Monday, September 19, 2011

Here we go again

I frequently rail at the police who arrest people for defending themselves in their own property when faced with someone breaking the law. It happened to the florist Cecil Coley and its happened to others in the past where the automatic reaction of the police is to arrest people for crimes committed on their own property to people who shouldn't have been there.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of murder after the death of a suspected intruder at a Greater Manchester house.
Police found a man, aged in his 30s, with knife injuries after they were called to a house in Midland Road, Bramhall, at 19:50 BST on Saturday.
He was given first aid by paramedics and responding officers, but died a short time afterwards. A second man fled the scene.
A 39-year-old man believed to be the householder has been arrested.
Yes I know the police have to investigate the circumstances, after all there's the possibility of enticement or some sort of revenge motivation, but you'd think that innocent until proven guilty would apply as the householder will now have been fingerprinted and dna analysed and his details kept on permanent record. Granted he may never come to the attention of the police again, but the details will still be kept on record unless the householder goes through a lengthy process to try and have them removed.
Ch Supt Tim Forber, said: "Clearly this is a serious incident in which a man has lost his life and at this time we believe the dead man was one of two men who were attempting to carry out a burglary at the house."  
If that's the case, why arrest the householder? Clearly there is a need to investigate, however if as the police suspect that it was a burglary, then the householder need only be told not to attempt to "leave town" until the facts are ascertained, or even kept in "protective custody" but certainly NOT arrested at least not until its proven an actual crime has been committed and defending yourself on your property against burglars should never be considered to be a crime even if the burglars die. If the investigations bring up evidence of collusion or discrepancies in the evidence to place the householders version in grave doubt then arrest, but not before. I'm still of the mind that no-one has the right to come onto my property unannounced without my permission, I'm willing to give a bit of leeway to the police, fire brigade and ambulance service if they have good reason to think they are needed, but no-one else without some sort of court warrant having presented some form of evidence that they need to get in without my permission or because I've withheld it. Similar to a search warrant I guess.
But everytime this happens it just reinforces the idea in my mind that those who break the law by entering someone property illegally have more rights than the property owner and until this matter is redressed, more and more people will end up being arrested with all the rigmarole that goes with it simply for defending themselves in their own homes/property against someone who should not be there.

5 annotations:

Curmudgeon said...

Yes, this is local to me and I totally agree. Fair enough to say he shouldn't leave town until all the circumstances have been investigated, but he shouldn't be arrested on suspicion of murder unless and until there is a prima facie case that he has actually committed murder.

James Higham said...

I'd say well done to that man.

wiggiatlarge said...

And why should he have to tolerate the shrine now outside his home to the man who unasked broke into his home in the first place with the usual messages of "darling boy" wonderfull father" etc.

Anonymous said...

The arrested householder is white. Fair chance that unlike recent cases, Plod will press charges!!

microdave said...

"If that's the case, why arrest the householder?"

You've already answered that:

"The householder will now have been fingerprinted and dna analysed and his details kept on permanent record."

Gotta keep gathering information...