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

That is understandable, a debate tactic instead of a logical error. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Idealism and optimism needs to be tempered by reality.

 

So you agree you do not live under the rule of law. Then why do you keep instilling that which is not true?

 

Seems they're just following procedure. From your link:

Norman Brennan, a former police officer who represents victims’ interests, said police were required to arrest the pensioner in order to investigate whether he had acted in self defence.

But he said he would be “amazed” if he was prosecuted over the death.

“The law says that a person can use reasonable force when defending himself, his family or property. If the intruder is running away the threat has diminished but if that person stays where they are that’s an assault and if they are armed with a weapon then it would be regarded as aggravating circumstances,” said Mr Brennan.

He added: “I cannot see any jury convicting someone in a case where the householder, for example, takes a knife and in a struggle with the burglar injures him.

 

Welcome in Merkel's Madhouse, DDR 2.0, a Paradise for criminals any kind.The 'private rights' of burglars before your door are more important for socialists.

Only the surveillance of your own home is allowed

According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH), an owner may monitor his home if the camera does not cover other apartments or public areas. Because if other owners have to fear surveillance by the camera, this can constitute an impairment and violate the privacy rights. In this case, the community of homeowners may request removal of the camera.

https://www.focus.de/immobilien/kau...er-tuer-darf-das-mein-nachbar_id_3669409.html

What does this mean: right to informational self-determination?

Each person may decide for himself when and how things of personal life are revealed. The Federal Constitutional Court has developed this right in the 1983 "census judgment".

Under certain circumstances, a video recording also violates the right to one's own image: Everyone is free to choose whether to show or distribute videos or photos in public (Special Law on their own image, Finanztest 8/2016). Secret filming also intervenes in the right to own a picture as a publication of the recordings without permission of the filmed, such as by uploading to the Internet.
Why are the requirements for the installation of a surveillance camera so strict?

As already mentioned: everyone has the general right to privacy and thus the right to informational self-determination. Everyone has to be able to move freely in public without their behavior being monitored or recorded by cameras at all times. Because being watched can have far-reaching consequences. Partially, people then change their entire behavior. Before that should protect the observance of the rights.
If I have filmed a burglar - may I put the video on the Internet to get clues from the population?

Absolutely no way. Such a private search is prohibited. He intervenes in the general personality right of the offender. He may demand damages and demand that the photographs be removed from the internet. Pass the footage to the police so they can identify the offender.

https://www.test.de/FAQ-Private-Vid...t-erlaubt-und-das-nicht-5045901-0/#question-8

Stupid Germans are disarmed, the coward 'police' doing nothing to stop burglary, only 2 % of investigations are successful. Additionally Merkel's Madhouse prohibits citizens even a CCTV filming of criminals.

Stupid- very stupid- very very stupid - German

 

If the UK was trying, they wouldn't have 5 times the violent crime rate that the US does.

 

Yet the "state" can have cameras plastered all over the place and invade your privacy.

 

It's more twisted than that in the UK. They intentionally twist all kinds of numbers to make their as violent if not more so than the USs society look better than it really is.

It's not murder in the UK until not only is someone charged for it but they have to actually be convicted. A body found shot or stabbed to death isn't murder. It's just a death. Until a conviction.

So if you do a little math.. Only 40% of deaths due to violence ever result in someone being charged due to lack of evidence... Then also subtract the UK 40% conviction rate for murder and you have some seriously skewed BS murder rates the far leftist propaganda machine can toss around.

 

This is exactly the case. Very likely charges will be dismissed.

 

Yeah I've looked into that quite a bit. A lot of it has to do with how the coroners do the "narrative" for the death.

There's absolutely no way to tell how many dead bodies were the result of homicide because of the way they classify them as one big group.

Additionally, even if they do convict someone, it takes years. That means this years "homicide" statistics in the UK actually reflect the murder rate from at least 4-5 years ago, minus the murders never solved (about 20%), minus the one's they only do a "narrative" classification for.

