# UK home defence



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

I don't know if this has been discussed, or if I'm in the right section, but hey.

This is about an ongoing case (it happened last night) - I don't have specifics other than what has been reported.

So two men, at least one of which was armed (with a screwdriver) break into the home of a 78 year old man.

Said septuagenarian is forced into his kitchen by the 'armed' assailant while the other goes upstairs - a scuffle breaks out and the 78 year old fatally stabs the assailant who is 40 years his junior.

Pensioner arrested on suspicion of murder, put in the cells - surviving assailant escapes...


So, as I previously said (and was told in no uncertain terms was bad information) if you defend yourself here you're in the wrong until someone can prove you acted reasonably.


Discuss


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 4, 2018)

you would need more detailed information.  i dont know UK laws but often you have a "duty to retreat".   so if the defendant (septu..whatever is to big of a word for me)  was not in eminent danger and instead of being forced to the kitchen walked there on his own volition and grabbed a knife and went back upstairs or to the living room and stabbed the assailant AND there was a door in the kitchen for him to escape then yes he would be arrested pending charges.
many places do not have a duty to retreat but some do.  was the assailant stabbed on the porch?  castle doctrine usually only applies INSIDE  the domicile and do not include porches.
was the assailant stabbed 157 times?  that would be considered retribution and not self defense.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Here's a report - there are others with more 'details', but I can't speak as to their accuracy.

Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

It states "forced into kitchen by man armed with screwdriver", and that he sustained "A stab wound to the upper body".

The pensioner sustained bruising to his arms (doesn't say defensive bruising or whether from being manhandled, or a combination).



I've seen very few domestic kitchens that don't have an external door, but (surmising here) a lot in that sort of area only lead to an enclosed garden or yard with no immediate means of egress, and possibly/probably locked which introduces another delay.


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2018)

well yes, but that doesn't change anything that was said previously. if someone is dead, who ever caused that is getting arrested, the police can't just say" oh that alright then, then need to gather eevidence first for the inquest and then for any prosecution. 

we have an adversarial system, that is, the polices job is to gather enough evidence to prosecute, that is their job, not to gather enough evidence not to prosecute. so they are always going to work from a presumption of guilt. the decision to prosecute belongs to the CPs. they will look at the strength of the evidence AND if its in the public interests
 to do so. then of course a jury

i this guy will get to court I don't know, but if the police can put him there, they will do, it would seem on the face of it, he gas strong grounds for self defence, . I can't see a jury convicting him, even if the police and the CPS think they should.

it's really a bad idea to kill or even badly injure someone, even if no conviction results its going to rip your life apart for months or even years


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> I've seen very few domestic kitchens that don't have an external door, but (surmising here) a lot in that sort of area only lead to an enclosed garden or yard with no immediate means of egress, and possibly/probably locked which introduces another delay.



Additionally to this, an addition to the news report:

"New security gates had also been installed to prevent trespassers accessing alleyways behind houses"

So even had he got out the back door, and out of his garden, his escape is further hampered by security gates...


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> well yes, but that doesn't change anything that was said previously. if someone is dead, who ever caused that is getting arrested, the police can't just say" oh that alright then, then need to gather eevidence first for the inquest and then for any prosecution.
> 
> we have an adversarial system, that is, the polices job is to gather enough evidence to prosecute, that is their job, not to gather enough evidence not to prosecute. so they are always going to work from a presumption of guilt. the decision to prosecute belongs to the CPs. they will look at the strength of the evidence AND if its in the public interests
> to do so. then of course a jury
> ...



I won't disagree with anything you've said, but I can disagree with the deployment of the system...

Yes it needs to be investigated, was it reasonable, in that moment could he have reasonably acted differently, etc.

The burglar who died was found in a nearby street - which suggests to me that the pensioner stabbed him and he ran off, while the pensioner stayed put (not chasing and attacking).


The biggest bone of contention I have is arresting him for murder - the dictionary definition of murder contains "premeditated". I can't see that he planned to be invaded and forced into his kitchen...

Otoh, there are reports of "a recent spate of burglaries" in that area, so if when the police arrived he said something like "I've been leaving this knife on the side in case I needed to defend myself", then I suppose it could loosely fall under premeditation.


I can also disagree with the system itself - if someone enters your property without your consent and using threat - imo they should instantly waive their right to any lawful defence.


Whatever the investigative outcome one thing is crystal clear - there's now one less burglar.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

Ok, the householder has been detained for questioning, as right and proper. 
Put yourself in to the police who arrived at the door situation, you have a report of a stabbing, you don't know the householder or the stabbed person. Do you automatically assume because the chap is the householder that he is telling the truth, that what he said happened is the truth? or do you take a neutral stance of taking everyone's statements, getting forensic in, questioning everyone and looking at the evidence? The latter is what the police are doing and doing it correctly unlike those who jump to conclusions based on a newspaper story.

The police are neutral in this crime by the way, their job in cases like this is to collect evidence not prosecute. While the police can prosecute minor crimes, major ones are the purview of the CPS.The Crown Prosecution Service - InBrief.co.uk
Jobo hates the police and loves trying to tell you they are always the bad ones.

If the householder is telling the truth it's unlikely it will come to court. Killing someone in self defence is allowed here and if the Crown Prosecution Service decide the evidence shows self defence they will not take it to court. 
Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

A different crime but note the police comments, they will be the same for the case the OP has brought up. *“Self-defence is a line of enquiry in this case, however, it is important that we remain open minded and carry out a thorough investigation to establish the truth and the facts. We will do that as quickly as possible. 
*
Grays Murder: Police investigate possible self defence - Your Thurrock


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> The biggest bone of contention I have is arresting him for murder - the dictionary definition of murder contains "premeditated". I can't see that he planned to be invaded and forced into his kitchen.




He hasn't been arrested for murder. The arrest was for suspicion of grievous bodily harm and suspicion of murder, he can easily be de arrested. He hasn't been charged.

Murder is a common law offence and *there is no legal definition in statute*, however the following requirements have been established through case law to identify murder as a criminal offence

For a person to have committed a murder in the eyes of the law they must satisfy all the below requirements:_ (The Actus Reus of murder)_


The victim of the killing must have been a ‘person in being’ , this means a murder will only occur if a person is unlawfully killed and that the victim is a person who is independent from their mother (not still in the womb)
The victim must have died, If a person attempts to unlawfully kill a person but they survive the attack that person would most likely be guilty of attempted murder and not actual murder itself.
The victim’s death must have been caused by the act (possible failure to act) of the defendant. If a person dies of a disease, then this is not murder.
To summaries, the victim must be a person, who has died as a result of the defendants actions.

For a person to be guilty of murder they must also have the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (This is the Mens Rea of Murder)


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ok, the householder has been detained for questioning, as right and proper.
> Put yourself in to the police who arrived at the door situation, you have a report of a stabbing, you don't know the householder or the stabbed person. Do you automatically assume because the chap is the householder that he is telling the truth, that what he said happened is the truth? or do you take a neutral stance of taking everyone's statements, getting forensic in, questioning everyone and looking at the evidence? The latter is what the police are doing and doing it correctly unlike those who jump to conclusions based on a newspaper story.
> 
> The police are neutral in this crime by the way, their job in cases like this is to collect evidence not prosecute. While the police can prosecute minor crimes, major ones are the purview of the CPS.The Crown Prosecution Service - InBrief.co.uk
> ...



As I said, my only real gripe is arresting him for murder, which by definition implies premeditation.

That's tantamount to jumping to a conclusion.

Suspected manslaughter would have been more fitting imo.

Also, why detain? Unless the pensioner has a history of violent behaviour (ok, he might, I don't know) then what's wrong with "stay with a relative, don't leave the area"?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> As I said, my only real gripe is arresting him for murder, which by definition implies premeditation.
> 
> That's tantamount to jumping to a conclusion.
> 
> ...




He hasn't been arrested for murder. Why detain him? We don't know the story, what if it turns out they weren't burglars but drunken friends who had an argument and he stabbed one then everyone would be demanding why the police hadn't detained him, the law is supposed to treat everyone the same so why complain when it does?


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> He hasn't been arrested for murder. The arrest was for suspicion of grievous bodily harm and suspicion of murder, he can easily be de arrested. He hasn't been charged.



According to the report, he was initially arrested for GBH alone.

When the burglar was pronounced dead, he was re-arrested on suspicion of murder.

This is where I have a problem with the definition.

Why was the initial arrest not for attempted murder, and the subsequent re-arrest not for suspicion of manslaughter?

Does GBH carry the onus of premeditation?


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> He hasn't been arrested for murder



According to the information I have available, he has been arrested and detained on suspicion of murder.

If information you have available to you contradicts that I'll be happy to concede that point.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Does GBH carry the onus of premeditation?




No.


pdg said:


> Why was the initial arrest not for attempted murder, and the subsequent re-arrest not for suspicion of manslaughter?



Here you go, the Law isn't a simple as you'd like it to be. I spent many many months learning this lot, see how you go and answer your own question. Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

The Tour of the Basque Country is on live so I don't have the time to spend, a couple of hours at least, of why the police arrest for what they do. Bear in mind anyone who is arrested can be de arrested easily, being charged is the crucial thing.


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> I won't disagree with anything you've said, but I can disagree with the deployment of the system...
> 
> Yes it needs to be investigated, was it reasonable, in that moment could he have reasonably acted differently, etc.
> 
> ...


well yes and no no, its the intent to kill that has to be there, you only need to form that intent half a second before acti not a hours before, it also includes taking action which could foreseeable lead to death. so sticking a knife in domes chest is always going to be incl in the definition.

I can't disagree with your feeling on " the system" I've been on the wrong side of agresive, I'll prove you guilty if it kills me, police interviews myself.

always have a good so!icitor on speed dial, you don't know when you may need them


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> I can't disagree with your feeling on " the system" I've been on the wrong side of agresive, I'll prove you guilty if it kills me, police interviews myself.




Ah there you go, prejudice against the police right there. Funny how guilty people always hate the police. 

I shall now work out what crime  sticking a knife in domes chest is.


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> According to the report, he was initially arrested for GBH alone.
> 
> When the burglar was pronounced dead, he was re-arrested on suspicion of murder.
> 
> ...


yes, it requires intent to cause injury,( or being reckless to injury being caused) , but knifings someone I S intent to cause injury, there is no other reason to do so


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ah there you go, prejudice against the police right there. Funny how guilty people always hate the police.
> 
> I shall now work out what crime  sticking a knife in domes chest is.


I dislike the " system" as I wasn't guilty, if I was I'd say fair enough.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> those who jump to conclusions based on a newspaper story



I wasn't jumping to conclusions, generally the BBC reports are based on information supplied by the police.

If that is indeed the case, then the police have the initial belief that this was a burglary (not an escalated argument between friends) and the actions of the pensioner were defensive (not a planned attack).

I believe my interim conclusions are usually fairly good. As and when new information or evidence presents itself I always reserve the right to adjust my opinion.



Tez3 said:


> Here you go, the Law isn't a simple as you'd like it to be.



It should be.

The legal definitions should match the accepted dictionary definitions, and if they don't one or the other should be amended accordingly.


There's a great thing though - I can disagree with you, you can disagree with me, we can both agree or disagree with the system or legal definitions, there's no harm.

As long as my disagreement with any law doesn't lead me to breaking it (I'm not a subscriber to the freemen of the land balderdash) then I'm allowed to complain, and you're allowed to complain back.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> I wasn't jumping to conclusions, generally the BBC reports are based on information supplied by the police.




I didn't say you were I was referring to media reports.




pdg said:


> The legal definitions should match the accepted dictionary definitions, and if they don't one or the other should be amended accordingly.



I'm sorry but that's very funny. Dictionaries aren't legal documents.




pdg said:


> There's a great thing though - I can disagree with you, you can disagree with me, we can both agree or disagree with the system or legal definitions, there's no harm



How much legal or police training have you had? If you haven't had any compared to my 25 years plus then we aren't really agreeing or disagreeing are we? If you are disagreeing with legal definitions as I post from the legal bodies that define them, well you are wrong aren't you. I have explained police procedures, unless you have also carried out those procedures how can you say I'm wrong?


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say you were I was referring to media reports.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he is saying that the procedures are W RONG, not that you are wrong about the procedures, a view he or any one else is entitled to have and to express


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> I dislike the " system" as I wasn't guilty, if I was I'd say fair enough.




Ah they all say they weren't guilty...... prisons are full of innocents all banged up by bent coppers.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> If you are disagreeing with legal definitions as I post from the legal bodies that define them, well you are wrong aren't you



Well, no actually.

If I was saying murder meant eating a carrot because that was my understanding of the law, then I'd be wrong.

I can disagree with a legal definition all day long and never be 'wrong'.

In fact, this sums it up fairly well:



jobo said:


> I think he is saying that the procedures are W RONG, not that you are wrong about the procedures, a view he or any one else is entitled to have and to express



To expand, I disagree with the procedures the police are obliged to follow in certain instances, and I disagree with certain legal definitions.

It's quite possible for me to do that without saying the police are wrong for following said procedures, and it's quite possible for me to disagree with the definitions set in law without saying you're wrong for knowing them.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ah they all say they weren't guilty...... prisons are full of innocents all banged up by bent coppers.



That's unfair and untrue.

A good proportion are in prison because they got stitched up by their lawyer


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well, no actually.
> 
> If I was saying murder meant eating a carrot because that was my understanding of the law, then I'd be wrong.
> 
> ...




Ok so give us your reasons why police procedures are wrong and what you would do to change them plus what impact that would have, how you would change the law to accommodate these changes. 

If you were a police officer who comes across two people, one dead with a knife in his guts, the other alive and telling you he killed the dead man in self defence, what action would you take, bearing in mind you know neither of the people.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> I can disagree with a legal definition all day long and never be 'wrong'.




