The story: BBC NEWS | England | No charges after robber's death
Armed robber jumps bail and attacks a shopkeeper with a knife (injuring him). In the struggle, the knife ends up buried in the attacker’s chest. He dies. Oops - live by the sword and all that…
I feel sorry for the shopkeeper - the whole thing has messed him up - he doesn’t want to be seen as a hero (which is an inescapable consequence of a story like this) - he just wishes the whole thing had never happened.
The fact that the CPS even remotely considered prosecuting Mr. Singh bothers me more than a little. He was attacked by a miscreant with a deadly weapon. That, in my view, gives him total and absolute right to end said miscreants Earthly existance forthwith. The Crown owes him a debt of gratitude, or at the very least thanks for the trash removal, however accidental it might have been.
[hijack]It only makes sense, even as a joke, if the defect prevents the person from reproducing. Any reason to believe that this thief didn’t/wasn’t capable of fathering children before his death?[/hijack]
Then let’s say “Justice 1, Knife robber: Nil”
Real Justice, not Justice system Justice.
Skelmersdale (“skem”) - bandit country.
I think that was actually just due process happening - the police were called to an incident where one guy is stabbed, dead and another has knife wounds and appears (or admits) to be responsible for the death of the other. So they arrest him and examine the evidence, whereupon it becomes clear that he acted in self defence and he is released without charge.
I think this is actually a pretty good example of how things ought to look when they work properly. The CPS would be negligent if they had not considered the case.
Good, then.
Of course, if you want really funny…
Before his death, no. But it’s pretty unlikely he’ll reproduce now that he’s dead. It makes as much, or as little sense as any other Darwin Award.
I disagree - the CPS, or in the US the DA, has to consider whether laws were broken in the case of a violent death, esp. when it’s clear who the killer was. The circumstances should be evaluated, then a decision made about whether to prosecute or not.
It’s a popular ploy in fiction to talk about arranging a murder by planting a weapon on someone and then using that fabricated evidence to ‘prove’ that the killing was in self-defense. A conscientious prosecutor has an obligation to give the evidence a thorough look, before deciding what charges, if any, may be appropriate.
On preview: <shakes fist at Mangetout> Ya beat me to it!
That’s awesome.
Wasn’t there an incident of some genius trying to hold up a gun store or NRA meeting or donut shop?
It was the “initially arrested” part that bugged me. Investigate, certainly. But there was no need to book Mr. Singh at all.
Given the dead guys name I guess we could say "Kilroe was here but he’s gone now
That’s only apparent in hindsight though - it was the right thing to do at the time, I think.
Yep, SOP (standard operating procedure).
That’s what I thought this thread was gonna be about.
“THAT’S not a knife…!”
But the cause of his death wasn’t particularly his fault – according to the article, it sounds like he was accidentally stabbed. I don’t think this counts as a Darwin award.
Well, it was kinda his fault - he brought the knife. He initiated a course of action that backfired on him, removing him from the gene pool, and that happens to be no great loss to our species.
Admittedly not the same kind of stupid misadventure as Darwin Award winners who go looking for gas leaks with a candle, but he chose a course of action that ultimately resulted in his destruction nonetheless.
It seems to me that in similar cases in the U.S., a person whom the evidence indicates was defending himself against attack is not routinely arrested. In such instances the district attorney’s office typically makes a decision whether or not to refer the case to a grand jury, which may or may not indict the person involved.
Seeing as this case involves the U.K., I would expect the outcome to be a nil-nil draw between the robber and Darwin, with the onlookers getting drunk and creating a nuisance. 
Sikhs tend to be pretty badass. I would not fuck with one. Aren’t they instructed by their religion to carry around daggers?
I disagree. I think it impinges on the presumption of innocence. Should the CPS have investigated? Absolutely. But the guy should not have been arrested.