The UK government has decided to de-criminalise members of the public who use excessive force on those who taken it upon themselves to pay an unannounced, unofficial and illegal visit to your house and family, sporting a crowbar and a balaclava.
A large proportion of you are probably sat there thinking ‘what a good idea’, ‘the law should be on our side’, ‘we should be able to defend our own homes without fear’ or something similar. Having our own homes, our castles, invaded is many people’s single greatest fear and the idea that we are in the wrong by trying to protect our castle by any means necessary has an inevitable, powerful, emotional response and we instinctively protest when we hear about people being punished for doing so.
Take Tony Martin, for example – British national hero of injustice, who shot at some burglars out of fear and self defense – who had broken in to his isolated farmhouse – with a legally owned shotgun. Except that he had an illegal shotgun, his firearms license had been revoked, he had already fired it at someone else for scrumping apples from his orchard, and was proven to have lay in wait for the burglars, ambushed them and fired two shots in to their backs as they were trying to escape.
Or how about Munir Hussain, who was tied up with his family, threatened with 12in knives and told they would all be murdered that night, who then escaped, raised the alarm and chased after the burglers, catching them in next door’s garden? He and three other men then proceeded to beat one of the burglers to within an inch of his life with a cricket bat and a hockey stick, were begged to stop by an onlooker but refused, and left the burgler with permanent brain damage.
These are the two most famous cases in the UK, and are common in the public outcry that resulted from their convictions. Were they reasonable? Proportionate? A fair and balanced response to the situation? No.
In both cases, the worst damage was done after the criminals were trying to escape – crucially, after the danger had passed, and this is what the cases hang on. This is what the judge, Judge Reddihough, said about the Munir Hussain case:
The prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Salem.
However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man. It may be that some members of the public or media commentators will assert that Salem deserved what happened to him, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable .
Be that as it may, can it be so bad for the government to be on the side of the victim a little bit? To acknowledge in law the powerful emotional reaction we all have to home invaders, and to acknowledge that maybe we might lose control a bit, and that’s OK? Well, yeah, but that’s not really what they’re doing.
The truth is that, between 1990 and 2005, there were just 11 prosecutions for people tackling intruders in any premises, including seven involving homes. Less than one a year. The government is not responding to a social problem, it’s responding to a perceived fear – it’s playing on our emotional responses to romance the right-wing press and our base, primal urges.
The truth is that the law is already on your side. You are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property, and this includes perceived risk. Once, whilst working as a manager at a bowling alley, a guy high on drugs threatened to slit my throat, and lunged for his pocket. I didnpt see a knife. It could have been a phone down there. He could even have been pleased to see me. But legally, I would have been within my rights there to use enough force to protect my life against a man holding a knife – i.e. quite a lot – because I had reasonable cause to assume it was there.
The problem comes along when your brain gets in the way, and chucks some fear in to the mix like a flash-bang grenade at your nan’s 80th birthday party. Fear changes our perceptions, it changes our view of the world, it changes our behaviour and our responses. Panic and adrenaline shut down your senses, so that you only notice what your lizard brain thinks is relevant to your survival. After all, these are predators invading your nest to eat your young.
What, you thought your fear was really because someone’s nicking your telly? No, not at all. Your primal lizard brain, the small bit at the back that really runs the show, is screaming at you that there’s a dinosaur munching on your babies, even if it’s really a scally in a track-suit trying to unplug the stereo.
Should we legislate against the lizard brain? I for one don’t think we should. I don’t want my legal system to be based around a set of instinctual fear responses that are a hangover from a distant ancestor, and play no part in the risks and consequences of living in a modern, civilised society. I want my laws to be aspirational, not reverting to the law of the jungle for their justice.
I needn’t worry. This is a publicity stunt, not a real change. This new legislation wouldn’t have gotten Tony Martin off the h
ook; Munir Hussain would still have gone to prison. It’s a cynical attempt t tug at your strings, to play you like a dumb animal scared for its nest and eggs. Don’t fall for it. Choose society. Turn your back on the jungle.
Hmmmm. I’m more sympathetic with Hussain than Martin. Tied his family up and threatened them with 12″ knives. The guy(s) deserved to beaten within an inch of their lives.
Having our own homes, our castles, invaded is many people’s single greatest fear
Mine is still bugs.
LOL Kim!
“In both cases, the worst damage was done after the criminals were trying to escape – crucially, after the danger had passed, and this is what the cases hang on. . .The truth is that the law is already on your side. You are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property, and this includes perceived risk.” (NC)
.
.
.
This is a VERY thorny issue Nathaniel. I do appear to take a view somewhat divergent from your own on this, though I respect your sentiments.
I tend to believe it a major error that Western legal systems have moved away from the concept of “Assumed Risk.” That, in my view, is a fundamental facet of all aspects of life.
In such cases as you’ve enumerated, I believe an intruder SHOULD assume ALL the risks concomitant with his reckless, irresponsible and malevolently intentioned actions, as should an armed robber. That is, IF person-A walks into a store with a gun and is shot by a crazy-eyed store clerk wielding a shotgun as the would-be robber flees in dread….well in my view, he assumed such a risk the moment he entered that store with, what we call “bad intentions”. . .and that gun.
SAME should go for a home invader. Look, a person engaged in a home invasion isn’t usually a burglar, no, such folks are intent on mayhem. Home invaders, at least here in the U.S., tend to be intent on rape, murder and “robbery as an afterthought.” If such a group of goons are “bushwacked,” by perhaps intruding on a nest of armed drug dealers or arms dealers instead of the nice and unarmed suburban family they intended to waylay, with the result being some of them shot in-house, and a few others hunted down and killed before they could successfully exit that property…AGAIN those miscreants brought that upon themselves – they should legally assume ALL risks for their reckless and intentionally malevolent behavior (home invasion).
I believe America’s Founders wrestled with how to handle citizens engaged in such felonious activities and I believe Jefferson & Franklin (among others) came down on the side that I STILL endorse, that a citizen engaged in a felonious act ceases to exist as a citizen for legal purposes at that moment, that is, when engaging in activities outside the law, that person ceases to exist as a legal entity with legal rights…OR, in other words, their legal rights are suspended at that moment.
In another words, should a rapist sadly run into the clutches of a deranged serial killer, who then promptly dismembers the rapist while still alive, then cooks and devours his remains, the law would be unable to prosecute THAT serial killer for THAT particular “crime,” since the alleged victim did not exist in terms of the law at THAT moment in time.
He could, of course, be prosecuted for any other killings provided those victims weren’t engaged in (or fleeing) a felonious act.
Honestly, I could very easily see myself as a very colorful Jurist under such a system, with just such a serial killer brought before me and adjudicating that case accordingly; “Damn your eyes man, I’d prefer to hang your arse until dead for this heinous act, but shiver me timbers, given you only kilt and ate a drug-dealing pedophile, I’m hereby forced to set yar free, so fare thee well then…at least UNTIL the next time.” (YES, that’s a bit of hyperbole)
I believe such a system would almost certainly do the least harm….certainly less harm than one that would punish a shopkeeper or a homeowner for merely protecting what’s theirs – that is their health, welfare and earthly goods.
Interesting. I’m not sure we see things the same in this one, I think a vital facet of modern society is a balanced, impartial and consistent judicial system. Like free speech sometimes we don’t like it, and we want it to be different, but over time it has proved to be the best way to go about maintaining civil society. The problem with the cases I mentioned was that the revenge (lets call t what it was) happened AFTER the risk had been removed, negating the claim of self defense and just making it plain old assault.
These things are never easy and this issue is more emotional than most, but to me that just makes it all the more important to take justice out of the emotional, irrational hands of the person who is having his home invaded!
Sorry it’s been so long….but I’ve been involved with some other labor intensive projects lately.
Like you, I too believe very strongly in free speech and free action, along with the free economy (the “free market”), and see all of them as indispensable, HOWEVER we have severe restrictions on all kinds of speech (threatening speech, libelous/slanderous speech, defamation, even “recklessly dangerous speech” – “yelling fire in a crowded theater” being the common example etc.), needless to say, we also strictly regulate all sorts of actions/behaviors both personal and economic. In fact, in the USA, today, we do that to such an extent that most Americans commit numerous felonies regularly that they aren’t even aware of (SEE Harvey Silvergate’s excellent book “Three Felonies a Day”http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350696819&sr=8-1&keywords=3+felonies+a+day
Thankfully (in my view) many of our sanctions against various “speech violations,” especially threatening speech with various bullying and cyber-bullying statutes are becoming increasingly severe, after years of taking such things less seriously than they should’ve been.
At the same time the law is increasingly giving greater latitude to U.S. homeowners in regards to home protection. Increasing numbers of states (many pretty “liberal” ones) have enacted various “castle laws” that expand the scope of a homeowner’s right to protect his home. In Texas a couple years back a man reported to 911 that a group of men were breaking into his neighbor’s house, then while on the line grabbed his shotgun and let the dispatcher know he was going over there to stop the intruders…which he did despite the dispatcher’s admonition to “stand down” and let the incoming police “do their jobs.” Now Texas has long had a reputation for being a relatively “free-wheeling” state, but the trend towards greater latitude in home defense does seem a growing one.
Home invasions are attacks on OCCUPIED dwellings.
Such attackers are virtually always intent on doing harm….their unwanted presence in a home, by itself, rises to the level of “attempted rape/murder” and a homeowner is very often indemnified from prosecution for shooting such intruders under many “castle laws,” at least while they are still on the trespassed premises.
I very much agree with such statutes and VERY strongly believe in personal (home) defense (via guns, etc)…I’m less of a fan of that in public venues where such defense may put numerous innocent bystanders at risk.
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law has been much maligned (and wrongly so, in my view, at least over the Trayvon Martin killing – see any of Alan Dershowitz commentaries on that case), though it can and has been abused, one example being in the 2010 David James killing (SEE: http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/article/311679/28/Widow-says-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-law-is-free-pass-for-murder).
Generally, I think your assessment of “seeking to avoid violence” is the best of possible course, with the exception of things like home invasions – in such cases, the ONLY “deterrent” is often making sure that those particular thugs don’t get a 2nd opportunity.
Thanks, a great summary and one which I agree with, apart from the gun thing but that’s just the cultural values of a Brit who lives in a country where such things are less necessary.
If you will excuse the plug, for anyone not aware here’s a rather good book (if I do say so myself) on the art of not being there:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Get-Hit-Fighting/dp/0804842698/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352482040&sr=8-1&keywords=how+not+to+get+hit
New blog post is moments away!