UK police: We'll get there when we get there

Status
Not open for further replies.

iamkris

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
2,839
Location
My own little slice of Purgatory
...waiting for agricola and that lot to start posting about how this is a reasonable police and legal response. Especially when the US response should be BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM,BLAM [slide lock] [reload, drop slide] -- P14.45 repsonse


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=552376


I would do it again, says father who stabbed intruder


By Jason Bennetto

17 August 2004
A man who admitted stabbing a suspected burglar with a bread knife to protect his wife and child is being investigated for assault.

Antonio Caeiro, 33, who said he wounded a 19-year-old intruder at his home in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, said yesterday that he would do the same again to defend his family.

The incident has similarities with the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who was convicted of manslaughter and jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar in 1999.

The suspected burglar in this case is being treated in hospital where he is described as being in a serious, but stable condition. Mr Caeiro, a pub manager, claimed he stabbed the intruder in the chest and leg with the 12-inch knife in self defence as they struggled in his kitchen before the teenager fled.

Mr Caeiro, who is from Portugal, said: "All I was doing was acting in self defence. This man had entered my home and I felt he might harm me or my family. Of course I am sorry that he was hurt, but he had no right to be in my house. If I had to do the same thing again to protect my family then I would do it.

"I thought he was going to kill me or rape my wife. Anyone in my position would have done the same thing. I understand why the police had to arrest me - but I have done anything wrong."

Mr Caeiro claimed he was woken by his 28-year-old wife's screams at 2am on Saturday when the burglar came into their bedroom.

He said the 6ft tall intruder had pulled away their 14-month-old daughter's cot from the side of their bed causing the child to fall on the floor and cry.

Mr Caeiro said: "This man was kneeling at the side of my bed and started touching the legs of my wife.

"My wife woke up screaming and then I woke up. The man then ran downstairs and went out through the kitchen door."

Mr Caeiro, who is 5ft 6ins, rang 999 to report the break-in and was told by police that because the intruder was no-longer believed to be in the house they would be there in 15 to 30 minutes.

He said: "I looked out into my yard and saw a shadow. I was frightened and I grabbed the bread knife from a rack because my first thought was that I had to stop my family being harmed. I opened the back door ... then this man attacked me with a metal bar.

"He hit me on the shoulder and I was knocked back into the kitchen. The door opened and the man tried to come inside.

"I stabbed him in the leg and then we ended up fighting and I stabbed him in the chest.

"We fought for about a minute outside ... then he managed to break away and run down the alley at the back of my house."

Mr Caeiro said he tried to call the police again, but got no reply. He then called a friend who alerted police officers who arrived three minutes later.

The intruder was arrested near by on suspicion of burglary. Police also arrested Mr Caeiro on suspicion of assault, and later released him on bail pending further inquiries.

The police will investigate the case and can decide not to charge Mr Caeiro. Alternatively they can send a file of the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service which will decide whether there is a case to answer and whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute.

Mr Caeiro said he was making arrangements to move to a new home in Great Yarmouth because he fears reprisal attacks.

The incident is certain to rekindle debate about how far someone can go to defend their own home, which went to the heart of the case of Tony Martin. Mr Martin, of Emneth Hungate, near Wisbech, served a three-year jail sentence for killing 16-year-old Fred Barras and wounding Brendan Fearon after they broke into his home at Bleak House farmhouse.
 
I am truly speechless, except for :cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :fire: :fire: :barf: :barf:

I hope that i've made myself clear.

Sawdust
 
[brit thinking mode ON]Here now, violence begets violence, and the police would have gotten there once they'd finished their tea and crumpets. If he'd just given the man what he wanted, or waited for police, only he would have been hurt by being hit with a metal bar. But NO, he had to fight back, hurting the youngster, so now we have TWO people hurt - he made the situation twice as bad. And the blighter isn't even properly repentant! It's off to gaol with him now, wot?[brit thinking mode OFF]

Being it's the UK, I'm surprised they didn't arrest the wife for disturbing the peace by screaming.

