‘..The problem, of course, is what constitutes reasonable force and who gets to decide. If you’re going to judge how others react in such a situation, and judge what is “reasonable,” you should first indulge in some pretty vivid empathy. Imagine you and your partner wake abruptly in the middle of the night. You hear a stranger moving about in the hallway outside your bedroom. Your newborn child is sleeping quietly, for once, in the room across the hall.
There’s now an intruder between you and your child and his motives are unclear but certainly not benign. He’s obviously used force to break into your home at a time when you’re most vulnerable. It’s an act of premeditated violation and he may well use force again. Has he made these efforts in order to steal your property or to do you mortal harm? And, if interrupted, will the former involve the latter? What if your child wakes and starts crying?
Is it “reasonable” to assume that the intruder is merely a thief who doesn’t mind terrorising those whose homes he violates and whose property he steals, but isn’t prepared to do actual violence to his victims, even when cornered? And on what is that assumption based? Given the situation, and the fact your heart is pounding, do you really have the time and means to fathom the intruder’s motives and take them into account before acting – and acting without “excess”? Or do you use whatever force possible to disable the intruder before he can even think about harming you or your child? And what if the intruder is bigger and stronger than you? What if he’s armed with a knife or a gun? Are you going to wait to find out, dutifully bearing in mind the likelihood of subsequent legal disputation?
Wouldn’t it be wise to disable him as quickly as possible, by whatever means, rather than risk being at his mercy, along with the rest of your family? Doesn’t that most likely involve using as much force as can be mustered – say, with a decisive blow to the head using one of these – even if that risks the intruder’s death or serious, permanent injury? Is that “excessive or disproportionate” – or is it a basic moral imperative? And if the law doesn’t permit such things, and permit them unequivocally, don’t you have a right to be just a little “disappointed”? Don’t we want a world in which it’s the bad guys that are scared, and scared for very good reasons?..’
In Florida no such calculations are needed if someone breaks into your house – You simply shoot the bastard dead (who is usually black) and the call the police – You tell the police that the man tried to attack you despite the .45 caliber automatic Colt in your right hand, so you plugged him a few times.
The police search the floppy guy and find no weapon, but it doesn’t matter – You acted in self defense to save yourself and your family.
Later the police run a Rap Sheet on the dead black guy and find several pages of crimes to included assault, B&E, rape, drug offenses, etc. Also, he was just released from a prison work farm near Miami.
CASE CLOSED
Funny thing about having a drawer full of odd knives. By the time the police arrive it’s hard to tell if the bastard brought his own or somehow ended up holding one of yours.
I had a friend in Orlando, Florida who shot and killed a black guy who had broken into an out building in his backyard and was busy stealing an expensive tool kit. He pulled the floppy body back into his dining room and put a steak knife in its right hand. Meanwhile the wife was busy hosing down the yard and patio.
Then he called the cops.
No charges were filed.
Self Defense Florida Cracker Style.
Two in the perp, then a couple into the ceiling…..
Always have a throw-down available. An old starting pistol (sans serial numbers) or such like will do.
Even a replica will do. Or a knife.
But none of these should be necessary. Somebody in their own home has an absolute right to defend themselves against intruders, regardless of what the law says.
Even the lowly sea-urchin has spines – are we less than sea urchins in the eyes of the law?
yes
KG….The wording in the Crimes Act is…. Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use. As he or she believes them to be, is subjective and provided you clearly state to Mr Plod that you held grave fears for the safety of yourself or somebody else… no problems. You get to try on the bracelets when you say, “nah, I wasn’t scared, the POS should’ve knocked first”
Well, yes, Tamati, but there are other injustices waiting for somebody who uses deadly force to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Again, the definition of what is “reasonable” is too elastic, too much within the power of lawyers, judges, politicians and the courts to define.
My point always is that any intruder ought to be repelled by whatever force the householder sees fit to use.
Also, the law as it stands places the onus on the defendant to prove his innocence, which is an inversion of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”
(I’d also point out that for somebody who uses a firearm for self defence and is subsequently found innocent of any crime, the battle to get their confiscated firearms returned to them can be long, expensive and sometimes unsuccessful.)
“…and provided you clearly state to Mr Plod that you held grave fears for the safety of yourself or somebody else… no problems.”
I very much doubt that and in any case, I would be saying nothing to the police. Certainly making no statement without a lawyer’s advice.
They can have my name and address and that’s all.
“You get to try on the bracelets when you say, “nah, I wasn’t scared, the POS should’ve knocked first”
I hardly know where to begin with that.
If being unafraid makes one guilty, then the law is at fault. And the POS should have knocked first, if the right to live free of thuggery, robbery and violence means anything at all. Especially since the police are held to have no duty to protect people from such animals.
The law as it stands represents nothing more than the determination of the State to maintain its monopoly on violence.
NZ news, today:
‘Bashed, bound, robbed
10:53 AM Three teens charged after 79-year-old man is lured outside then tied up and robbed.’
Perhaps he should have used “reasonable force”?
That’s the joy of the thing.
If you arm yourself before the confrontation then you’re guilty of premeditated use of force.
If you don’t arm yourself then it’s too late to do so when it turns out you need to defend yourself.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Just the way our lords and ladies of the government like it.
KG..
Absolutely agree with you that we need a Castle Doctrine/law.
I was commenting on our current self defence law. If it’s clearly apparent that the intruder hasn’t used your house to commit suicide and that his sudden and violent demise was at your hands, then I would be volunteering to the responding cops at the very first instance and before talking to a lawyer, that I had been in fear of my life. That statement would be viewed as spontaneous and therefore honest, rather than as a result of being lawyer’d up. The onus would then be on the Prosecution to prove that you were not in fear of your life, and how could they show other wise?…only if you said “nah, I wasn’t scared, the POS should’ve knocked first”.
A few years ago, an Auckland pistol club member or firearms collector shot and killed an unarmed intruder with his pistol. The civil liberties/human rights lovey’s got pretty wound up when the Police didn’t charge him. The Police Legal Adviser once explained his decision to me as to why he had told the Police that charges could not be brought against this person. It came down to the home owner having the defence of self defence, because of the circumstances that he (home owner) perceived them to be, he had used reasonable force to defend himself, making the shooting lawful.
Thanks, Tamati. Seems we’re pretty much in agreement then.
“That statement would be viewed as spontaneous and therefore honest, rather than as a result of being lawyer’d up” is a good point.