Month: August 2011

Self-Defense in the UK

KevinLeave a comment

I left this in a comment at Say Uncle this morning in response to the assertion that “There is no right of self defense in the English law system. The use of force is solely the right of the Crown.”  I thought it would make a pretty decent post of its own, especially with the hyperlinks included.

OK, I’ve argued this question extensively. Here’s the deal:

In the UK, under the law you are permitted to use “reasonable force” to defend yourself or others.

Here’s the rub: Other people after the fact determine what was “reasonable” at the time of the incident.

Possession of anything “with the intent to threaten to cause injury or fear” is verboten – so if you pick up a baseball bat and stand outside your property as a deterrent to rioters, your intent is to “threaten to cause injury or fear” and you’re therefore guilty of being in possession of an “offensive weapon.”

Apparently you’re supposed to wait until you, personally are under physical attack before you can pick up anything with which to defend yourself, and then you are restricted in how you use that item to some “reasonable” level to be determined at some future time when the jurors can reflect calmly on the situation.

Further, as has been explained to the British public, the law does not require the intention to kill for a prosecution for murder to succeed. All that is required is an intention to cause serious bodily harm. That intention can be fleeting and momentary. But if it is there in any form at all for just a second – that is, if the blow struck was deliberate rather than accidental – you can be guilty of murder and spend the rest of your life in prison.

As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service can (and has) prosecuted people for merely possessing anything they consider to be an “offensive weapon” whether or not said “weapon” was ever displayed. They have prosecuted people, like the man who beat a burglar with a milk bottle, for “unreasonable” use of force. One man was acquitted not too long back of murdering a home invader with his shotgun when his defense was that the gun “accidentally discharged” as he was pointing it at the huge, steroid-enraged bodybuilder climbing through his second-floor window and verbally threatening to kill the homeowner. Since there was no intent, fleeting or momentary, he wasn’t guilty of murder, apparently, even though he had to unlock the gun cabinet, retrieve his shotgun, unlock the ammo cabinet, retrieve his ammo, load the gun, aim the gun, and put his finger on the trigger. All of that was “reasonable,” but pulling the trigger intentionally would have been an act not of self-defense, but of murder.

The result of these laws is that the act of defending yourself is legally risky. Even if you’re acquitted, it may cost you a fortune in legal fees, and you very well might go to jail. If you actively defend your property, the chances are very high that you will be prosecuted for – at a minimum – possession of an “offensive weapon” and “causing fear,” and you will most probably lose in court.

All of this has what has been referred to as a “chilling effect” on the willingness of the British populace to actively defend themselves. You’ll note in the stories coming out of the UK that the people doing the “vigilantism” are almost exclusively immigrants – mostly Turks and Sikhs. They haven’t had their self-reliance beaten out of them yet.

I’ve Already Addressed This Question

KevinLeave a comment

Dan Miller at PJ Tatler asks Will the United States have another Civil War?  I addressed this question several years ago, and more than once.  In that first piece my response was:

Jefferson suggested a small armed rebellion every 20 years or so. We didn’t take his advice. Our last one ended in 1865, and it was so devastating I think it put us off rebellion entirely too long.

Government isn’t “us” and hasn’t been for a long, long time. It represents the people who run the Democrat and Republican Parties, and those who pay them the most. Government-run education has ensured that the end product coming out of our schools is uniformly ignorant of how the system is supposed to work, and it’s done a damned good job of indoctrinating our children in the “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” philosophy, and the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Fifty-plus years of this has produced a very large, very ignorant, very apathetic population.

I think that “pressing the reset button” is going to happen, but all it’s going to get some of us is a tighter collar and a heavier chain.

In the second piece I wrote:

What prevents another Civil War here isn’t the Army or the fact that we hold a higher loyalty to our Nation than to our State of residence, it’s ignorance and apathy.

Well, we seem to be overcoming the apathy problem, but ignorance? Not so much.

In the third piece I returned to my original position:

I cannot help but wonder: Are we going to war again, against each other? And what form would that take?

I think the answer might very well be “YES,” and the form will be that of domestic terrorism.

Dan Miller, in a longer piece at his own blog expands on his take on the subject:

Although the persistent atrophy of states’ rights is among the causes of many problems from which discontent arises, that atrophy does not itself seem to concern great numbers of citizens. It is also a reason why a civil war is unlikely: states now are much weaker than were those that seceded in 1861. Then, the states were considered far more than now as sovereign countries. Before and during the war, many of the South considered “United States” to be a plural expression. Hence, it was often said that the United States “are,” rather than “is.” When the country was viewed as a consortium of separate and sovereign entities, the plural usage was grammatically correct. The plural form has fallen into disuse; I still use it as a reminder that the states retain the authority not delegated to the federal government even though they have forfeited much of the power to exercise it.

I’ve said the same myself. What we have isn’t people in different states clamoring to be released from the Federal yoke, it’s people in large cities wanting Federally-provided welfare versus suburban and rural populations that generally want benign neglect when it comes to Federal interference.

The States aren’t “red” or “blue,” they’re differing shades of purple, but the cities are “blue” and outside the cities are, on the whole, varying shades of “red.”

