Man who killed armed robber in his Glasgow home is jailed

What are your opinions on this? Man breaks into someone's home and threatens to kill him and his family (partner), overpowers the "armed" robber and kills him and is then jailed.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52018558

(edited 4 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

bump\

Original post by Capitalist_Lamb

Stabbing someone 17 times is not self defense. Stab them once or twice, but if they're down you don't keep stabbing them. All for self defense but that doesnt constitute it.

Reply 3

username4986690

There is clearly a lot more to this case than the article lets on.

Reply 4

Capitalist_Lamb

Original post by Ferrograd

Stabbing someone 17 times is not self defense. Stab them once or twice, but if they're down you don't keep stabbing them. All for self defense but that doesnt constitute it.

So would you just want him to let the intruder kill his family?

If you changed the case I wonder what the outcome would be.
Let's say it's: Single mum jailed for stabbing intruder in her home 17 times after he threatens to kill her children.

When you are in a life and death situation things change. The adrenaline rushing through this mans head. The only thing he is thinking about is protecting his family, just as if it were a single mum.

When you break into someone's home you know the consequences, you could be killed. Intruders think that you can break into someones home in this country without a care in the world. We should have the right to defend our property and especially our family. This man was defending his family and maybe 17 times was excessive but how many are too many, 2 times, 3 times, 4? What happens if it took 10 stabs to get the intruder on the floor, would that be too many. When you start punishing people for protecting their families you are just saying to them that you should let an intruder kill your family, as if you act you could be prosecuted and your life ruined because a criminal was killed during an act of crime.

Reply 5

username4528716

Original post by Capitalist_Lamb

Reasonable force. I don't think he is being punished for protecting his family. I understand adrenaline and whilst I don't think he should be imprisoned, you cannot stab someone 17 times and claim self defence.

Reply 6

Capitalist_Lamb

Original post by Ferrograd

So how many times can you stab them? Why is 17 a lot, it might have taken that many to get him to the floor. Just like the man defending his family the man robbing them also has adrenaline running through him and a survival mentality and can take a lot to get to the floor. People can be shot a dozen times and still have the ability to attack. The robber could easily overpower the man at any time and kill him and his family.

Let's say he stabbed him 5 times and he was still up, is that enough, any more and it would seem unreasonable. You keep attacking until the person poses no more threat to you or your family.

In this country, we do not have the right to protect our property and our family without fear of prosecution. If someone was to break into my home today and hold me at gun points and threaten to kill me I would not be able to hurt them through fear of prosecution.

Reply 7

username4528716

Original post by Capitalist_Lamb

I can't comment any further because the facts are not known, but chances are he was dead after the first few stab wounds. You stop stabbing or shooting someone when they no longer pose a threat, eg, on the floor.

Reply 8

AngeryPenguin

Original post by Ferrograd

One is allowed to use disproportionate force in one's own house in order to protect lives (rather than property).

And when one is high on adrenaline, 17 stabs isn't as unreasonable as it sounds.

Reply 9

AnonymousNoMore

It's all about appropriate force. You cannot stab someone 17 times and say it was appropriate, 17 is way too many to render someone not a threat. You're not allowed to take the law into your own hands.

Reply 10

Guru Jason

Can coroners figure out after how many stabs before the intruder went down? By all means if he's still up then stab away but yeah, if he goes down after 2 or 3 then 17 is overkill. Not that I agree its overkill but that's the law currently.

Reply 11

username4528716

Original post by AngeryPenguin

One is allowed to use disproportionate force in one's own house in order to protect lives (rather than property).

And when one is high on adrenaline, 17 stabs isn't as unreasonable as it sounds.

True. But if a police officer (who has the same right to self defense as anyone else), shot someone 17 times, most of those shots takign place when the suspect was on the floor and no longer posed a threat, he would be up in the dock too. I don't know the context of the situation. The jury clearly had their reasons.

Reply 12

Occitanie

17 stabs is overkill.

I don’t think many of you realise what 17 stabs mean. It’s rage.

It’s not self-defence

Reply 13

Vertigo_descent

God forbid someone be enraged if some twit is breaking into their house... :rolleyes:

Reply 14

londonmyst

Appalling.
Unless the robber and homeowner were conspiring in an insurance scam or other illegal conspiracy.

I don't believe that any generally law abiding homeowner/resident tenant who kills the criminal trespasser that unlawfully breaks in seeking to inflict violence, trauma/terror, criminal damage or any economic harm should ever be charged (in relation to the intruder/intruders).
Cautious, fines and reprimands only.

Reply 15

Allie4

Ridiculous. Its self-defence in my eyes.

Reply 16

AnonymousNoMore

Yeah but he stabbed him 17 times. That's no longer self defence that is pure uncontrolled rage.

Reply 17

StriderHort

17 stabs, most of them in the back. Seems pretty clear he's went beyond what was needed to defend himself. It was under extreme provocation which is why it's manslaughter not murder. *shrug* I see no issue.

Also sounds like there's more to it than a random break in.