.
I lived in California for a while where the law concerning a householders’ right to react with violence to intruders is well known. One often saw notices on house lawns warning intruders that they could expect an ‘armed response’.
I don’t advocate such measures in this country, but British law seems a little fuzzy in some cases. Take for instance the Buckinghamshire man who chased intruders who had attacked him and his family. He hit one of the intruders with a cricket bat causing him permanent brain damage, and was charged with grievous bodily harm. Last December he was found guilty and sentenced by Reading Crown Court to thirty months imprisonment.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to twelve months suspended for two years. The Lord Chief Justice said that the ‘case was ‘exceptional’, and that the ‘call for mercy’ had to be answered’.
While the law protects people who use reasonable force to protect themselves against intruders, it gives no protection to those who set upon a fleeing criminal or who lie in wait to attack them. So in this particular case, it would seem that the Appeal judges acted mercifully.
As it happens, it was also yesterday that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner announced that those who put themselves in danger to tackle criminals should be celebrated as heroes.
Hmm. It seems to me that there is a very fine line to be drawn between being a hero and a criminal.
.
I lived in California for a while where the law concerning a householders’ right to react with violence to intruders is well known. One often saw notices on house lawns warning intruders that they could expect an ‘armed response’.
I don’t advocate such measures in this country, but British law seems a little fuzzy in some cases. Take for instance the Buckinghamshire man who chased intruders who had attacked him and his family. He hit one of the intruders with a cricket bat causing him permanent brain damage, and was charged with grievous bodily harm. Last December he was found guilty and sentenced by Reading Crown Court to thirty months imprisonment.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to twelve months suspended for two years. The Lord Chief Justice said that the ‘case was ‘exceptional’, and that the ‘call for mercy’ had to be answered’.
While the law protects people who use reasonable force to protect themselves against intruders, it gives no protection to those who set upon a fleeing criminal or who lie in wait to attack them. So in this particular case, it would seem that the Appeal judges acted mercifully.
As it happens, it was also yesterday that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner announced that those who put themselves in danger to tackle criminals should be celebrated as heroes.
Hmm. It seems to me that there is a very fine line to be drawn between being a hero and a criminal.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment