Pensioner arrested on suspicion of murder after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death.

[existentialist]

There's a lot more coming out about Vincent now, seems he was a career criminal with a history of targeting pensioners, not some opportunist addict looking to cover their next fix, but part of a pond life family gang.



Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Maybe this unfortunate situation will make his family and other associates think about a change in career.

Sounds to me like he'd already made a career change - from defrauding people to burgling them. Perhaps he'd got just a little bit too well known for the former. What a cunt.

 

[cupid_stunt]

A whole family of cunts.

AFAMILY of cowboy builders was jailed for a total of almost 29 years at Croydon Crown Court last week for conning pensioners out of £448,180.

The gang of six brothers and a son operated in the south London and Kent areas, knocking on doors and fabricating structural problems, which they offered to mend for huge fees. On several occasions victims were escorted to their bank to pay for the work. Two of the crooks persuaded a woman in her 80s to sign away her £150,000 home, as well as charging her £27,000 for work on her guttering. All pleaded guilty to deception charges totalling £448,180.

Henry Charles Vincent,44, was jailed for five-and-a-half years. Clifford Vincent, 27, was jailed for four-and-half years. David Vincent, 36, was sentenced to six years, Henry Joseph Vincent, 23, the son of Henry Charles Vincent, was sentenced to four-and-half years. John Jack Vincent, 41, was jailed for two years; Robert Vincent, 33, for four-and-a-half years; and Steven Vincent, 38, for 21 months. All the men are from Orpington or Dartford in Kent.

Family of cowboys banged up

 

[dylanredefined]

So burglary = punishable by instant death, yes?

No , Neither is saying you can't stop someone stealing your stuff. If violence occurs the homeowner should always have more rights than the burglar.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

So burglary = punishable by instant death, yes?

There is no suggestion here of a premeditated hit. But if a burglar comes into your house tooled up with a screwdriver and there is a struggle then someone getting hurt or worse is always a possible outcome.

Are you suggesting that to avoid certain possible outcomes of a situation like that, that people should be banged up for self defence?

On the point that you were responding to with your strawman I’d say this. Bar a few woke liberals, some legal professionals and his family members the mass of public/working class opinion IS that Vincent got exactly what he deserved. People are angry about crime and the impact on them and their family. They know the police aren’t interested in addressing it and they know it could have been them.

 

[not-bono-ever]

There's a lot more coming out about Vincent now, seems he was a career criminal with a history of targeting pensioners, not some opportunist addict looking to cover their next fix, but part of a pond life family gang.



Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Maybe this unfortunate situation will make his family and other associates think about a change in career.

I am not part of the hang ‘em high cadre but it is ironic that it looks like his death may have been as a result of a response from of the age group he had taken most advantage of in his career

 

[Red Sky]

There is no suggestion here of a premeditated hit. But if a burglar comes into your house tooled up with a screwdriver and there is a struggle then someone getting hurt or worse is always a possible outcome.

Are you suggesting that to avoid certain possible outcomes of a situation like that, that people should be banged up for self defence?

On the point that you were responding to with your strawman I’d say this. Bar a few woke liberals, some legal professionals and his family members the mass of public/working class opinion IS that Vincent got exactly what he deserved. People are angry about crime and the impact on them and their family. They know the police aren’t interested in addressing it and they know it could have been them.

If the facts are as presented then he's going to walk away. Police bail for murder? That's a pretty good indicator.

On the other hand it can't really be argued that it shouldn't be investigated.

 

[existentialist]

I am not part of the hang ‘em high cadre but it is ironic that it looks like his death may have been as a result of a response from of the age group he had taken most advantage of in his career

I think that was more of a happy accident. Or, some might say, poetic justice.

But it was probably also inevitable - if you're targeting a specific group, then it follows that it's more likely to be a member of that group who retaliated in the heat of the moment.

 

[existentialist]

There is no suggestion here of a premeditated hit. But if a burglar comes into your house tooled up with a screwdriver and there is a struggle then someone getting hurt or worse is always a possible outcome.

Are you suggesting that to avoid certain possible outcomes of a situation like that, that people should be banged up for self defence?

On the point that you were responding to with your strawman I’d say this. Bar a few woke liberals, some legal professionals and his family members the mass of public/working class opinion IS that Vincent got exactly what he deserved. People are angry about crime and the impact on them and their family. They know the police aren’t interested in addressing it and they know it could have been them.

