Man bailed over Bramhall ‘intruder’ stab death


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14968236
by Mark Roussell

I imagine the police would claim that the death of a man is prima facie evidence of a crime having been committed, i.e. they would perceive it as a reasonable cause to assume that murder had occurred. However, whether or not this is a genuinely reasonable or logical assumption surely depends on the circumstances as they appeared to the police at the time. It’s entirely possible the police are aware of critical circumstances that have not been reported that would make an assumption of murder appropriate. Or then again they may just be over-interpreting the law, going that extra politically correct mile, and arresting obviously innocent people who have clearly used “reasonable”, but
lethal, self defence. I wonder which it is.

In my view any defensive action on one’s own property must automatically be assumed to be “reasonable”, even if it results in the death of an intruder. There is no other rational, effective, realistic or ethical interpretation.

The fact that the arrested man has been released on bail seems to suggest that he is not considered by the police to be a risk to others, which in turns seem to me to suggest that he probably should not have been arrested at all. Arresting the probably traumatised victim of a crime is simply not the behaviour we should expect from our police.

As an aside, I’d like to say to anyone who supports the idea of ‘tough policing’ from the likes of Bill Bratton or similar that these supercops seem most unliikely from what I’ve heard to avoid problems such as these, where homeowners are arrested for defending themselves and their property. Indeed, I suspect they would be all the more eager to arrest the homeowners in situations like this as potential criminals! So called tough, no compromises, policing tends to imply even less discrection, even less common sense, even less reasonableness than is exhibited at present. Sure, they might be less politically corrct but they will
replace this with an even greater disinterest in genuine reasonableness(*). They are probably the last people that libertarians should support.

(*) I am willing to believe otherwise if any of these supercops are willing to go on the public record to make it clear that they will always presume in favour of the homeowner in cases like this.

About these ads

34 responses to “Man bailed over Bramhall ‘intruder’ stab death

  1. “In my view any defensive action on one’s own property must automatically be assumed to be “reasonable”, even if it results in the death of an intruder. There is no other rational, effective, realistic or ethical interpretation.”

    Agreed. Of course, we don’t know that the police are NOT making that assumption. The problem appears to be that in any case of a death, where someone else is present (or is believed to have been present), that someone else is arrested as a matter of course. This happens after road accidents where the surviving driver is invariably detained, and the crash site deemed a “crime scene”.

    It seems that arresting the survivor is just the standard procedure, but this cannot be right. Do you have to be arrested to be questioned under caution? It seems rather heavy-handed to me.

  2. The arrest of a property-owner, who has clearly dispatched an intruding villain _/and freely admits the fact to the authorities/_ is, to my mind, a de-facto admission by the State that property rights in one’s freehold are not absolute, but qualified. This has to be wrong.

  3. The rights of people to be secure in their person trump property rights. No property rights are absolute since they are elaborate social constructs.

    Tony

  4. You tell ‘em that Tony, when you find someone uninvited in your living room at 2 am.

  5. If, as is almost certainly the case, it was just a matter of the killing of a home invader by the home owner, then the latter was damn lucky it went his way. Apparently he was outnumbered two to one and the knife he used was one he removed from the criminals.

  6. “”You tell ‘em that Tony, when you find someone uninvited in your living room at 2 am.”

    I don’t think you understand, Mr Ecks…

    All your possessions aren’t really yours, to think otherwise would mean ignoring that property rights are essentially elaborate social constructs.

    And you should really put a list of them on your door, which should be left unlocked at all times of course, to save any poor, disadvantaged person the trouble of breaking in only to discover you’ve got nothing he can easily sell.

    So if you were to hear sounds at two in the morning, you’d know what they were and wouldn’t need to inconvenience an under-privileged chap who’s simply going about his business.

    I mean, no one would try to knife you to death at your job, so why should it be any different for him?

  7. The law permits you to defend your person. It does not allow you to kill to enforce your property rights. This is in accordance with generally accepted libertarian principles, whereby fundamental rights inhere in the individual, not in the property.

    Tony

  8. “The law permits you to defend your person. It does not allow you to kill to enforce your property rights.”

    Of course not, Tony. Only the poilice are allowed to kill to enforce property rights – or shoot people armed with planks of wood.

    The people who post here are just arrogant serfs who should learn their place.

  9. “The law permits you to defend your person. It does not allow you to kill to enforce your property rights. This is in accordance with generally accepted libertarian principles, whereby fundamental rights inhere in the individual, not in the property.”

    Well then, the problem is that it’s completely out of accordance with actual reality.

    Fights are nasty, violent, completely unpredictable things. When you’re in your house protecting your family from thugs with knives, the idea of “reasonable force” is laughable.

    Maybe you’ll scare the scum off just by being there, maybe they’ll stab you just for fun as our justice system has told them over and over again that they can do what the hell they like and sod the consequences.

    Or maybe you’ll get lucky and it’ll be one of them on the receiving end, as was the case here.

    To try and claim you shouldn’t kill in a situation like this is just straight-up ivory tower bullshit.

    Shit happens. In this case, thankfully, it happened to the right man.

  10. As usual Horlicks can be relied upon to take exactly the wrong line.

    So predictable.

  11. The law is as I described it. Libertarian principles say that you can respond to aggression directed against you, not your property.

    This is so obvious that it hardly requires re-stating; but in the light of comments here we can leave nothing to chance…

    Tony

  12. Freehold is not an absolute right, as the name states. “Absolute” rights in landed property are allodial rights, conferring sovereignty.

