Pensioner, 78, arrested on suspicion of murder after suspected burglar dies in tussle

A pensioner has been arrested after a suspected burglar was killed during a violent tussle at his home.

The 78-year-old was held on suspicion of murder after the 38-year-old died of his wounds in hospital in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Police said the struggle broke out after the pensioner had found two men inside his home in South Park, Hither Green, south London shortly after midnight.

One suspect, armed with a screwdriver, forced the home-owner into his kitchen when he discovered them, while his accomplice went upstairs.

Detectives believe a struggle ensued between "one of the males and the home-owner" and the 38-year-old intruder was stabbed in the upper body.

He was later found collapsed in nearby Further Green Road by paramedics from London Ambulance Service, who took him to a central London hospital where he died at 3.37am. Police were unable to confirm whether the suspect had been stabbed with the screwdriver.

In a statement Scotland Yard said: “At 00:45hrs on Wednesday, 4 April, police were called by a home owner to reports of a burglary in progress at an address in South Park Crescent, Hither Green SE6, and a man injured.

“The 78-year-old resident found two males inside the address. A struggle ensued between one of the males and the home owner. The man, aged 37, sustained a stab wound to the upper body.”

The home owner suffered bruising to his arms and his injuries are not life threatening.

Police arrested him on suspicion of grievous bodily harm before then arresting him on suspicion of murder.

He was taken to a south London police station where he remains at this time.

The second suspect in the burglary fled the scene prior to police arrival and and is now being hunted by the Met’s Homicide and Major Crime Command.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/

The alternative headline could have been pensioner left for dead after having his home ransacked.

I prefer the actual headline.

In London last night two burglers broke into the home of a 73 year old man and forced him into the kitchen. One of the Burglers threatened him with a Screwdriver. The Pensioner struggled with him, got hold of the Screwdriver and stabbed him with it. The burgler died. Pensioner was arrested and charged with Murder !

Sorry Syl, I did not see your post.

No problem, It was Didges thread Nicko....Eddie will probably merge them when she comes online. x

How disgusting. The man shouldn't have been in the elderly man's house, let alone threatening him. He got what he deserved. The elderly man should go free.

Oh posted on the other thread.

This 78 year old wasn't going to lay down and be robbed, possibly murdered. The robber got what he deserved, the elderly man should go free.

Yet another example of the British SS Fascist faux_police squads harassing innocent civilians, while willingly aiding and abetting the criminals in the pursuit of their activities...

How long is it now, since the British Police have actually been seen to be working in the peoples' interests ?

This is awful, as has been said, those men shouldn't have been in the property, the pensioner was threatened with a weapon, if there was a struggle and the intruder is stabbed with his own weapon. Isn't being caught with a screwdriver, with no reasonably explanation, showing intent to burgle theses days. To arrest this man and charge him with murder is astounding, how long has this incident been investigated seems a bit rushed.

On Tv, the roads been sealed off ,both ends, and a half dozen forensic men dressed in protective suits and masks are all over the House !WHY do they go over the top? it looks like an open and shut case to me.

The old fella done good!

Hey, I can do stuff too...

I really think if this man is charged with any crime there will be a huge public outcry. Most people who have spoken out think he deserves a medal not a criminal record.

He is his wifes carer, he should be home looking after her, not detained by police for bravely protecting her, himself and his home.

nicko wrote:In London last night two burglers broke into the home of a 73 year old man and forced him into the kitchen.  One of the Burglers threatened him with a Screwdriver. The Pensioner struggled with him, got hold of the Screwdriver and stabbed him with it.  The burgler died.  Pensioner was arrested and charged with Murder !

I'd like to know more about the thinking of the police...perhaps more about the facts.  Self-defense "is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others..."  The question, always, is what is reasonable?

One would assume that while in one's own home, defending oneself against an intruder would be a gimme.  But there may be circumstance where it was not reasonable to take the intruder's life. What are the circumstances? What motivated the police to take this man into custody?

That's what trials are for: figure out the facts, and make sense of the law.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:In London last night two burglers broke into the home of a 73 year old man and forced him into the kitchen.  One of the Burglers threatened him with a Screwdriver. The Pensioner struggled with him, got hold of the Screwdriver and stabbed him with it.  The burgler died.  Pensioner was arrested and charged with Murder !

I'd like to know more about the thinking of the police...perhaps more about the facts.  Self-defense "is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others..."  The question, always, is what is reasonable?

