Huh? 78 year old Brit stabs and kills intruder in his own house and is arrested for murder

so, you're saying this 78 year old broke into an intruder's house and stabbed him? I say he SHOULD be arrested for that.

StompEmAll wrote:

Was the elderly man white and the intruders non-white? If so, this makes for a very good chance of the victim being charged with murder, hate crime(s), etc. CA has some screwy laws that were put in force in order to create the same scenarios. Sad but true. The racists are actually on the left, most of them frothing, brainwashed, useful idiots who have no idea of what's really going on.

If both parties in this mess are white, some other story will be possibly be concocted by officials in order to make the old man a bad guy and continue to try and train the population not to fight back.

All were white. Stop with your race baiting please.

In the UK you get arrested on SUSPICION of a crime and will be held for questioning as to what your version of events were. After 24 hours has passed you are either charged or released, depending on the evidence at hand.

If at a later date evidence transpires that you may in fact be guilty, then you will be arrested again.

It is sensible protocol in my opinion to arrest a man who has admitted to stabbing another man, complete with dead body and bloodied weapon as evidence of that.

Without being able to hear the testimony of the deceased, I find it comical that one would simply believe whatever story the killer stated without formal investigation including recorded questioning of the killer.

Also, if you are released on bail after those 24 hours then in the UK you almost never have any sum of money to pay as you might in the USA. Even for a suspected murder. Bail simply has conditions you must adhere to such as not leaving the country.

The 78 year old man has now been released on bail but his only conditions are to report to a police station in early May pending further enquiries. No $250k bond.

Atypical black muslim.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/intruder-killed-during-burglary-in-pensioners-home-wanted-for-stealing-from-other-elderly-victim-a3806981.html

notrump wrote:

Atypical black muslim.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/intruder-killed-during-burglary-in-pensioners-home-wanted-for-stealing-from-other-elderly-victim-a3806981.html

CottonShirt will attempt to spin this , as well.

"There's two sides to the story, and one is dead!"

Ummm... 'intruder'.

Self-defence is available on a charge of murder to those who fall short of using "grossly disproportionate" force. The police are bound to arrest and charge someone who commits murder. Once charged, the Crown Prosecution Service will decide (a) whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction if the case is tried and (b) whether that would be in the public interest. Assuming those things, the case goes to court. The judge can offer self-defence to the jury. They decide whether the force used was gross, and whether the threat was imminent or not.

Home owners have more protection compared with those who use self-defence to protect themselves or others.

ex-runner wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Well you Brits better familiarize yourselves with Sharia Law because I'm betting most of you don't know how your future justice system is going to work.

https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/sharia.aspx

You're boring mate.

Well then, let's give you something interesting to discuss. Would I be allowed to post that in England, or would I be charged with a hate crime?

If I were entering England and they knew I posted that would they ban me from the country and send me home?

Guess what ... mate ... those are legitimate questions in today's England, and that aint good.

DiscoGary wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

You're boring mate.

Well then, let's give you something interesting to discuss. Would I be allowed to post that in England, or would I be charged with a hate crime?

If I were entering England and they knew I posted that would they ban me from the country and send me home?

Guess what ... mate ... those are legitimate questions in today's England, and that aint good.

You'd be fine.

Any other questions?

trollism wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Well then, let's give you something interesting to discuss. Would I be allowed to post that in England, or would I be charged with a hate crime?

If I were entering England and they knew I posted that would they ban me from the country and send me home?

Guess what ... mate ... those are legitimate questions in today's England, and that aint good.

You'd be fine.

Any other questions?

I don't know about that. What if they interpret my criticism of Sharia Law as "stirring up religious hatred"? After all, won't Muslim's hatred for me be stirred up by my criticism? And what if someone hears me criticizing Sharia Law and starts hating Muslims? I have to answer for that?

Restricting speech because someone hates to hear it, or because others may hear it and start hating someone, means there really is no free speech because any discussion of controversial issues can stir up hatred from someone and usually does. Micheal Savage is banned from England for voicing his opinions on air. I'll bet some of the things I've posted here would get me banned as well.

English Law:

"The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

DiscoGary wrote:

trollism wrote:

You'd be fine.

Any other questions?

I don't know about that. What if they interpret my criticism of Sharia Law as "stirring up religious hatred"? After all, won't Muslim's hatred for me be stirred up by my criticism? And what if someone hears me criticizing Sharia Law and starts hating Muslims? I have to answer for that?

No, you'll be fine.

Being critical is different from being threatening.

No offence, but more or less everyone would dislike you if you came over here (not just Muslims), just like more or less everyone dislikes you where you are now. They can't use the fact that you're an insufferable bore to kick you out of the country.

England used to kick ass and take names. What country has a longer history of kicking ass? What happened? Now they are soft and feminine and weak. It wasn't too long ago when their elite at Oxford and Cambridge were the same guys who were going on daring adventures, scaling mountains, concurring nations, etc. Now those same students are mostly interested in transgender and victimization studies. What a shame.

Shackleton got countless offers from this add he placed. Tough mofos.

http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/09_10_2013_shackleton-e1378828023512.jpg

DiscoGary wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

You're boring mate.

Well then, let's give you something interesting to discuss. Would I be allowed to post that in England, or would I be charged with a hate crime?

