Melanie doesn't bring up an important issue here: in both the US and in the UK, if the police and other social supports actually did their jobs properly, no one would need to defend their homes "by any means necessary" in the first place.

Tony Martin should never have been put in the position that he was placed in. Brendon Fearon should not have been prowling for victims after more than 30 prior criminal convictions.

When someone breaks into your home, he may be "just" a burglar. But he also may be a serial killer, a rapist, a paedophile, a hooligan, a torturer or a lunatic. There is no easy way of knowing.

If it is obvious that the intruder is unarmed and poses no threat, then shooting that intruder may be wrong. But in most cases, you have no idea what weapons the criminals are carrying or what they plan to do to your family. A responsible householder does not take chances on issues like that, and civilised laws would not expect him to. If that means a number of intruders get shot when they were "only" burglars, so be it. They chose to break the law and to take that risk, and they have no one else to blame but themselves.

Britain would be a far safer society if criminals knew they were risking their lives every time they broke into a home. Even a small chance of being shot has been shown to change the calculations of criminals dramatically. It just isn't worth taking your life in your hands for the chance of carrying off an £80 TV any more. People have a basic human right to defend their life, their family and their property. If criminals don't like that, they can stop breaking into people's homes.

Britain coined the insightful phrase that one's home is one's castle. In absence of a moat, a gun must protect our houses for them to remain a moat. Melanie, if you are afraid innocent people will get killed, let me ask you: how often have you accidentally walked into the wrong house?? How often have you heard of innocent people innocently trespassing being killed in the US? My girlfriend, who lives alone (in the US), has had a gun underneath her bed for years. She has also had to confront an intruder. Although she did not have to reach for her gun, the knowledge that she could get to it if necessary helped her to stay calm and gain control of the situation.

I should add (that was the point of my post) that having a gun and being allowed to have a gun means being allowed to use it with deadly effect. Being allowed to have a gun without being allowed to use it -and using a gun can never exclude the possibility of death- does not make any sense. In short, I wish to say that you cannot make the argument you seem to make: you cannot say one is allowed to defend oneself but only in some academically defined proportionate way. Reality is different. Again, proper defense requires guns, and guns entail the risk of killing. Surely the burden of this uncertainty must be carried by the intruder.

What a dull world it would be if we agreed on everything. But I believe the jury got it wrong and TM shot in fear of his life. After all, about 12 people every year, mostly elderly, are killed by burglars (Home Office figures), and I'm not sure how many more by 'intruders'.

Melanie we have an old saying in North Carolina where I grew up

"Better to have a gun and not need it, then to need a gun and not have it."

Another one is

"Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6."

Steyn is right.

Years ago two guys, armed with an axe, kicked my front door in. They were looking for a neighbour and got the wrong flat.I am very short sighted, wasn't wearing my spectacles, did not see the axe, and responded by screaming and charging them. They turned tail and fled; I flagged down a police car and the two guys were caught. My son, aged twelve, retrieved the axe , giving it to me saying ; 'I've got the axe, Mum.' My response was 'What f****** axe?' No one will be surprised to learn that the two guys were held in police cells for a few hours, and then released without charge. Since then, you know, I just feel more relaxed and at ease if there is a weapon at home.

Melanie,

You've erred on the side of compassion, perhaps, but you have erred. The burglar of your home is no different than the invader of your country.

As well, the one putting mere property ahead of human life is not the responsible home owner/citizen who chooses to defend his home or country in the surest manner possible, it is the burglar/invader (your property; his life).

Crime should carry consequences. I can think of fewer instances of natural justice than a criminal being shot by his would-be victim.

Steyn was right.

jsk

(P.s. This is the first post of yours I've ever disagreed with. For all the others, well done!)

Melanie, have you been burgled ? If so, were you there at the time? Were your children at risk?

If someone breaks into your house at night he changes your life. He should know he's at risk of death.

