« Redefining terrorists | Main | Serious amusement »
February 04, 2005
Reasonable force?
The argument that the government has advanced stating that the definition of "reasonable force" is a perfectly adequate protection for the householder defending his property is a blatant nonsense - especially in the hands of a jury whose vision of a home owner may well be a little biased by their visions of "Class War" and "freedom of expression."
The guidance now published by our Illustrious Leader and his barmy army in Whitehall, makes a number of interesting points. If the pictures which accompany it are to be believed, I can belt someone over the head with a cricket bat as long as he (or presumably also she!) is facing me. I cannot if they turn tail and run away! Similarly, I can hit them once only, twice is interpreted as "mailcious or vengeful!" Right, well, any b**s**d who breaks and enters my property will find himself or herself confronted by a descendent of a Norse Berserker! My problem is stopping myself - precisely because, in those far off days of doing defence training we were taught that if you put someone down - you make sure he/she stays there!
So, in terms of the guidance, I have a problem!
It really does come down to the manner in which the word reasonable is interpreted. The rarified atmosphere of a court room is very different to the atmosphere when you are confronting a burglar who may or may not be armed in one's own home. This is the same problem that many of our troops are now confronting - if they shoot someone who may be throwing stones or Molotov Cocktails at them - some smart lawyer will argue that they used "excessive" force in their response! The lawyer is, of course, never going to have to make this call with his troop of say 20 men surrounded by a stone-throwing mob of a thousand! It is presumptious, to say the very least, of any court, or any smart lawyer, to try to make that call years down the track and in possession of evidence that the person who made it in the first place did not have available at the time!
This is very much the same situation the householder will face in defending his or her actions during an assault on their property or person. The Prosecution, the Police, and the Court will be in possession of information which was simply not apparent or available to the Defendant at the time of the action taken.
The real problem is the interpretation of the word "reasonable". It used to mean whatever the man on the Clapham Bus would consider the action of a normal and sensible person. No longer; now it means whatever the latest smart lawyer has persuaded an often not so smart jury to accept as reasonable. No doubt the Police are afraid of having to manage a law which might be seen as giving people a "licence to kill", but their argument that the law is adequate as it stands is spurious - a fact born out by their continued pursuit of householders and victims while the assailants, burglars, and robbers go free. The householder is a much softer target - for one thing they know who he or she is, they have usually admitted taking whatever action they took and they stand exposed to whatever interpretation the Crown Prosecution Service cares to put on this.
The law will have to be changed; this panacea remedy put out by the Whitehall idealists will simply not prove, like most of this "guidance", to be any use other than as an emergency supply of paper in the smallest room in most households. I hope the paper is appropriate to this use!
Posted by The Gray Monk at February 4, 2005 09:53 AM