I don't think anyone has suggested that people get banged up for self defence. I wonder if you are confusing an investigation for punishment?

 

[Gromit]

I am not part of the hang ‘em high cadre but it is ironic that it looks like his death may have been as a result of a response from of the age group he had taken most advantage of in his career

In case anyone think I am a hang em high I'm not.

I'm roll the dice you take your chances.
You choose a life of violent crime don't go bleating when it bites you in the arse or expect anyone else to bleating for you either.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I am not part of the hang ‘em high cadre but it is ironic that it looks like his death may have been as a result of a response from of the age group he had taken most advantage of in his career

A group clearly targeted for their vulnerability, the cowardly cunt.

 

[cupid_stunt]

And, I am also not part of the hang them types, but at the end of a day if a householder is faced with an intruder in their home, and in attempting to protect themselves and/or family, the intruder ends up dead I have zero sympathy for them. Especially in a case like this, where the intruder has such a history of being a complete cunt.

I am happy with the law that states force used in self-defence is not unreasonable simply because it is disproportionate – unless, of course, it is grossly disproportionate.

These links are from a few years ago, but the stats are interesting:

Up to an estimated 23,000 people were assaulted after coming face to face with an intruder in their own home last year.
Householder attacked by burglar every 30 minutes

Only eleven householders have been prosecuted for attacking intruders in the past 15 years,
Householders rarely taken to court for burglar attacks

 

[Magnus McGinty]

So burglary = punishable by instant death, yes?

If people are in fear for their lives at the hands of an intruder then surely you agree they have a right to defend themselves including killing the assailant?

 

[Red Sky]

If people are in fear for their lives at the hands of an intruder then surely you agree they have a right to defend themselves including killing the assailant?

That's the law as it stands.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

That's the law as it stands.

It’s unclear whether editor agrees with it or not.

 

[Red Sky]

It’s unclear whether editor agrees with it or not.

There was debate (stoked up by the Mail) following the Tony Martin case to change the law to allow 'disproportionate' force.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I don't think anyone has suggested that people get banged up for self defence. I wonder if you are confusing an investigation for punishment?

I wonder if there is a slight whiff of distaste for popular opinion on this subject.

We’ve had the trope of the desperate burglar ‘reduced’ by circumstances to desperate acts of crime, we’ve had Tony Martin thrown in and seized on as an example of what the ‘mob’ might think unless their impulses are policed, we now have the suggestion that thickos talking about self defence are confusing it with a cop investigation.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yes that's so funny. But again, do you think it's OK to murder a burglar, irrespective of whether your life is actually in danger? Do you think death is an appropriate response no matter what?

(My bold)

If a burglar is in my house, as far as I’m concerned by default that makes them a threat to my family. So if they don’t fuck off the moment they’re disturbed, then yes, they get whatever the fuck it takes to remove that threat.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

There was debate (stoked up by the Mail) following the Tony Martin case to change the law to allow 'disproportionate' force.

I’d suggest they were merely reflecting popular opinion back to its readership. People don’t need to be stoked up about this. People are angry about the inaction on crime/anti social behaviour/the saturation of an area with drugs.

Number one issue for every working class community.

 

[cupid_stunt]

There was debate (stoked up by the Mail) following the Tony Martin case to change the law to allow 'disproportionate' force.

The High Court actually ruled the change in the law "rather than making it easier for a defendant to succeed, s76(5A) actually limits the scope of self defence", and "It is therefore clear that the amendments made by s43 CCA 2013 amounted to a refinement of the common law of self defence as opposed to a major change: contrary to the headlines used by mainstream news outlets".

The approach taken by the CPS lawyer suggests that a defendant will automatically succeed with self defence in any case where the degree of force used by the defendant falls short of “grossly disproportionate” force. The Court held that, rather than making it easier for a defendant to succeed, s76(5A) actually limits the scope of self defence: on its true interpretation, a defendant can never successfully run self defence if the degree of force used is grossly disproportionate. It follows that, in all other cases, the jury must still apply the traditional “reasonableness” test when assessing whether it can succeed.

It was held that, in householder cases, the jury must ask itself:[3]

• Was the degree of force used by D grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as he believed them to be?
• If it was not, then was the degree of force reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be? If it was, the defence succeeds. If it was not, it fails.