However when you talk about* legal* definitions the only definition that is correct *is* the legal one because it won't work if everyone is using their own definitions. The legal definitions of murder and manslaughter have been worked out, refined and considered for a couple of thousand years by many wise and learned experienced people. That you don't think they are correct is interesting. The thing with legal definitions is that they are legally binding and well...... legal!

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199551248.001.0001/acref-9780199551248

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/for-the-public/legal-glossary/


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ok so give us your reasons why police procedures are wrong and what you would do to change them plus what impact that would have, how you would change the law to accommodate these changes.



The legal definition is what I would change, to bring them more into line with the dictionary definitions, and adjust procedure accordingly.

In this particular case, that would mean a manslaughter arrest, most likely without immediate detention.



Tez3 said:


> If you were a police officer who comes across two people, one dead with a knife in his guts, the other alive and telling you he killed the dead man in self defence, what action would you take, bearing in mind you know neither of the people.



That would be situational.

Come across that in the street, most likely arrest and detain the living person while investigation continues. There is no other sensible option. But initially I'd probably lean toward manslaughter with the option to 'upgrade' to murder if investigation shows it's required.

Compared to:

Attend an address where calls had been received of a burglary in progress to find the homeowner (who is almost 80) alive and slightly injured, while someone half his age is dead - arrest under suspected manslaughter pending investigation and only detain if he was 'known'.


Bear in mind, you've said yourself that most police work entails dealing with the same people over and over again, so the likelihood exists that the dead guy was known. Checking the identity of the householder is a straightforward process that needn't take long.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> However when you talk about* legal* definitions the only definition that is correct *is* the legal one because it won't work if everyone is using their own definitions. The legal definitions of murder and manslaughter have been worked out, refined and considered for a couple of thousand years by many wise and learned experienced people. That you don't think they are correct is interesting. The thing with legal definitions is that they are legally binding and well...... legal!
> 
> Dictionary of Law - Oxford Reference
> 
> https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/for-the-public/legal-glossary/



So why the disparity between the legal definition and the linguistic description?

First and foremost, my opinion is that the legal definition should follow the linguistic description.

So, murder = a premeditated action that is intended to result in the death of another, and succeeds.

Attempted murder = a premeditated action that is intended to result in the death of another, and fails. 

If you can't show that the death was the intended outcome of that action, then it's not (attempted) murder.

If someone shoves you and you punch them, they fall over, hit their head and die - that's not murder because it wasn't the intended outcome.

You can defensively swing a knife (or a hammer, or a bat, or a fist) with or without _intending_ to cause death.

If you can't align the legal definition with the linguistic description, choose a different word.


For balance, if the linguistic description is the thing that has changed then it's that which is wrong.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Attend an address where calls had been received of a burglary in progress to find the homeowner (who is almost 80) alive and slightly injured, while someone half his age is dead - arrest under suspected manslaughter pending investigation and only detain if he was 'known'.



Oh, in addition to this.

If said householder stated on arrival something like "Like I told Bill at no.32, if anyone breaks into my house I'll end the b'stard" then that would show a degree of premeditation.

Did that happen? Dunno...


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2018)

Can the police in the UK interview someone without arresting them?


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Steve said:


> Can the police in the UK interview someone without arresting them?



As far as I'm aware, yes.

It requires consent - I'm unsure as to whether any information would be subsequently admissable as evidence (but I suspect it would be).

It's possible they may have to place you under caution to conduct an admissable interview...

@Tez3  would be able to clear this up I'm sure.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> The legal definition is what I would change, to bring them more into line with the dictionary definitions, and adjust procedure accordingly.




You know anyone can write a dictionary and basically give any definition they want, plus established dictionaries often have variations in definitions. Why would a lexicographer have a better idea of law than someone who is trained in law?



pdg said:


> Come across that in the street, most likely arrest and detain the living person while investigation continues. There is no other sensible option. But initially I'd probably lean toward manslaughter with the option to 'upgrade' to murder if investigation shows it's required.




Why would you lean towards that though, as a police officer you aren't supposed to lean one way or another but investigate facts.



pdg said:


> Attend an address where calls had been received of a burglary in progress to find the homeowner (who is almost 80) alive and slightly injured, while someone half his age is dead - arrest under suspected manslaughter pending investigation and only detain if he was 'known'.




80 year olds aren't incapable of murder 80-year-old man murders fellow octogenarian; gets shot down by police

The police officers follow procedures to ensure that if a case comes to court ( and that case could be the trial of the man who 'ran away', not the householder, you wouldn't want him to get off because the police didn't follow procedures). Procedures have to be seen to be done otherwise the media and the people will assume there's things that were hidden. If the householder is cleared, the family of the dead man could take him to civil court, if the police do their job they won't have a case. So much more to think about than many think.



pdg said:


> So why the disparity between the legal definition and the linguistic description?



As I said anyone can write a dictionary, the legal definitions ensure everyone is on the same page, literally. 



pdg said:


> So, murder = a premeditated action that is intended to result in the death of another, and succeeds.



Murder doesn't have to be premeditated. It also doesn't have to have to be intended to result in death. think road rage.



pdg said:


> Attempted murder = a premeditated action that is intended to result in the death of another, and fails.



Again doesn't have to be premeditated.



pdg said:


> If you can't show that the death was the intended outcome of that action, then it's not (attempted) murder



Good luck with that one, you will have murderers all over claiming that and getting away with murder. 'I didn't mean to kill them' yeah right.



pdg said:


> If someone shoves you and you punch them, they fall over, hit their head and die - that's not murder because it wasn't the intended outcome.



that's why in those cases they aren't charged with murder..................



pdg said:


> You can defensively swing a knife (or a hammer, or a bat, or a fist) with or without _intending_ to cause death.



Who says you can't do that, using a weapon even killing someone with one is allowed for in our law.




pdg said:


> If you can't align the legal definition with the linguistic description, choose a different word.



You are assigning too much credibility to lexicographers  and linguists who don't agree among themselves anyway. Our laws are written in plain English and understandable, I don't understand why you think it should be changed to dictionary meanings. 

Yes you can be cautioned and interviewed without being arrested. 

https://assets.publishing.service.g...achment_data/file/117583/pace-code-g-2012.pdf

Of course you realise that with the second man still at large the householder may be safer in police custody?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

Definition of murder and homicide in UK law.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

Definition of Homicide
Murder
A 'year and a day'
Referral

Intent
Attempted Murder
Joint Enterprise
Causation
Alternative Counts
Partial Defences to Murder

Manslaughter

Voluntary Manslaughter
Diminished Responsibility
Loss of Control
Suicide Pact


Involuntary Manslaughter
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
The Duty of Care
The Breach of the Duty of Care
The Grossness of the Breach
Causation
Medical Manslaughter
Unlawful Act Manslaughter


Cases where Death Results from the Unlawful Supply of Drugs
Encouraging or Assisting Suicide
Infanticide
Familial Deaths and Serious Physical Harm
Frequent Contact
Household
Unlawful Act
Age of Responsibility
Application of Dangerous Offender Provisions
Procedural Changes
Ruling Out Dismissal of the Case before Arraignment
Postponing the Decision on whether there is a case to answer
Allowing Inference to be drawn from Refusal to Testify
Application of the Code Tests to the New Procedural Provisions
Potential Range of the New Offence
What Amounts to Reasonable Steps


Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) And Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

Self-defence
Procedure
Code for Crown Prosecutors - Considerations
Charging Practice
Acceptability of Pleas
Internal Referral Requirements
Medical Reports for the Court
Pathologist's Reports and Other Medical Issues
Bail


Domestic Violence Related Homicide
Partial Defences and Domestic Violence Related Homicide
Child Witnesses

Hate Crime Related Homicides


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Murder doesn't have to be premeditated. It also doesn't have to have to



That's a different type of situation. It's also amply covered by my thoughts.

Slight bump, people get out, argue, punch, die = manslaughter.

If you chase someone down with intent to attack them "for retribution" = premeditated attack = murder.



Tez3 said:


> You know anyone can write a dictionary and basically give any definition they want, plus established dictionaries often have variations in definitions. Why would a lexicographer have a better idea of law than someone who is trained in law?



Therein lies part of the problem.

When I'm king of the world there will be a single, government independent lexicographical institution for each language, with control of the official form of that language. That will be the ultimate reference from which legal definitions must be sourced.

That'll sort that out.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> That's a different type of situation. It's also amply covered by my thoughts.
> 
> Slight bump, people get out, argue, punch, die = manslaughter.
> 
> ...




Mmm here's a word for you... bollocks 

You realise of course all your 'definitions' are actually covered by existing law.  There's a lot more definitions you haven't thought of as well.Your slight bump etc isn't charged as murder but I'm guessing you know that and are actually just bumping your gums for fun.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You know anyone can write a dictionary and basically give any definition they want, plus established dictionaries often have variations in definitions. Why would a lexicographer have a better idea of law than someone who is trained in law?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the difference between acknowledging how things are, and how they should be. @pdg seems to be suggesting that things might be different.  Whether he has an informed opinion or not, it's still an opinion.  I don't get the impression he's suggesting you are incorrect.





> Murder doesn't have to be premeditated. It also doesn't have to have to be intended to result in death. think road rage.


Maybe in the UK.  I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter. 

Regarding my last question, I guess what I am really asking is whether there is a distinction in the UK between being detained, being arrested, or just being interviewed.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Mmm here's a word for you... bollocks



Can I have a verifiable definition of that word please? 



Tez3 said:


> You realise of course all your 'definitions' are actually covered by existing law. There's a lot more definitions you haven't thought of as well.Your slight bump etc isn't charged as murder but I'm guessing you know that and are actually just bumping your gums for fun.



A bit yes and a bit no.

While it's true that a lot of "my" definitions are amply covered by existing law, I simply have a disagreement with the choice of words that conflict with linguistic descriptions.

There are very few laws that I have a fundamental disagreement with (and most of those are incredibly minor and some are civil rather than criminal law), I would just name a few differently so that a more fitting "message" is conveyed.


A few things that I do have issues with:

The implied (by "the system") notion that a road rage incident is treated differently to if both parties were pedestrians leading up to the incident (widely reported over the past few years that road rage incidents are to be treated more harshly).

The term "hate crime". Aren't we all supposed to be equal? Why is it legally worse to attack someone because of their apparent ethnicity than because they're randomly present? Why is it that it's not allowed to be a hate crime if (say) an Indian attacks me because I'm white, but it's classed as a hate crime if I attack him even if his creed has nothing to do with it?

Oh, and just the term "hate crime" anyway. It's not like a "love crime" really exists. Who in their right mind, ever, has thought "you're lovely, I like you so much I think I'll cut your arms off"...?


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Steve said:


> Maybe in the UK. I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter



That's my interpretation too, which in some cases is apparently at odds with the legal definition...



Steve said:


> Regarding my last question, I guess what I am really asking is whether there is a distinction in the UK between being detained, being arrested, or just being interviewed.



Yes, there can be.

You can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. This can be entirely voluntary (although, I know of instances where a voluntary interview under caution was initiated, and when the interviewee decided they didn't want to volunteer any more information they were placed under arrest...)

You can be arrested without being placed under caution (but not subsequently interviewed until under caution too I believe), but I don't think that happens often.

There are many ways of being temporarily detained, one of which is being placed under arrest.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> That's my interpretation too, which in some cases is apparently at odds with the legal definition...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, I'm speaking about what I believe is the case in America.  Might be very different in the UK, which is why I'm asking.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Steve said:


> Just to be clear, I'm speaking about what I believe is the case in America.  Might be very different in the UK, which is why I'm asking.



And I'm referring what I think should be the case in the UK (the first part, the definition) and what I believe is the case (differences between caution/arrest/detention, whether consensual or enforced).

I don't know what the differences are between the US and the UK, and I certainly can't say that one is more "right" than the other - only whether I personally agree with the definitions...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Can I have a verifiable definition of that word please?



Shh no you can't cos then the Americans will know what it means and I won't be able to use on here.



pdg said:


> The term "hate crime". Aren't we all supposed to be equal? Why is it legally worse to attack someone because of their apparent ethnicity than because they're randomly present? Why is it that it's not allowed to be a hate crime if (say) an Indian attacks me because I'm white, but it's classed as a hate crime if I attack him even if his creed has nothing to do with it?



If an Indian attacks you because you are white it is a hate crime, not sure why you'd think it wasn't. It's not necessarily a hate crime if you attack him, the motives behind the attack will determine the charge and how it's recorded. The police will record a racial hate crime as just that, they don't record which race/colour attacked who. 'Hate crime' isn't always about skin colour or ethnicity either it can be against LGBT people as well as religious groups and the disabled.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...oads/attachment_data/file/467366/hosb0515.pdf



pdg said:


> You can be arrested without being placed under caution (but not



Depends which country you are in, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different arrest laws. There's also different laws that affect arrests for terror related crimes.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> As I said, my only real gripe is arresting him for murder, which by definition implies premeditation.
> 
> That's tantamount to jumping to a conclusion.
> 
> ...



How would the police know?

Police kick the door in see a dead guy and a knife guy.

Two days later they find out the old man lured him in there or something.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Shh no you can't cos then the Americans will know what it means and I won't be able to use on here.



Sneaky 



Tez3 said:


> If an Indian attacks you because you are white it is a hate crime, not sure why you'd think it wasn't. It's not necessarily a hate crime if you attack him, the motives behind the attack will determine the charge and how it's recorded. The police will record a racial hate crime as just that, they don't record which race/colour attacked who. 'Hate crime' isn't always about skin colour or ethnicity either it can be against LGBT people as well as religious groups and the disabled.
> https://assets.publishing.service.g...oads/attachment_data/file/467366/hosb0515.pdf



Because the way it's always reported is the same as "positive discrimination" - i.e. because I'm not a 'minority' (and I'm male) I technically can't claim discrimination as a factor in things like work/pay disputes, or criminal investigations.

I have always thought (and always will) that the term "hate crime" was introduced and subsequently promoted as p.c. crap.

(Oh, and I thought ethnicity and other factors were recorded as motivational factors, because it gets asked...)



Tez3 said:


> Depends which country you are in, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different arrest laws. There's also different laws that affect arrests for terror related crimes



I know a very small amount about the terror related procedure, enough to know that if not monitored and kept in check it could potentially be the start of a nasty and slippery slope... That's outside the terms of this discussion though.

I was (and really I still am) unaware of the differences in NI and Scotland - I know they have different technical differences and some different laws (or interpretations thereof) but not the specifics or that they extended to basic procedure too.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> How would the police know?
> 
> Police kick the door in see a dead guy and a knife guy.
> 
> Two days later they find out the old man lured him in there or something.



Adequately covered by my previous statement, arrest for manslaughter, change if further evidence presents itself.

Unless there's immediate cause to suspect it was a case of luring, you can't assume that - not with "innocent until proven guilty".


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> (Oh, and I thought ethnicity and other factors were recorded as motivational factors, because it gets asked...)




it gets recorded as racially motivated but not as who against who, there's enough bloody paperwork as it is.



pdg said:


> I know a very small amount about the terror related procedure, enough to know that if not monitored and kept in check it could potentially be the start of a nasty and slippery slope... That's outside the terms of this discussion though.




It's not about monitoring but how long you can detain someone before charging and how long you can hold them before letting them see a solicitor. I know way too much about terrorism, spent forty odd years on it, same terrorism just different terrorists.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> It's not about monitoring but how long you can detain someone before charging and how long you can hold them before letting them see a solicitor



Ah, no, not that sort of monitoring, not of suspects.

I meant that the relaxation of the limits on detention and all that stuff, and the acceptable reasons for uncharged detention (etc.) need to be monitored.

The very bleak pessimist could surmise that those practices could be slowly extended to cover other offences, progressively less and less related to actual terrorism until we find ourselves in a dystopian future where anything at all even partially construed (or described as) against the state could lead to "being disappeared" (insert dramatic music and the appearance of an unlikely hero fighting from atop his classic triumph bike for the rights of the oppressed individual).





Edit: Ooh, 500th message!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> How would the police know?
> 
> Police kick the door in see a dead guy and a knife guy.
> 
> Two days later they find out the old man lured him in there or something.




Ah this echoes a famous case here and one that people keep bringing up about how it's not fair to charge someone for murder when it's self defence. 
Tony Martin was charged and found guilty of murder for 'defending his home against two lads who broke into his house' he shot one of them who died. Only, he had set traps around his house and lured them in, as they discovered what he'd done they ran off down the path, he chased them and shot them in the back killing one. His shotguns were illegal because he'd lost his shotgun certificate for threatening to shoot several people including his brother. He was found guilty of murder later after appeal because the psychiatric reports hadn't been available to the jury ( he has major personality disorder and claimed he was sexually abused as a child as well as being a paranoid schizophrenic) it was reduced to manslaughter. he'd sacked his first defence team and the second presented him as an angry man driven to shoot, forensic reports showed he'd also lied about where he'd been when he'd shot the lads who were travellers, people Martin had been saying should be 'put down'. In 2015 he was arrested again on firearms charges.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> The very bleak pessimist could surmise that those practices could be slowly extended to cover other offences, progressively less and less related to actual terrorism until we find ourselves in a dystopian future where anything at all even partially construed (or described as) against the state could lead to "being disappeared" (insert dramatic music and the appearance of an unlikely hero fighting from atop his classic triumph bike for the rights of the oppressed individual).




Terrorism is a very old thing here and it hasn't happened yet. One of the reasons for being optimistic is that most governments and government institutions such as the Civil Service are actually quite incompetent.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ah this echoes a famous case here and one that people keep bringing up about how it's not fair to charge someone for murder when it's self defence.
> Tony Martin was charged and found guilty of murder for 'defending his home against two lads who broke into his house' he shot one of them who died. Only, he had set traps around his house and lured them in, as they discovered what he'd done they ran off down the path, he chased them and shot them in the back killing one. His shotguns were illegal because he'd lost his shotgun certificate for threatening to shoot several people including his brother. He was found guilty of murder later after appeal because the psychiatric reports hadn't been available to the jury ( he has major personality disorder and claimed he was sexually abused as a child as well as being a paranoid schizophrenic) it was reduced to manslaughter. he'd sacked his first defence team and the second presented him as an angry man driven to shoot, forensic reports showed he'd also lied about where he'd been when he'd shot the lads who were travellers, people Martin had been saying should be 'put down'. In 2015 he was arrested again on firearms charges.



I did half wonder if that case would be brought up.

Shooting someone in the back with a long gun can't be self defence for a start imo. It's not like it's a physical possibility for that to happen during a struggle...

The only thing in his defence is that he'd been targeted by the same group of people burgling his property a fair few times, and nothing was officially done to stop that happening.

While it falls under "my" definition of murder, it was certainly aggravated and I don't know how much 'cause and effect' can be attributed to his condition and/or actions.

(As a side note, I'm still tempted to put a "protected by Tony Martin security services" sign on my gate... But if anything happened it wouldn't exactly work in my favour )


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Terrorism is a very old thing here and it hasn't happened yet. One of the reasons for being optimistic is that most governments and government institutions such as the Civil Service are actually quite incompetent.



These specific counter terrorism laws are relatively recent though.

It wouldn't be outwith the realms of possibility for a 'faction' to develop within the counter terrorism units that could take advantage of said incompetence for their own ends...

There is an ideal level of incompetence within leadership that we seem to have managed to more or less maintain for a good long time - as long as it doesn't stray too far in either direction we should muddle along pretty much as we always have.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Adequately covered by my previous statement, arrest for manslaughter, change if further evidence presents itself.
> 
> Unless there's immediate cause to suspect it was a case of luring, you can't assume that - not with "innocent until proven guilty".



Remand.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Remand.



Doesn't that have to be decided by a court, following a hearing, following a charge being brought and intent to prosecute being declared?

I know it's not part one in the "shall we bring charges, and if so which ones?" handbook...


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Doesn't that have to be decided by a court, following a hearing, following a charge being brought and intent to prosecute being declared?
> 
> I know it's not part one in the "shall we bring charges, and if so which ones?" handbook...



Yeah. But still not proven guilty.


----------



## pdg (Apr 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But still not proven guilty.



No, but having enough evidence in hand to have already initiated a prosecution, which isn't done unless there's a belief of a reasonable chance of success.

It's an alternative to bail if the defendant isn't deemed suitable for temporary release.

It's more of a "allow extra time to collate or reinforce evidence" step.

It's wholly unsuitable (and not intended) to be a means of detention while initial enquiries are made in order to determine whether a crime has actually been committed, if so which one(s) and whether a prosecution will be brought.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> by the same group of people burgling his property a fair few times,



No one said it was the same group if in fact he had been burgled. 




pdg said:


> While it falls under "my" definition of murder, it was certainly aggravated and I don't know how much 'cause and effect' can be attributed to his condition and/or actions.



Not aggravated as he lured them in, he was also known to make violent threats against people including his own family. In fact, he'd caught a man stealing apples from his orchard, and as the man drove away Martin shot the back of his car with his shot gun.


By the way the 78 year old man who has been arrested isn't a frail little old man. A lot is being made in the media of him being 'punished' for defending his home, he isn't being punished he's being held at a police station ( and probably being looked after well ) while the police investigate. What has to happen is a proper investigation that leaves no doubt as to what happened, else there will be a public outcry that justice wasn't done. The police are dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's, if it's self defence it has to be clear to everyone that it's self defence, if it's not that also has to be clear, there cannot be a precedence set where people can use self defence as a plea when in fact it's murder. yes it takes time but it cannot be botched. Too many don't understand the processes involved. The householder doesn't need to be left open to any civil court proceedings by the dead man's family if he's not cleared properly. There has to be a clear and open investigation done by the book so there are no loose ends, unwarranted suspicions etc. If it does go to court then it has to be obvious why.


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Re: Tony Martin - I haven't studied the case much, the only information I have is memory from the time and stuff that's public domain.



Tez3 said:


> No one said it was the same group if in fact he had been burgled



He claims to have been burgled about 10 times iirc. Police say they are unsure whether these burglaries took place.

But, retribution for previous burglaries was used as part of the case for prosecution.

I don't think anyone will really ever know what actually happened that night or the events leading up to it.

I have no idea whether you have any experience dealing with the 'group' in question or how the 'civilian' police try to deal with them, but I have some and it's not a pretty picture...

Oh, and the "surviving victim" was awarded legal aid to apply for compensation for being unable to work due to his injuries following that night -- even though he was in prison at the time for an unrelated offence and subsequent convictions suggest that 'work' involved stealing cars, burgling houses and dealing heroin.

The entire case and everything surrounding it is a complete bungled clusterflick () in my opinion and should never be held as precedence of anything other than how not to do it.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> Oh, and the "surviving victim" was awarded legal aid to apply for compensation for being unable to work due to his injuries following that night -- even though he was in prison at the time for an unrelated offence and subsequent convictions suggest that 'work' involved stealing cars, burgling houses and dealing heroin.




He didn't get any compensation. The problem there though is many people think only those they approve of should be dealt with fairly by the law, however there is a reason that 'Justice' is blindfolded on the statue at the Old Bailey.

The forensics on the Martin case were very good and he helped by shouting out in advance to all and sundry what he was going to do so it's not that cloudy a case. He has a personality disorder, it was never going to be easy. It also didn't help his case when he fired his defence, changed his story and was generally belligerent. His case has absolutely no bearing on the current case, many people are jumping on the band wagon with as much knowledge as they have of Brexit ie none at all.


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> He didn't get any compensation. The problem there though is many people think only those they approve of should be dealt with fairly by the law, however there is a reason that 'Justice' is blindfolded on the statue at the Old Bailey.



No, he didn't get the compensation, but he got awarded the funds to sue from the state and dropped the case himself as part of a deal involving Martin dropping a counter claim.

It is my firm belief that someone injured while conducting a criminal act should never be allowed to seek compensation for those injuries.


Let's make it personal. I break into your house. An altercation occurs and I'm injured.

Because justice is blind, nobody is allowed to know whether I have 49 convictions for intimidating burglaries over the past 20 years.

Because it's not really blind, your history of training is disclosed... (Just as Martin's history of behaviour was.)

You say I threatened you, I say you were laying in wait and attacked me. The court sides with me.


Can you really, honestly, say that I should be able to sue you for damages?


Oh, and 5 years later your conviction gets overturned for some reason, because as it turns out I did threaten you after all...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> No, he didn't get the compensation, but he got awarded the funds to sue from the state and dropped the case himself as part of a deal involving Martin dropping a counter claim.
> 
> It is my firm belief that someone injured while conducting a criminal act should never be allowed to seek compensation for those injuries.
> 
> ...




Mmm hindsight. He was awarded legal aid to apply to court, if the case had got to court it would have been tried, thrown out most likely and set a legal precedent which meant  a case like that couldn't be brought again. There's nothing wrong with trying things in court. 

Martin's psychiatric history wasn't brought up in court, only his threats to kill travellers and that his shotgun was illegal ( he claimed he found it) because he'd shot at someone else and threatened others. His verdict was downgraded to manslaughter because of his psychiatric record not because they found his crime actually less than premeditated murder just that due to his mental problems it was diminished responsibility.

A civil court is different from a criminal court, the claim for compensation was in a civil court so different rules, different burden of proof, not whether guilty or innocent of a criminal offence. The claimant must provide proof and the judge decides the outcome ‘on balance of probability’, which means that if it looks likely that the claim is genuine, it will be awarded in favour of the claimant. Everyone has access to the civil court, to restrict who can sue and who can't would restrict us all.


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Martin's psychiatric history wasn't brought up in court, only his threats to kill travellers and that his shotgun was illegal



His behavioural history was disclosed to the court.

Not exactly blind.

His psychiatric history wasn't disclosed, which could have led to a diminished responsibility verdict in the first place.


Seems more like a bit of restricted vision in one eye than actual blindness to me...



Tez3 said:


> Everyone has access to the civil court, to restrict who can sue and who can't would restrict us all.



I can't see how restricting someone's "right" to sue for damages sustained while involved in criminal activities would restrict anyone else.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> His behavioural history was disclosed to the court.




I did say that.



pdg said:


> His psychiatric history wasn't disclosed, which could have led to a diminished responsibility verdict in the first place.




Not the CPS' responsibility, that was down to his defence barrister/solicitors as is how he pleaded.




pdg said:


> I can't see how restricting someone's "right" to sue for damages sustained while involved in criminal activities would restrict anyone else.



You sue in a civil court and frankly you can sue for anything you want if you can afford the legal fees, it doesn't matter whether the damage was caused in a criminal attack or not, you can still go to court if you want. The judge would more than likely have thrown it out but it's  a civil matter not criminal.

I can sue you because I think you libelled me on here or that you damaged my reputation or my business, do I have a case, highly unlikely but I can still go to court if I want. Same with that, it can be a spurious case but you are still entitled to go have your day in court.


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You sue in a civil court and frankly you can sue for anything you want if you can afford the legal fees



And apparently, if you can't afford the legal fees then you and I (as taxpayers) foot the bill instead.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> And apparently, if you can't afford the legal fees then you and I (as taxpayers) foot the bill instead.




No, you can't get legal aid anymore. for things like that. That's why the no win no fee solicitors are pushing and why many cases do go ahead when they shouldn't. Remember the tagline 'where there's blame there' a claim'?

