Self defence: A right or not?

Now I'm not the type to get all hysterical about these matters, but isn't this faintly ridiculous?

A shopkeeper was unarmed and defending himself against a robber, and in the ensuing fight, the robber was killed BY HIS OWN KNIFE!!!

I can't BELIEVE that would be classed as murder!!!

Absolutely crazy - no wonder you lot across the pond think we are all nuts in these matters:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/21/ncrime121.xml

It's a right in my book.  No doubt when the attacked find that in their own self-defense that they have killed the attacker, he or she will "feel" it in a way that is very different that would another who would assault/kill for self-profit.

Many years ago, I started carrying a screw driver in a compartment in my driver's side car door. I travelled on country roads and then there was stopping at traffic lights etc. I reasoned that if someone attacked me through the open window for any reason and at any time, I would always have a something handy. I figured that it's a perfectly normal tool to carry in case something went wrong in the car; it could serve another purpose if necessary.
I also had an incident when I was walking my dog in a reasonably isolated area.Sufficient to say that it involved a man. My dog, by the was is a tiny timid dog.
I looked around for a weapon and there was nothing. I got away safely and I vowed never to be caught out again. I now carry a piece of high tensile steel, cylindrical in shape and about 1/8th of an inch in diameter. It has a wooden hand grip. It was a fishing springer (used when setting a fishing line in a creek) My neighbourhood watch co -ordinator stopped me one day and asked to look at it. He told me that the Police could stop me for carrying a weapon. I mainly carry it in case of attacks from dogs. I have had several instances where I have had to use this weapon defending myself and my dog from dog attacks. I really don't care to face some animal or other with my bare hands. I should have the right to protect myself and my dog.If I am made to stop carrying it, I will carry a stick or a riding crop. I will not walk around at the mercy of anyone or anything, nor should I have to. I will pay the fine or do the time if necessary, the alternative is unthinkable.

I agree. Everyone has the right to defend themselves. However, this case and so many others are due to legal contradictions. You have the right to defend yourself using, as the article says, "reasonable force". There has been a recent surge in the number of people in Europe who take self-defence classes of various kinds. Having been mugged once and threatened with a knife, I fully understand where they are coming from.
Unfortunately, the law is not black and white. Whilst you do have the right to defend yourself, you do not have the right to harm, injure or kill anyone. How do you interprete "reasonable force"? If someone breaks into your house and you surprise the burglar, how much force are you allowed to use? Does the mere fact that the man is invading your private domicile imply a threat to your personal safety? I have read of cases where people have restrained burglars with more or less violence and have subsequently been successfully sued by said burglar.
Another aspect is vigilantism. When does self-defence take the nasty turn into "society is not going to help me, so I'll help myself"? If we say that self-defence is acceptable, and I do believe it is, what do we tell people when they enquire how they should fight back against an armed man? Then you end up with people carrying knives around, just in case. Then someone gets the bright idea that they are not physically capable at winning an armed melee, so they resort to firearms instead. And, despite the trite cliche often invoked by the NRA, guns kill people. As do knives.
I fully support the individual's right to defend themselves but I also see the problem. When I was mugged and threatened, I got quite angry, went home and fetched a rather nasty and tremendously sharp sabre with the clear intent of finding the bastards and skewering them. Granted, anger, adrenaline and booze led to this stupid decision but luckily friends stopped me. If I had succeeded, I would have been a murderer. Had I then decided to carry a knife around and the police caught me, I would be treated as a criminal, since I was carrying around a weapon with the intent of using it should it be necessary or, to be precise, should a situation arise where I decided a knife would be needed.
This store-keeper should not be charged with anything but having the guts to stand up to one of those people who make normal people afraid to walk the streets at night.
However, what remains is the daunting and hard question: what is 'reasonable force' and what/who defines it? Does the meaning change according to the situation? How do you prove, like in this case, that the store-keeper used nothing more than 'reasonable force' seeing as the other guy is deceased and cannot present his side of the story?

Granny, your reliable old, family shilleleagh, or your keys held in your fist (keys protruding outward from the fist), or a roll of coins held in your hand, or a small (spray) bottle of vinegar and a small, shrieking-loud whistle will also do the trick.

Or you can get you a bigger (less timid) dog....and name him/her Devil...Demon...Killer...Cujo....




Eric, you are also correct.  However, in the case cited, it was the weapon used and carried by the "criminal" that caused his (own) death.  Poetic justice, in this matter.
 

Granny, everything AMonk said, plus carry a cane.  Canes are wonderful for beating off marauding dogs as they have reach. The police can't charge you with carrying a weapon because it is 'a cane'. 

Eric, I agree with you.  Gray is often too black.

I agree but, unfortunately, justice is not a big fan of poetics. She's a stern, no-nonsense lady. The problem here would be to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shop-keeper did not have an immediate alternative than to use the assailants own weapon against him. If not, then the shop-keeper overreacted and is then guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and, probably, manslaughter. It's cases like this where the high-brow ideals of the law absolutely excels in coming up short.

Granny, I agree with you too. I went to one of those places in Copenhagen where people like me rarely go and acquired a set of highly illegal knuckledusters. I may not be the most butch person around but even I can inflict some damage with those things. I have taken to carrying them around more often now. My mother acquired a pepperspray the other day. Self-defence is an inalienable right, as far as I am cocerned, a right that lots of people would rail against. However, the opponents would be better suited to take some time to contemplate that if citizens are deprived of the right to live in a society where they should not be afraid to walk their dogs, then, until society evolves rules and guidelines to dispel the threat of muggings, the only other recourse for the citizens is the right to stand up and refuse to be a victim to morally crippled, ethically stunted, criminal cowards who labour under the misconception that acquiring things by force is acceptable behaviour.