Separating the question of gross disproportionality from that of reasonableness[4] reveals that the true effect of s76(5A) is to allow for a “discretionary area of judgment in householder cases” whereby the jury can evaluate whether a defendant falls under the protection of the defence, or otherwise.[5] It is therefore clear that the amendments made by s43 CCA 2013 amounted to a refinement of the common law of self defence as opposed to a major change: contrary to the headlines used by mainstream news outlets[6] “the effect of s76(5A) is not to give householders carte blanche in the degree of force they use against intruders in self-defence”.[7] The acid test – which remains a question for the jury – is still whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.[8]

The Householder Defence - KBW Barristers Chambers

 

[Red Sky]

I’d suggest they were merely reflecting popular opinion back to its readership. People don’t need to be stoked up about this. People are angry about the inaction on crime/anti social behaviour/the saturation of an area with drugs.

Number one issue for every working class community.

Yes, the Mail the voice of the working class.

 

[Red Sky]

(My bold)

If a burglar is in my house, as far as I’m concerned by default that makes them a threat to my family. So if they don’t fuck off the moment they’re disturbed, then yes, they get whatever the fuck it takes to remove that threat.

I have reacted violently to intruders and realisticly the law backs you on that. "Whatever it takes to remove that threat"
(and not much more) is a pretty accurate summary of where the law stands.

If in the other hand when I discover a youth trying to steal my partner's bike from outside our house instead of punching him I stuck an axe in his head then the law wouldn't protect me.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Yes, the Mail the voice of the working class.

The right understands the wc better than the left does.

 

[Red Sky]

The right understands the wc better than the left does.

Where is the lefty outcry here? I understand that the DM wants you to think that a jihadist could break into your house and convert your wife to Islam and get nothing worse than a free council house from the namby pamby bleeding heart beardy weirdies but you?

 

[Spymaster]

I have reacted violently to intruders and realisticly the law backs you on that. "Whatever it takes to remove that threat"
(and not much more) is a pretty accurate summary of where the law stands.

If in the other hand when I discover a youth trying to steal my partner's bike from outside our house instead if punching him I stuck an axe in his head then the law wouldn't protect me.

Not quite.

The law was changed, quite correctly. It used to be that the onus was on the defender of the property to use "the minimum amount of force" required which left a huge grey area. The test is now 'reasonable force as far as the householder believed it to be' which is important. If you had broken into my house before the change and I killed you, there was a strong chance that I'd be done for murder. However, now, if you break into my house and I kill you, I can argue that I thought my life or family was in danger and if accepted that would succeed.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[cupid_stunt]

This case was discussed at a meeting I was in, and the solicitor present explained it along the lines of this:

Basically if a householder is found to have not used more force than was reasonable in whatever state they were in, presumably in fear and panic, and that force can even be disproportionate to the level of threat, they will either not be charged at all, or they will be acquitted at trial.

In this case grabbing say a kitchen knife and using it in fear and panic when confronted in the kitchen by intruders making threats and/or wielding even a screwdriver is probably lawful, despite the burglar being killed. Chasing then killing the burglar as he runs away would most likely be considered grossly disproportionate and likely not lawful, nor should it be IMO.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Where is the lefty outcry here? I understand that the DM wants you to think that a jihadist could break into your house and convert your wife to Islam and get nothing worse than a free council house from the namby pamby bleeding heart beardy weirdies but you?

I literally don’t know what you’re asking here.

 

[Spymaster]

There was debate (stoked up by the Mail) following the Tony Martin case to change the law to allow 'disproportionate' force.

No there wasn't. Not the way you frame it.

 

[Spymaster]

(My bold)

If a burglar is in my house, as far as I’m concerned by default that makes them a threat to my family. So if they don’t fuck off the moment they’re disturbed, then yes, they get whatever the fuck it takes to remove that threat.

Absolutely. How do you know if your life is in danger? That can turn on a sixpence. One minute you're being burgled the next you could be under physical attack with a weapon. Fortunately the law now allows for the householder's likely state of mind to be taken into account.

Anyway, this dead chap sounds like a proper charmer who got what he deserved. Oh well ...

 

[Teaboy]

I remember a discussion after the Munir (sp?) Hussain case a few years back. He was the home owner who chased the crook into the street and belted seven bells out of him. I think he ended up doing time for that but even then there were those who would have it that the crook was fair game for anything the moment he broke in.