to live differently

I agree that the children are innocent in all of this but at least one woman (in this family?) was reported as being involved in a previous 'distraction burglary'.

agedknees · 13/04/2018 13:31

Lets hope Bertrand is never woken up in the night by 2 armed burglars. I’m surmising you would be ok for one of them to ransack a room your children/elderly relative was sleeping in?

Vincent chose to violate someone’s safe place, he paid the ultimate price. The homeowner was given no choice. He had the consequences thrust upon him.

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:33

But that was enough info for you to decide he should be charged confused

It was enough that you decided he shouldn't?

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:34

I’m surmising you would be ok for one of them to ransack a room your children/elderly relative was sleeping in?

You'd have to be incredibly stupid to surmise that wouldn't you?

Mydoghatesthebath · 13/04/2018 13:35

The women knew exactly what their scum bag husbands were up to. Equally scum

agedknees · 13/04/2018 13:39

Never heard of sarcasm slievenamon.?

Mightymucks · 13/04/2018 13:39

bertrand, so what do you think the other side of the story is then?

Vincent and his friend were lost and went to his house to ask for directions and found it unlocked and the owner (who has no previous record and has lived a blameless life) launched an unprovoked attack?

stitchglitched · 13/04/2018 13:39

I don't think I made comment one way or another about whether he should be charged on the first thread but spoke more generally about the rights of homeowners. But yes I believe that you should be allowed to use deadly force against intruders in your home as you have no way of knowing what their intentions are.

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:40

Never heard of sarcasm slievenamon

Heard of it, but you haven't mastered it!

stitchglitched · 13/04/2018 13:42

I believe some suggestions on the first thread included the idea that maybe Mr Osborn Brooks set up the staged burglary in cahoots with the burglars and then turned on them? Just as plausible as the likelihood that a career criminal with a record of targeting the elderly likely broke into their home. Hmm

SaltireSaltire · 13/04/2018 13:42

Alpineflowers
I’d guess you could charge all the women in this family with ‘receiving stolen goods’. Or did they imagine all the assorted second hand goods appearing in the middle of the night were donated by well wishers!

Mydoghatesthebath · 13/04/2018 13:43

You can indeed Stitch and you can strike first if you feel your life is in danger or fear or rape or attack.

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:44

But yes I believe that you should be allowed to use deadly force against intruders in your home as you have no way of knowing what their intentions are.

Luckily for society, you can't. Unless you know there is imminent risk of harm its not ok to kill people. So, don't.

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:44

I believe some suggestions on the first thread included the idea that maybe Mr Osborn Brooks set up the staged burglary in cahoots with the burglars and then turned on them?

Was that a fever dream you had, or are you just making things up? No-one said anything like that!

stitchglitched · 13/04/2018 13:47

I'm talking about the original thread when the man was first arrested. There were several outlandish theories about what might have happened.

stitchglitched · 13/04/2018 13:47

And actually you don't have to wait for an imminent attack. You can strike first if you feel threatened.

Mydoghatesthebath · 13/04/2018 13:48

Saltire

Now that would be s trial I would love to see. Maybe a chance to rescue the children too.

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:51

You can't kill someone if you just feel threatened. You have to show you were justified to feel deadly force was needed.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html
metro.co.uk/2017/12/11/pensioner-jailed-shooting-burglar-dead-self-defence-7151230/
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-15595147

BertrandRussell · 13/04/2018 13:56

The “other side of the story” is that Mr Osborn-Brooks was, for example, lying in wait for the burglar and stabbed him when no threat had been made to anything but his property. The initial story that the burglar was stabbed with a kitchen knife, and the unlikelyness of a frail elderly man being able to overpower two much younger men, and fatally stab one with his own screwdriver did point in this direction. But obviously there was overwhelming evidence of self defense, so that story was conclusively disproved.

I am pretty sure, however, that many on here would have still thought Mr Osborn-Brooks a hero if that scanario had proved to be the correct one. Tony Martin still has many supporters.

Mydoghatesthebath · 13/04/2018 13:57

If someone breaks into your house with a weapon and threatens you or you encounter an intruder that comes towards you you are definatly allowed to strike first.

stitchglitched · 13/04/2018 13:57

That first case is 16 years old and the second one is a drug dealer with alot more going on. Reasonable force guidelines say you don't have to wait to be attacked.

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:58

You didn't mention a weapon, but the point still stands: you aren't allowed to just kill someone. You cannot strike first with deadly force. You know this, you know people go to prison when they do, so why are you giving out poor advice?

ChelleDawg2020 · 13/04/2018 13:59

Just to add, you don't have to know you are in immediate physical danger to defend yourself. You do not have to wait until you are attacked before you defend yourself. You cannot kill unnecessarily, but if you believe you are in danger, and that belief is deemed reasonable by the police, given the circumstances you were in, then it is not an offence to hit/stab the intruder.

It only becomes a crime if you are grossly disproportionate, such as striking them when they are unconscious, chasing them down the street if they run away and so on.

It would also be a detriment to your defence if you just "happened" to have a knife under your pillow as this would suggest you were prepared for an attack (I believe one of the main reasons why Tony Martin got convicted). But if you came across an intruder in your kitchen and grabbed a knife in a panic, that would be fine.

The key point to remember is that it's not the outcome that determines whether an offence is committed by the householder, it's the intent. Rushing an intruder and bundling them to the ground, killing them as they smack their head could well be seen as reasonable, firing a shotgun at them (but missing) as they were getting into their getaway vehicle would probably not be.

Slievenamon · 13/04/2018 13:59

That first case is 16 years old and the second one is a drug dealer with alot more going on. Reasonable force guidelines say you don't have to wait to be attacked

The law hasn't changed in those 16 years and Resonable force guidelines means you have to use reasonable force, which is usually not killing someone.
Give it up.

Mydoghatesthebath · 13/04/2018 14:00

So myself at 5 Foot 2 and 8 stone seeing an intruder coming towards me in my kitchen I could stab him first. Was told that by my local police officer over a cuppa after we were burgled.

Wasn’t quite the reassuring after care I was after but there you go Wink

Swipe left for the next trending thread