There is an interesting case out of England on the limits of self-defense, a question that we often discuss in class. Munir Hussain, 52, has been convicted for attacking an armed robber who broke into his house and held him and his family hostage — while reportedly promising to kill them all. They were eventually able to free themselves and turn the tables on the three robbers. Walid Salem, 56, was beaten in the aftermath with bats. He can only sue the family for tort damages for the assault and battery. Hussain’s brother Tokeer was also convicted.
The privilege of self-defense expires once the threat has passed and must only extend to commensurate levels of force. Once the privilege expires, self-defense becomes battery.
In this case, Hussain, his wife, their teenage daughter, and two sons were tied up by the three robbers and told that they would die. Hussains’ teenage son managed to escape through a window and two of the robbers fled. Hussain then throw a table at Salem, who was set upon with bats and poles. Hussain insisted it was neighbors who did the beating.
England has passed a new law to assist such homeowners if they act out of fear for their safety. Justice Secretary Jack Straw told the public “For a passer-by witnessing a street crime or a householder faced with a burglar, we are reassuring them that if they use force which is not excessive or disproportionate, the law really is behind them.”
The United States have seen a similar legislative move in the enactment of “Castle laws” or “Make My Day Laws,” which remain controversial, here and here.
For the full story, click here.
One of the great joys of this beautiful state is “Garden of the Gods”, in Colorado Springs. Paradise on earth..
Check out Colorado, “Make My day Law”. This is a state that really lives in the world of frontier justice. I own property in this great state and I wanna keep it CLEAN…..
George:
“What about the “weaker elements” within the communities that MAKE and ENFORCE the laws? Who shall “confront and deter” them?”
*********************
Good thinking, George. You are in good company with the likes of Juvenal,”Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Buddha,
Great article; thanks.
Now it would appear the English have lost their minds on libel law.
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/cracking-the-spine-of-libel/
I reserve the right to call phrenology bunk and hokum! The Crown’s scientifically intellectually dishonest prohibition be damned! Science is about proof! If you can’t have your proof, you can’t have your science. If you can’t question the validity of proof, then everything is science.
I think I’ll declare the foundation of a new branch of science. I’ll call it “Stupidology” – the science of what makes a certain percentage of people logic proof. The founding study will be a thesis titled –
“Dumbfounded Darwinism and the Final Decline of Empire: How the Land of Newton Came to Believe in Fairy Tales By Abandoning the Right to Challenge Proof”
Alan Turing is laughing his ass off right now.
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat?
Revenge, avarice, lust, betrayal, and violence are all instinctive to man, and the law was posited precisely to confront and deter these weaker elements of our nature.
—
What about the “weaker elements” within the communities that MAKE and ENFORCE the laws? Who shall “confront and deter” them?
TJ:
“There are times when the law is blind to the instinctive nature of man and or women when it comes to protecting their families during a very real threat to their lives.”
**************
Indeed, many would say the law is constantly engaged in prohibiting the instinctive nature of man and woman. If we accept Hobbes’ famous observation about the human condition*, how could it be otherwise? Revenge, avarice, lust, betrayal, and violence are all instinctive to man, and the law was posited precisely to confront and deter these weaker elements of our nature.
*”Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (The Leviathan, Ch. XIII, 1651)
If someone enters my home and says they are going to kill me and/or my family, the threat has passed when that person is no longer drawing breath, as far as I am concerned.
That said, I think the anonymous guy from Texas who wants to murder people for ‘encroaching’ is a dangerous psychopath.
There are times when the law is blind to the instinctive nature of man and or women when it comes to protecting their families during a very real threat to their lives..
How do we measure these responses after such a terrifying attack upon you and even more so your family and loved ones..?
Interestingly government seldom holds itself to the same standard it regularly inflicts upon it’s populace of other foreign populations..
Encroach in my back yard in Texas and I can shoot you DEAD, if I feel threatened.
—
AY,
For all of my bleeding heart posts, there are aspects of old west justice that I find appealing. It seems to keep everybody respectful.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw told the public “For a passer-by witnessing a street crime or a householder faced with a burglar, we are reassuring them that if they use force which is not excessive or disproportionate, the law really is behind them.”
—
The question is, what is considered “excessive or disproportionate?”
Encroach in my back yard in Texas and I can shoot you DEAD, if I feel threatened.
So the threat of harm had passed and what happened I would probably do as well. You assaulted my family and for that you must pay. If a jury convict these fine justifiable people then the hell with the English system of laws.