Q&A: Legal aid changes
_The government has removed funding from entire areas of civil law. They include:_


_Private family law, such as divorce and custody battles_
_Personal injury and some clinical negligence cases_
_Some employment and education law_
_Immigration where the person is not detained_
_Some debt, housing and benefit issues_


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

One report coming in is that while the burglar had a screwdriver with him which he attacked the householder with, he was actually stabbed with a knife and managed to run down the road with it stuck in him. The worst bit is though is that his mate was seen *pulling the knife out of him*! Obviously he didn't take any first aid courses or even watch films ( ie Black Panther.. best film I've seen for a while, those female warriors!) now the question is what killed him, being stabbed or his mate pulling the knife out. A good hypothetical debate coming up there!


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> No, you can't get legal aid anymore. for things like that. That's why the no win no fee solicitors are pushing and why many cases do go ahead when they shouldn't. Remember the tagline 'where there's blame there' a claim'?
> 
> Q&A: Legal aid changes
> _The government has removed funding from entire areas of civil law. They include:_
> ...



Well, that's a start at least.


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> One report coming in is that while the burglar had a screwdriver with him which he attacked the householder with, he was actually stabbed with a knife and managed to run down the road with it stuck in him. The worst bit is though is that his mate was seen *pulling the knife out of him*! Obviously he didn't take any first aid courses or even watch films ( ie Black Panther.. best film I've seen for a while, those female warriors!) now the question is what killed him, being stabbed or his mate pulling the knife out. A good hypothetical debate coming up there!



That one should be interesting


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> That one should be interesting



It's why investigating crimes is so interesting, apart from trying to reconcile witness statements with each other, that's always a problem.


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Ok, so back to the question posed earlier, asking what I would do if called to that scene, one dead and another saying he acted in self defence - but neither were known to me...

Kind of irrelevant when you consider the person who died was actually wanted by police in connection with another burglary against a pensioner at the time of his death - they'd issued "have you seen this man?" photos and everything.


----------



## Steve (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> Ok, so back to the question posed earlier, asking what I would do if called to that scene, one dead and another saying he acted in self defence - but neither were known to me...


I would call the police, and then leave before I had to answer any questions about why I was in a house where two guys I don't know are killing one another. ​


----------



## pdg (Apr 5, 2018)

Steve said:


> I would call the police, and then leave before I had to answer any questions about why I was in a house where two guys I don't know are killing one another. ​



The question was based on "you" being the attending officer


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2018)

pdg said:


> Ok, so back to the question posed earlier, asking what I would do if called to that scene, one dead and another saying he acted in self defence - but neither were known to me...
> 
> Kind of irrelevant when you consider the person who died was actually wanted by police in connection with another burglary against a pensioner at the time of his death - they'd issued "have you seen this man?" photos and everything.




The attending police officers first on the scene don't know who anyone is when they turn up at a crime scene.  999 is dialled and the officers turn up, one of them is you, what do you do?


Everything you described happened a lot later on after an investigating officer had been detailed.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 6, 2018)

The Met. police have announced that no charges or further action will be taken against the householder.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The Met. police have announced that no charges or further action will be taken against the householder.


Travesty of justice!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 6, 2018)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43676359

Det. Ch. Insp. Harding said: "While there might be various forms of debate about which processes should be used in cases such as this, it was important that the resident was interviewed by officers under the appropriate legislation; not only for the integrity of our investigation but also so that his personal and legal rights were protected."


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 9, 2018)

Steve said:


> It's the difference between acknowledging how things are, and how they should be. @pdg seems to be suggesting that things might be different.  Whether he has an informed opinion or not, it's still an opinion.  I don't get the impression he's suggesting you are incorrect.Maybe in the UK.  I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter.
> 
> Regarding my last question, I guess what I am really asking is whether there is a distinction in the UK between being detained, being arrested, or just being interviewed.



I should know better, but:  It is entirely how a reply is expressed. @pdg imho is coming too close to blaming the messenger, Tez3, not the law itself.  I think that is why Tez3 is reacting in the way she is.  Actually, again imho, she is being much more patient with pdg than she usually is with people who reply as he is. 

Again @pdg you can wish for the law to be different, with different definitions all you want.  And you can wait until you are king of the world and do it yourself.  Or you can begin lobbying with your fellow countrymen to join you in changing the law.  I suppose you have a legislature that votes on what laws are.  At least part of that legislature is elected.  If enough people let that legislature know they want a law to be different, and makes the members of that legislature believe they will be out of a job if they don't follow the will of the people, I expect the law will be changed.  That is so in the USA.  I wish you great good luck if your countrymen are like mine. 

One thing that your are forgetting is as Tez3 pointed out, what the law says is what is legal.  You can agree or disagree with that 'legal' definition of the law, but you will still be subject to it.  I don't know about where you are from, but in the USA there are a couple of loopholes.  The courts get to decide if a law is legal under the document giving the legislature their authority to make law.  In our case, that is the US Constitution.  If the court, usually the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) says a provision of a law violates the US Constitution, it will be deemed unenforceable.  Even if SCOTUS makes no such determination, the president may decide not to enforce a law.  Then it makes no difference what the law says or who agrees with it.  Even if it is violated, no one will be arrested.

But those things are rare.  BTW, I am speaking about federal law.  Most States do it the same way.

As to why the definition from the dictionary cannot be used in place of the definition in law?  Well, perhaps it could be.  Whatever your founding document says.  In the USA, the legislature is the only body that has that authority.  But suppose we changed our constitution to say that lexicographers got to define law.  Now suppose on the day some lexicographer has the duty to define murder, he is grumpy because he got up on the wrong side of the bed, tripped over the wife's pet cat, and the coffee maker didn't work.  You sure you want him writing your law?  While we are at it, why one particular lexicographer and not another, since as Tez3 pointed out, they don't always agree with each other?  Maybe a college of lexicographers?  Starting to sound like a legislature?

Now another point: normally laws are written so infractions of that law are within strictly controlled areas.  That is, there can be no doubt what the infraction is.  Otherwise, as Tez3 pointed out, many lawbreakers, including murderers will be able to say things that induce doubt in the minds of jurors, who are the real triers of fact, for instance, 'he tried to kill me first.'  As a silly example, suppose you have a law that simply says if you kill somebody, you have committed murder.  And you get charged with murder because you killed someone who was trying to kill you and a member of your family.  Would you support that?  Or would you prefer definitions of breaking a law that prevent too broad an application?

@Steve you stated you understood there was only one definition of murder.  Think for a moment.  Have you ever heard it said a man was being charged with murder 1?  That may be a killing that is not legal and is premeditated.  It may be a killing that is defined as so dangerous the perpetrator had to know it was likely to cause death; such as shooting an automatic weapon into the sky but towards a city.  So no, there is not one simple definition of murder in most jurisdictions.  Often even things like manslaughter have different definitions based on how the killing was done.  I don't know how much interest you have in that, but it shouldn't be hard to look up.

 I haven't read beyond Steve's post that I quoted, so I hope somebody hasn't already pointed out all the above.  I have severe writer's cramp.


----------



## Steve (Apr 9, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I should know better, but:  It is entirely how a reply is expressed. @pdg imho is coming too close to blaming the messenger, Tez3, not the law itself.  I think that is why Tez3 is reacting in the way she is.  Actually, again imho, she is being much more patient with pdg than she usually is with people who reply as he is.
> 
> Again @pdg you can wish for the law to be different, with different definitions all you want.  And you can wait until you are king of the world and do it yourself.  Or you can begin lobbying with your fellow countrymen to join you in changing the law.  I suppose you have a legislature that votes on what laws are.  At least part of that legislature is elected.  If enough people let that legislature know they want a law to be different, and makes the members of that legislature believe they will be out of a job if they don't follow the will of the people, I expect the law will be changed.  That is so in the USA.  I wish you great good luck if your countrymen are like mine.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is one definition of murder.  I think I was saying that intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 9, 2018)

> Murder doesn't have to be premeditated. It also doesn't have to have to be intended to result in death. think road rage.





Steve said:


> It's the difference between acknowledging how things are, and how they should be. @pdg seems to be suggesting that things might be different.  Whether he has an informed opinion or not, it's still an opinion.  I don't get the impression he's suggesting you are incorrect.Maybe in the UK.  I'm not a lawyer, but *my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter.*
> 
> Regarding my last question, I guess what I am really asking is whether there is a distinction in the UK between being detained, being arrested, or just being interviewed.





Steve said:


> I don't think there is one definition of murder.  I think I was saying that intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.



I see what you are saying, but ...

I think I was trying to say that intent was not necessarily the difference between murder and manslaughter.  In my example of a person who carelessly fires a gun into the air, with a bullet then falling to the ground and killing someone, that person may not have had the intent to kill, or even wound anyone.  No intent; but the act may be declared to be so reckless that the person should have been able to foresee the consequences and not have committed the act.

And I should have added that it depends on a given jurisdiction.  Each one gets to define different acts as they wish.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 10, 2018)

In one of my previous post I listed, from the Crown Prosecution Service, all the various 'types' ( for want of a better word) of 'causing death' that would be liable for someone to be charged for. it define homicide and manslaughter. The CPS are the legal prosecutors on behalf of the Crown in the UK. All crimes here are persecuted by the Crown, I think ( only from watching television lol) that in the US it's the State that prosecutes. Anyway here's the list again.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

Back to the OP, sadly the police have been unable to leave the pensioner alone because they are having to protect him from possible reprisals from the dead man's family and friends who've even laid flowers for the dead man outside the householders home. Lots of noise about how he didn't deserve to die, they should actually blame his accomplice as much as the dead man, the mate by eye witness accounts pulled whatever was used to been used to stab him with ( the police won't say but it will come out in the inquest) and ran off leaving his 'mate' to die. who needs mates like that?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 10, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> In one of my previous post I listed, from the Crown Prosecution Service, all the various 'types' ( for want of a better word) of 'causing death' that would be liable for someone to be charged for. it define homicide and manslaughter. The CPS are the legal prosecutors on behalf of the Crown in the UK. All crimes here are persecuted by the Crown, I think ( only from watching television lol) that in the US it's the State that prosecutes. Anyway here's the list again.
> Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
> 
> Back to the OP, sadly the police have been unable to leave the pensioner alone because they are having to protect him from possible reprisals from the dead man's family and friends who've even laid flowers for the dead man outside the householders home. Lots of noise about how he didn't deserve to die, they should actually blame his accomplice as much as the dead man, the mate by eye witness accounts pulled whatever was used to been used to stab him with ( the police won't say but it will come out in the inquest) and ran off leaving his 'mate' to die. who needs mates like that?



It is a little more complicated in the US.  If a person commits a murder robbing a gas station, normally the State will investigate and prosecute.  The federal government likely doesn't have a murder statute to cover that unless there is an Interstate tie in, or maybe even a potential one.  But some things may require federal investigation by statute.  If a bank insured by the US government (and most are) is robbed, that insurance creates a federal interest and the FBI would investigate and might prosecute.  If the state also has a statute against bank robbery within the state, they could also investigate and prosecute.  For any number of reasons, either jurisdiction might, and probably would, defer to the other.  But in many circumstances, both jurisdictions may charge for the same criminal act, and without it being double jeopardy.  See Is it Double Jeopardy to Charge a Crime at State and Federal Level? where the defendant beat the case in the state court (?) but the federal government had a different statute for that same crime, that had a federal tie in.  After 7 years and an acquittal, man is convicted of killing Utah deputy gives more information, but doesn't mention the specifics of the federal tie in.  At an appeal of the charging, the appeals courts noted there was no double jeopardy as the state of Utah and the federal government were separate sovereign entities.  I read elsewhere that he received life plus 80 years.  I don't know about the UK, but it is possible to give different sentences for each crime found guilty of.  It looks like that is what happened.  What it normally means is the even if he is allowed to be paroled from the life sentence, depending on the wording of the sentencing, he might be allowed to be paroled from both sentences, or after parole from the life sentence, then have to begin serving the 80 year sentence; effectively putting him in jail for the rest of his life, without having to fight any battles if life without parole was outside sentencing rules.

All easy to understand, right Tez3?  

Of course for all I know, the UK law is also like that.  We did assimilate a lot of law when we became our own country.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 10, 2018)

We are fairly simple, we don't have different agencies investigating, there's only the police (we'll leave out MI5), the prosecuting agency is the CPS in England and Wales and the Crown Service and Procurator Fiscal in Scotland. In Northern Ireland it's the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. Laws can be different in each country. 
You will only be charged by the relevant service in which ever country you are in, as they are the only ones who prosecute always in the name of the Crown ) which can cause problems in Northern Ireland from some groups who refuse to recognise the courts there).

 Life is mandatory for murder but for everything else there is statuary minimum terms which is what tends to cause outrage when people consider the judge has given a lenient sentence or indeed too long a sentence.
Sentencing: Mandatory and Minimum Custodial Sentences | The Crown Prosecution Service
Life sentenced prisoners

The only sentence that is for an unknown time is to be detained to  is 'at Her Majesty's pleasure'. for that you have to have a successfully 'guilty due to insanity' plea accepted.


----------



## Steve (Apr 10, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I see what you are saying, but ...
> 
> I think I was trying to say that intent was not necessarily the difference between murder and manslaughter.  In my example of a person who carelessly fires a gun into the air, with a bullet then falling to the ground and killing someone, that person may not have had the intent to kill, or even wound anyone.  No intent; but the act may be declared to be so reckless that the person should have been able to foresee the consequences and not have committed the act.
> 
> And I should have added that it depends on a given jurisdiction.  Each one gets to define different acts as they wish.


I don’t get it.   Are you saying that the person who fires the gun in the air might be charged with murder? 

Look at dui accidents.  DUI murder charges are very rare, and hinge on intent.   Generally, like your careless gun owner example, because a person who is stupid and drinks then causes someone’s death didn’t intend to do so (or intent can’t be established) they are charged with manslaughter.  

As I said before, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder in the USA.   I’m not sure how that could be controversial.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 10, 2018)

Flowers left for burglar 'an insult'

I think things could take a nasty turn, hopefully the police will sort but it could be difficult. The dead man and his family are travellers so the likelihood of violence is always going to be high. The battle of the dead burglar's shrine: Police ride in on horseback as traveller's family put flowers up for a THIRD time after locals twice tore them down - and relatives demand OAP apologise for killing him | Best News | Best News Tv | Global Goals | Progress | Funny | Trending


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 10, 2018)

Steve said:


> I don’t get it.   Are you saying that the person who fires the gun in the air might be charged with murder?
> 
> Look at dui accidents.  DUI murder charges are very rare, and hinge on intent.   Generally, like your careless gun owner example, because a person who is stupid and drinks then causes someone’s death didn’t intend to do so (or intent can’t be established) they are charged with manslaughter.
> 
> As I said before, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder in the USA.   I’m not sure how that could be controversial.



I would guess it would only be controversial if you disagreed with the law as written.

At  Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 you can find this about murder: 

*Murder While Doing An Inherently Dangerous Act. UCMJ art. 118(3)*


In General. Alternative theory to unpremeditated murder.
Intent.
*Specific intent not required*. _United States v. McMonagle _, 38 M.J. 53 (C.M.A. 1993) (firing a weapon indiscriminately in an inhabited area during a sham firefight in Panama during Operation JUST CAUSE).  (Bolding added by me for emphasis).
Also at Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 lists the elements of proof.
*(3) Act inherently dangerous to another*

(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
(b) That the death resulted from the intentional act of the accused;
(c) That this act was inherently dangerous to another and showed a wanton disregard for human life;
(d) That the accused knew that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the act; and
(e) That the killing was unlawful
I'm not going to search every state or other federal law, but I expect there are states that have the same definition of law, granted that this is from the UMCJ and cases that have been tried.  Or, maybe the congress just wanted to be hardcore with the military.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 10, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Flowers left for burglar 'an insult'
> 
> I think things could take a nasty turn, hopefully the police will sort but it could be difficult. The dead man and his family are travellers so the likelihood of violence is always going to be high. The battle of the dead burglar's shrine: Police ride in on horseback as traveller's family put flowers up for a THIRD time after locals twice tore them down - and relatives demand OAP apologise for killing him | Best News | Best News Tv | Global Goals | Progress | Funny | Trending



Some people just seem to look for excuses to do objectionable or illegal things.


----------



## Steve (Apr 10, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I would guess it would only be controversial if you disagreed with the law as written.
> 
> At  Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 you can find this about murder:
> 
> ...


You’re quoting the UCMJ?  Apples and oranges, my friend.  You can also be courtmartialed for adultery.  I don’t think you get courtmartialed in the civilian world.   Lol

I get you might not look at every state.   But at least find one state or federal definition.  I won’t say there isn’t one, but I would say intent being the difference between murder and manslaughter is the rule, not the exception.   If you think I’m wrong, you’re going to have to do better than the ucmj.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 11, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Some people just seem to look for excuses to do objectionable or illegal things.




There has been problems with this community for a very long time, they can be discriminated against but also they do disrupt other communities at lot.  Dale Farm: Who are the UK's travellers?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 11, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> There has been problems with this community for a very long time, they can be discriminated against but also they do disrupt other communities at lot.  Dale Farm: Who are the UK's travellers?



Interesting.  I didn't realize they were a considered a separate ethnic group, or that they were, or apparently considered themselves to be similar the Romany Gypsies.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 11, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting.  I didn't realize they were a considered a separate ethnic group, or that they were, or apparently considered themselves to be similar the Romany Gypsies.




The problem I think is that the Romanies don't like the travellers much, because people lump them together and the Romanies don't like the reputation the travellers have which I must admit, as in the Op, they seem determined to live up to. I know little about either group, whether they are the same or different. We did have a traveller group park themselves up on one of the garrison playing fields a few years back, they didn't cause much trouble other than people not being happy at them being there but it cost a few thousand pounds to clear up after them when they left. The playing field couldn't be used for a long time because of the rubbish, sewage etc left behind.


----------



## pdg (Apr 11, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I know little about either group, whether they are the same or different. We did have a traveller group park themselves up on one of the garrison playing fields a few years back, they didn't cause much trouble other than people not being happy at them being there but it cost a few thousand pounds to clear up after them when they left. The playing field couldn't be used for a long time because of the rubbish, sewage etc left behind.



While there are good and bad elements in both, they are very different groups, with very different values (especially when it comes to outsiders).

You wouldn't generally get trouble (except clearing up after them) from a group of travellers parking up near you - unfortunately the same can't be said for a few miles down the road.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 11, 2018)

Steve said:


> You’re quoting the UCMJ?  Apples and oranges, my friend.  You can also be courtmartialed for adultery.  I don’t think you get courtmartialed in the civilian world.   Lol
> 
> I get you might not look at every state.   But at least find one state or federal definition.  I won’t say there isn’t one, but I would say intent being the difference between murder and manslaughter is the rule, not the exception.   If you think I’m wrong, you’re going to have to do better than the ucmj.



Why better than the UCMJ?  It is part of US (federal) law passed by congress, even if it does apply only to those congress says it does.

But anyway, try these two below, and then I will consider my duty fulfilled.  You asked for at least one and I have given you two besides the UCMJ reference.

Murder Without Intent

Homicide without the intent to kill

Oh, as to adultery; I didn't look, but I suspect sodomy is still part of the UCMJ and many states, but you wouldn't likely find that prosecuted anywhere in the US either.  So what's the point?


----------



## Steve (Apr 11, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Why better than the UCMJ?  It is part of US (federal) law passed by congress, even if it does apply only to those congress says it does.
> 
> But anyway, try these two below, and then I will consider my duty fulfilled.  You asked for at least one and I have given you two besides the UCMJ reference.
> 
> ...


Regarding ucmj, unless you can show me where sedition or insubordination are illegal in civilian courts, I think it’s completely irrelevant.  Adultery is still illegal.  Sodomy... not sure.  Didn’t look, but as homosexuality is no longer grounds for discharge, it may not be.   And while adultery won’t likely result in a court martial, it could result in an article 15.  At least, it would when I was in the military.   

Regarding the other links, it seems like you’re arguing the exception to the rule.  The two discussions you link to are all about intent, and articulate in detail how the situations they’re discussing are exceptions to the rule.  

Why are you arguing this?   I’m don’t get it.  You’re grasping for straws, when what I’m saying is so clearly correct.


----------



## Steve (Apr 11, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The problem I think is that the Romanies don't like the travellers much, because people lump them together and the Romanies don't like the reputation the travellers have which I must admit, as in the Op, they seem determined to live up to. I know little about either group, whether they are the same or different. We did have a traveller group park themselves up on one of the garrison playing fields a few years back, they didn't cause much trouble other than people not being happy at them being there but it cost a few thousand pounds to clear up after them when they left. The playing field couldn't be used for a long time because of the rubbish, sewage etc left behind.


We have problems with travelers in the usa,as well.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 12, 2018)

From @Tez3:





> Murder doesn't have to be premeditated. It also doesn't have to have to be intended to result in death. think road rage.





Steve said:


> ...
> I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter.
> 
> ...



The above is what you said, not most of the time, sometimes, or any other qualifier.



Steve said:


> Regarding ucmj, unless you can show me where sedition or insubordination are illegal in civilian courts, I think it’s completely irrelevant.



What in the world does that have to do with this discussion?  Insubordination relates only to the military as a charge by law.  But actually, in most businesses if you spend too much time disobeying or arguing with your boss, you will be fired.  It will normally be codified in some way, but not have the force of a law against the State, but only the business considers if to be against the business, and punishes it.  The military, in fact most militaries, consider it more serious and so punishes it more severely.  Sedition is codified as shown in at least this one place: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

But also think arguing that is completely irrelevant.



Steve said:


> Adultery is still illegal.  Sodomy... not sure.  Didn’t look, but as homosexuality is no longer grounds for discharge, it may not be.   And while adultery won’t likely result in a court martial, it could result in an article 15.  At least, it would when I was in the military.



I don't know what is being enforced or not myself.  I left active duty quite some time ago.  But again, I think it’s completely irrelevant.  We were discussing an element of proof of only one crime, murder.



Steve said:


> Regarding the other links, it seems like you’re arguing the exception to the rule.  The two discussions you link to are all about intent, and articulate in detail how the situations they’re discussing are exceptions to the rule.
> 
> 
> Steve said:
> ...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 12, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> From @Tez3:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, I tried something with quotes inside quotes and it didn't work.  The last part I wrote should be:

Not having checked all States, Commonwealths, and Territories, I don't know the percentages, but like you, I do suspect most have either changed the law or decided not to prosecute it. 

But that isn't the statement you made. And intent was exactly what you were disagreeing with as an element of proof. That then answers that argument. Even if (which I doubt) those were the only two jurisdictions beside the military, that still shows your statement to be incorrect.

↑


> Why are you arguing this? I’m don’t get it. You’re grasping for straws, when what I’m saying is so clearly correct.



How is it so clearly correct when I have shown you it isn't? That doesn't sound like the usual well stated and backed up arguments you make. BTW, how am I the only one in the discussion grasping for straws?

Why am I arguing this? Good question. I think I have to go back to my opening statement that I should know better. But I think you bear at least as much responsibility as I do. You made an incorrect statement, and won't acknowledge that.

I guess I don't get it either, so I think I will let it go.


----------



## Steve (Apr 15, 2018)

You’re right man.   I was puzzled at why you were digging heels, and I was doing same.   My bad.


----------



## Daniela455 (Jun 2, 2018)

¡¡excelente!!


----------



## oldwarrior (Jun 2, 2018)

basically in this country of ours you are guilty until proven otherwise ... The police in this country have a mind set that they will follo and do not let them ever tell you that they are not there to punish that they only report the facts ... well yes they do from their side with their slant on same and as they have access to the resources that the public do not (unless you got the cash) then things will be slanted ...

Just look at the case of the young guy that was accused of rape and spent how long on bail until ...oops they found out that certain things had not been revealed .................so never trust that anything said will not be twisted or slanted


----------



## jobo (Jun 2, 2018)

oldwarrior said:


> basically in this country of ours you are guilty until proven otherwise ... The police in this country have a mind set that they will follo and do not let them ever tell you that they are not there to punish that they only report the facts ... well yes they do from their side with their slant on same and as they have access to the resources that the public do not (unless you got the cash) then things will be slanted ...
> 
> Just look at the case of the young guy that was accused of rape and spent how long on bail until ...oops they found out that certain things had not been revealed .................so never trust that anything said will not be twisted or slanted


The police will do anything they can to get a guilty verdict, some of it is quite close to illegality, some faR over it, loOsing evidence that might help the accused is just par for the course


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 2, 2018)

The same police officers that when terrorists attack happen they run towards it so you can run away. The same police officers that are in hospital today serious hurt after beings attacked. The same ones that have to come and tell you your son/daughter/family member has been killed by a drunk driver. the ones who have to deal with rising crime because their numbers have been cut by 20000 by the government Frankly the last two posters are talking the most tremendous bollocks.

Why? because the police don't lead in prosecutions here, the CPS do. the same CPS who held the evidence that kept the young man under suspicion.* The detective in charge of that case Detective Constable Mark Azariah, told the CPS to drop the charges in his report long before the trial. *
 The police really don't act as described above, if people say they do it's usually because they've been on the wrong side of the law or they read the tabloids and/or Katie Hopkins. The police and bear in mind we have many different police forces here not one, are far too busy to actually try to fit people up. Of course those that moan about the police are the first to call them when something happens and the last to join a force as a police officer to change things from inside if they think things are wrong, cowards all.


----------



## oldwarrior (Jun 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The same police officers that when terrorists attack happen they run towards it so you can run away. The same police officers that are in hospital today serious hurt after beings attacked. The same ones that have to come and tell you your son/daughter/family member has been killed by a drunk driver. the ones who have to deal with rising crime because their numbers have been cut by 20000 by the government Frankly the last two posters are talking the most tremendous bollocks.
> 
> Why? because the police don't lead in prosecutions here, the CPS do. the same CPS who held the evidence that kept the young man under suspicion.* The detective in charge of that case Detective Constable Mark Azariah, told the CPS to drop the charges in his report long before the trial. *
> The police really don't act as described above, if people say they do it's usually because they've been on the wrong side of the law or they read the tabloids and/or Katie Hopkins. The police and bear in mind we have many different police forces here not one, are far too busy to actually try to fit people up. Of course those that moan about the police are the first to call them when something happens and the last to join a force as a police officer to change things from inside if they think things are wrong, cowards all.




I guess your a cop ...buddy you have a lot to learn seriously ...


----------



## oldwarrior (Jun 2, 2018)

oh have no fear ...when i can close my account i will as you have so much to learn ....and before you even get your knickers in a twist ...well i was a cop and a military cop so umm i do actually know ... i have never done it so don't got there but trust me if you believe that the cops do not do as I said then welll ......enough said


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 2, 2018)

oldwarrior said:


> I guess your a cop ...buddy you have a lot to learn seriously ...




*Firstly, I am not yours or anyone else's buddy.* Secondly  I know a damn sight more than you obviously do, you have absolutely no idea how much I know, have seen or been through so wind your neck in. You have no idea what you are talking about, making sweeping statements which are pure nonsense. Jobo I can understand, he hates all authority figures, probably because they keep catching him and posts on here for sh!ts and giggles just to wind people up.

Please do carry on labelling *all* British police officers in the way you are, it's fine, it's only yourself you are embarrassing.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 2, 2018)

oldwarrior said:


> oh have no fear ...when i can close my account i will as you have so much to learn ....and before you even get your knickers in a twist ...well i was a cop and a military cop so umm i do actually know ... i have never done it so don't got there but trust me if you believe that the cops do not do as I said then welll ......enough said




Thank you for making me laugh. A military cop eh and a cop, gosh I'm so impressed, and you say that without knowing anything about me.


----------



## oldwarrior (Jun 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> *Firstly, I am not yours or anyone else's buddy.* Secondly  I know a damn sight more than you obviously do, you have absolutely no idea how much I know, have seen or been through so wind your neck in. You have no idea what you are talking about, making sweeping statements which are pure nonsense. Jobo I can understand, he hates all authority figures, probably because they keep catching him and posts on here for sh!ts and giggles just to wind people up.
> 
> Please do carry on labelling *all* British police officers in the way you are, it's fine, it's only yourself you are embarrassing.




grow up ok ....and i very much doubt that you do 

but you carry on in the brill cream boys ok ........


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> I don't know if this has been discussed, or if I'm in the right section, but hey.
> 
> This is about an ongoing case (it happened last night) - I don't have specifics other than what has been reported.
> 
> ...



First and most important is he walked away from the attack. Hell, just walking at 78 is pretty good. I subscribe to the saying "it is easier to as forgiveness than permission". 
Not to get all legal, as officers we were taught about our curtilage, the area immediately around you regardless of where you are. In a SD situation that area is physically and legally fair game. Maybe that is different by country.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 2, 2018)

I'm super late to the party here...but if someone is arrested for murder, can the charge not be changed in the courts to a manslaughter charge, during the trial? I believe it works that way in the US (people on drug charges at least essentially barter there charges before sentencing), not sure if murder is a special case or if the UK is different. If they can, why would it matter what charge someone is initially arrested for?

If I somehow got arrested for a murder (when all I did was jaywalk), and then when it went to court the judge or DA or whomever reevaluated the charge and it changed to jaywalking, that 'murder' arrest wouldn't be anywhere on my record, and I wouldn't particularly care what the LEO felt fit to arrest me for. 

I'm not a lawyer, LEO, or anything legal related, so all my assumptions regarding this may be wrong, or I may have missed a post explaining it, but I honestly don't see the issue here.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 2, 2018)

Semi-related, but reading this reminded me of the fictional story of Ronald Opus.



> On March 23, 1994, a medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would most likely not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.
> Ordinarily, a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even if the mechanism might not be what they intended, is defined as having committed suicide. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
> Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.
> When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
> ...



Legal definitions are way more complicated than merriam-wester, unfortunately.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2018)

Police officers everywhere will understand.


----------



## jobo (Jun 3, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm super late to the party here...but if someone is arrested for murder, can the charge not be changed in the courts to a manslaughter charge, during the trial? I believe it works that way in the US (people on drug charges at least essentially barter there charges before sentencing), not sure if murder is a special case or if the UK is different. If they can, why would it matter what charge someone is initially arrested for?
> 
> If I somehow got arrested for a murder (when all I did was jaywalk), and then when it went to court the judge or DA or whomever reevaluated the charge and it changed to jaywalking, that 'murder' arrest wouldn't be anywhere on my record, and I wouldn't particularly care what the LEO felt fit to arrest me for.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, LEO, or anything legal related, so all my assumptions regarding this may be wrong, or I may have missed a post explaining it, but I honestly don't see the issue here.


There's a whole load of issues there, first an arrest any arrest stays on your record, if it's a totally stupid arrest Like say your arrested for murder and the person is still alive,you can get it expunged, but if you are say defending yourself And someone dies, then that murder arrest stays with you for ever, if you apply for a job and they do a check, they will find out.

Yes you can be charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter, commonly that's the defence Put forward. We don't have plea bargains here, at least not officialy. Not do we have murder by different degrees, it's either murder of it isnt, if it isn't then it might be manslaughter or it may not, they sent alternatives i n that it's one of the other.

The issue, is can you defend a) yourself and b) your home  Deadly force, The answer is maybe to the first and definitely not to the second, unlike the state's killing burglars that didn't pose a an imminent risk to your actual life is frowned upon. There have been lots of people who were defending their life, who have been dragged though a court case , that effectively spoils their life for ever, even though as it turns out, they did no wrong, in this case the amount of public sympathy for the guy, meant they dropped very quickly, others may not be so lucky

For instance a decade ago, I was as a completely innocent party attacked, by a group of men, 5to be exact, I defended myself robustly, beat of the attack using a pool cue, I was carrying as I had just been playing pool, and then called the police. The police's response to a citizen defending himself against an unprovoked attack, was to arrest me for wounding, then and then charge me and send me to coyrt, at court they just DROpped the case , in five min, literally, which is good, however that arrest and charge has prevented me from getting several jobs in the decade since


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 3, 2018)

jobo said:


> There's a whole load of issues there, first an arrest any arrest stays on your record, if it's a totally stupid arrest Like say your arrested for murder and the person is still alive,you can get it expunged, but if you are say defending yourself And someone dies, then that murder arrest stays with you for ever, if you apply for a job and they do a check, they will find out.
> 
> Yes you can be charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter, commonly that's the defence Put forward. We don't have plea bargains here, at least not officialy. Not do we have murder by different degrees, it's either murder of it isnt, if it isn't then it might be manslaughter or it may not, they sent alternatives i n that it's one of the other.
> 
> ...


Wow really? Even after it's dropped/proved innocent, there's no way to get it expunged or sealed? That's messed up.


----------



## pdg (Jun 3, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Wow really? Even after it's dropped/proved innocent, there's no way to get it expunged or sealed? That's messed up.



Things can be considered 'spent' and you don't have to declare them for most things, but they'll still show on a search.

As far as I'm aware, once it's on record it stays on record...

As an example: when I was 14 at school I found a cigarette lighter on the playing field, unbeknownst to me it had been turned up so the flame was about 18" long. I was messing about flicking it (because it wouldn't light) until it did light and singed a girl's eyebrows and a small bit of her hair.

The school massively overreacted and wouldn't accept anything other than me being interviewed under caution.

It was accepted as an accident by everyone (the girl, her parents, the police) involved and completely dropped.

It's still on my record, all lonely by itself...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> As far as I'm aware, once it's on record it stays on record...




Try this.
https://www.acro.police.uk/acro_std.aspx?id=180

Go through the site and you will find forms to apply to have info etc deleted.


----------



## pdg (Jun 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Try this.
> https://www.acro.police.uk/acro_std.aspx?id=180
> 
> Go through the site and you will find forms to apply to have info etc deleted.



If it ever caused me any issues I'd maybe have looked into whether anything could've been done, but that's never happened.

Even when I had all the checks done for working with children, the elderly and vulnerable adults (for a job a while ago) it didn't raise any questions.

It got mentioned in a firearms application, but again didn't cause any issue.


----------



## pdg (Jun 3, 2018)

Oh, and it hasn't had any effect on getting unaccompanied clearance for MOD sites either (RAF, army, DLO) nor hindered getting the contracts.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> Oh, and it hasn't had any effect on getting unaccompanied clearance for MOD sites either (RAF, army, DLO) nor hindered getting the contracts.




They let anyone into them lol.  the Navy though will body search you, not because they need to they just like to.


( no, not really!)


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 3, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Wow really? Even after it's dropped/proved innocent, there's no way to get it expunged or sealed? That's messed up.


He must have had a lousy attorney.


----------



## pdg (Jun 4, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> He must have had a lousy attorney.



Even with a good one it wouldn't have made a difference.

For a start, "attorney" means a completely different thing here (since 1873 anyway)...

And for another thing, you are aware that laws are different around the world as to how records are kept, right?


----------



## jobo (Jun 4, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> He must have had a lousy attorney.


 It doesnt work that way here.

 just Before my arrest for defending my self, I didn't have a" record" of any kind, this caused the police to arrest me, at a traFic stop, as they didn't believe ( based on social stereo typing) I had no record and so I must be lying about my details, which thenGAVe me a record , You only have to have not done anything at all to get arrested it seems


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> You only have to have not done anything at all to get arrested it seems



No you're right you don't but the police must have reasons to believe the person they arrest has either done something or believe that if they don't arrest the person will not co-operate. Arrest isn't being charged, once the situation is resolved, the police can de-arrest.


----------



## jobo (Jun 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> No you're right you don't but the police must have reasons to believe the person they arrest has either done something or believe that if they don't arrest the person will not co-operate. Arrest isn't being charged, once the situation is resolved, the police can de-arrest.


Well no, theY only need ( reasonable)suspicion not belief, which is a lot lower burden to establish, and as giving False details at a tragic stop is an offence, arresting you because they suspect the details you've given are false seems to be ok.

You seem to trivialize , arrest, it's being deprived of your liberty, handcuffed, taken to a police station, locked in a cell for hours and can have on going implication for life and work for years to come. It's not a trivial matter to the person being arrested, particularly, if the only reason for the arrest, is that they don't appear on the pnc as was the case with myself,


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> You seem to trivialize , arrest, it's being deprived of your liberty, handcuffed, taken to a police station, locked in a cell for hours and can have on going implication for life and work for years to come. It's not a trivial matter to the person being arrested, particularly, if the only reason for the arrest, is that they don't appear on the pnc as was the case with myself,




'Trivialise'

You were presumably in a fight with someone and the police were called. You just see it from your side but when police get a complaint how do they know who to believe when they know nothing of the circumstances, reasons or the persons involved. Most people think the police should believe them before the other person but in reality why should they until the facts have been established. You feel aggrieved because you think the police should have magically seen you were in the right, but it simply cannot work that way.


----------



## jobo (Jun 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> 'Trivialise'
> 
> You were presumably in a fight with someone and the police were called. You just see it from your side but when police get a complaint how do they know who to believe when they know nothing of the circumstances, reasons or the persons involved. Most people think the police should believe them before the other person but in reality why should they until the facts have been established. You feel aggrieved because you think the police should have magically seen you were in the right, but it simply cannot work that way.


No I was driving home from visiting my gran, when they stopped my car, I had no id, I have my name and,adress And they checked me on the pnc, which Gave, no return as I have no criminal record, they then arrested me for giving false details, as they believed I looked the"sort you've a criminal record, which was largely down to my driving an old car And not the sort of car someone at the post address I lived at would have And having a criminals face, allegedly ?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> No I was driving home from visiting my gran, when they stopped my car, I had no id, I have my name and,adress And they checked me on the pnc, which Gave, no return as I have no criminal record, they then arrested me for giving false details, as they believed I looked the"sort you've a criminal record, which was largely down to my driving an old car And not the sort of car someone at the post address I lived at would have And having a criminals face, allegedly ?




Again though this is your version, you are outraged and can't see why you would be stopped. The chances are there was far more to it than you think. The guff about 'your sort' was probably just talk to cover why they thought you were sus, they obviously don't want you knowing if they had info on you and from where. Are you sure no one dobbed you in? You may never know but I would take a very good guess there's more to this than it's seems. I would suggest they were actually looking out for you. Ask yourself who would do that.


----------



## jobo (Jun 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Again though this is your version, you are outraged and can't see why you would be stopped. The chances are there was far more to it than you think. The guff about 'your sort' was probably just talk to cover why they thought you were sus, they obviously don't want you knowing if they had info on you and from where. Are you sure no one dobbed you in? You may never know but I would take a very good guess there's more to this than it's seems. I would suggest they were actually looking out for you. Ask yourself who would do that.


No as soon a my wife turned up In the jag,with my photo is they let me go , I'm not a criminal type, I wasAt   that time employed by a petrochemical company as an environmental manager, , previously Id been employed by an EU development agency working in Jordan,,( and they serious Vet, you) this thing your developed that I openly dislike the police as I'm a criminal is just fantasy, Decent law abiding people hate them as well. They pulled me up and arrested me for no other reAson than I looked poor, as the wife had the jag and I was numbing about in a very old astra And they didn't believe that someone driving an old car lived in the big posh estate with the footballers


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> No as soon a my wife turned up In the jag,with my photo is they let me go , I'm not a criminal type, I wasAt   that time employed by a petrochemical company as an environmental manager, , previously Id been employed by an EU development agency working in Jordan,,( and they serious Vet, you) this thing your developed that I openly dislike the police as I'm a criminal is just fantasy, Decent law abiding people hate them as well. They pulled me up and arrested me for no other reAson than I looked poor, as the wife had the jag and I was numbing about in a very old astra And they didn't believe that someone driving an old car lived in the big posh estate with the footballers



That's fits your ideas but I very much doubt that's the case. Sweetie, someone doesn't like you and fitted you up.

As for everyone hating the police that's a nonsense and you know it.


----------



## jobo (Jun 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> No as soon a my wife turned up In the jag,with my photo is they let me go , I'm not a criminal type, I wasAt   that time employed by a petrochemical company as an environmental manager, , previously Id been employed by an EU development agency working in Jordan,,( and they serious get you) this thing your developed that I openly dislike the police as I'm a criminal is just fantasy, Decent law abiding people hate them as well. They pulled me up and arrested me for no other reAson than I looked poor, as the wife had the jag and I was numbing about in a very old astra





Tez3 said:


> That's fits your ideas but I very much doubt that's the case. Sweetie, someone doesn't like you and fitted you up.
> 
> As for everyone hating the police that's a nonsense and you know it.


Fitted me up for what, ? , they let me go once they had established I was a middle class professional, i didn't say every hates the poli c, most peOPLe just dislike them, but quite a few hate them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2018)

Fitted you up to be stopped by the police, it screams the police being told to look out for you. Play the victim by all means and think the police picked on you because you look iffy but I promise you, someone phoned up gave them your details and you were stopped. 

Keep thinking people dislike the police, you're wrong but you don't usually let that stop you.


----------



## pdg (Jun 4, 2018)

I used to get stopped all the time.