In case I'm being too subtle, I have quite a lot of issues with criminals and especially muggers.

You have the right to defend yourself using, as the article says, "reasonable force". ...

Unfortunately, the law is not black and white. Whilst you do have the right to defend yourself, you do not have the right to harm, injure or kill anyone. How do you interprete "reasonable force"? If someone breaks into your house and you surprise the burglar, how much force are you allowed to use? Does the mere fact that the man is invading your private domicile imply a threat to your personal safety?

My father was a mountie, a Canadian cop, of fairly high rank. We once talked about almost exactly this.

According to him, under Canadian law circa 1965, shooting an intruder as he enters your house is self defense. You don't know his intent or how he's armed. If you kill him. no charges can be laid.

On the other hand, if you shoot him as he exits -- no matter what he's done -- you can be charged and would quite likely be convicted. To claim self defense there, you'd have to convince a jury you believed he was headed for your neighbor's house next or coming back to your place for another load of loot, or some such. However, if he'd strangled your dog and raped your wife or vice versa, and you have a good lawyer, then a plea of temporary insanity would almost certainly get you off with a very light sentence. 

So you get attacked, pull a weapon, start beating the thug then don't stop until well after he's obviously dead.  Now it gets tricky.  Adrenaline could move you to attack someone, even continuing after they've stopped resisting.

So you get attacked, pull a weapon, start beating the thug then don't stop until well after he's obviously dead.  Now it gets tricky.  Adrenaline could move you to attack someone, even continuing after they've stopped resisting.

But there is even a more tricky aspect to this. Most countries abolished the right to bear arms more than a century ago. It used to be the law that one could carry arms within city walls and especially outside of them, to defend oneself against footpads, highwaymen and bandits. The days of Dick Turpin being long gone, these rules were abolished. Hence, if you get attacked and beat someone with a weapon you brought, you not only have to answer for the attack but make a severely convincing argument for walking around armed. I think the legal term is "malicious intent". One might feel pressured into carrying a weapon, even I do at times, but we repealed those old laws simply because they got out of hand. There were no police and the average city watchman or "Charley" as they were called, were a standing joke. Today, we have police. We're supposed to rely on them.

That, however, is easy to say. I can count on one hand the number of times I see a squad car in a week. And I can count the amount of times I encounter a police officer walking the beat using no hands at all. It does make it a bit hard to rely on them.

So you are not allowed to carry a weapon around, but going to self-defence classes is fine and dandy. I have talked to people who do karate, Muay Thai and such like things. They all explain that there is a philosophy behind it, peace, being at ease with yourself, control, all laudable aspects. They also learn how to beat the living snot out of someone in a myriad of unpleasant ways. There are no laws, not in Denmark anyway, against martial arts. So you can't carry a weapon but you are free to turn your own body into a highly deadly one.

But, the worst part is, and I think you'll agree, that society has devolved to such a sad state that we have to rely on a mentality which we thought we had abolished the need for more than a hundred years ago. The rules stay changed though. Once, in the violent old days, if someone mugged you, you could pretty much get away with turning him into a shish kebab. Nowadays, the mugger will sue you for loss of income and emotional stress!

But there is even a more tricky aspect to this.......Nowadays, the mugger will sue you for loss of income and emotional stress!

True That!!  (Kinda reminds me of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged)

Yeah! I do know the law about reasonable force and about carrying weapons; I choose to accept the consequences! As I tell my son, if ever I am found murdered in my house,you will know that I was sound asleep or totally taken by surprise. The latter is unlikely because my dog is extremely well trained to alert me to anyone coming on my property.She lives inside, and one or two barks tells me if it is a friend or someone unknown.I live alone and suffice to say, not only am I prepared for a fire,but also for an intruder in any part of my small house.
dragonsaver, following my hip surgery,I was walking my dog and I was using a fold up walking stick for two reasons;one to aid in walking and the other as protection. As luck would have it,a Labrador dog came out from under an automatic roller door as the owner was getting his car out. As the dog tried to get mine, I brought the walking stick back like a golf club, gave an alighty swing and struck the Labrador across the face.The funny part was that the blasted walking stick "stretched" out as I struck. Don't know who got the biggest surprise, me or the dog. The moral of that story is don't use a "fold up" walking stick as a weapon. As a matter of interest, that was the third time that particular Lab tried to attack my dog and myself.I put the owner on notice that that was the last time. Next time the dog won't go back and if he steps in, the same fate awaits him! He understood quite clearly and his dogs have gone for some training and he now knows to look for Granny Mae before he opens his door .
We all know that the law is the law. I guess we have to decide whether we want to face the "judgement" up there or down here following an attack on our person. I have chosen the latter!

I don't use a fold up cane I have the real steel macoy.  Only hit one person with it so far and that was because he cut in line in front of me.  I also hit a car that was trying to back up into me.  He stopped!

The 'reasonable force' rule applies in Oz as well.  It means basically that you can 'do unto them what they do unto you' - therefore if the intruder uses fists, you can too, if he uses a knife, you can too.  But - you can't use a knife against his fists.

Unless he's a professional boxer.