Don't mess with old men in Hither Green

[Tim Lund]

Officers from the Met’s Homicide and Major Crime Command are investigating following the death of a man inside an address where a burglary was taking place.

At 0045hrs on Wednesday, 4 April, police were called by a homeowner to reports of a burglary in progress and an injured man at Further Green Road, SE13.

The 78-year-old resident had found two males inside his address. Both suspects are believed to have been armed.

A struggle ensued between one of the males and the homeowner during which a 37-year-old male sustained a stab wound to the upper body.

London Ambulance Service conveyed the injured male to a central London hospital where he was pronounced dead at 0337hrs.

Next of kin have been informed. We await formal identification. A post mortem will be scheduled in due course.

The householder suffered bruising to his arms. His injuries are not life threatening.

A 78-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and further arrested on suspicion of murder. He was taken to a south London police station where he remains at this time.
The second suspect in the burglary fled the scene prior to police arrival and remains outstanding.

[MagmaTimes]

Right on!

[Nigel]

Two things lacking in our criminal justice system - sense of. Natural justice and victim empathy .
The public will be repulsed at the thought of a 78 year old in custody for murder following his defending his wife and Home from two armed men.
I’m an armed struggle when the hell did the old chap get time to decide he would unlawfully Moll one of the burglars , deliberately and with malice aforethought?

Basically a repulsive piece of police work that will undermine confidence in the justice system .

A very good morning
Nigel

[Parker1970]

I swear to whatever deity you choose to believe in or not believe in, if the parents of the burgular demand action because their little cherub had his life cut short I will go mad.

I realize the police had to arrest and question him, it's not their place to judge it justifiable, they have to arrest him, but if it goes further than that, it will be a disgrace.

[stuart]

Outrage is easy. Especially as we know nothing of what the 78 year old did. It could range from accidental harm through propotionate response to completely disproportionate and gratuitous killing.

Given hopefully it was one of the first two then the man is in the clear. But all three crime scenes would look very similar and how are the police to make a snap judgement between them? The man may be distraught which may make interviewing difficult and unreliable. So they take a precautionary approach. A person has been killed. The person who killed him has been identified - its a high profile case and given the pressure (and opportunity to contaminate the recall of events are very high) then custody may be appropriate. It doesn't mean he is neccessarily banged up in a cell with the scum of the street.

The police will know their actions will be heavily scrutinised. Then we may take a reasoned judgement as to whether what they did was appropriate. IMHO knee-jerk anger is unhelpful.

Shouldn't this thread be in Town Pub?

Stuart

EDIT: Now bailed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ed-burglar

[mosy]

In UK law, it's still whether "reasonable force" was used so that would have to be looked into. It's also possible that the chap might be safer in police custody for a while.

The truth is we'll probably never know what happened. It's said that when under threat the "red mist" arrives and we all have it in us to defend ourselves in the most expedient way. We go by the grace of God that we've never had to put ourselves to that test.

[stuart]

It's said that when under threat the "red mist" arrives and we all have it in us to defend ourselves in the most expedient way. We go by the grace of God that we've never had to put ourselves to that test.

Its worth noting that the change in the law in 2013 extended the proportionate defence as seen in retrospect to 'appeared proportionate at the time' to cover misjudgement/over-reaction in defending oneself and others in the heat of the moment. This was made to cover your point Mosy.

It wasn't intended to protect people 'defending' their property by shooting unarmed people in the back when running away. We would nail any police who would do that as we would burglary victims - recalling the notorious Norfolk case. Netherless that led to the law change which most people would support.

Stuart

[mosy]

I'd support that law change, a form of temporary insanity, and you (they) probably don't even remember when it "all happened so quickly", but where it's clear that a person poses no threat otherwise.

It was on the news that the man in question has been released without charge.