Dead Men Tell No Tales

Couldn't agree more, whenever the saying "they died in Police custody" gets everyone up in arms, I always say "Don't get yourself in that position in the first place". The same goes for home invasion which I have to say would absolutely terrify most people, waking up to someone in your home must be the most frightening experience, you don't know if it is just robbery or what their intentions are and I for one wouldn't wait and ask.

or you could just let them get on with it, report it to the police, claim it on your insurance and get on with your life.

Vincent Cooke will hopefully go to jail for killing another human being in defence of a flat-screen telly.

Uncle Raymondo gets no sympathy from me either, but I have no interest in living in a country that values property over life.

I grew up with the bizarre idea that killing people was wrong.

I grew up with the bizarre idea that having substantial fractions of a population living in fear was wrong.

And it's what Britain has become today. The state has demanded from us that it holds a monopoly on the right to use force. When it took that right away from us, it promised that it would defend us instead in lieu of that right.

And it has broken that promise. It has failed to protect us. And so the population is forced to live in fear. Fear of those stronger and better armed. Of those who want to harm us and are willing to do anything.

But the truth is that even honest men will live in fear only so long before they feel that they are justified in their actions. And so what we are seeing is the result of the retreat of law.

It's what you asked for. It's what everyone wanted. Leave the burglars free. See if they stop of their own accord.

With his own knife you say? Sounds like he learned the wrong lesson from the liberal society, doesn't it? He learned to take a knife when on the rob. And to be ready to threaten death.

And still, everyone wants more retreat... Dave and Supes clearly don't value anyone else's life very highly if they're happy for honest to die so that the thief might live.

You herald the life of this scroat; promote him over "mere" property, but you ignore that he went ready to kill in exchange for property. He was the one who made that bargain. Your hero is the one who decided that a life was worth less than a TV. He was merely in error about which end of the knife he'd be on when that murder happened.

He got his just reward.

"Dave and Supes clearly don't value anyone else's life very highly if they're happy for honest to die so that the thief might live."

You do realise that my previous comment cuts both ways, don't you?

Obviously I believe homeowners have a right to self-defence, and in some situations things go wrong and people die. Which is why in a lot, but not all cases, the owners are not charged with murder. However I disagree with Blaney's gung-ho approach which seems to suggest that homeowners automatically have the right to kill anyone who breaks into their home.

Without safe, secure homes, humans suffer lasting psychological damage. That's why the security of a private home is a basic human right and has been held as such by courts around the world on many, many occasions.

Homeowners have a right that their home will be defended. If the police have abrogated their responsibility to do that defence, then homeowners have an absolute moral right to do whatever is necessary to defend their homes.

With either the right to defend them or the right to demand that someone else defends them then people cannot have a safe secure home.

If the state removes from people the right to defend their home and also the right to have it defended, then it is removing a basic human right.

Burglars always have a choice about whether they burgle or not.

Every sympathy and protection in law is the just expectation of a homeowner whose basic human right to a safe and secure home is threatened. And that means the right ultimately to kill intruders who threaten them with violence -- because it is the burglar who in every occasion has made the choice to be in that situation.

This not in conflict with a right to life.

There IS a basic right to life -- an expectation not to be killed if one behaves in a reasonable way.

If one intrudes into a running high voltage transformer station, then one has consciously surrendered the expectation of a right to life. No-one would argue that the power company is in violation of the trespassers right to life if they are killed. After all, they locked up the transformer, they posted warning signs. The trespasser entered with knowledge and could have simply consciously chosen not to place themselves in danger.

Likewise, the right to life can be simply exercised by choosing not to burgle homes.

In fact, it is the CURRENT situation where it is iniquitous where it is unclear that burglary may result in death. We should make it much more explicit that burglars may die in the course of their activities in the same way that trespassers in high voltage transformers might.

We should enshrine in law that householders may kill burglars so that the choice that the burglars are taking is made in the full understanding that their right to life ends at the point where they consciously choose to violate another's basic rights.

The transformer does not have a choice whether to kill or not. A human being does.

We obviously don't have all of the facts. Cooke may not have had a choice. Raymondo may have attacked him straight away giving him no option but to fight for his life and in that fight he ended up killing Raymondo. The right guy died, but I find it disgusting to celebrate the death of anyone in the way that Donal does.

But if the police have arrested Cooke on suspicion of murder it seems much more likely that Cooke did have a choice, and if he chose to kill instead of merely incapacitate or arrest Raymondo then he should go down.

Many fantasist John McClane's out there will be daydreaming of having their own Die Hard moments in the interests of deterring burglars, but it will only increase the amount of force that a burglar will be prepared to use. A burgler won't bring a weapon if he does not expect to meet resistance. If he expects armed resistance he will himself be armed, but with the premeditated intention of using it. This will only serve to escalate the level of violence, not reduce it.

The answer is better policing and smarter behaviour on the part of those with excess cash. If you don't flaunt it you won't attract theives. Part of me thinks that anyone crass enough to have a gold Maser in the drive probably deserves to have someone try and have it off of him.

Anywhere else in the world this matter would have been done and dusted by now, and the house holder would be getting on with his life without fear of legal problems.