    Tony

  13. We seem to have quite a few “libertarians” who think it is OK to kill people in defence of their property. Very odd…

    Tony

  14. “Libertarian principles say that you can respond to aggression directed against you, not your property.”

    Are you trying to drive a wedge between the products of someone’s labour-time (property) and their person? The man who steals your property steals your life.

  15. “Libertarian principles say that you can respond to aggression directed against you, not your property.”

    No they don’t.

    “We seem to have quite a few “libertarians” who think it is OK to kill people in defence of their property. Very odd…”

    Nothing odd at all about wanting to defend what’s yours, it’s hardwired into us as human beings.

    Personally I find it strange that someone would be fine with the idea that people could just take what they wanted as long as they don’t direct aggression at your person. Very odd…

  16. If you pour your tomato juice into the Atlantic Ocean, have you (a) added the Atlantic Ocean to yourself; or (b) wasted your tomato juice?

    So much for “labour-mixing” theories >:-}

    Tony

  17. If I spend a month working for something that is then stolen, and I have to work another month to replace it, then I have be indirectly enslaved for a month to the individual who stole it. Presumably, you don’t regard this as aggression.

    Given your affilation, I suspect you’re probably one of these people who regards burglary as a valid lifestyle choice and those that use violence to stop them as somehow impinging on that choice.

    P.S. Please post your address, Tony, and we’ll come and relieve your of your property; we’ll be guaranteed neither resistance nor complaint.

  18. Breaking into someones home IS an act of agression against them.

    As everyone knows full well.

  19. What “affiliation” is that?

    Tony

  20. Breaking and entering (a) when the householder is in: and (b) when the building is unoccupied?

    Tony

  21. There’s no difference in principle.

  22. The problem will be solved only by giving everyone the right to keep and bear arms – including, most emphatically, criminals. Only when the sheeple see the criminals tooling up will they be roused from their stupor and realize that the local plod is in no position to protect them. Let the police get on with their diversity awareness seminars and sensitivity training while the population at large gets ready for the serious business of tackling crime.

  23. “When you’re in your house protecting your family from thugs with knives, the idea of “reasonable force” is laughable.”

    Exactly. You will respond in one of two ways, i.e., “fight or flight”, and which you’ll choose will depend on many things, none of which have anything to do with rational decision making, or about using “reasonable” force (whatever that is – force is force). If you find someone in your house without your permission, quite often in the dead of night, it’s probably a fair assumption that they’ve not just popped in for a friendly cup of tea! However, whether you challenge them or run, depends on your character, how you happen to be feeling in the split second before you discovered that you had been “invaded”, and so on, and nothing whatever to do with notions of reasonable force.

    When you find someone in your house without your permission, you have no idea what their intentions are, or whether they’ll use violence against you, so it seems to me the logical thing to do is to incapacitate them asap. If they end up dead, that’s their fault.

    However, returning to my original point, I think that in these circumstances the police do have to ask some questions, just to make sure you haven’t invited someone you wanted to kill onto your property, and then killed them claiming that they were burgling you. I’d still like to know if it’s really necessary to arrest the property owner. Surely, most people would be so shaken by such an event, that a few well chosen questions would clear the matter up straight away.

  24. All that is necessary for this to be solved, is for people to not enter other people’s houses or propery unannounced and with intent, other than just saying “Hi, nice to know you! Enjoy the rest of your day and I just thought we could have a cup of tea together before I go willingly, as soon as you decide to throw me out!”

    If it is any other scenario, and not this one, then we will kill them.

  25. If you have contents insurance, any loss will be reimbursed.

    Killing people to save the price of the policy seems wrong.

    Tony

  26. It isn’t about insurance. As Horlicks and everyone else is totally aware.

    If someone breaks into your home that is an act of aggression against you and you are morally justified in using force against the aggressor. Or you could just follow Horlicks advice and do nothing and hope that the invader doesn’t do anything to you or your family.

  27. Insurance simply spreads the loss through higher premiums.

  28. You likely are free to arrest an intruder, using reasonable force.

    Tony

  29. That’s a pretty weak effort at trolling, even for you, Horlicks.

  30. I wonder if any of those talking the bloodthirsty talk have ever actually killed anyone deliberately?

    Tony

  31. Tony, you seem to be deliberately missing the point.

    If you find an uninvited stranger in your house, most likely under cover of darkness, who knows how you will react? You might chase him off, you might run away yourself, you might grapple with him, in the course of which either of you could end up dead. You just don’t know. So if said uninvited stranger ends up dead, did you murder him? I thought that required premeditation, and you’re unlikely to have given it any thought at all.

    To say that you could restrain and arrest an intruder using “reasonable force” is, for those of us not Special Forces trained, a joke. Whether any of us would actually kill an intruder or not, is something we won’t know until or unless we are faced with the possibility. The point here is that should an invader end up dead or injured after a confrontation with a householder, he has only himself to blame, and the police should not immediately clap the (probably pretty dazed householder) in irons!

  32. P Robinson

    What you say is sensible enough. “Minimum necessary force” is the legal criterion. What I oppose is killing people over a few insured baubles. An outcome which people have to live with for the rest of their lives.

    Tony

    PS: “Panic Rooms” are a good idea. Enya has one.

  33. You are being deliberately obtuse.

    It is not a matter of a ‘few baubles’, it is a matter of protecting yourself and your family when your home is broken into by criminals.

    Your suggestions that the correct response is to use ‘minimum necessary force’ to ‘arrest’ them is puerile.

  34. Nonetheless it is the law.

    Tony