Householders’ right to self-defence
Conservative MP Anne McIntosh proposes a change in the law to allow householders greater right to use appropriate force against intruders.
At present, the law only allows for reasonable force to be used in defence of the self. One may not use force in defence of one’s property or personal belongings.
I believe that an individual should be allowed to use reasonable force against an intruder attempting to steal their possessions. The police should only take action against a victim of crime when it is clear that the response of that person has been excessive.
It is crucial that this right is given to both homeowners and businesses alike, and that the law is clear. The bill will also restore the balance of rights in favour of the property owner, as opposed to the burglar.
Hear, hear.
So its reasonable to maim someone who wants to nick your iPod?
Comment by DE — October 28, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
Not if that’s considered to be disproportionate. Which it undoubtedly would be.
But you could punch the bugger to prevent the theft - which you couldn’t do before, it seems.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 28, 2005 @ 2:12 pm
I don’t like the idea in theory, and it probably would fail in practice. “Considered disproportianate” is something you want to test as little as possible in court.
Encourages the sort of the people who would seriously put up an electric fence around their house if they could.
Comment by DE — October 28, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
DE,
I actually don’t think there’ll be a major change in terms of what people actually do when they realise there’s an intruder in their house because what people actually do is, I suspect, determined more by their character - whether they’re brave or aggressive or more prone to keep themselves safe and so on - than their appraisal of their legal position at that moment.
Where the law will probably have more effect is after the event when the chap who clumped an intruder who was trying to make off with their widescreen finds he won’t be banged up after all.
For my part, I think I’d twat the bugger regardless of the law. (The reality is that I might actually hide under my duvet - I’ll find out which it is when it actually happens).
You, on the other hand, might avoid confrontation even if the law gives you carte blanche to hang, draw and quarter him.
What I do strongly suspect is that neither of us will be consulting the statute books when we’re in such a position that the law will actually matter.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 28, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
No, it doesn’t mean anything like electric fences and overly paranoid gun-nuts. What it means is the return to English law of your right to defend what is yours. If you’re not allowed to defend your property, how long till you’re not allowed to defend your family? Are you even allowed to now, I wonder?
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 28, 2005 @ 5:06 pm
Are Palestinians moral in defending their homes and land?
Are the Israeli bulldozers and land confiscation consistent with “British” principles or transgressing the “law”.
Do Iraqi citizens have the right to expel the invader who has come to take their oil?
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 28, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
A hear hear from me too.
Comment by David Vance — October 28, 2005 @ 9:49 pm
I argee with you Gary. When I was a PC some time ago now it was understood that if someone was injured in the commission of a serious offence they would have little or no come back in law if they were injured by someone resisting them. I cant recall how or when the law changed but over the past 20 yrs or so it certainly has. It might be DE that someone will over-step the bounds of what is reasonable, almost certain in fact. I would suggest though that the Law is best when it addresses what has happened rather than the what ifs. The law seem to get every more volumous trying to prevent things from happening rather than dealing with those who have transgressed. In doing so we loose more and more of our liberties because we might do something.
Christopher, I dont know and frankly, I dont really care. I dont tends to see my life, as an Englishman living in England, through the prism of the suffering of the Palistinians, Tibetans, Chinese, Iranians,Zimbabwians etc
Regards.
Comment by Sussex Downsman — October 28, 2005 @ 10:00 pm
And can pregnant women use reasonable force to protect their life and property too?
Or is that somehow different?
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 28, 2005 @ 11:01 pm
Christopher - you are changing the subject, assuming that everyone agrees with you that the allies are in Iraq to nick their oil, or that the Israelis are trying to take Palestinian land. On both counts you are wrong, and both counts have nothing to do with whether a householder in England should be allowed to defend his property with reasonable force.
Comment by robert aldridge — October 29, 2005 @ 10:47 am
Your post correctly summarises the law as it stands, Gary. The Conservative proposal is to permit householders to use anything other than grossly excessive force. It’s mere political posturing really.
Personally, I agree with the African chief who said that the time of the Tony Martin affair that his verdict as a judge would be that a burglar caught in a home had committed suicide.
Comment by Tom Paine — October 29, 2005 @ 1:29 pm
Well, in a slightly parallel ways they are related - clearly if you believe in getting your counter strike in early, you might have more belief in the rightness of original Blairs position. Mr Brooks however has form with respect to ignoring the topic..
Comment by DE — October 29, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
Frank,
Yep, if somebody’s trying to nick her best red stilettos she can thrash the chap to a pulp with her handbag.
Christopher,
Like Frank, you’re taking an opportunity to make a point that’s not really related to what I was posting. Serious - and respectfully intended - suggestion: create a blog, tell us about it and we’ll visit and spar with you on the subjects of your choosing.
Tom,
If it’s posturing, it’s posturing I like. I see no reason why I should accept another person’s presence in my house and be unable to physically prevent him thieving from me. I may as well help him load his van.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 29, 2005 @ 5:14 pm
Yep, if somebody’s trying to nick her best red stilettos she can thrash the chap to a pulp with her handbag.
Pregnancy always results in harm and loss of property.
Not related? Of course it is, women have had equal rights for some time now. Thus the same right that you understand entitles you to use reasonable force to defend your life, health and property against threat also entitles her to do the same.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 29, 2005 @ 5:57 pm
My defence is that principles must apply universally or are hardly genuine.
I do not though accept the argument that a pregnant mother is being attacked by her unborn child.
As the parent of nine I do sometimes feel attacked when my five daughters, 14, 10, 8, 6 and 2 employ their wily feminine designs to get their way in the world, actually in truth, I love to watch them grow and learn.
If my 16 year old son is lucky he will still know a lot more than his Dad by the time he moves on towards his own turf, until then he has to suffer living under ignorant me, 11 year old son lives in the world of Lucas and Star wars epics while just turned four thrives on Fireman Sam and Bob the Builder.
These children absorb huge financial and psychological cost to us Frank but we just cannot decide which one to kill first.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 29, 2005 @ 6:51 pm
Please don’t turn this thread into an abortion debate…
Comment by Gary Monro — October 29, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
I do not though accept the argument that a pregnant mother is being attacked by her unborn child.
That’s not the argument.
These children absorb huge financial and psychological cost to us Frank but we just cannot decide which one to kill first.
Abortion is not a right to kill. Reasonable force.
Comment by Frank O\\\'Dwyer — October 29, 2005 @ 7:18 pm
Please don’t turn this thread into an abortion debate…
Noted. I wasn’t trying to start a debate, just pointing out what should be an obvious inconsistency.
That’s something I intend to continue to do, however I will respond to any further remarks on this topic on my own blog.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 29, 2005 @ 7:29 pm
“‘I do not though accept the argument that a pregnant mother is being attacked by her unborn child.’
That’s not the argument.”
Frank, it’s the only god-damned argument you *have*, and you know what? It’s not made any more worthwhile by that fact. It’s been beaten to a pulp so many times, and you’ve revealed yourself as an anti-human diabolist so many times, that really by now you should just learn to give it a rest.
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 30, 2005 @ 12:21 am
Dumb Brit, your comment contains nothing more than your usual declarations of victory and warrantless, and rather silly, ad hominem attacks. (”Anti-human diabolist” indeed. It’s not even halloween yet!)
If you have a rebuttal, then by all means let’s hear it. However, if it concerns abortion, then I suggest you take it to your blog or mine, and respect Gary’s request.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 30, 2005 @ 1:02 am
Not turn it into an abortion debate? Why would I want to? We’ve been there, done that, and know the results. The ad hominem statement was just that. You’re a diabolist for your stance against the sanctity of life. If you want to take that as an attack, so be it. My advice would be to take it as an opportunity to return to the human race.
On the actual point of self-defense, we don’t really have the right under the law to defend ourselves or those we love from attack. It’d be nice to see that right returned to us, but I doubt it’ll happen.
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 30, 2005 @ 11:01 am
Enough chaps, please. The original post was concerned simply with the point about householders using reasonable force to prevent the stealing of material objects. Taking that principle to some other realm that clearly wasn’t stated in the post is widening it into controversial - and well-worn - territory.
Let’s not digress…
Comment by Gary Monro — October 30, 2005 @ 11:44 am
I agree that the balance has tipped too far in the direction of protecting the criminal than the victim. The problem - what constitutes reasonable? Surely this needs to be clarified. Although I have no sympathy for the lads that broke in - I don’t think Martin was using reasonable force when he shot one of them in the back. I wouldn’t want the UK to go down the road of having guns in the house to protect property.
Comment by GaffaUK — October 30, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
Actions committed by the householder which are obviously disproportionate should rended the householder liable to prosecution. Otherwise he should be given the benefit of the doubt on the understanding that if the burglar hadn’t broken in in the first place none of this would have happened.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 30, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
So Gary - do you think Martin was using reasonable force?
Comment by GaffaUK — October 30, 2005 @ 11:47 pm
Well Gaffa he shot the man in the back. At least initially that sounds suspect and I don’t have to hand the facts of the case. But here are some considerations:
Was the man running from the premises when he was shot? If the man was still in the house it’s different than if he was, for example, running towards the street door where one could assume he was trying to flee. Shooting him is disproportionate in that case.
Was Mr Martin genuinely scared at the time? What was his state of mind at that moment?
In a moment of fear and panic what might we, Mr Martin’s judges, do in such a situation? Could we be expected to act rationally, with composure under those circumstances?
If I were in Mr Martin’s shoes at that time I have no idea what I would do. I imagine whatever it was it would be instinctive, almost beyond my control. I might run or I might fight. It’s a bit tough to judge a man’s actions in a situation where calmly considered decisions are unlikely to be made. If in doubt, acquit. I don’t think that the fact the robber was shot in the back is decisive in the case although it might be significant.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 31, 2005 @ 8:43 am
Its almost always wrong to steal from people, and its almost always wrong to kill people. I’m not certain that stress, or having a bad day should be used to adjust morality quite so quickly.
Comment by DE — October 31, 2005 @ 10:20 am
DE,
The purpose of the law is not to enforce morality. It just happens that this is both a legal and moral issue.
Reasonable force in self-defence is a pretty well established legal principle. Many people would find that moral too, although there are those who think it is wrong to use force in almost any circumstances.
Also I think it’s not unreasonable to suppose that if you discover someone has broken into your home then they are likely to harm you.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — November 1, 2005 @ 10:58 am
I think that the general move has been to teach people that there is no inherent right to self-defense in this country. I see it in schools in the handling of bullies, I see it in the way offenders’ rights groups lobby against such clarifications of the law.
As far as abortion goes…I think allowing anything beyond the 46th trimester is barbaric…
Comment by James G. — November 1, 2005 @ 9:14 pm