One would assume that while in one's own home, defending oneself against an intruder would be a gimme.  But there may be circumstance where it was not reasonable to take the intruder's life.  What are the circumstances?  What motivated the police to take this man into custody?

That's what trials are for: figure out the facts, and make sense of the law.

make sense of the law? Our laws here are insane. We have rapists getting community service, while shoplifters and drunks get slung in prison.

If I was in this situation with a partner with dementia upstairs and scared for my life and hers, I'd stab the fucker too.
He's probably saved dozens if not hundreds of potential future victims from attacks from this loser.

Reasonable force is a joke here.

If an intruder is coming up the stairs in the dead of night and you hit him with a baseball bat thats kept in the bedroom just in case a situation like this arises.....that's pre meditated and you could be charged with hurting him.

If you hit him with an object you have grabbed on the spur of the moment, say a bedside lamp....that would be considered justified.'

But only  long as you didn't use unreasonable force.....and if the intruder was not threatening you and you whacked him you could be also be charged.

The pensioner has now been bailed.

I think the elderly man should get a medal. I'm sick of the police shielding the damn offenders.

No way was it murder, it was self defence. Two men, and one 78 yr old, who'd have thought the burglar would be killed, it could so easily have been the older man.

The burglar come unstuck. No pity for him at all.

[*]Richard Osborn-Brooks fought with 'burglar' who broke into his London home armed with a screwdriver
[*]Suspected intruder died from a stab wound and the pensioner was arrested by police on suspicion of murder
[*]It emerged today the suspected burglar was wanted in connection with a raid on another elderly man's home
[*]Henry Vincent was part of a criminal family which was jailed for for more than 50 years for various incidents
[*]The new case has reignited the debate over the rights of homeowners to defend themselves against intruders
[*]Supporters of the pensioner have set up crowdfunding pages and flooded Twitter with supportive messages  


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5580925/Pensioner-78-stabbed-burglar-bailed.html#ixzz5BpGJ96Gm 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:In London last night two burglers broke into the home of a 73 year old man and forced him into the kitchen.  One of the Burglers threatened him with a Screwdriver. The Pensioner struggled with him, got hold of the Screwdriver and stabbed him with it.  The burgler died.  Pensioner was arrested and charged with Murder !

I'd like to know more about the thinking of the police...perhaps more about the facts.  Self-defense "is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others..."  The question, always, is what is reasonable?

One would assume that while in one's own home, defending oneself against an intruder would be a gimme.  But there may be circumstance where it was not reasonable to take the intruder's life.  What are the circumstances?  What motivated the police to take this man into custody?

That's what trials are for: figure out the facts, and make sense of the law.

The old fella did less to the burglar & his accomplice than the burglar & accomplice were doing/threatening to do to him & his wife...


The old fella & wife were in their own home and minding their own business... the burglars broke in to their home and were aggressors against them... the burglars were armed and dangerous, threatening serious injury/death against old fella with a weapon... one of the dangerous attackers then went upstairs towards where old fellas poor sick & extremely vulnerable old lady wife was... clearly becoming an immediate life threatening danger to her too...


The old fella was well within his rights to try to act against those aggressors and the very real immediate serious threat they posed to himself & his vulnerable wife, in the name of defence of himself & wife in their own home...


In the struggle, one of the attackers ended up getting stabbed with his own weapon, that he had been threatening to stab the old fella with just moments before...!


Clearly self defence...!!!


And good on him for defending himself & his wife in their own home!!!

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:In London last night two burglers broke into the home of a 73 year old man and forced him into the kitchen.  One of the Burglers threatened him with a Screwdriver. The Pensioner struggled with him, got hold of the Screwdriver and stabbed him with it.  The burgler died.  Pensioner was arrested and charged with Murder !

I'd like to know more about the thinking of the police...perhaps more about the facts.  Self-defense "is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others..."  The question, always, is what is reasonable?