Donal! First rule in our game is never comment on a case unless you've read the papers. None of us have a clue what happened. The police would be failing in their duty if they didn't investigate and interview the guy. And if he used "reasonable force" ie not retaliation, he will be fine. The law on self defence is very clear and not topsy turvey at all, and I've been prosecuting and defending these sort of cases for over 30 years. Lying in wait with a shotgun as Tony Martin did would rarely ever be self defence. Best not be led my the Mail on this one matey!

Jerry, in principle you are right, one should wait for the facts, so let's treat this case in the abstract instead and then I think we can all agree that if an armed assailant invades your home uninvited you have the right to use force, preemptive or retaliatory (why should you wait for them to strike the first blow?) to protect yourself. And let's also all agree that Supes' comment about asking for knife-wielding burglars to invade your home when you dare to own a nice car you then park on your drive is morally debased.

George, you don't have to wait for them to strike the first blow! If an invader enters your home you do have the right to use force even if they die. The jury has to look into the mind of the accused taking into account all the circumstances and if they think that the assailant honestly believed that he was or his family was about to be attacked he is entitled to strike the first blow. The test is what in all the circumstances was reasonable. A defendant doesn't have to prove lawful self defence, it is for the prosecution to negative it. Think I'm going to do a post on this as the press either willfully misrepresent a very clear law or just don't understand it.

Good idea, Jerry. I think we (Donal included) are mostly in agreement. Still think the pathetic line taken by Supes (short for supine?) above, regarding the private ownership of certain goods of which he disapproves inviting burglary, shows a total lack of any moral backbone whatsoever.

If the reports are correct, the fact that this burglar entered the house with an offensive weapon, a knife, should surely mean that there was a presumption on the part of the householder that he was in danger. If he managed to wrest the knife from the intruder and killed the guy, that's justified.
I see no problem with that. Other scenarios are possible - I am a crime writer, after all - but if someone breaks into a house with weapons, he should expect all he gets hit with.
For some damn stupid reason we aren't allowed to protect ourselves. All defence is effectively held by a state monopoly. Thus the Police are entitled to use pepper sprays, Tasers, or even firearms, but the rest of the public must risk either serious injury or a prison sentence when protecting their lives and property.

Dear Supes

I wonder if you could be so kind as to forward your address so that I can come round later this evening and help myself to all you property. Don't worry if you are out or asleep I won't make too much noise or do that much damage and I'm sure your insurance company won't mind. And perhaps I could leave a telephone number for you so that when you have replaced everything I could come back and help myself again.

Yours

Charlie Peace

The sooner that they allow you to put down self defence as a legitimate reason for owning a shotgun or firearm the better.

"There's a reason home invasions are less common in states where homeowners make maximum use of their Second Amendment rights."

Any references for that?

Corvinius, You will find my door locked and not much inside to steal in the first place. I'm afraid your suggestion is one of the poorer comebacks in the history of this debate.

I look forward to reading about how some Daily Mail reading mouthbreather was kicked senseless by a burglar who was more heavily armed and heavily motivated.

The idea that any of the readers of this blog would stand a chance against an armed criminal is laughable. I would normally suggest that a person faced with such a situation as Mr Cooke would use their brain to avoid personal harm to himself or his family, but judging by this crowd it is probably not such a great suggestion.

I wonder how many of you have actually looked down the muzzle end of a handgun or the pointy end of a knife? How many of you have been mugged? How many of you sucessfully fought back?

My guess is very few.

George your manliness amazes me. You must be like even harder than Chuck Norris.

I bet when you say "yipeekayay mother f*cker" it gives every woman in the room fizzy knickers.

A little hint for you, just because your World of Warcraft avatar can kill people with a single blow doesn't mean you could defeat a prefessional criminal with your bare hands.

There is little more ridiculous in this world than an internet hardman.

Rejoice. I gather Raymond Jacob was a habitual low-life who had terrorised the citizens of Manchester for years.

It means many citizens of Manchester now can relax knowing that this scum will not be around whil we, as tax payers will no longer need to fund his visits to the Courts and various institutions such as Strangeways

So what you're saying here, Supes, is that because burglars might win it's better not to fight? Just to be raped or killed by them without resisting? Let them have their way and be grateful if their deign to leave us alive?

That we should surrender up front, before being asked?

You're worse than the burglars. They're just criminals. You're a traitor.

Seriously, can anyone show me any references for the claim that "home invasions are less common in states where homeowners make maximum use of their Second Amendment rights."

The reason I ask is because, well, I suspect it's a load of old cobblers.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Who said anything about raping or killing?

This is about burglary and the theft of property.

A burglar brings a knife or a gun as a threat or as protection against have-a-go-heroes.

If somone breaks into your flat with a knife and wants your telly, are you gonna die for that telly? If you get mugged are you gonna fight back and risk being stabbed for a mobile phone?

If so then you're an imbecile. If someone attacks me personally, then that is a different story. Of course you fight back for your life. But if you have the opportunity to leave without being harmed and you decide to go and fight to protect your "stuff" then you deserve the stabbing or beationg that you will likely recieve.

Interesting, Mr Supes, but how do you tell if someone is only after your property and means you no harm if they are carrying a weapon. Do you wait until they threaten you with it? Or is that not enough? Do you have to wait for the first blow to be cast by them and hope it's not too serious?

Anyway, we can all be happy at the outcome of this case, one dead burglar and, now, one exonerated householder.

That's where you're wrong Supes it wasn't a flat screen telly it was his wife and son so you my friend are ignorant and judgemental. You make me sick