:barf:
 
Since my 'bedside table companion' is a standard 1911-A1 type [7+1], I only get 8 BLAM's! before slide lock.

Generally, though. . . same response.
 
for the umpteenth time:

the legal situation in the UK is that, before any questions can be asked about someones involvement in an offence, or suspected offence, he or she has to be "cautioned", which is akin to your miranda rights. this means that even to confirm the homeowners account in a matter as serious as this, he would have had to be arrested, as he was. this is not just for assaults, its for every criminal offence, aside from establishing whether or not someone owns something.

the matter is probably being sent to the CPS (we have no "grand jury" system here) which will determine whether or not this man gets charged with assault (being arrested is not the same as being charged), that is by no means a certainty, as numerous (and ignored) sources show.

as for the Police response, a rural force promised to respond in 15-30 minutes, and from the text was there in at the most ten minutes, and caught the perp (after of course he had been stabbed). obviously, in the US your Police travel at the speed of light, but we mortals have to use our own means of transport.

obviously though, all these facts would hinder any logical argument, so y'all crack on with the usual comments until you go blue in the face, or until we again find there either more to this than is contained in ONE newspaper article (funny how the media is accurate and balanced when you want it to be eh?), or he doesnt get charged (thus disproving all the "all self defence is illegal" rubbish once more, if it needed any more disproving that is).

after all, its only been about two weeks since the last time.
 
This one may be the product of some cross-cultural confusion as Agricola points out. In the states, nobody gets a bail hearing until they've been charged, have an attorney, etc. etc. The state has no authority to demand bail payment until they bring charges. Apparently this is not the case in the UK, where you must post bail merely to go free from initial questioning.
 
Actually, I chose to reply because I wanted to stick up the Brits a bit and express my opinion that there are some differences between this situation and Tony Martin's, and that the British authorities still have a good chance of doing the right thing in this case. Further, in my opinion, if Mr. Caeiro is telling the truth, even the British courts are not yet ready to tell a man he must let an intruder lay hands on his wife and infant daughter without doing something to stop it. People don't break into houses and touch women in bed with good intentions. No misunderstanding is possible here.
I've woken up to my wife screaming that there was an intruder (there wasn't, but she didn't realize that) in our bedroom, and let me tell you, there's no thought involved. At that moment you are determined to fight, kill, die or whatever else is required to end the threat to the woman you love. Even a mistake is a long ten seconds, believe me.
Now, with that said, Agricola, I just can't believe what you posted. If it was for the umpteenth time, by the way, I must not read as many of your posts as I think I do, because I don't recall seeing it before.

for the umpteenth time:

the legal situation in the UK is that, before any questions can be asked about someones involvement in an offence, or suspected offence, he or she has to be "cautioned", which is akin to your miranda rights. this means that even to confirm the homeowners account in a matter as serious as this, he would have had to be arrested, as he was. this is not just for assaults, its for every criminal offence, aside from establishing whether or not someone owns something.
Ag, you know you're my bestest buddy, but you posted that as if you thought it was somehow a rational way to conduct business and explained things completely. First of all, I'd like to see the citation that shows that the victims of crimes have to be arrested before they can tell the police their side of the story. I don't believe for a second that, when a little old lady has her purse snatched and the police want to take her statement, they first have to put her under arrest and "caution" her of her rights as a suspect.
What you really mean, then, is that for him to have been questioned about his part in COMMITTING an offense, and for that questioning to have been admissible later in court when he was PROSECUTED for COMMITTING an offense, rather than simply being "involved" as the victim of a home invasion, he had to be "cautioned" and therefore had to be arrested. In other words, if they hadn't arrested him, why, they wouldn't have been able to prosecute him if they later decide that's what they want to do with him!
That has nothing at all to do with the concerns raised in this thread and it does nothing to refute any of the assertions made.
This is akin to a carjacker saying "Look, mate, I don't like taking your car any better than you do, but if I don't take your car, I can't sell it to the chop shop and then I can't get high tonight. You can see how I really have no choice, can't you?"
 
before any questions can be asked about someones involvement in an offence, or suspected offence, he or she has to be "cautioned",
Even the apparent victim of a crime? Mere "involvement" by victimization includes arrest, and punishment (bail) is required?

I'll concede there may be more here than meets the eye, unless Brit papers are more precise and accurate than those over here in the States. But if one takes the article at face value, the response of the authorities appears more than a bit bizarre.

(If no charges are filed, does the homeowner get his bail money returned by the government?)
 
don,

no because, in that situation she isnt a suspect. the reason it was brought in is for the same reason as the miranda rights - to remind people who may be facing prosecution of their rights.

you dont do that and it affects any subsequent court case, as you point out, but it doesnt prevent any prosecution.

as for:

That has nothing at all to do with the concerns raised in this thread and it does nothing to refute any of the assertions made.

well thats just stupid, because there have been no concerns raised - its just been the same old rubbish - and the assertions made have been refuted time and time again.

as for the "umpteenth time": twice
 
hank,

that wasnt clear enough, i apologise - by "involvement" i mean "suspected of committing". also, being released on Police bail (as this man was) means the only obligation is to return to a given police station on a given date, no money will have been paid over.
 
Hank, you must be much more charming than I. You get an apology; the same point is stupid when I bring it up.

Ag, that's exactly what I posted--but as you admitted to Hank, it is NOT what you posted. Thanks for the clarification. The fact that the guy is being treated as a suspect is the whole problem here. Citing that fact to justify arresting him doesn't help much.
 
Well, I was transiting through Heathrow as I first read this thread, so I asked one of the obvious locals about it. His response, and I quote, "well, you can't have everyone just up and defending themselves. That would lead to, well, anarchy." Trouble is, I can't tell if it was British humor at work...he could have been serious.
 
don,

thats the thing though - you cant establish what happened without asking him in interview, checking his story and finding witnesses; you cant do that without cautioning him.

also what i wrote wasnt different to what i said to hank, i just cleared it up, since there is clearly a massive misunderstanding of what the legal system is here.

also the "stupid" comment was more that you suggested that I hadnt answered the points raised - its clear that there have been no sensible comments made, neither have any assertions been made that stand up to even the slightest scrutiny - even the title of this thread falls down, even without my comment (just by reading the bloody article). it was nothing at all to do with the confusion as to what "involvement" meant, as was clear from my post.
 
as for the Police response, a rural force promised to respond in 15-30 minutes, and from the text was there in at the most ten minutes, and caught the perp (after of course he had been stabbed). obviously, in the US your Police travel at the speed of light, but we mortals have to use our own means of transport.

Nope... us here in the US grab a gun while we wait for the slowpoke police. And we don't (usually) have a screwy system that demands that we be arrested because we've been assaulted.

Face it... there are huge, massive problems with the way the UK handles these issues. One of the reasons we kicked your asses back across the Atlantic 228 years ago. :D
 
"thats the thing though - you cant establish what happened without asking him in interview, checking his story and finding witnesses; you cant do that without cautioning him. "

Since I know nothing of British law, I guess I will accept that at face value, but it is distinctly different from (my understanding of) American law. Here, the police are free to conduct their investigation, including interviewing anyone they want, and must only give the Miranda warning when they have actually zeroed in on someone as a suspect. At least that's the way it used to be, as I recall. I believe that the application of Miranda has changed in recent years.

If, for example, a police officer rushes up to a group of people who are standing next to a body, he is perfectly justified in asking "What happened?" If someone spontaneously says "I just murdered my wife", that's a perfectly admissible statement because the officer was not asking any questions designed to determine the culpability of any particular person.

Tim
 
..this means that even to confirm the homeowners account in a matter as serious as this, he would have had to be arrested, as he was. this is not just for assaults, its for every criminal offence, aside from establishing whether or not someone owns something.

I've read this through several times, and it appears you're saying that you are not permitted to advise a person of their rights without first taking them into custody - is that correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top