The intruder killed in Manchester

Saw on Sky News that friends and relatives have been leaving tributes outside the house where the bloke was killed. Does anyone else find that extremely bad taste? He was killed because he broke in to somebody else’s house to rob them, quite possibly threatened the householders wife and child who arrived during the incident and he defended his home and family.

The guy was a criminal, he is not deserving of “tributes”, he got what he deserved, but people’s warped sense of morals in this country mean they think it is appropriate to leave flowers outside a house where their relative was caught robbing. Whilst they maybe saddened by his death…they should be ashamed as well!

Also I wonder how long it will be before burglars start becoming more violent, because of the increased possbility of violence from home-owners. Everyone is entitled to protect their property and family, I just fear what the response of the criminal fratenity will be to a percieved increase in danger to their criminal activity.

Yeah bit of a piss take laying them outside the house. But his family are still entitled to grieve…

If the homeowner gets prosecuted then it will be a sad day for justice…

Last one wasn’t, doubt this one will be either, unless other facts come to light which change the situation drastically…ie they knew each other and he wasn’t there committing a burglary but instead having a row about something else.

Not saying they are not entitled to grieve…but outside the house of the poor buggers the deceased was trying to rob? Stupid and in bad taste.

Hopefully the homeowner won’t get prosecuted, unless there is more to it than simply defending his property and family.

Couldn’t agree with you more waxy. The CPS will likely throw this out luckily. But the idea of people publicly morning a criminal outside the family home he targeted, well it just shows the lack of moral awareness in our society.

Good on the homeowner for doing the necessary to defend his family (assuming, as kaos raised, that the initial reports are accurate).

CPS, does the opposite to what you actually want!

Sorry I phrased that badly, I was agreeing with you :hehe:

Without sounding callous, yes they’re entitled to grieve… but the homeowner under those circumstances should also be allowed to burn the bloody flowers and stamp on their ashes without fear of prosecution…


If you want to be respected YOU HAVE TO SHOW RESPECT!

that’s ridiculous!!! imagine how the home owner feels, looking out his window and being constantly reminded he had to kill another human to protect his family (righteously), I personally wouldn’t want that reminder playing on my mind and would want to get over it.

There are much more appropriate ways to grieve.

I hope, if there are know hidden reasons, the CPS sees the reasoning and he is ok.

disgusting. why not leave teh flowers at the perps house? I’d throw them out instantly!

Here you go…

Even his father left a tribute outside the house in question…I mean really?! Your son was breaking into people’s homes and threatening the owners and probably their children too…

Can we lay good riddance flowers outside the dead man’s family house?

(assuming he’s guilty of breaking and entering)

The police should be preventing the laying of wreaths if only because this is adding unnecessary distress to the wife and child who are presumably still living at the house.

The presumed burglars relatives are obviously going to feel that the owner over-reacted but I would be surprised if there are any burglars out there that don’t already know that householders are now entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves. If the murdered man was a thief then he must have known the risk so how can you have any sympathy. Having said that no amount of property is worth taking a life for so let’s hope that the householder was indeed in danger when he reacted the way he did.

Actually, the last TWO weren’t prosecuted. However, they were, like this man, arrested.

This means that their DNA and fingerprints are on file forever (anonymized after 6 years), every ECRB check from now on will show that they were arrested for a violent crime and they won’t be able to visit certain countries without a lengthy visa process because they’ve been arrested for a violent crime. All of those consequences fall to them even though they’re innocent. The same will happen to this man even if no charges are brought.

But worst of all, on the worst day of their life, when they are dealing with the shock of taking a life (even though in 2 out of the 3 cases in the last 2 months they were found to have acted in self defence) instead of receiving counseling and support, they were ripped away from their families and stuck in a cell.

Don’t even try and tell me we give a damn about our citizens in this country. Our scum get far better treatment!

You don’t think that if someone has killed somebody else in their house they should be arrested and investigated? That is bonkers! Of course he should be arrested…he has killed someone. The circumstances of the event need to be determined.

waxy (19/09/2011)

Why should he be arrested ? Unless he is a flight risk, he can be investigated and questioned without needing to be arrested.

Why do you think people in this country are arrested by appointment ? It’s because of the idea that we are policed by consent, and if instructed to hand yourself in at a police station on a date and time, you will do so, and not abscond.

An arrest has the potential to destroy a person’s life. It certainly marks them for many, many years. Why is it needed for an investigation to happen? Is it the best thing for these men, instead of support and help when they need it most ?

I’ll go back to the worst thing about all of this:

We give support and help to habitual criminal scum, but an innocent man who has to fight for his life gets put in a cage on the day he most needs help, support and his family. That is not right!

Anonymouslemming (19/09/2011)

We are talking about one of the most serious crime a person can commit. If you have taken another person’s life you cannot seriously expect the Police to just ask them to turn up to the Police Station a week next Tuesday.

The problem is you are reaching your own conclusions as to what has gone down in that house. The truth is that nobody truly knows yet. The Police could be dealing with a home-owner defending his family and property or they could be dealing with a murderer. It is alleged that the dead man had broken in to the house and was trying to rob them…how would your opinion change about what should happen to the home-owner, if it transpires he knew the deceased who had gone round to discuss a business deal that had gone wrong. Do you still think he should be entitled to turn up at the Police station by appointment or arrested?

In your mind you already know it was a burglary and therefore how dare the Police arrest the home-owner, but you don’t know any of the facts and the Police MUST treat this as a serious incident and establish the facts. Being arrested doesn’t have life-changing consequences…I could aledge that you beat me up yesterday and the Police would arrest you and bring you in for questioning. For serious crimes this is the process and being arrested for it has absolutely no consequences on your life…if you are charged…that can sometimes have consequences…but being arrested? No.

Anonymouslemming (19/09/2011)

I do agree with you on this point. I see no point in arresting the man unless there is a risk of flight. This is more down to how our system works than the idea that arresting someone for an investigation is a bad thing.

Kaos (19/09/2011)

But how effectively can they assess the risk of flight. They might be dealing with a home-owner who took action or a murderer. The Police have to arrest, because they don’t know who or what they are dealing with!! I am amazed that anyone would think the Police shouldn’t arrest an individual who has taken the life of another.

Just to clear things up, an arrest is just a vehicle to get somebody into custody for an investigation to begin. There is the option to take part in an interview voluntarily, however this would not be a case where that would be elligible due to the fact that when you are cautioned at the beginning of the interview you are read the caution and then given your rights and entitlements (known as a Caution plus 3), which are that you are not under arrest, you can leave at any time and you have the right to free legal advice.
Basically the officer in the interview would look pretty stupid if he was about to interview someone about taking somebody elses life and the person being interviewed says “Actually I think I’ll just leave now”. :stuck_out_tongue:

Being arrested does not mean they are guilty of anything. In the eyes of the law they are “innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law”, regardless of the case, even if they are caught red handed etc… :wink:

The only time an arrest would screw up peoples lives is if they are charged and convicted of an offence! There are many people working in all levels of sosciety who have been arrested at some point in their life. Even police officers (more than you’d believe) are arrested, usually as part of a complaint (even if it is a spurious complaint!). :satisfied: