Self-Defense…the Fix is in.

After we were pleasantly surprised by the Met Police Chief stating that we should indeed be allowed to defend ourselves in our homes I fear that the fix is in. Today we have the DPP weighing in and exchanges in the Commons, even Tony Blair stating that perhpas the law might need changing. But here’s what is happening, the law will be changed to "reasonable force" and the use of "excessive force" will still be illegal. That’s really what we have already. Read the wholething to see how the issue is being slithered around. For the definition of what is reasonable and excessive will still be made by, well, by the "system". What we need is an absolute declaration in the law that by breaking in someone has put themselves at the risk of legal violence, not just whatever is decided, post-facto, is reasonable violence. As an example:

"If it is not excessive, it is reasonable," he said. Chasing an
intruder down the street, for example, and stabbing him could fall into
the category of self-defence.

This will be interesting news to one young man of my acquaintance who recently served 8 months for stabbing somone inside his own home, someone who had broken in.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical but I think there will be a cosmetic change in the law, one which leaves the decision of what is reasonable violence to be picked over after the event, and which leaves us basically in the same situation we are now. When confronted, having to second guess what the police and courts will think of our actions, rather than us being granted the absolute right to wallop the little buggers.

4 responses

  1. I have one very basic worry about all this macho “let’s beat the crap out of any burglar who dares invade my house” talk, and it’s this: are we not sending out a very clear signal to would-be burglars that they’d better come prepared for the have-a-go homeowners?
    Any self-respecting burglar is going to equip himself with a knife, a gun, acid spray or other such devices that allow him to go about his job with reasonable efficiency – and without the risk of being disabled or caught.
    Or are we really hoping that would be burglars will be deterred by the possibility of receiving a damn good hiding?
    You could argue that this is just another variation of the argument “let’s not arm the police because it will start an arm’s race”. But do people no longer believe in that now?

  2. Usually burglars ARE so prepared. It’s reported that (in the U.S. anyhow) in a poll taken among incarcerated felons, somethign like %60 of them were more afraid of meeting-up with an armed homeowner than an armed policeman. The main thing burglars require is stealth, otherwise it’s a home-invasion robery, which is usually an escalation of violence by the “burglars,” and then all bets are off, your life’s at stake.

  3. Dan: I’m with Keith here. Burglars are pretty much rational, risk-averse criminals. They might be ruthless if cornered, but they don’t seek out danger. The current emphasis on deterrence through locks and alarms just encourages direct aggression; by supporting self-defence, we will make this less attractive. If effective, we could reduce crime overall (because the locks and alarms are already there too).
    On Tim’s overall point, I think so. I think that this problem is going to run and run. Whenever I see Patrick Mercer talking about his Bill, I’m reminded of why the Tories are so far from power.
    Not to be critical, but the Tories are so keen to look ‘reasonable’ on the news, that a good idea keeps getting talked down. As you allude, anything but a very wide berth will be interpreted to death by the justice system – and yet the Tories, by refusing to shout about such a wide berth, open the door to the compromise you rightly fear is to be our destination.

  4. mrs mcmuffin Avatar
    mrs mcmuffin

    So if through our willingness to use and deliver violence we deter burglary, are the elderly and the infirm ‘asking for it’? This notion of ‘self defence’ I thought was more properly applied to crimes against the person rather than property. My TV can defend itself against being stolen, I’m not fighting anyone unless I am physically at risk of harm.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading