Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home'

In the movie 'Liar Liar', the legal secretary tells a story of a friend who had a burglar on her roof. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar successfully sued. Now I've heard of a lot of insane US suing stories, but surely stories such as this one don't actually exist. If you live in the US, perhaps you can confirm.

 

It doesn’t really matter where you live. About 10 years ago I remember reading in local news about a burglary in a good neighborhood. Home owners where at home. Burglars ties them up and started to rape the guys wife. He started to fight and they killed him.
Eventually the criminals were caught, but the guy is still dead.
That case was one of the things that convinced me to buy a gun - if someone enters your home without your invitation they never have good intentions. It’s better to have a gun and take the odds over putting yourself at a mercy of criminals whose very presence in your house proves that they don’t care about laws.

 

I would say you would not know a law if it bit you as evidenced by your posting. You have been indoctrinated to a belief system based on the whims of man and called law. Law, best expressed in Latin term, would be malum in se, an evil in itself as compared to a dictate of man, expressed in Latin, would be malum prohibitum, evil by prohibition of man. All the good little slaves operate under malum prohibitum.

 

Irreversible (Unreversable is not a word)? Please explain why these processes can not be reversed.

 

Kangaroo courts, are you referring to the British court system? If not you should be as that is the real kangaroo courts. Extra judicial killing, what is an "extra" judicial killing? Are you trying to say the government killed the burglar?

Thugs, just what are you trying to imply? Thugs are the jackboots of government where they retain the right to kill you so as to prevent something bad from happening to you. But it seems that within your "belief" system, a thug is a victim that initiated the prime right of self defense.

But you probably have no problem whatsoever with the British military that has been killing innocent people all over the world in the name of piece because it definitely has nothing to do with peace.

 

I cut my chicken's throats, guns destroy the meat. Sort of like what you are trying to innsuate about guns, you have no clue to what you are saying. What's killing 50 people at a concert or 17 kids in a high school when the objective is to eliminate the guns? After all, all the little idiots without a clue will demand to be slaves. Ask the Jews in Germany how that worked out for them, how about all those millions killed in Russia after the guns were taken? Should we mention Pol Pot?

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

Always better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

And odds are the jury will take the victims side, your side.

 

Hire a lawyer, lose your life.

 

There have been cases where a burglar would sue the homeowner if they injured themselves, or the homeowner sought to defend themselves and just injured the burglar. It's one of the reasons why (off the record) law enforcement will tell you to never shot to injure, you shoot to kill.

That being said, I take 'fear of imminent harm' very seriously. Against most protocol, unless someone is within striking distance of me, I will give them warning that they face terminal harm. Fortunately, I have never had to do it.

 

Gun free zones, another word for being on the receiving end of a firing range. And somehow for those that are brain dead, that is their comfort zone. Still don't understand why they live in fear.

 

You don't need any more info.

When two young men break into someone's house their life is in danger, period.

Now the UK is completely at the mercy of any criminal strong enough to overpower you, and as you know, they don't break in by themselves. They bring friends.

Your country has rejected Churchill and embraced Chamberlain.

 

Then do not rely on hyperbolic claims such as the death penalty.

Then do not be coming down on the side of law enforcement until all the facts are actually in. Since it has not been proving that the pensioner in question used excessive force, or attempted to enact revenge, it is far too premature to be establishing a position about the state being right by default/

See above.

Such does not answer the question as it was presented. What exactly does the law say on the subject of victimizing someone else, such as forcefully entering a residence in order to rob the occupant? Is such actually allowed, or is it prohibited under all circumstances?

 

Sure, if by not "entirely" legal you mean 5 years in federal prison for having one.

 

I've a friend who can take out a kneecap at 200' with a .22 revolver, competed at Camp Perry back in the day, his son did, too. He just wanted to be a man stopper as needed, not a man killer. But as he kept reading the papers he finally wised up and got a 9.

 

So you are saying that if I just shoot you and you don't die right away, it's not murder? You need to examine your premises, there are errors.

 

And what does the rule of law say about the crime of burglary, or breaking and entering? The pensioner was threatened with great bodily harm and/or death when the screwdriver was treated as a weapon by the criminal.

And pray tell why is such regarded as the correct approach? Who is to say someone who is illegally entering a residence is not after more than just property?

Just as no information is possessed on the part of yourself that the pensioner acted out of malice.

Because the concept of false arrest does not exist, correct?

 

You do not live by the rule of law but the dictates of man. If you lived by the rule of law, then why was Tony Blair not even tried much less hung? How about Cammergoon?

 

It is a necessity for addressing the errors in the presented argument. Especially when the one presenting the argument admits to not knowing the full story, but has already concluded that law enforcement is correct.

 

I was taught at an early age that you don't take a gun out unless you plan on using it, and if you use it, you shoot to kill. a .22 may or may not do the job it was intended for.

I can't claim perfect marksmanship, but I did hold first place at a Turkey shoot in Triangle Virginia about 25 years ago.....

 

It wasn't to do with people not trying - unlike in the US

 

So the victim suffers battery at the hands of another and was forced to take another's life in self defense. But now he is being attacked again by some perceived authority and you are good with that.

"No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders." - Samuel Adams.

But in Britain's case, bring in the masses. All those low IQ invaders have taken their toll on this country.

 

My friend is one of many who started out as idealists, and progressed to become realists.

 

What do you mean by killing of millions of Russians from whom the guns were taken away? There was nothing like that. Yes, keep the guns and wait for someone at the moment come and kill you... No other country has these kind of idiotic laws.

 

oooooooh I see you are telling porky's if you are talking about me which I think you are.

No one knows the full story that is why it is ridiculous to be coming to conclusions like you lot are. We have zero information on what he did. We just know the police arrested him for murder and one of the burglars was found outside moaning in great pain and has since died. The police are looking for the other. That is about as much as we know.

Again if you are talking about me I suggest you look to the beginning and you will find I have said there are two possibilities - either that the police have made a mistake or that there is more to this than we know and indeed without knowing that it is impossible to come to conclusions on this.
I have just met you. I am sorry that you misrepresent others. I will knowing that, take what you say with a pinch of salt.

 

sad. I actually only believe this with respect to people in the 60's when politics were very much a part of youth culture so some pretended to be what they were not to fit in and later changed to what their values really were.