Progress In Self Defence Law In Britain — About Time
The UK Telegraph reports that A 72-year old shopkeeper fatally stabbed a man who invaded his shop in Manchester and tried to rob him with a gun. Hey, I thought they outlawed guns in Britain.
If you’ve been following how the laws protecting crime victims in Britain have deteriorated over the last 15 or so years, you will expect that the shopkeeper has been charged with murder. But he has not and will not be. The Crown Prosecutor has informed Cecil Coley, the shopkeeper, that no charges will be brought against him. The prosecutor has further reassured homeowners they can use reasonable force to protect themselves, their families and their property without fear of criminal charges.
It’s wonderful news that the mother country may be regaining her senses, but it is also sad that the reestablishment of the basic human right of self defence [British spelling] is considered “progress.” It should never have been questioned in the first place, not in the place where it was first recognized at least a thousand years ago and held in high regard for all that time until recently when some deranged liberals got over the wall and began to dismantle the rule of law in favor of criminals over their victims.
Next is this: If self defence rights are restored, how about the right to possess the most effective means of self defence? Hmmm.
Here is a screenshot of an interesting poll in the Telegraph story:
Go to the Telegraph story and cast your vote, then see the results from over 2,800 votes. You may be happily surprised, especially considering the responders are mostly English living in England.
The English are apparently fed up with being raped, mugged, stabbed, and shot by criminals who are never punished all the while they face serious charges if they so much as dare to defend themselves. They are also not that keen on the “reasonable force” standard to justify self defence and would prefer that their law be restored to something close to what it is in the USA and used to be in Britain. That is, “Deadly force is justified when someone has given you grounds to reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury.” That’s what the poll results say. “Reasonable force” is too subjective a standard. If the bad guy had a baseball bat and you had a gun was that reasonable force? Yes, of course it was. A baseball bat is a deadly weapon when someone threatens to clobber you with it. But those are the sorts of questions that will plague crime victims who defend themselves under a “reasonable force” standard. Those are the sorts of questions that will result in different prosecution decisions among cases of similar facts, and create confusion in jury deliberation resulting in widely different verdicts in cases that are similar and should result in similar verdicts. The “reasonable fear” standard is more objective and easier to judge after the fact.