One would assume that while in one's own home, defending oneself against an intruder would be a gimme.  But there may be circumstance where it was not reasonable to take the intruder's life.  What are the circumstances?  What motivated the police to take this man into custody?

exactly that quill

over here there was a massive hoo har some years back when a bloke being burgled shot at them BUT he shot at them while they were running away therefore it was considered unreasonable force and the bloke got done for it.

there was also a promise though that the law would favour the house owners/victims in crimes rather than the criminal.

we have also had cases where burglars have broken into schools, cut themselves on glass or fallen over or whatever and have actually sued the school for their injuries and I'm not kidding

I mean that's how seriously fucked up our system is

Oh and what about dogs biting burglars, and some of the dogs were put down.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'd like to know more about the thinking of the police...perhaps more about the facts.  Self-defense "is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others..."  The question, always, is what is reasonable?

One would assume that while in one's own home, defending oneself against an intruder would be a gimme.  But there may be circumstance where it was not reasonable to take the intruder's life.  What are the circumstances?  What motivated the police to take this man into custody?

That's what trials are for: figure out the facts, and make sense of the law.

The old fella did less to the burglar & his accomplice than the burglar & accomplice were doing/threatening to do to him & his wife...


The old fella & wife were in their own home and minding their own business... the burglars broke in to their home and were aggressors against them... the burglars were armed and dangerous, threatening serious injury/death against old fella with a weapon... one of the dangerous attackers then went upstairs towards where old fellas poor sick & extremely vulnerable old lady wife was... clearly becoming an immediate life threatening danger to her too...


The old fella was well within his rights to try to act against those aggressors and the very real immediate serious threat they posed to himself & his vulnerable wife, in the name of defence of himself & wife in their own home...


In the struggle, one of the attackers ended up getting stabbed with his own weapon, that he had been threatening to stab the old fella with just moments before...!


Clearly self defence...!!!


And good on him for defending himself & his wife in their own home!!!

You don't like the rule of law, eh?  The law is basically notice and an opportunity to be heard.  I have some reservations about it myself.  The main one is that law costs money.  If you turn that around, it means only those with money stand a fair chance of getting away with shite.  This was true with OJ Simpson, and it's still true with Trump.  The rich suck all the good out of law.

You still need a constituency, and Simpson found that with Afro-Americans in South Central LA.  Trump finds it with his core followers.  Constituents become one's spokesmen, amplifying one's message.

I'd still like to hear the police view as to why they took this guy in...before the whole thing becomes politicized.  But I bet they just end up letting him walk.  As a pensioner he doesn't have the money but he'll find a lot of supporters.

The law is on the old fellas side here quill... and I do understand that the police have a set procedure to follow too...


This is not about money for lawyers being king here...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'd like to know more about the thinking of the police...perhaps more about the facts.  Self-defense "is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others..."  The question, always, is what is reasonable?

One would assume that while in one's own home, defending oneself against an intruder would be a gimme.  But there may be circumstance where it was not reasonable to take the intruder's life.  What are the circumstances?  What motivated the police to take this man into custody?

That's what trials are for: figure out the facts, and make sense of the law.

The old fella did less to the burglar & his accomplice than the burglar & accomplice were doing/threatening to do to him & his wife...


The old fella & wife were in their own home and minding their own business... the burglars broke in to their home and were aggressors against them... the burglars were armed and dangerous, threatening serious injury/death against old fella with a weapon... one of the dangerous attackers then went upstairs towards where old fellas poor sick & extremely vulnerable old lady wife was... clearly becoming an immediate life threatening danger to her too...


The old fella was well within his rights to try to act against those aggressors and the very real immediate serious threat they posed to himself & his vulnerable wife, in the name of defence of himself & wife in their own home...


In the struggle, one of the attackers ended up getting stabbed with his own weapon, that he had been threatening to stab the old fella with just moments before...!


Clearly self defence...!!!


And good on him for defending himself & his wife in their own home!!!

I agree with you on this.

This case is being compared to the Tony Martin case, but imo they are very different.
Tony Martin had an unlicensed rifle and lay in wait for the burglars.
He killed one, a 16 year old, and shot the other in the legs. Martin didn't report this till the next day, where the body of the 16 year was found in Martins garden.
He was charged with murder, later reduced to manslaughter.

The question of 'what is reasonable force' is a bit of a red herring really, and should be scrapped...


Because it always casts the emphasis onto the homeowner that they are likely in the wrong if they defend themselves 'a bit too much' when resulting in burglar/intruder/attacker ending up injured/dead etc...


This suggests that homeowner victim is only ever allowed to respond to actual physical attack by burglar/intruder etc when it is an actual physical attack... and then only legally allowed to respond in a similar level of style/force that is being used against them at that particular moment...


