[News] Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

carlzeiss · Apr 6, 2018

Would assume that the Police are providing 24hr protection for Mr Osborn-Brooks and his wife in case of reprisals from the family of the dead scumbag .

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

happypig said:
What evidence do you have to suggest he wasn't treated with respect ?

He was arrested and after having gone through a terrifying ordeal. To me that is a lack of respect.

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

carlzeiss said:
Would assume that the Police are providing 24hr protection for Mr Osborn-Brooks and his wife in case of reprisals from the family of the dead scumbag .

I do hope so. I am very glad not to live in London. Stabbing and shooting on the streets if you dare to go out and arrested in your own home for protecting your family and home.

The press were wrong to print his identity.

happypig · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
He was arrested and after having gone through a terrifying ordeal. To me that is a lack of respect.

He was arrested as part of an investigation onto a death. Are you suggesting that the decision on whether to arrest should be down to how scared the potential offender claims to have been ?

However, with your vast knowledge of the law and police procedure in general and this case in all it's detail, maybe you should petition your MP for a change in the law.

Leighgull · Apr 6, 2018

Brightonfan1983 said:
The Secret Barrister is always worth keeping an eye on these days; he or she does a very good job of explaining the law behind whatever the headlines want you to think. And in this case, is particularly concise.

I shan't paste the text as it's quite long, but suffice to say, the reasons for the arrest are as simple as most of us think - https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/04/05/bashing-burglars-and-the-law-of-self-defence/amp/?

Thanks for posting this link 1983.

Very illuminating. I still think the law falls a long way short in relation to this as, pretty much, the only thing I read there that I agree with is that you are considered to have no defence if you chased a burglar down the road with a cricket bat and mashed his swede for him.

If you are in your own home and two guys, armed with screwdrivers burst in , then who the hell wouldn't go for the nearest sharp object to protect yourself?

Thunder Bolt · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
He was arrested and after having gone through a terrifying ordeal. To me that is a lack of respect.

Different scenario but if the 78 year old had lost it with his disabled wife and hit her, is it right to arrest him, because a) he's in his own home, and b) he is a 78 year old pensioner?

The police have a duty to investigate everyone when there is a sudden death, as the coroner demands it for the inquest. I doubt very much if the old chap will have been strip searched, or locked within a cell.
He would have been questioned with legal reprensentation, and treated with a great deal of respect.
There are professional legal and well trained people replying in this thread, that you are ignoring because you have a different opinion.

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

happypig said:
He was arrested as part of an investigation onto a death. Are you suggesting that the decision on whether to arrest should be down to how scared the potential offender claims to have been ?

However, with your vast knowledge of the law and police procedure in general and this case in all it's detail, maybe you should petition your MP for a change in the law.

I would not expect to be arrested for protecting my family. Before someone is arrested a few facts should be established. The law is well known for being an ass.

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

Thunder Bolt said:
Different scenario but if the 78 year old had lost it with his disabled wife and hit her, is it right to arrest him, because a) he's in his own home, and b) he is a 78 year old pensioner?

The police have a duty to investigate everyone when there is a sudden death, as the coroner demands it for the inquest. I doubt very much if the old chap will have been strip searched, or locked within a cell.
He would have been questioned with legal reprensentation, and treated with a great deal of respect.
There are professional legal and well trained people replying in this thread, that you are ignoring because you have a different opinion.

I understand their duty to investigate. I agree with them doing that. My thoughts are that the police could have simply asked Mr Osborn-Brooks to help with the investigation. Even if it is the law to act in a set way, it does not mean that we cannot raise objection to it.

I am not ignoring professional legal and well trained people, I have read their posts and respect them. Indeed I would like to thank them for their posts. I just disagree with the law. My opinion is different and some will agree while others disagree.

happypig · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
I would not expect to be arrested for protecting my family. Before someone is arrested a few facts should be established. The law is well known for being an ass.

If, in protecting your family, someone dies or is seriously injured and you tell the police you did it, you will be arrested, whether you expect it or not. The arrest is so that the facts can be established, it is not a presumption (except perhaps by the tabloid press) of guilt.
Why do you say the law is an ass (with regard to this case) ?

Thunder Bolt · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
I understand their duty to investigate. I agree with them doing that. My thoughts are that the police could have simply asked Mr Osborn-Brooks to help with the investigation. Even if it is the law to act in a set way, it does not mean that we cannot raise objection to it.

I am not ignoring professional legal and well trained people, I have read their posts and respect them. Indeed I would like to thank them for their posts. I just disagree with the law. My opinion is different and some will agree while others disagree.

It's not just an investigation and Mr Osborn-Brooks is not just a witness. He perpetrated the act which meant a man died. It has to be investigated properly.
An arrest simply means the suspect can be questioned under caution, rather than just questioned. It's an important detail.

The police cannot make that judgement. Their job is question and collect evidence. The CPS lawyers then make the decision that a crime has or has not been committed.

Thunder Bolt · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
I would not expect to be arrested for protecting my family. Before someone is arrested a few facts should be established. The law is well known for being an ass.

The law is an ass is a quote from Olive Twist by Charles Dickens. It was spoken by Mr Bumble who wasn't exactly a squeaky clean character.

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

happypig said:
If, in protecting your family, someone dies or is seriously injured and you tell the police you did it, you will be arrested, whether you expect it or not. The arrest is so that the facts can be established, it is not a presumption (except perhaps by the tabloid press) of guilt.
Why do you say the law is an ass (with regard to this case) ?

I find the law an ass, in relation to this case, due to it being completely unnecessary to arrest the poor man. He would most likely have been co-operative without the need to arrest, if he refused to help then arrest him.

Thunder Bolt · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
I find the law an ass, in relation to this case, due to it being completely unnecessary to arrest the poor man. He would most likely have been co-operative without the need to arrest, if he refused to help then arrest him.

So you know that he was co-operative? Neither the police nor the press have said so. You are presuming he was.

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

Thunder Bolt said:
The law is an ass is a quote from Olive Twist by Charles Dickens. It was spoken by Mr Bumble who wasn't exactly a squeaky clean character.

The quote was also spoken about by my mother. She was squeaky clean. :lolol:

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

Thunder Bolt said:
So you know that he was co-operative? Neither the police nor the press have said so. You are presuming he was.

Yes, I am presuming. What you are saying is that he would not be given the chance to discuss what happened without arrest. In your opinion no consideration is given regardless of co-operation.

Bodian · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
I find the law an ass, in relation to this case, due to it being completely unnecessary to arrest the poor man. He would most likely have been co-operative without the need to arrest, if he refused to help then arrest him.

Maybe, but you can't get away from the fact that he has committed an offence (for which he may well have an extremely good defence). If the Police arrest someone for questioning, then they get legal support and their answers can be used in court if it gets there. If they are merely 'questioned' then their answers actually have little real weight in court and they will need to formally interviewed all over again. It may be quicker, easier, and more painless for all involved, including themselves, to be arrested.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
I find the law an ass, in relation to this case, due to it being completely unnecessary to arrest the poor man. He would most likely have been co-operative without the need to arrest, if he refused to help then arrest him.

If they arrest him, isn't he then allowed legal advice in a questioning process?

A lawyer would advise the man of why, legally, the act could be seen as justifiable in self-defence.

I really see absolutely no issue with arresting a man who has, it seems, killed someone.

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

Bodian said:
Maybe, but you can't get away from the fact that he has committed an offence (for which he may well have an extremely good defence). If the Police arrest someone for questioning, then they get legal support and their answers can be used in court if it gets there. If they are merely 'questioned' then their answers actually have little real weight in court and they will need to formally interviewed all over again. It may be quicker, easier, and more painless for all involved, including themselves, to be arrested.

Maybe, I would be mortified personally to be arrested, (I am a law abiding citizen) and if I found myself in this situation, I would only talk while not under arrest. Arresting me would mean, I would maintain my right to silence.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Apr 6, 2018

btnbelle said:
Maybe, I would be mortified personally to be arrested, (I am a law abiding citizen) and if I found myself in this situation, I would only talk while not under arrest. Arresting me would mean, I would maintain my right to silence.

Hang on. So you would be arrested for something you know you are innocent of. The police allow you the chance to seek legal advice to make sure you correctly portray the events and demonstrate that this was just a horrible situation in which you were scared, protecting your family and unfortunately someone died...........and you would choose the No Comment route!!!

Great decision that.

btnbelle · Apr 6, 2018

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:
Hang on. So you would be arrested for something you know you are innocent of. The police allow you the chance to seek legal advice to make sure you correctly portray the events and demonstrate that this was just a horrible situation in which you were scared, protecting your family and unfortunately someone died...........and you would choose the No Comment route!!!

Great decision that.

My lawyer would be instructed to act on my behalf.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

Well-known member

New member

New member

Staring at the rude boys

New member

Silly old bat

New member

New member

Staring at the rude boys

Silly old bat

Silly old bat

New member

Silly old bat

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Share this page