I do want to create a society were that man has the choice of breaking into my my family's sleeping place or of staying alive. It's called a just society and fewer people will die or be permanently traumatized in that society than in this.

It seems to me that what we should do in cases of attacking an intruder is shift the burden of proof.

Currently it would seem that a householder defending him or herself against an intruder is supposed to assume that the intruder is unarmed and only interested in theft (and thus use minimal force) unless the intruder demonstrates otherwise.

What should happen is that the intruder is assumed to be an axe wielding maniac unless he clearly shows that he is not one. This means that in the Martin case the prosecution would still be able to prove that Martin was acting disproportionately since the burglars were apparently leaving his property. However that would not stop the average householder from dissuading at gunpoint or otherwise someone caught on their property. If it turns out that the intruder is in fact "cousin Hank" then that falls under the excessive force use since clearly the householder failed take appropriate steps to verify what was going in.

Melanie is right. I don't want to live in a society that expects me to enter into an arms race with vicious criminals. I expect the police to protect me and my family. The protection of life and property is the first duty of government to the governed - and I don't want this privatised, thanks.

And Peter is a fool. To expect the Government to provide full time and fool-proof protection from the predators in society approaches insanity - and an absolute disregard of reality. The concept that a home owner has the obligation to respond "proportionately" to an invasion of his residence is an interesting requirement - how does one respond "proportionately" to a 200 lb. axe wielder when one is a 100 lb. 70 year old female? Have the British completely rejected any sense of self preservation?

Proportionality, my 12-gauge.

Anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling is either deranged, or prepared to kill anyone he encounters. Either way, they need to be perforated.

Otherwise, I admire your thinking.

You may defend yourself, or your property, or any other person or their property from attack by anyone (other than someone with lawful authority) using no more force than is necessary to achieve that purpose. That can mean using a firearm, if it is lawfully in your possession and you are in fear of your life or the lives of others are in danger; even if it not lawfully in your possession, when the circumstances are so dire as to make it necessary, though you'll still be in trouble for possessing it unlawfully.

The difficulty arises when the judgment of the potential victim, or the defender of a potential victim is called into question. In the Tony Martin case there was a history of an eccentric man in a protracted dispute with a police force that had provided little or no protection for him during a string of attacks on his home by persistent burglars. He was persona non grata at the local nick, it seems. Sadly, more so than the burglars in question apparently. Some policemen take criticism badly. So when they found a dead burglar on his farm, shot in the back by a weapon for which he was not in lawful possession, they threw the book at him and unfortunately the jury decided he was guilty of murder and the judge sentenced accordingly. The appeal court later reduced it to manslaughter after it became a cause celebre. My own judgment tells me that Martin's judgment was fine but the judgment of the police, the CPS and the jury was silly. The judgment of the burglars was, for once and thankfully, the worst of all and I therefore have no sympathy whatsoever for the one killed or the one injured. They got what they deserved.

But I agree with Melanie that to increase the possession of guns in the hands of private citizens generally in this country for the purpose of protecting either life or property would be a retrograde development; for columnists to encourage it through very amusing essays is probably not wise.

But the fact remains that citizens are increasingly burgled and attacked in their own homes as the police are becoming increasingly inept at performing their role of preventing and detecting crime. It is hardly surprising therefore that the Today programme did a big boo boo when they invited their listeners to chose a Private Members bill and they voted as they did.

Moreover it gave our old pal Mark Steyn yet another opportunity to exercise his wicked wit and have a dig at the bleeding hearts. But don't let's take him too seriously - his pen is mightier than his shotgun and the targets for his pen are always well chosen, so why should we doubt his judgement with the gat. And he does live in New Hampshire, not the New Forest. Now I must go to Steyn on Line and see what the response to his article has been there. My vote is with Melanie - but only just this time; it was a close run thing, m'dear.

