UK man gets 8 years for killing home invader? WTF?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-26 12:46pm

He was engaged in a criminal act at the time.

Though, that only matters in regards to your beloved blood thirsty american standard....in the UK its very different.

1. Police may only eject a trespasser if an offense is being commited, trespassing itself is a civil offence and only the property owner or thier agents are responsible for using the minimum neccesary force to eject a trespasser.

2. Do you understand how flats are arranged? The HALLWAY, where the stabbing took place is not inside his property.

3. He did open the fucking door, with intent to commit a criminal act. Intent matters in the UK.

And as another aside, as he was engaged in dealing in drugs, which is a felony, it would be murder 1 in the US wouldnt it?
A death occuring in the commision of a felony.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2004-03-26 12:59pm

Ah yes, Salford. Being the resident Mancunian, I can honestly say that there are few worse places in Manchester or its vassals.

IMO, one less drug dealer is good in my books. 10,000 more to go...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-26 01:02pm

He was engaged in a criminal act at the time.

He did open the fucking door, with intent to commit a criminal act. Intent matters in the UK.

It didn't matter to the Judge.

Article

Jailing Lindsay for eight years Mr Justice Hughes said the dealer had been severely provoked and initially acted in self defence.

The drug dealing must not have mattered, eh?

There was a scuffle in the hallway during which Lindsay stabbed Swindells four times in the back.

The articles were unclear as to whether or not its a hallway inside the apartment or a hallway outside the apartment, as you stated.

Either way, it wouldn't matter if, as this article alleges, all of the robbers were armed. Stabbing a man armed with a gun in the back is a smart move, as letting him run by and then turn around and shoot you isn't the best move to make.

I would give Mr. Lindsay the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

1. Police may only eject a trespasser if an offense is being commited, trespassing itself is a civil offence and only the property owner or thier agents are responsible for using the minimum neccesary force to eject a trespasser.

You're kidding?

So if I were to come over to the UK and force my way into your apartment and just stand there, the police wouldn't come arrest me??

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-26 01:07pm

Glocksman, the communal door is the door to the building, not his apartment. Would your Indiana laws extend to the lobby of apartment buildings? I seriously doubt it, and that's just from the way you've been going on and on about "home owner" and "owner of private property".

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-26 01:10pm

Yep, trespassing is entirely a civil matter in England, you need to get a civil injunction and trespassers cannot be prosecuted, only sued.

In Scotland things are a little different.

Just so all you yanks know, there is no UK Law, Scotland and England have had seperate legal systems for as long as they have existed.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-26 01:13pm

Read your post where you quoted your laws. I guess the lobby would fall under "curtilage".

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-26 01:16pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Glocksman, the communal door is the door to the building, not his apartment. Would your Indiana laws extend to the lobby of apartment buildings? I seriously doubt it, and that's just from the way you've been going on and on about "home owner" and "owner of private property".

They normally wouldn't, but there are exceptions in case law.

What would matter is where the initial combat started.
If it started in the apartment and the fatal blows were struck mere feet from his doorway into the hall, then he probably wouldn't have been charged, as the law is intended to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt.

If the combat started farther down the hallway, then we're talking about a possible manslaughter charge.

I only say 'possible' because according to the newest article, the deceased was armed with a handgun and as I posted earlier, it's not the smartest move to let someone with a ranged weapon move back out of range of your melee weapon.

Also, the fight took place within the context of a home invasion and armed robbery. You are permitted to use lethal force to resist an armed robbery separately from any home defense issues.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-26 01:18pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Read your post where you quoted your laws. I guess the lobby would fall under "curtilage".

It would depend upon if the lobby was publically accessible.

The exceptions I mentioned apply mainly to locked hallways that visitors have to be buzzed in by one of the apartment or condo dwellers.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-26 01:24pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Yep, trespassing is entirely a civil matter in England, you need to get a civil injunction and trespassers cannot be prosecuted, only sued.

In Scotland things are a little different.

Just so all you yanks know, there is no UK Law, Scotland and England have had seperate legal systems for as long as they have existed.

So in order to make my tresspass a criminal matter, I'd have to steal something or threaten you?

Interesting.

In the US, most states automatically presume that anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling intends upon doing serious bodily harm or injury to the occupants.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-26 01:58pm

Glocksman wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Even though there's more to it than the Beeb reported, the fact still remains that a man was attacked in his home and went to jail for killing one of his attackers in the hallway of his own home. Not on the street or in a bar, but in his fucking home.

Do you know what I've been told by more than one cop here in town?
If someone breaks in your home, don't be a hero and try to hold them for the cops. Shoot them. In the back if you have to, but shoot them and then call the law.

Our county prosecutor even announced that he wouldn't try to prosecute a homeowner who kills an intruder. Of course, that goes right along with the intent of the Indiana self defense laws.
I realize that this might come as a shock, but the UK is not Indiana.
Indiana and Colorado were given as examples of how the laws differ here in the States.

You know, compare and contrast?

And yet, you posted Indiana's law and anecdotal conversations with local police officers as though they actually had some relevance to the situation. So who gives a shit about Indiana's state law?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-26 02:10pm

And yet, you posted Indiana's law and anecdotal conversations with local police officers as though they actually had some relevance to the situation.

They were relevant as the opening post was pointing out the differences between US and English law on this issue.

Concession accepted.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-03-31 09:32pm

Dahak wrote:I'm sure you'd get charged for manslaughter here in Germany, too.
Self-defense is one thing, but attacking and killing a fleeing man certainly isn't...

But if the fleeing guy has a gun, how do you know he is not going to regroup and come back? He might flee 50 feet, so you can't run after him, then turn and shoot your ass.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-03-31 10:49pm

What the fuck... I remember being told that Brittish citizens are only allowed to defend themselves equaly to how the intruder is threatening them. This means if the intruder has a knife and you have a sword, you can't use it. But if the intruder has a gun and you have a sword, the intruder is fucked.

That is a dumb law. What are you gonna do? Ask the criminal to hold on while you get a smaller weapon to match his?

Imperium² · Post by **Imperium²** » 2004-04-01 06:01pm

This is why I love living in Texas. Not to long ago there was an incident in Arlington (suburb of Fort Worth) where a young man intruded on his exgirlfriends home at night and ended up getting plugged by the father. Just the fact that a person breaks into your home in Texas is enough to kill them.

God Bless Texas.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-04-02 05:40pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Of course you're being sarcastic, but it is an injustice to send someone to prison for killing a home invader.
For every scenario? What if the invader is a sick woman trying to pinch some food?

Personally, I'd say that if the prosecuter can prove that the killer knew that the invader did not present a threat then the killer should go to jail, but that wouldn't be easy to do.

Imperium² wrote:This is why I love living in Texas. Not to long ago there was an incident in Arlington (suburb of Fort Worth) where a young man intruded on his exgirlfriends home at night and ended up getting plugged by the father. Just the fact that a person breaks into your home in Texas is enough to kill them.

God Bless Texas.

The gay marriage thing made me proud to be living in Massachusetts, but the self defense laws here really suck. In Massachusetts, if you're back is up against a wall and you're being threatened with a weapon you can't harm you're attacker because...you could still flee sideways along the wall

. Yes, it sucks that badly.

Back in Maine you could kill somone if you reasonably believed you were in imanent danger of rape, murder, or kidnap.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-04-03 06:08am

this sounds to me like they new this guy was scum, they couldn't get him on drugs charges, so they slapped the maximum penalty they could possibly get for him on manslaughter.... like a very mini al capone minus the taxes

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-03 08:12am

Alyeska wrote:What the fuck... I remember being told that Brittish citizens are only allowed to defend themselves equaly to how the intruder is threatening them. This means if the intruder has a knife and you have a sword, you can't use it. But if the intruder has a gun and you have a sword, the intruder is fucked.

That in itself is fucked up. This is even worse. What the fuck was he supposed to do? Just sit there and let them rob him and risk getting killed? The judge and jury should be fucking ashamed of themselves. I can see why in a recent BBC poll the largest majority of people wanted a UK law that allows defense of self using lethal force and a fire arm. The people are getting fed up with the system punishing the innocent people.

No, it's nothing like that- there's no 'paper scissors rock' involved. What English (and Australian) common law provides is that you are to respond with an appropriate level of force, that's all.