For example... if intruder/attacker was to be making threats and slapping victim around... would 'reasonable force' ever really allow for the victim, fearing for their life, and grabbing a nearby knife and sticking it into attackers chest through heart causing death...?


Or wouldn't that more likely be treated as 'beyond reasonable force', suggesting that victim should have only been able to respond with slaps and threats in response to being attacked with slaps and threats etc...?


Why should the homeowner victim be restricted to only defending themselves at a similar level of violence to that which the attacker chooses to carry out...?


Why should the innocent homeowner victim have to wait for an intruder/attacker to try to strike with a knife/bat first, before the victim can then respond with knife/bat and be deemed only then as 'using reasonable force'...?


When a burglar/intruder/attacker breaks into your home... surely after you have shouted at them to get the fuk out... and if they don't leave, but instead stay inside and coming towards you... surely you should at that point be able to defend yourself with whatever means you choose...?


Why should the law say that you must wait to see what level of attack you come under, by what type of weapon etc... before you are allowed to respond in a similar fashion and be covered by 'reasonable force' rules...?


That is absurd...!

Tommy Monk wrote:The question of 'what is reasonable force' is a bit of a red herring really, and should be scrapped...


Because it always casts the emphasis onto the homeowner that they are likely in the wrong if they defend themselves 'a bit too much' when resulting in burglar/intruder/attacker ending up injured/dead etc...

But self-defense is a defense. It's not an argument on a keyboard, but the order of procedure in a court of law. The law takes the offense first, then it looks at any defenses offered.

Is it a red herring that the guy is pleading self-defense? He's the one who brings it up. And once it is brought up, the analysis is reasonable force.

If you don't want the guy to plead self-defense, so be it. Take him directly to prison.

Quill... it is not up to police to decide whether someone is to face court... it is up to the CPS here, and they decide on basis of if there is enough evidence to likely secure a conviction... and given the circumstances, and the act of self defence, there isn't any chance...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... it is not up to police to decide whether someone is to face court... it is up to the CPS here, and they decide on basis of if there is enough evidence to likely secure a conviction... and given the circumstances, and the act of self defence, there isn't any chance...!

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal public prosecuting agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales.  The CPS didn't arrest the elderly man and take him in.  The Police did.

To return to subject: I would like to know why the police decided to hold him. Why was the criminal process initiated?  Someone had a theory of the case, else he would not have been arrested.  I'm asking about that theory.

On the News, the Police are taking no further action.

Bet the poor man and his wife were very stressed over everything, poor souls.

magica wrote:On the News, the Police are taking no further action.

Bet the poor man and his wife were very stressed over everything, poor souls.

Released without charged.

Its an awful ordeal the man and his wife have had to endure as they are in the later stages of their lives.
By all accounts he has been a respected hard working man throughout his life....and then this, compounded by the ridiculous actions of the police.
I bet he never gets over this.

It's out of the police hands now. It's in the hands of the CPS. They will make the final determination.

What is missing is the rationale for arresting the elderly man. True, he does appear to have committed a homicide, but he appears to have a viable self-defense.

Original Quill wrote:It's out of the police hands now.  It's in the hands of the CPS.  They will make the final determination.

What is missing is the rationale for arresting the elderly man.  True, he does appear to have committed a homicide, but he appears to have a viable self-defense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5587085/Pensioner-WONT-charged-burglars-killing.html

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's out of the police hands now.  It's in the hands of the CPS.  They will make the final determination.

What is missing is the rationale for arresting the elderly man.  True, he does appear to have committed a homicide, but he appears to have a viable self-defense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

I hope they don't subsequently decide to bring charges.  There's no statute of limitations:

Legal System of the UK wrote:The authorities can take action at any time no matter how far back the offences had taken place. These are the more ‘serious’ kinds of offences (including most of the “triable either way” offences) and cover things like murder, assault and battery (i.e. occasioning actual bodily injury), sex crimes, some absolute and strict liability offences (e.g. statutory rape), and so on.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

I hope they don't subsequently decide to bring charges.  There's no statute of limitations:

Legal System of the UK wrote:The authorities can take action at any time no matter how far back the offences had taken place. These are the more ‘serious’ kinds of offences (including most of the “triable either way” offences) and cover things like murder, assault and battery (i.e. occasioning actual bodily injury), sex crimes, some absolute and strict liability offences (e.g. statutory rape), and so on.