Their homicide rate statistics are a lie, pure and simple.

Our homicide rate includes ALL homicides, including justified, police shootings, and every other possible combination. If they didn't commit suicide/accident and didn't die of natural causes in the US, it's a homicide.

 

LoL @ "very likely".

That's PATHETIC.

Your WW2 pilots in their graves are wondering why they bothered.

 

If it had been possible by UK law people would have had him arrested. British people and others took it to the ICC but they did not find a case.

I find your game boring.

What Blair did following Bush into war with Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with having a choice of Kangaroo courts and letting people kill just because they can or working things out in courts of law. Laws can be wrong too. Work to change them. More difficult in Authoritarian societies. Be aware and do not become one.

 

Read Article

 

I doubt the police make a mistake, they knew full well what they are doing. And this was definitely not about you as we were discussing logic, not emotions.

 

Arrest, you mean kidnapping. Arrests are part of the judicial process whereby there is a required degree of evidence presented to a magistrate that 1) a crime has been committed and 2) the defendant is a flight risk. Otherwise, in a free world, man is presumed innocent until proved guilty. This does not seem to be the case anymore in many countries, especially Britain.

My big question though is why the Magna Carta? Would not the point have been better made had the Barons not just hung the King?

 

My God it must be really dangerous where you live and defo sounds like it still is the wild west. I guess if you guys are in danger every day then you need to think of how to defend yourself as best you can and keep updating it. Thankfully I don't need to live like that.

 

What you are suggesting is that if someone enters your home, and you kill them, you should never be questioned about it, that it should not be investigated at all. Maybe the old man stabbed the guy repeatedly. He may not have needed to kill him. We don't have all the details. I tend to agree that if someone comes into your home armed with a deadly weapon, if you kill them, it shouldn't be questioned. But that is a US perspective where intruders are far more violent.

 

They don't need to live like that either. It isn't normally that dangerous. These guys have wet dreams thinking about a burgler entering their home so they can blow him away.

 

I faintly remember when Great Britain was....wait for it..."Great".

This is the biggest difference between the USA and most of Europe. Europe celebrates helplessness as a virtue. Half the USA celebrates self reliance and independence. So...crime and mayhem runs wild in Europe while it drops here.

 

Thank you.

Right so we have the position now and it is part of procedure and looks extremely unlikely that he will be charged. Bit of a waste of time thread.

 

Like most of the alt-right, alt-fact threads.

 

The brits have been living under this perverse policy for decades...I seem to recall a notorious case long ago when a victim of repeated burglaries defended himself and ended up jailed.

In the USA the scandal is in police never being held accountable (Castle v Gonzeles) and in the UK it is in blaming the victims for self defense.

 

Great Britain was 'great' because it colonized more than half the world, abusing, torturing, subjugating and enslaving millions upon millions of people. There isn't anything 'great' in that.

 

Thank you for the reference. Nevertheless, noone knows what whould happen in Soviet Union if there was no gun control- maybe there would be even more people dead. I could easily image a civil war in that case that would result in much higher losses. The same is for the other cases. The current situation is however so that the US has the highest rate of gun violence among all developed countries.

 

If you can figure out what you are trying to say... (Hint: no rule of law here, mob rule)

Of course you would, your whole dissertation is based on emotional responses so why not add another.

So you are ok with that because Bush was involved and Blair, being the little puppet he was, was just following along.

That excuse didn't work for the Nazi's at Nuremberg and it's not valid in this day and age either.

"Government is nothing but men acting in concert. The morality and value of government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the morality and value of the men comprising it. Since government is nothing but men, its inherent 'authority' to act is in no way greater or different than the 'authority' to act of individuals in isolation. Government has no 'magic powers' or 'authority' not possessed by private individuals. Let he who asserts that government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention." - Chris Lyspooner

And I doubt you can prove and demonstrate your contention. And why do you portend to offer advice when you demonstrate a pronounced lack of knowledge on the subject?