I love you people. We're a bloodthirsty lot, that's for sure!

I'd say manslaughter rather than murder IMO. I wouldn't think he meant to kill him. There were 2 burglars, one threatened the homeowner with a screwdriver, a struggle ensued and one of the burglars was stabbed. The suspect has been bailed and the other burglar is still on the run.

If your life is legitimately threatened, you have every right to stand your ground and kill your assailant. Anything less is an affront to man's natural rights.

I’m going to have to agree. Especially in a case where you’re on your property, minding your business. He did nothing to invite the situation, an armed intruder has already shown disregard to the law and the possession of a weapon is implicit intent to use said weapon. Once threats were made there is no logical argument that one shouldn’t assume that where disregard of law, possessing a weapon, and threat to use said weapon combined are not just cause to assume a threat, when reasonably any one may suffice alone. While one could argue that the threat was conditional on compliance, that assumes a trust of the word of the armed party. Considering they’ve already shown they are an armed criminal who will use violence against an old man, there’s no case that their word should be trusted you won’t be harmed if you comply. This is all ignoring the fact that self defense is a basic human right of course, just in case the point is contested.

You would charge him with manslaughter? Explain. I’m genuinely curious as to how somebody from the UK sees this.

Murder means it'd have to have been premeditated. Manslaughter means it was an accident. I don't think the old man meant to kill the burglar, it may have just happened in the scuffle and may have done it to just scare him rather than kill him. A heat of the moment thing. Over here in the UK you have the right to defend your home "within reasonable force". You're not allowed to trap them with the intention of not calling the police either. The court takes in the fact that you will not be thinking clearly and heat of the moment actions but realises that there is a certain amount of force that can be too much. Overkill.

Overkill? There is no overkill in legitimate self-defense. Doesn't matter if he used a butter knife, a Beretta, or a M79.

I'm talking about over here in the UK and most other countries that aren't the US which believe in boundaries and limitations. If someone attacks you, you are within your rights to defend yourself but not to the point that the attacker is no longer a threat because you beat their head into jelly with a pipe.

For example: someone we knew beat a man to death because he tried to rape him. He defended himself with a brick and smashed the rapists head in continuously until he was almost unrecognizable. Prosecution tried him for murder, defense said it was self defense and due to the state of mind of the victim (he was terrified for his life) in the heat of the moment he didn't realise how much he'd struck the rapist and although yes had killed the man it was unintentional and therefore manslaughter. He went to prison for 3 or 4 years.

Fuck the UK, fuck the EU, fuck Europe, and fuck all of the bullshit you people tolerate. That is a legitimate and undeniable affront to natural rights, how could anyone want to live in a hole like that? Where you can't even defend your own life.

You can defend your own life as long as you don't use overly excessive force and KILL people. Yes we are tolerant, that's not a bad thing. Theres a reason why places like the UK and many other European and EU countries are higher on the World Freedom Index than the US, tolerance and freedom of speech being two of them. Stop turning this into an argument please. People above wanted an answer and an insight into how it works over here in the UK and I have provided. If you don't like my answer move the fuck on.

You'll never understand about what it's like to live without the threat of being shot at or not having to do a lockdown procedure at school and that's terribly sad. I'm thankful everyday that my police officers won't kill me, that I won't be robbed at gunpoint and that my nieces and nephews will never know the horror of mass school shootings first-hand. I'm grateful that I live in a country where if I get cancer I don't have to worry about drowning in debt over medical expenses, that my choices over my body are respected, that I can get paid a minimum wage and not have to survive off a shitty tipping system, that I can say what the fuck I want (provided it's not hateful because having freedom of speech isn't the same as having the freedom to be a dickhead like some would think) and that the price of an item is the same at the till as when I picked it up off the shelf.
So yeah. Fuck the UK, the EU and the countries that actually have a taste of real freedom.

- can't talk
- can't own guns
- can't defend own life
- preach about being freer and safer for it
-lol wut?

- we have freedom of speech (not the same as being free to act like an arsehole like you seem to think)
- guns are dangerous especially when in the hands of unstable individuals so owning guns of certain types is illegal for the right reasons. There's a reason why we've only ever had 3 large firearm incidents like yours in our whole history.
- we are a much safer country. We have REAL freedom. No my fault you're brainwashed.

Well said peachy

- don't have certain freedoms
- still freer than you
- you brainwashed

- lol wut?

@peachypersimmon- I’m not attacking you but you did somewhat set the tone for argument when you alluded to the idea that boundaries and limitations are specifically traits not possessed by America. I’ll admit that @famousones questioning of overkill could be taken a certain way if one wasn’t aware that is famouses generally expressed views on things in most discussions of the nature. It wasn’t disrespectful or overly aggressive though. I think you’d find a few Brit’s who felt the same- if you need an example look up Churchill. That’s said US and UK law on the whole are very similar on the matter. US states may have some differences but overall the idea that force must be within reason is part of most US self defense and justifiable homicide laws. I’m glad you love where you live. I’m glad you feel safe. The UK isn’t perfect though and many people love their homes and feel just as safe as you living elsewhere.

During WW1/2 I’d it was safer in America. During the troubles I’d wager it was safer here too at least as far as being blown up was concerned. So we live in today- to you these are distant pasts but to those a little older they were things we lived through and not read about. Currently the US has problems. But it also has much the UK doesn’t. America has forests 1/5 the size of the whole of England. There are things to love about the UK and things to love in America. There are problems in both and draw backs to the way of life. Despite assertions to the contrary America does have its own culture and it’s no less deserving of respect than any other nations culture even if it’s not your way. If I wanted to participate in the fight I might close out saying that history would show us to expect a Brit to call other people backward savages and want to “fix” us by making their way ours. But I don’t. So I’ll say that freedom has challenges and maybe it’s best to respect our differences.

Ok @guest_ thank you. That's cool. Just so you guys know: the dude isn't being charged for murder or anything. :)

We do have limits in the US as to what constitutes self defense, kind of troubling that you don’t think we do. You are more likely to be murdered in London than in New York City, true story, look it up. The reason you think it’s worse here is that our “media” is what you would consider tabloid media. Every one of our news outlets survives on the sale of advertising. The value of that advertising increases with increased ratings so there is an incentive to over sensationalize everything to increase viewers, listeners, or readers. This situation breeds a distrust of the “corporate” media. Much of your non tabloid media is state subsidized, here that would cause less of us to trust it as the temptation for corrupt government officials to influence the reporting would be overpowering. There is less motive to oversell a perspective to increase audience. Neither system is perfect. I find it sad that you think you have freedom of speech and that our freedom is just liscence to be an asshole.