Saturday
(1)This senior British police officer tells the Daily Telegraph that householders should be able to use force, lethal force if necessary, to beat off burglars. Good. It may not immediately lead to a change in public policy but I get the feeling that a watershed was passed in the murder this week of City financier and Chelsea resident, John Monckton. Regular readers of this site will know that the crime was committed within a few yards of our own Perry de Havilland's home.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments we have seen about the issue of self defence, both on this blog and in our comments section. For me it is simple - the right to life is not worth much if one cannot use the means necessary to defend it. Full stop, no ifs, buts or qualifications. What does strike me, though, is that restoring the right of self defence will also, indirectly, improve the quality of our police forces. There are still a lot of very brave, committed and smart people in the police. Such people join up not just for the nice pension but also out of a desire to put thugs behind bars and protect the public. By being turned into "the paramilitary wing of the Guardian newspaper", as blogger David Farrer memorably put it, many good policemen and women may have been demoralised and driven out of the force.
So if we want to be able to encourage smart and good people to be coppers and restore the reputation of the boys in dark blue, then restoring the liberties and protections of our Common Law is an integral part of that goal. All good Bobbies should be cheering on the rights of self defence.
The very first thing one might consider is the necessity of removing the bureaucratic nightmare that is attached to a police officer's workload. I was amazed to hear that any arrest can involve anything up to 4 hours' of paperwork by an officer before he or she can go back to work. If one presumes that an officer would do an average 8 hour shift, then that would allow for 2 arrests per shift.
Posted by Julian Taylor at December 4, 2004 01:23 PM
Now if only the Crown Prosecution Service would , or could be persuaded to see things in a similar light...
Posted by ernest young at December 4, 2004 01:54 PM
The associated Telegraph editorial continues the topic and picks a few well deserved nits with Sir John Stevens's otherwise mostly good piece.
If there is to be a presumption in law in favour of the householder, it must be almost absolute. To put it crudely: the reason why burglary is relatively rare in most parts of America is that intruders realise they are liable to be shot if disturbed, and that, if they survive, no court will find in their favour.Gotta love it when the "idea whose time has come" is actually a good idea...
Posted by Julian Morrison at December 4, 2004 02:27 PM
My only reservation is that arguments of the same kind could re-inforce the 'shoot to kill/drive like homicidal maniacs to catch the getway car' tendency evident in some sections of our police forces.
Much as I relish the thought of being permitted to cleanse the gene pool in respect of anyone I find trying to invade my private property, I am afraid I am a 'child of the 60's' [actually of the 50's!] enough still to feel some suspicion of anything which the police think is a good idea.
Posted by Dr Eric at December 4, 2004 05:20 PM
There have been a lot of comments on this latest pronunciation from the Commisioner - but really, the law has never needed any changing - just the interpretation of the words "reasonable force" - As a retired policeman, and a child of the 50s/60s Where we went wrong was the Panda car - took us off the streets - we no longer walked and talked - far too busy filling in the mountain of paper
Posted by Mystic Mog at December 4, 2004 11:37 PM
Much as I relish the thought of being permitted to cleanse the gene pool in respect of anyone I find trying to invade my private property, I am afraid I am a 'child of the 60's' [actually of the 50's!] enough still to feel some suspicion of anything which the police think is a good idea.
Even a broken clock's right twice a day. How would this give police any sort of unfair advantage over you?
Moreover, how could being able to defend your home be a bad thing at all?
Posted by andy at December 4, 2004 11:43 PM
Agree. The bigger problem regarding the police is the sweeping powers that they are given by New Labour in the cause of defeating terrorism when there is no proof that the police are responsible enough to use them selectively and to guard against real threats of terrorism. We seem to forget that its not twenty years since the police were arresting and getting convictions against people they knew couldn't possibly have committed the crime.
Posted by Ken at December 5, 2004 01:41 AM
Heck, in Texas they'd pin a medal on ya. Most places here in Colorado, too. I keep a loaded 12 gauge under the bed, just in case.
Posted by Darrell at December 5, 2004 07:56 AM
Heck, in Texas they'd pin a medal on ya. Most places here in Colorado, too. I keep a loaded 12 gauge under the bed, just in case.Is that all? Huh! Anyone tries something with my prize-winning leeks, I get out the RPG-7, and if they bastards have run out of range, I call in an airstrike.
Posted by Big Eric from Dead Man's Gulch at December 5, 2004 06:55 PM
Is that all? Huh! Anyone tries something with my prize-winning leeks, I get out the RPG-7, and if they bastards have run out of range, I call in an airstrike. Posted by Big Eric from Dead Man's Gulch at December 5, 2004 06:55 PM
There is something horribly wrong with a culture when the notion of keeping pure hunting arm ( 12 gauge ) handy to defend your loved ones from a violent home invader is considered a subject for sarcasm and ridicule.
Posted by Kristopher Barrett at December 7, 2004 06:22 PM