You’ll note, all of the rioting going on isn’t occurring in places like Lizard Lick or Henley-in-Arden or Arma, Greece.  It’s occurring in Philadelphia, London and Athens.

So no, we’re not going to see another iteration of “The War Between the States.”  But we very well might see our major cities burn.

Taking the Law into Your Own Hands

KevinLeave a comment

I was fascinated to read England riots: When is it right to turn vigilante? at the BBC website. Excerpts:

Stories are emerging of Londoners forming vigilante groups to protect their homes and businesses, but police have warned this is making matters worse.

—

…little by little a picture is emerging of Londoners beginning to fight back against the wave of violence – in some cases by taking the law into their own hands.

—

But when is it right to take the law into your own hands?

—

But are those who take the law into their own hands to protect shops and homes more of a hindrance than a help?

—

He urged people not to take the law into their own hands.

I keep remembering Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles of Modern Policing, the seventh of which is:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

But now, we are told, taking those duties seriously is “taking the law into our own hands.”

Uh, that’s where it’s supposed to be. Principle No. 1 is

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

You’ll note, they’re not too good at that.

But “vigilantes” are.

I don’t advocate chasing looters and arsonists down and beating ’em to a pulp – that’s not the duty of citizens. Detaining them, however, for retrieval by authorities is. That’s why there is such a thing as the power of citizen’s arrest. This power traces back to “Anglo Saxon law in medieval England.” I guess they’ve “Progressed” themselves right out of it.

Perry de Havilland at Samizdata has more on the subject. Tomorrow’s Quote of the Day comes from that piece.

We’ll see how many people get prosecuted for protecting their own property after the riots finally settle down. After all, according to UK law:

The term ‘offensive weapon’ is defined as: “any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use”.

True,

The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury

However, standing outside your property with a half-dozen friends or family members, all armed with baseball or cricket bats, axe handles or steel pipe in anticipation of rioters pretty much meets the definition of threatening or causing fear. That’s the idea – make ’em sheer off somewhere else out of fear of seeing their own blood.

As I said in “(I)t’s most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can”,

Britain today represents a perfect example of the pacifist culture in control, because that culture doesn’t really distinguish between violent and predatory and violent but protective – it sees only violent. Their worldview is divided between violent and non-violent, or passive. There is an exception, a logical disconnect if you will, that allows for legitimate violence – but only if that violence is committed by sanctioned officials of the State. And even there, there is ambivalence. If violence is committed by an individual there is another dichotomy: If the violence is committed by a predator, it is the fault of society in not meeting that predator’s needs. The predator is the creation of the society, and is not responsible for the violence. He merely needs to be “cured” of his ailment. If violence is committed by a defender, it is a failure of the defender to adhere to the tenets of the pacifist society. It is the defender who is at fault because he has lived by the rules and has chosen to break them, and who must therefore be punished for his transgression.

Thus defending your own property is “vigilantism,” not a duty “incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Quote of the Day – British Riots Edition

KevinLeave a comment

Phil B., expat Brit and current resident of Middle Earth emails a link to Counting Cats in Zanzibar from which comes the QotD:

One thing that is quite interesting though is that this demonstrates how weak the authorities’ grasp on power really is. Numerous commentators throughout history have noted that even the cruelest dictator rules by consent; if the people do form a mass against him, he cannot prevail. A lot of people are saying, “why are the police letting this happen?” and while we’re all I’m sure going to play armchair quarterback with this for many happy internet-arguing weeks to come, there does seem to be that lesson here that mass resistance- or rather, a kind of mass ignoring of the hypothetical “social contract”- leaves government/governance reeling, especially in a nominally liberal polity. It makes you realise just how compliant we are; ten million smokers or whatever the number is, all dutifully trooping outside to have a ciggie. The authorities rule by the presumption and acceptance of power, and when people just ignore them they lose control very quickly.

This scares the snot out of those presumptively in power, and you know what to expect of frightened animals.

Billy Beck has been preaching civil disobedience as the tool to wrest back our liberty – not, as Counting Cats says, “run(ing) outside and set(ting) fire to World Of Carpets and steal(ing) mobile phones”, but simple refusal to comply – stop paying taxes. Stop feeding the Beast. Unfortunately, for this to be effective it must also be widespread.  Pillaging and burning has the advantage of being (mostly) anonymous and, if you’re so inclined, fun.  Refusing to pay your taxes?  They have your number – literally.

So expect to see looting and arson, but principled civil disobedience?  Not so much.

Snark or Prophecy?

KevinLeave a comment

A sign in the window of a Manchester Subway restaurant:

It reads:  “Due to the imminent collapse of society we regret to announce we are closing at 6pm tonight.”

Found here.

I do still love the British “stiff upper lip.”

Too Little, Too Late?

KevinLeave a comment

Well, THIS is interesting, from Amazon.com.uk:

I guess a bunch of people over in Ol’ Blighty have figured out that they are responsible for their own protection first, regardless of what their government tells them.

Either that, or American baseball has developed a tremendous following.

Odd about the lack of glove and ball purchases though…