If I were entering England and they knew I posted that would they ban me from the country and send me home?

Guess what ... mate ... those are legitimate questions in today's England, and that aint good.

You are getting the united states and the United Kingdom mixed up, mate.

Nobody here is going to 'find out' or give two shits as to what your batty ideas are.

trollism wrote:

...

No offence, but more or less everyone would dislike you if you came over here (not just Muslims), just like more or less everyone dislikes you where you are now. They can't use the fact that you're an insufferable bore to kick you out of the country.

I used to live and work in England. I got along with people so well that they wanted me to stay even though it was supposed to be a temporary assignment and they DID NOT want me there when I first showed up. You are a poor judge of character but then that's a very common problem among the English isn't it. You sort yourselves out along class lines on first sight, and then have to overcome those prejudices to form relationships with anyone thought to be above or below you which usually never happens.

You know why I got along with everyone in England? Because they couldn't tell what class I came from, so they couldn't tell if they were supposed to talk to me or ignore me, and I couldn't help them figure it out because I don't consider myself as belonging to any social class. I didn't understand the concept until I got to England.

I threw an American style bar-b-que and invited everyone in the company. This caused a big stir because no one was sure which "class" was supposed to show up. I'm betting you know exactly what I'm talking about. People kept asking me "Who is coming?", a question I hated even when in the US and I gave my standard response "If you show up, then there will be two of us!". Well damn near everyone in the company came and more than one person commented that something like that had never happened before. This happened at a couple more social events I organized after that. Management noticed, and now you know why they wanted me to stay.

not a good example wrote:

They have to arrest him so they can secure the scene, get forensics and formally interview the old man. He has not been charged. He has not been convicted. I doubt the police even wanted to arrest him.

The burglar was armed and the homeowner sustained bruising. The chances of him being charged for this are literally zero. I don't see how you can use this case as an example of the UK being soft or of punishing the victim.

Like... 'zero' as in "according to letsrun.com Gwen Jorgensen has zero chance of winning Olympic gold in the marathon" or actually literally 'zero'?

"Who's coming?" is a polite way of a person telling you they don't want to come unless their friends/co-workers are attending, because they don't have any particular affinity towards you and wouldn't go if it was just you and them.

Being an unpaid party planner doesn't make you popular, sorry. I'm not saying you weren't, but that doesn't mean you were.

I'm an American living in the UK... have been here now 7 years. What works in the UK won't work in the US. One reason American's can't understand UK laws is that whenever an American hears about a UK law, they immediately think to themselves how such a law might be used by the government to oppress people or abuse power. Fact is, in the UK, while the justice system isn't perfect, it's not used to oppress people, and the government here isn't as corrupt as it is in the US. Try to pass similar well-intended laws in the US and people freak out and start shooting. I love America... but when you step outside and look in you realise America is a very sick patient with infections and cancers everywhere.

ex-runner wrote:

"Who's coming?" is a polite way of a person telling you they don't want to come unless their friends/co-workers are attending, because they don't have any particular affinity towards you and wouldn't go if it was just you and them.

Being an unpaid party planner doesn't make you popular, sorry. I'm not saying you weren't, but that doesn't mean you were.

But they all came even though I told them it would only be me and them so my method of dealing with "Who's coming?" was designed to counter exactly the issue you brought up. Your logic is flawed. That made no sense at all. The Brits I knew were smarter than you. I have a lot of respect for the English. Don't ruin it.

It's late over there. Are you drinking right now? You get a pass if you tell me you've already had three pints.

Run007xx wrote:

not a good example wrote:

They have to arrest him so they can secure the scene, get forensics and formally interview the old man. He has not been charged. He has not been convicted. I doubt the police even wanted to arrest him.

The burglar was armed and the homeowner sustained bruising. The chances of him being charged for this are literally zero. I don't see how you can use this case as an example of the UK being soft or of punishing the victim.

Like... 'zero' as in "according to letsrun.com Gwen Jorgensen has zero chance of winning Olympic gold in the marathon" or actually literally 'zero'?

Coincidence?

This week, the number of murders in London this year has exceeded those in New York City for the first time in 200 years.

London's mayor is a Muslim named Khan.

Draw your own conclusions.

Run007xx wrote:

...

I'm an American living in the UK... have been here now 7 years. What works in the UK won't work in the US. One reason American's can't understand UK laws is that whenever an American hears about a UK law, they immediately think to themselves how such a law might be used by the government to oppress people or abuse power. Fact is, in the UK, while the justice system isn't perfect, it's not used to oppress people, and the government here isn't as corrupt as it is in the US. Try to pass similar well-intended laws in the US and people freak out and start shooting. I love America... but when you step outside and look in you realise America is a very sick patient with infections and cancers everywhere.

I think that comes from the way we interpret our laws. In the US it seems that if a comma is not in the right place in the written law someone will abuse that fact and use it to get away with murder, and the judiciary will let them. The word "welfare" has been used to negate most of the Constitution, so the fear of abuse is well founded. Our government does not behave itself.

In the UK the legal system is expected to behave in a reasonable fashion even in the face of ambiguous written law. This works as long as the culture remains unchanged and people keep expecting the legal system to behave and the judiciary remains un-corrupted.

At the end of the day, the culture determines how laws get interpreted, the people get what they want, so the English system is not as unstable as it appears to us in the US.