Saw that the case of the pensioner who stabbed a burglar has been decided to be a lawful killing. I'm sure his family are hugely relieved. The coroner said: Pensioner 'lawfully killed' burglar who he stabbed to death For those who love VS. videos and martial arts top trumps; the burglar was a former boxer and the pensioner had fenced in the army. Sounds like a sensible ruling by the coroner to me. Thoughts?
From the overview it sounds like the appropriate ruling. I read that the pensioner we terrorised for a while by the burglar's family. Hopefully it will be the end of that.
For people not upto date with the UK legal system, (And I'm definitely not) this is my understanding of the situation. This was the corners Court, which is used to decide cause of death, the man who was burgled, was not on trial. "Mr Osborn-Brooks was initially arrested on suspicion of murder, but was told by police he would face no further action." However if the now deceased burgler had been found to be unlawfully killed, then the householder would be at risk of a private prosecution and/or the CPS changing their minds and taking him to criminal court. Is that correct?
Coroners Court is the Highest Court of the Land. If they deemed the death as "unlawful" then yes, an inquest occurs and ruling comes in with sentencing. It's quite well researched prior to the hearing, so it's more of a "this is why..." kind of affair.
From what I've read, he still can't go home and the scumbag burglar's family are quoted as saying 'if you stab someone you should go to jail'. So to a certain extent justice still hasn't been served as the householder is still suffering harassment and intimidation.
My initial reaction when I read about this case was sympathy with the defendant. Having read the account in newspaper today though, the only thing that bothers me is the fact that the home owner was stood at bottom of the stairs (i.e blocking burglar's exit) when the stabbing took place. The burglar's accomplice had just left after he saw householder with the knife and said him, "get out he's got a knife". Whilst you should be able to defend your self/home and I have no sympathy for anyone entering a house armed with intent to burgle, this case is not so straight forward. Can't help but feel that if the burglar hadn't been a junkie career criminal and a traveller to boot, things might have been seen differently - perhaps a manslaughter charge ?
from the article ""I still think that Mr Vincent rushes forward intending to do me harm (with his screwdriver) and he ran into the knife that I was holding between us." Classic example of why the "Right of Way" rule exists in fencing. If the other person has a Point in line you cannot simply attack into it. You must attempt to beat or displace the point first, or else you could run yourself through Respect of the fencing phrase t.56 3b) If the attack is initiated when the opponent is ‘point in line’ (cf. t.10), the attacker must, first, deflect the opponent’s blade. Referees must ensure that a mere contact of the blades is not considered as sufficient to deflect the opponent’s blade (cf. t.60.5.a). From a self defence point of view the following is critical: "Osborn-Brooks said: "I was just showing him that the knife I had was actually bigger than the screwdriver. So if he was to lunge at me he would hit my knife rather than hit me first. "I thought he would look at my knife and see it is bigger than his implement and he would take the opportunity to run out the front door, which was open. "My intention was to get him out of the house and away from my wife....He definitely didn't try to get out of the front door, he came towards me." In a court of law you if you explain that you gave the perpetrator a means of exiting without fighting and/or he gave you no option to respond then it stands very much in your favour. The Perpetrators mother said "How could the young man that was killed lunge forward to this gentleman when he's squashed between the door, the wall and the stairs?" I can well believe it. When trying to explain the right of way rule to non fencers "I have a sword pointed at you or extending towards you...what do you do?" its distressing to see how many go on to say they would attack into a naked point. (its even more idiotic when experienced fencers do it)
Thanks for the details, I stand corrected - shows danger of drawing conclusions from incomplete details.
That's why we have Courts and Lawyers... to argue/defend/criticise and eventually decide divided opinions. Basically its a physical forum. The opposing quotes "I want him out of the house" "He wanted out but he was in the way" And its the above quotes whereas then the 2 opposing Lawyers and Judge debates the in and outs. If you've never been to Court before to defend your actions, its difficult to explain the feeling of being completely torn apart and scrutinised. And much easier to post a "well obviously..." on the internet.
I think this is important to bare in mind , I’ve never had the misfortune to be in that position , but have done jury service , and I was surprised at just how verbally aggressive the lawyers were.