Young guy in a big car out late seems to equal a reason to be stopped.

6 times in one night is my record 

Going against the popular advice, I always carried some documentation and never had an issue (over and above the hassle of being stopped that is).

When I had a loud exhaust, I also used to carry an excerpt from the construction and use regulations along with a sound pressure level meter in the glove box - that way when I got stopped I could prove my car was 2db under the legal noise limit rather than have the trouble (after the first time) of a defect notice nobody was able to sign...

I can't say it ever gave me cause for dislike or hatred of the police though.


----------



## jobo (Jun 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Fitted you up to be stopped by the police, it screams the police being told to look out for you. Play the victim by all means and think the police picked on you because you look iffy but I promise you, someone phoned up gave them your details and you were stopped.
> 
> Keep thinking people dislike the police, you're wrong but you don't usually let that stop you.


I know people dislike the police, you can always tell the policeman at the party, stood on his own like he has a smelly fish in his pocket,Even people who work for the tax man won't talk to them,heLl even policemen don't like policemen


----------



## jobo (Jun 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> I used to get stopped all the time.
> 
> Young guy in a big car out late seems to equal a reason to be stopped.
> 
> ...


Have you got any close friends who are policemen, ? Very few people have,


----------



## pdg (Jun 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> Have you got any close friends who are policemen, ? Very few people have,



I'm far too belligerent to have any close friends...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2018)

jobo said:


> I know people dislike the police, you can always tell the policeman at the party, stood on his own like he has a smelly fish in his pocket,Even people who work for the tax man won't talk to them,heLl even policemen don't like policemen




You do have issues don't you?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 5, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You do have issues don't you?



Ah, leave it alone Tez3.  You act like you think he is paranoid.  I personally don't think so.  I think everyone does dislike him.   

Frankly, there are indeed policemen, at least in the USA who are not likable.  Some have always been like that and drifted in to police work to satisfy their itch, and others who weren't so and wanted to serve others, have become so because of job experiences.  But I think most are good people who want to serve their fellow citizens.

For those who may have run across only the unlikable police people, sorry for you.  Look around and you should find more who are good and likable people.  If you are totally unable to do that, start looking at yourself a little more closely.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Nov 30, 2018)

Sorry to rev this again, but  i think there was a incident of someone using a sabre for home defence in the U.K, the breif summary (as i wont be able to find the source tonight but will addendum, it in)   Someone broke into someones home with some form of improv bat, he was fended off twice without a cut being made then on a third return he was cut by the sabre.   if memory serves me right.

I have no idea how that ended but i don't think the home owner was charged and/or convicted of anything.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2018)

Rat said:


> Sorry to rev this again, but  i think there was a incident of someone using a sabre for home defence in the U.K, the breif summary (as i wont be able to find the source tonight but will addendum, it in)   Someone broke into someones home with some form of improv bat, he was fended off twice without a cut being made then on a third return he was cut by the sabre.   if memory serves me right.
> 
> I have no idea how that ended but i don't think the home owner was charged and/or convicted of anything.


not seen it on any of the news feeds, post it up


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 1, 2018)

jobo said:


> not seen it on any of the news feeds, post it up



Experience: I fought off a burglar with a sword

I believe this is the one.    I haven't looked into it much.     Of the quick skim i dont think there is a mention of him getting charged and the sword was just removed to check the legality under English law.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 1, 2018)

Rat said:


> Experience: I fought off a burglar with a sword
> 
> I believe this is the one.    I haven't looked into it much.     Of the quick skim i dont think there is a mention of him getting charged and the sword was just removed to check the legality under English law.


Assuming the story is factual, which seem the case, I commend the gentleman. I am puzzled where the line is for defending yourself, you family, and your possessions. I hope the homeowner could end such a confrontation quicker, even if it meant more brutal, in the U.S. Just seem like there was tons of just cause there.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

An Idiot’s Guide to Self-Defence

Guidance is actually quite clear in the UK, even with the differing laws we have between countries. The above was written by a very experienced and reputable Queen's Counsel, there's no equivalent in the USA so you may have to look it up as well as the writer.

In case you want even more guidance the Crown Prosecution service has this.  Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Assuming the story is factual, which seem the case, I commend the gentleman. I am puzzled where the line is for defending yourself, you family, and your possessions. I hope the homeowner could end such a confrontation quicker, even if it meant more brutal, in the U.S. Just seem like there was tons of just cause there.


the lines are clear as mud, there are situation like the one in the sword case where they are " reasonably " clear, but after chasing him to the garden carrying a sword even those get blurry if he had inflicted a serious injury. what's really unclear I mean really really unclear is the protection of possessions, where there is no threat to the person. causing serious injury  to someone who is in the middle of stealing your car or walking out with your tv will be very very hard to justi , so going out of the safety of your home to protect your car and knocking him out cold with a wheel brace or sneaking up being someone leaving your house carrying your 50' plasma and hitting them with rolling pin would most likely see you in a bit of bother.


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2018)

Rat said:


> Experience: I fought off a burglar with a sword
> 
> I believe this is the one.    I haven't looked into it much.     Of the quick skim i dont think there is a mention of him getting charged and the sword was just removed to check the legality under English law.


well that the police being wrong, owning a samari sword is quite legal,importing selling etc is not, unless it's a genuine samari sword where is quite legal all round.

this issue isn't the sword, it's what he did with it, which seems very defensive and quite reasonable, having gone after him, if he had run him through with it, he might had had a good bit more explaining to do


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> well that the police being wrong, owning a samari sword is quite legal,importing selling etc is not, unless it's a genuine samari sword where is quite legal all round.
> 
> this issue isn't the sword, it's what he did with it, which seems very defensive and quite reasonable, having gone after him, if he had run him through with it, he might had had a good bit more explaining to do




if you read the article and understood it, there was no where that the the writer said the police told him 'Samurai' swords are illegal, the writer himself puts 'some are illegal', in brackets to explain. You then wrote 'importing, selling is not legal....etc',however selling replica swords even 'Samurai' one is completely legal you can buy them on Amazon and Ebay as well as other sites.  Swords, Blades UK, Sword, knives, Martial Arts, Samurai, Samuri, Lord Rings, Movie Collectables
imported ones. Swords, Blades UK, Sword, knives, Martial Arts, Samurai, Samuri, Lord Rings, Movie Collectables


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> if you read the article and understood it, there was no where that the the writer said the police told him 'Samurai' swords are illegal, the writer himself puts 'some are illegal', in brackets to explain. You then wrote 'importing, selling is not legal....etc',however selling replica swords even 'Samurai' one is completely legal you can buy them on Amazon and Ebay as well as other sites.  Swords, Blades UK, Sword, knives, Martial Arts, Samurai, Samuri, Lord Rings, Movie Collectables
> imported ones. Swords, Blades UK, Sword, knives, Martial Arts, Samurai, Samuri, Lord Rings, Movie Collectables


no I didnt say the police told him samurais are illegal, nor did I say importing and selling them is not illegal. ??

putting up items for sale on eBay as proof that things are not illegal doesn't really work, eBay is full of things which are illegal in the uk, they are either breaking the law or in another jurisdiction and don't care


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> the lines are clear as mud, there are situation like the one in the sword case where they are " reasonably " clear, but after chasing him to the garden carrying a sword even those get blurry if he had inflicted a serious injury. what's really unclear I mean really really unclear is the protection of possessions, where there is no threat to the person. causing serious injury  to someone who is in the middle of stealing your car or walking out with your tv will be very very hard to justi , so going out of the safety of your home to protect your car and knocking him out cold with a wheel brace or sneaking up being someone leaving your house carrying your 50' plasma and hitting them with rolling pin would most likely see you in a bit of bother.


That is just wrong. Clearly these people have never been taught any kind of respect or morality. Whacking them over the head with a tire iron while they are stealing my TV would be a good start in teaching them that what they are doing is wrong on every human level.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> no I didnt say the police told him samurais are illegal, nor did I say importing and selling them is not illegal. ??
> 
> putting up items for sale on eBay as proof that things are not illegal doesn't really work, eBay is full of things which are illegal in the uk, they are either breaking the law or in another jurisdiction and don't care




Sigh, do keep up. You said the police were wrong,however they didn't say anything it was the householder/writer that said it, so you are incorrect. 
You also ignored the British firm selling imports which aren't genuine samurai swords quite legally. Not unless you consider chinses made 35 quid swords to be genuine Japanese ones.

Interesting too that you went off in a huff telling everyone you were putting me on ignore, guess that's not true either


----------



## jobo (Dec 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Sigh, do keep up. You said the police were wrong,however they didn't say anything it was the householder/writer that said it, so you are incorrect.
> You also ignored the British firm selling imports which aren't genuine samurai swords quite legally. Not unless you consider chinses made 35 quid swords to be genuine Japanese ones.
> 
> Interesting too that you went off in a huff telling everyone you were putting me on ignore, guess that's not true either


I said the police were wrong, I. didn't say they said anything, genuine sw!ords are legal it's the 35 quid Chinese one that are not, and those are only illegal to import/ sell, hence why the police were wrong to take his sword off him for consideration


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> I said the police were wrong, I. didn't say they said anything, genuine sw!ords are legal it's the 35 quid Chinese one that are not, and those are only illegal to import/ sell, hence why the police were wrong to take his sword off him for consideration




The £35 pound Chinese sword is perfectly legal to buy as I have shown. It's on the perfectly legal British website I posted up. 
You said the police were wrong despite not having any statements from them. Of course they weren't wrong, they have to cross the Ts and dot the Is to make sure there is no legal comeback on the householder. if they hadn't people like you would have claimed they were sloppy and didn't know their jobs.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 2, 2018)

As far as i know the law to be cited for curved blades, any blade above 50CM in length and curved is banned UNLESS It is a antique or traditionally made.  (which can be provable if it was made before X period defined in law or you get a certificate from manufacturer to state its been made traditionally, thank god there are still forges which do Japanese swords like that)

And that is a paraphrase off the government website in regard to.  There might be the religious reason defence claus in there for it. (i think that applies to all weapons on the banned weapon list and other wise restricted ones as a defence in court)

(i will edit this post or post under it with a citation to the banned weapon list)

Selling, buying and carrying knives

( "swords, including samurai swords - a curved blade over 50cm (with some exceptions, such as antiques and swords made to traditional methods before 1954)"   The actual quote)


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 2, 2018)

Rat said:


> As far as i know the law to be cited for curved blades, any blade above 50CM in length and curved is banned UNLESS It is a antique or traditionally made.  (which can be provable if it was made before X period defined in law or you get a certificate from manufacturer to state its been made traditionally, thank god there are still forges which do Japanese swords like that)
> 
> And that is a paraphrase off the government website in regard to.  There might be the religious reason defence claus in there for it. (i think that applies to all weapons on the banned weapon list and other wise restricted ones as a defence in court)
> 
> ...




which will be why the police took the sword for examination and having found it legal gave it back. As usual Jobo is just looking to be argumentative, that and he hates the police.

The site I posted which sells legal swords in the UK. 
Swords, Blades UK, Sword, knives, Martial Arts, Samurai, Samuri, Lord Rings, Movie Collectables


----------



## DaveB (Dec 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> I don't know if this has been discussed, or if I'm in the right section, but hey.
> 
> This is about an ongoing case (it happened last night) - I don't have specifics other than what has been reported.
> 
> ...


The first thing that needs to be understood is that being arrested *DOESN'T MEAN YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG.* 

People are arrested to facilitate investigation. A man died, that needs to be investigated. Forensic evidence needs to be collected, not least from the man's clothing, statements from witnesses and the suspect need to be taken. It's almost a certainty that the old man spent little to no time in a cell and would have been returned home at the earliest convenience. 

Sadly we can't just let police decide guilt or innocence based on appearance.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 2, 2018)

DaveB said:


> The first thing that needs to be understood is that being arrested *DOESN'T MEAN YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG.*
> 
> People are arrested to facilitate investigation. A man died, that needs to be investigated. Forensic evidence needs to be collected, not least from the man's clothing, statements from witnesses and the suspect need to be taken. It's almost a certainty that the old man spent little to no time in a cell and would have been returned home at the earliest convenience.
> 
> Sadly we can't just let police decide guilt or innocence based on appearance.


TCA 40-7-103 is just one of many rules that say otherwise. 2010 Tennessee Code ::  Title 40 - Criminal Procedure ::  Chapter 7 - Arrest ::  :: Part 1 - General Provisions ::  :: 40-7-103 - Grounds for arrest by officer without warrant.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> TCA 40-7-103 is just one of many rules that say otherwise. 2010 Tennessee Code ::  Title 40 - Criminal Procedure ::  Chapter 7 - Arrest ::  :: Part 1 - General Provisions ::  :: 40-7-103 - Grounds for arrest by officer without warrant.


Is Tennessee in the U.K.?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> TCA 40-7-103 is just one of many rules that say otherwise. 2010 Tennessee Code ::  Title 40 - Criminal Procedure ::  Chapter 7 - Arrest ::  :: Part 1 - General Provisions ::  :: 40-7-103 - Grounds for arrest by officer without warrant.




That is America though in the UK Dave B is absolutely right, being arrested here isn't the same as it is in the USA.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> which will be why the police took the sword for examination and having found it legal gave it back. As usual Jobo is just looking to be argumentative, that and he hates the police.
> 
> The site I posted which sells legal swords in the UK.
> Swords, Blades UK, Sword, knives, Martial Arts, Samurai, Samuri, Lord Rings, Movie Collectables



Im aware, i was being impartial and was only citing a government source the law in question.     Plus i was looking at getting a 49-47cm long curved blade pending how far i wanted to push the judicial system to avoid the 50cm ban. 

