Man kills burglar in UK, gets life for manslaughter.

[DrSpike]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-411040,00.html

So the guy comes home, finds a burglar and kills him in the struggle that ensues.

Peter Kyte, QC, for the prosecution, told the jury: “The law recognises a man is entitled to defend himself, his family and his property only if his action does not go beyond the reasonable and the necessary."

“There is no doubt Mr Hastings stumbled across a burglary. There is no doubt that Roger Williams was a thoroughly bad hat in the eyes of the law. But, as a human being, he is just as entitled to the freedom to live as anyone else."

Is this last part true? At what point if any should your rights be temporarily suspended?

There are some interesting circumstances here as well. The guy had a family, but they weren't there, though he claims he thought they were. He also has previous convictions himself. Do these things matter?

[Thrawn05]

I remember a few years ago, a woman was jumped by a man. She used her tazer and he dies because HIS PACE MAKER SHORTED!


She got life for murder.

[loinburger]

But, as a human being, he is just as entitled to the freedom to live as anyone else.

When he endangers somebody else's life through his immediate actions, then somebody else is justified in using whatever means necessary to halt his actions. Self defence or defence of another are both justified reasons for killing somebody.

Endangering somebody else's property does not waive his right to life, though. This guy's right to life still trumps somebody else's right to property.

[SpencerH]

Here in Dixie no-one would look twice at killing a burglar (and rightfully so).

[MikeH]

He stabbed him 12 times in the back then threw away the bloody clothing.

Hardly self defence is it?

[Flubber]

The defenses to a murder/manslaughter charge vary a lot from nation to nation ( or in the US from state to state).

I believe that the UK is similar to Canada where you can only use reasonable force in resisting an attack on yourself or others. So if i found a burglar in my house, I could not shoot him unless he showed agression to me . If he backed away slowly I would have no legal justification for killing him.

Contrast this with say Texas where IIRC my soc prof indicated that

- pervention of the commission of a crime
- defense of property
- rendering assistance to a law enforcement officer

are all justifications for the use of deadly force. If this is accurate information, a Texas homeowner can shoot any burglar while in Canada they cannot, without furthur provocation-- Note that a burglar heading towards the stairs when a man's wife and baby were upstairs was held to be further provocation and led to acquittal in one canadian case..


The quote is true if you take it to mean that you cannot kill someone just because they are burglarizing your house. Previous convictions should be irrelevant

[Roland]

The article says he faces up to life in prison. I cannot imagine that would happen in a case like this. Manslaughter has a very broad definition and the sentences can range accordingly.

"At what point if any should your rights be temporarily suspended?"

The phrasing of the prosecutor there is a bit ambiguous. It's not about suspending any right but about the limits of the right to self defense.

"The guy had a family, but they weren't there, though he claims he thought they were. He also has previous convictions himself. Do these things matter?"

First one matters for the subjective side of the crime. Second one for sentencing.

[MikeH]

You can't mention previous convictions to a jury in a UK court. Only the judge gets to see them after the verdict to take them into account on sentencing.

[Boris Godunov]

Stabbed him 12 times, in the BACK?

This guy deserved his conviction.

[Roland]

Well we also don't know to which conclusions the jury came on the facts. Did it believe the family-at-home story ? Did it believe the mistaken Machete ? Did it believe the panicking ?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Flubber
Contrast this with say Texas where IIRC my soc prof indicated that

- pervention of the commission of a crime
- defense of property
- rendering assistance to a law enforcement officer

are all justifications for the use of deadly force.

I think there must be strong caveats. Else based on 1) or 2):

Prosecutor: "Why did you kill this man?"
Defence: "He tried to steal my pen!"
Judge: "CASE DISMISSED - NOT GUILTY.".

[Lincoln]

The jury is guilty of insanity. What exactly is someone supposed to do to protect their family from an intruder in the home? Should he wait until his wife is raped or his kids are molested for fear that a jury will send him to prison for protecting them? The intruder is supposed to fear the law not the victim of crime. As it stands now criminals in Britain are protected while they rape and pillage a private home unless the resident knows for sure that all is well really and the criminal is probably not that bad once you get to know him. In a confrontation like that in the article there is no time to think of all the correct ways to defend your household. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the victim. The burgular may have been a nice guy but he took the risk and he lost the protection of the law when he entered the house. Too bad that Britain protects these people. No wonder there are so many burglaries in Britain. I guess they are a protected class now...

[DrSpike]

I was hoping some disagreement would emerge, that's why I posted this. It's a tricky one morally (forget legally, I'm less interested in that).

So this was a bloody piece of self defence, perpetrated by someone with a criminal history. On top of that I get the impression that the guy knew his family was not there.

But, the burglar committed the initial wrong here. It's quite plausible to suggest the burglar must bear all risk that "reasonable force" turns into something else. It must be terrifying to come home and find a burglar; perhaps you wouldn't act rationally.

On balance I think this guy got a bad deal.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by loinburger

But, as a human being, he is just as entitled to the freedom to live as anyone else.

When he endangers somebody else's life through his immediate actions, then somebody else is justified in using whatever means necessary to halt his actions. Self defence or defence of another are both justified reasons for killing somebody.

Endangering somebody else's property does not waive his right to life, though. This guy's right to life still trumps somebody else's right to property.

Not true. I have the right to shoot to kill in my house if someone broke in.

Also, if you kill him, you're the only one to tell the story.

[SpencerH]

Dont forget the German student (I think) who wa slost in Houston and went up to a door to ask directions. He was shot and killed by an elderly man who said he feared for his life. I dont think he was even charged.