The fools are those that think that guns create a level playing field between the criminal and the citizen. The reality is that the advantage of those inclined to violence over those who are not is raised to the power of the gun. Maybe that would be OK if law abiding people learned to use violence and the threat of violence to law abiding ends. However I would prefer to live in society where law abiding people can, in the fullest sense of the phrase, live in peace. Those who believe that this is somehow unattainable are defeatists who pander to the leftwing lie that social change is irreversible.

"if the police and other social supports actually did their jobs properly, no one would need to defend their homes "by any means necessary" in the first place."

Wrong. You don't want to live in a society with enough police that no one would ever have to defend themselves and/or their home. Not only would it be ruinously expensive, it would be a police state.

I don't know how cops are in Britain, but I used to teach self-defense and took several "get to know your local police force" courses which are free and open to all citizens in many US cities. The cops are very open about the fact that they cannot be everywhere at once and they depend on citizens to take some role in intercepting crime. They strongly support unarmed self-defense courses and in states where guns are legal they support citizens in learning how to use firearms safely.

That being said, there are some rules of thumb. If the intruder dies in the house and shot in the front, you can make a good case for self-defense, especially if the intruder had a weapon himself. If the intruder dies outside the house and is shot in the back, you will have to explain why you shot him when he was fleeing.

About "proportionality": People who don't know firearms have funny ideas about the kind of precision possible with most guns by most people in a frightening confusing rapidly changing situation. It is almost impossible to shoot someone precisely in the kneecap or hand or whatever unless you are James Bond. Self-defense instructors say to aim for the center of the body because there is a better chance you'll hit something and people miss even then.

"Proportionality" in real life means: Someone is coming at you with - in your best judgement - intent to harm, you make them stop or leave ASAP, however you can. If they are already leaving you let them leave (but call 911).

Frank,
Superb post. The single most balanced, succinct and insightful commentary on this case that I have come across to date.You really SHOULD write more man.
The only point upon which I am forced to disagree with you is your characterisation of the police and CPS' actions as merely "silly". Vicious, corrupt and criminal spring more readily to mind. As for the jury....their verdict was absolutely perverse.

Yehudit:

Proportionality" in real life means: Someone is coming at you with - in your best judgement - intent to harm, you make them stop or leave ASAP, however you can. If they are already leaving you let them leave (but call 911).

If residents of the UK dial 991 I'm not sure what they would get. If they dial 999 (the UK 'emergency service') the response is often an answering machine explaining that the police are too busy to attend and 'would you mind calling in at the police station'. Incidentally British law in relation to self defence uses the phrase "using no more force than is necessary". In other words it stresses restraint.

'Proportionality', an American concept, is a little more aggressive, don't you think? It demonstrates one of the many differences in our culture and is yet another example GBH on the English language.

Kenny

Thank you for your encouragement. As for your description of the police, the jury, et al. I could be persuaded that you are right, understatement is one of my failings, I confess!

People may wish to bear in mind that Tony Martin's conviction was overturned in the appeal court only on the basis of diminished responsibility - i.e. that he was mentally ill. In all other respects, the Court of Appeal had no truck with his conviction. They agreed that he had unlawfully taken another person's life.

To introduce a new law to celebrate a killer? Interesting idea from the listeners of the Today programme.

Peter elects to be a victim if confronted by violence. That is his right; no one is forcoing him to buy a gun and use it to defend himself.

I elect not to be a victim; I thus would prefer that no one prohibit me from being a victim and using it to defend myself.

I know for a fact that guns are the great equalizer when it comes to violence - an 80 year old grandmother with a .45 is exactly as lethal as an 18 year old gangbanger with a .45. No amount of obfuscation can obscure this fact. Without legal private gun ownership, the criminals have the upper hand; legal private gun ownership gives those willing to take responsibility a fighting chance.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

= = =

Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger", ca. 4 BC - 65 AD:
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est."
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.")

Melanie,

you are quite right on this one...there are a huge number of people killed in the US every year by pure accidents related to guns...