The irony about it is, i think they pushed for the ban because a MP got attacked by one and saw you could buy katanas and other asian swords  at basically any seaside market store.   But if you go to the seaside, you can still buy them just the legal ones. Gone from 71CM wall hanger junk to sub 50cm wall hanger junk, but that's as far as i can bend the politics rule. 



DaveB said:


> Is Tennessee in the U.K.?


Depends who you ask.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

Rat said:


> The irony about it is, i think they pushed for the ban because a MP got attacked by one and saw you could buy katanas and other asian swords at basically any seaside market store.




That's not quite the reason, there was a councillor killed in the office of an MP, who was also injured 8 years ago but that's not the sole reason these fakes were banned. There had been a lot of attacks using these fake swords which were flooding into the country. There was also the issue of fraud/counterfeit crime in that many were being sold as 'genuine'. Genuine katanas ( I don't know why the media insist on calling them samurai swords instead of the proper name) aren't banned and the Japanese makers are happy with us stopping the flow of the cheap nasty fake ones to the UK. A lot of consultation took place with a wide range of people including martial artists.
This from 10 years ago. BBC NEWS | UK | Ban on samurai swords becomes law


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> That is America though in the UK Dave B is absolutely right, being arrested here isn't the same as it is in the USA.


I will take out "young" legal system. Flawed as it is.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 3, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Is Tennessee in the U.K.?


Just trying to give some wise perspective.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I will take out "young" legal system. Flawed as it is.




You'd take it out where? the pub? 
The problem, though it's not really a problem as such if you only stay in one place, is that from what I've seen is that each state seems to have different laws which makes it difficult in discussions like this to pin down what someone should do in case they were attacked. We have some differences by country but these are quite clearly written on legal and government sites so you know the grounds for prosecution etc. I imagine if you move from state to state on business or holiday it could get very confusing.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> An Idiot’s Guide to Self-Defence
> 
> Guidance is actually quite clear in the UK, even with the differing laws we have between countries. The above was written by a very experienced and reputable Queen's Counsel, there's no equivalent in the USA so you may have to look it up as well as the writer.


There are, literally, dozens of books about the subject here in the U.S.  Authors such as Mas Ayoob's "Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense" and Andrew Branca's "The Law of Self Defense" are both excellent but there are tons more.

And you can find most of the information contained in them on various blogs, forums, and articles.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

lklawson said:


> There are, literally, dozens of books about the subject here in the U.S.  Authors such as Mas Ayoob's "Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense" and Andrew Branca's "The Law of Self Defense" are both excellent but there are tons more.
> 
> And you can find most of the information contained in them on various blogs, forums, and articles.
> 
> ...




We have info from the CPS though, the actual people who prosecute for the Crown, much better than opinion pieces. The QC who wrote and included that info is an expert not someone with an opinion.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> We have info from the CPS though, the actual people who prosecute for the Crown, much better than opinion pieces. The QC who wrote and included that info is an expert not someone with an opinion.


Fair enough.  To be clear, Ayoob is a certified Expert Witness, lecturer, and recently retired cop.  Branca is a well known defense lawyer in the field.  Both are most certainly experts, FWIW.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.  To be clear, Ayoob is a certified Expert Witness, lecturer, and recently retired cop.  Branca is a well known defense lawyer in the field.  Both are most certainly experts, FWIW.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



My point though is that we have definitive guidance for all, police, public and the legal profession but how does that work when your laws appear to be different in each state?
Police officers aren't really experts in law, they do their job, the prosecution/defence is other people's jobs.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> My point though is that we have definitive guidance for all, police, public and the legal profession but how does that work when your laws appear to be different in each state?


Branca's book is customized for each state.



> Police officers aren't really experts in law, they do their job, the prosecution/defence is other people's jobs.


True, most aren't.  Ayoob is.  But not just because he's a cop.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Branca's book is customized for each state.




Just curious now, do people feel one law covering everyone would be easier to understand and work with or do people like different laws in different states?


----------



## lklawson (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Just curious now, do people feel one law covering everyone would be easier to understand and work with or do people like different laws in different states?


Yes, to both.

Most people seem to feel that one overarching law would be "simpler" but they also do not want to give up the Independence of their own state.  Basically, the general sentiment is, "if it's a law in my state that I like, I want the Federal government to force everyone else to do it our way, but if it's a law in someone else' state that I don't like, I don't want them telling me that my state has to do it their way."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You'd take it out where? the pub?
> The problem, though it's not really a problem as such if you only stay in one place, is that from what I've seen is that each state seems to have different laws which makes it difficult in discussions like this to pin down what someone should do in case they were attacked. We have some differences by country but these are quite clearly written on legal and government sites so you know the grounds for prosecution etc. I imagine if you move from state to state on business or holiday it could get very confusing.


Correction, "OUR legal system. To be fair, some of our states are as big as some of your countries. The same is true, all legalities are clearly written down and are public domain on government sites. Good luck understanding everything that is written.
As far as travel, I have worked in every state but two (Hawaii & Alaska) , Canada extensively, Mexico, Central America, and Malaysia. The only place I have ever had trouble is Los Angeles. I just sucks. Don't go looking for trouble and usually you won't find any.  It isn't like the laws are drastically different. Common sense applies to everything. You drive on the right side of the road everywhere I have worked.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 4, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Correction, "OUR legal system. To be fair, some of our states are as big as some of your countries. The same is true, all legalities are clearly written down and are public domain on government sites. Good luck understanding everything that is written.
> As far as travel, I have worked in every state but two (Hawaii & Alaska) , Canada extensively, Mexico, Central America, and Malaysia. The only place I have ever had trouble is Los Angeles. I just sucks. Don't go looking for trouble and usually you won't find any.  It isn't like the laws are drastically different. Common sense applies to everything. You drive on the right side of the road everywhere I have worked.




Ah the drive on the right thing, nearly 60 countries in the world drive on the left including the American Virgin Islands as well as Japan. 
Having been on MT a long time one of the things that is noticeable is when a self defence question comes up one American will answer then another will say 'but in my state...' then another will go ' no, in my state it's ...' hence making it appear there are very different laws on the same point so don't blame me.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ah the drive on the right thing, nearly 60 countries in the world drive on the left including the American Virgin Islands as well as Japan.
> Having been on MT a long time one of the things that is noticeable is when a self defence question comes up one American will answer then another will say 'but in my state...' then another will go ' no, in my state it's ...' hence making it appear there are very different laws on the same point so don't blame me.


The "drive on the right thing" was simply an example I was sure you would be familiar with. Sure there are differences based on location, (because there is a bridge, or building or mountain for example)but there is much more commonality than differences. Your idea is just ridiculous.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 4, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> The "drive on the right thing" was simply an example I was sure you would be familiar with. Sure there are differences based on location, (because there is a bridge, or building or mountain for example)but there is much more commonality than differences. Your idea is just ridiculous.




I'm not sure what you think 'my idea' was? _I asked a question_, then said that on here that when the subject of self defence came up various people living in different states would post up their laws which were different from each other, is it my fault they are different? Of course not, if those posters are incorrect that's still not my fault. So I'm not sure still what you think my idea was that is ridiculous.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure what you think 'my idea' was? _I asked a question_, then said that on here that when the subject of self defence came up various people living in different states would post up their laws which were different from each other, is it my fault they are different? Of course not, if those posters are incorrect that's still not my fault. So I'm not sure still what you think my idea was that is ridiculous.


Ok, let's go with condescending then.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 4, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Ok, let's go with condescending then.



Sigh. I'm not condescending I simply don't know what you are talking about. Self defence discussions come up a lot here and as I said people post up what the law is in their states, many seem different. If that 'idea' is wrong then the people who posted are wrong then. What am I supposed to think when Americans say things like that, I have to assume they are correct, why wouldn't I?
You are the one that chose to write 'correction' to my post instead of thinking about it, you also missed lklawson's answer to my question so how is it that I'm supposed to be condescending?
You didn't answer my question, which idea was just ridiculous? 
Another question for you, what has the size of states and countries got to do with anything? And why bring up driving on the right/left, what has that got to do with anything as well?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Sigh. I'm not condescending I simply don't know what you are talking about. Self defence discussions come up a lot here and as I said people post up what the law is in their states, many seem different. If that 'idea' is wrong then the people who posted are wrong then. What am I supposed to think when Americans say things like that, I have to assume they are correct, why wouldn't I?
> You are the one that chose to write 'correction' to my post instead of thinking about it, you also missed lklawson's answer to my question so how is it that I'm supposed to be condescending?
> You didn't answer my question, which idea was just ridiculous?
> Another question for you, what has the size of states and countries got to do with anything? And why bring up driving on the right/left, what has that got to do with anything as well?





Tez3 said:


> Sigh. I'm not condescending I simply don't know what you are talking about. Self defence discussions come up a lot here and as I said people post up what the law is in their states, many seem different. If that 'idea' is wrong then the people who posted are wrong then. What am I supposed to think when Americans say things like that, I have to assume they are correct, why wouldn't I?
> You are the one that chose to write 'correction' to my post instead of thinking about it, you also missed lklawson's answer to my question so how is it that I'm supposed to be condescending?
> You didn't answer my question, which idea was just ridiculous?
> Another question for you, what has the size of states and countries got to do with anything? And why bring up driving on the right/left, what has that got to do with anything as well?


Sigh, I wasn't the first to bring up the states, just tried to justify your misunderstanding that size matters in many contexts. To be fair I will search for lklawson's posts as I am not certain about all the content.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 5, 2018)

@Tez3 Not sure which post to quote, so just tagging you.

So I have a couple different things to try to answer your questions. Some of it will be a bit of an extension on what lklawson already said.

So first, people have a tendency to conceptualize the united states as one country. Which makes sense, since it is one country. But, IMO, when you're trying to understand either US law or US culture, that conceptualization makes it confusing. For culture, it would be better to view the different areas as their own countries, and the US as sort of a union of countries: So you have the 'new england' northeast area as a country, the tristate as another, The midwest as one, the florida up to (I'm guessing) virginia upwards and mississippi westward as another, California gets to be its own, etc. Each of those areas have vastly different cultures, prejudices against one another, and lifestyles. As a whole, there's also a difference in their moralities that effects what they care about. As a result, the laws can get pretty different.

So imagining the US as a conglomerate of a bunch of different countries, you have the union stating the bare minimum rights and laws people of each 'country' have to follow, and then within those 'countries' each state gets to decide how far or little they will extend those rights/laws. A good example is the speed limit. The US as a whole has decided on no formal maximum speed limit, however each state sets its own maximum speed limit. So the 'union' decided that this is something the states can handle on their own, no need to have the union meddle with that, and each state chose it's own speed limit. If you look at a map of the different speed limits through the US, you can see a bit of how the 'countries' impact each states decision on that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  So you can see how even though each state chooses its own, they kind of get grouped together. 

And most Americans I know prefer this. The people living on long island don't really agree on a lot with the people in texas politically, and wouldn't want the same rules governing texas to govern long island (I'm pretty sure the reverse is true, @CB Jones can probably confirm that if you want). So it extends to other things, like employment, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, self defense, whatever. And if you travel to a different state that's not close by, it helps to treat it a bit like your going to a new country, and familiarize yourself on the basics. The good thing is, because of the union, we're still judged by the same minimum laws, and have the same rights and freedoms.

So when it gets to self-defense, it would be annoying to have to read about every state if you travel a lot. Instead, knowing the bare minimum of what you can do can help. So essentially, you can defend yourself if there's a legitimate threat to your life, and the defense will not be that you didn't commit a crime, but that you were justified in your actions. Proving that per the state is where the legal aspects will come in. It also helps to know some of the basic groupings: ie: Stand your ground vs. castle doctrine vs. duty to retreat. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(In that, green is stand your ground, orange is duty to retreat, blue treats car/vehicle with castle doctrine) So to go back to the texas vs new york idea. If you live in texas, in your mind standing your ground is okay. If you take a vacation in NYC, you should be aware that you have a duty to retreat. That's enough knowledge on that subject to worry about the rest of the consequences afterwards. If you want to take a weapon with you, check the laws of the place for a weapon, the same way you would if you wanted to travel to italy.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Sigh, I wasn't the first to bring up the states, just tried to justify your misunderstanding that size matters in many contexts. To be fair I will search for lklawson's posts as I am not certain about all the content.




Size? I really don't think I mentioned anything about size mattering at all in any context. You have just left me more confused than ever about your posts.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 5, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Size? I really don't think I mentioned anything about size mattering at all in any context. You have just left me more confused than ever about your posts.


Just let it go. This is going nowhere.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 5, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> @Tez3 Not sure which post to quote, so just tagging you.
> 
> So I have a couple different things to try to answer your questions. Some of it will be a bit of an extension on what lklawson already said.
> 
> ...



Great work.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Just let it go. This is going nowhere.




Except I shall spend the next few hours wondering how I managed to upset you. Though I'm told men always worry about size...……………….
Just rechecked all my posts, I said nothing about size, I've had my question answered nicely by others and am still perplexed.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 6, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Sigh. I'm not condescending I simply don't know what you are talking about. Self defence discussions come up a lot here and as I said people post up what the law is in their states, many seem different.


A lot of times they don't actually know what they're talking about.  Frequently, they're basing their belief on second hand info and misunderstandings of Black Letter law without the understanding of how Case Law has impacted it.  As an example in Texas, the Black Letter Law allows for the use of Deadly Force to protect property in some instances.  But most of the time, shooting someone on his way out of your house with your TV is still going to get you in prison.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 6, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Just let it go. This is going nowhere.


Are you new here?


----------



## Hanshi (Dec 6, 2018)

TANG!  A 78 year old man isn't going anywhere; and would be easy to find if a warrant had to be served.  IMHO, it's absurd to think anyone in their own home would be required to take a bullet or stab wound before defending themselves.  If someone comes into my house and points a knife or gun at me, I can swear in court that it doesn't indicate a romantic attempt.


----------