I honestly think if the police had pressed charges against this man there would have been bloody riots in the streets.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I hope they don't subsequently decide to bring charges.  There's no statute of limitations:

I honestly think if the police had pressed charges against this man there would have been bloody riots in the streets.

I agree.  But the fact is, someone had a theory somehow, sometime, somewhere, and if I were the old man I wouldn't sit comfortable until I'd gotten to the bottom of it and put the matter to rest. "Insufficient evidence" means the theory is still alive, but there are not enough facts.

The police have a procedure to follow... arrest allows questioning under caution... the 'suspicion of murder' charge allows police the power to seal off house and road etc as crime scene, designate officers and resources etc, as well as allows them other powers of investigation, and all necessary part of investigaion into establishing the facts...


Thought Quill would already know all that... as he is a lawyer, isn't he...?

Tommy Monk wrote:The police have a procedure to follow... arrest allows questioning under caution... the 'suspicion of murder' charge allows police the power to seal off house and road etc as crime scene, designate officers and resources etc, as well as allows them other powers of investigation, and all necessary part of investigaion into establishing the facts...


Thought Quill would already know all that... as he is a lawyer, isn't he...?

The police, under Anglo-American law, can't just walk down the street, pick someone out, and arrest him on pure speculation, or no reason at all.  They have got to have (what is called) probable cause...that is, a theory of cause-in-fact (he took a life), and illegality (homicide).  Together, those things are known as a theory of the case.

It does no good to drown us in the minutia of procedure, Tommy.   What I'm looking for is the police theory of the case.  We have a homicide, and a defense.  The offense was a fairly straight forward stabbing.  But the police theory of the case must have dealt with the self-defense issue somehow, and what I want to know is, how?

Even if they released me, I would want to know why they detained me in the first place.  Because I don't want to to come back and bite me on the ass sometime later.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I honestly think if the police had pressed charges against this man there would have been bloody riots in the streets.

I agree.  But the fact is, someone had a theory somehow, sometime, somewhere, and if I were the old man I wouldn't sit comfortable until I'd gotten to the bottom of it and put the matter to rest.  "Insufficient evidence" means the theory is still alive, but there are not enough facts.

He hasnt been released because of insufficient evidence, the police statement said he has been released with no further action.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree.  But the fact is, someone had a theory somehow, sometime, somewhere, and if I were the old man I wouldn't sit comfortable until I'd gotten to the bottom of it and put the matter to rest.  "Insufficient evidence" means the theory is still alive, but there are not enough facts.

He hasnt been released because of insufficient evidence, the police statement said he has been released with no further action.

Any release is because of insufficient evidence.  If you had sufficient evidence, you wouldn't release him.

Building a case is like fitting pegs into holes.  The holes are the law and the pegs are the facts.  The question is always, do you have the right pegs to fit into the proper holes?

The law as written is a given--like the peg board.  So, it's always a question of, do you have enough evidence (pegs) to make a case?  It's quite logical.  Even if you're not guilty, they never declare you innocent.  If a person did nothing, they clearly have insufficient evidence to hold him.  It's always couched in terms of sufficiency of facts: If the person has a valid alibi, there is insufficient evidence to hold him.  If he has a valid defense, there is insufficient evidence to overcome the defense.  The plain fact is that you release a person because there are no facts (pegs) that fit the law (holes), by which to hold him.

It's always called insufficient evidence.  The very standard "reasonable doubt" goes to the sufficiency of the facts.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I hope they don't subsequently decide to bring charges.  There's no statute of limitations:

I honestly think if the police had pressed charges against this man there would have been bloody riots in the streets.

Yes. It takes a lot to get the British public riled up enough to actually do something, but that would have been enough. It wouldn't have been just for the sake of the old chap, but because a lot of people are sick and tired of criminals getting away with their crimes or the police doing nothing about it. If the burglar had got away without being stabbed, what would the police have done about it anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I honestly think if the police had pressed charges against this man there would have been bloody riots in the streets.

Yes. It takes a lot to get the British public riled up enough to actually do something, but that would have been enough. It wouldn't have been just for the sake of the old chap, but because a lot of people are sick and tired of criminals getting away with their crimes or the police doing nothing about it. If the burglar had got away without being stabbed, what would the police have done about it anyway?

Probably sod all, they haven't even managed to find the other lowlife yet that accompanied him in the burglary.