Monday, January 25, 2010

From where Great Britain used to be

A new law to give greater protection to householders is unnecessary and could be a licence to kill, a leading criminal barrister has warned.

Paul Mendelle, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, says that a change to allow “disproportionate” force would encourage vigilantism.

“The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate,” he said, adding that the present law worked perfectly well and was well understood by juries.
Yeah, that would be the law that's put people in jail for the crime of defending themselves in their home against armed intruders. Yeah, that works just great, doesn't it?

Mr Mendelle’s view was strongly supported on Sunday by the barrister who acted for both Munir Hussain and Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who shot dead a burglar. Michael Wolkind QC told BBC One’s The Politics Show that permitting householders to use any force which is not “grossly disproportionate”, as Tories suggest, would amount to “state-sponsored revenge”. Mr Wolkind said there was no need for the law to be changed. “The law already recognises that people react in a certain way in the heat of the moment.” He added that in future cases, courts could be expected to take account of the Lord Chief Justice’s decision to exercise “mercy” and free Mr Hussain from a 30-month sentence for beating a burglar
'Mercy'. Uh huh.

If you've seen some of my past posts on the idiocy that is 'justice' in Britain anymore- hell, go over to Smallest Minority and search 'Britain' for a whole bunch of stuff- you know how defending yourself in Britain risks putting you in jail for longer than your attacker. Even in your own home. But the lawyers think the current setup is just wonderful.

Well, they are defense lawyers, and according to the criminals the current setup IS wonderful.

With all the whining about 'reason' and 'disproportionate force', I'll end this with a quote from this country:
"Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes


Keith said...

If those are the stated views of Tony Martin's defence, then I feel he has good grounds for an appeal.

After all, who is going to put himself out to defend someone whom he beleives to be wrong?

looks like the only reason it wasn't Tony Martin getting buried, or crippled for life by a gang of career crimminals was he was armed.

Shit bag lawyers don't need outbuildings or to live in remote areas for their work, so they don't seem to see why anyone else should, and should be able to defend themselves when so far from help.

Far be it from my mind to wish a home invasion, or aggressive confrontation by several scumbags intent on violence, miles from help and witnesses (yeah, I've had the second, several times) on anyone but perhaps a little experience might lead to a less elitist viewpoint?

Anonymous said...

I wonder how different their pontificating would be if it was THEIR house that was being broken into, and THEIR lives in danger, and THEM not allowed to defend themselves lest THEY be put in jail for using "disproportionate force."
If that's truely the case, I think I'll change professions. I'll go to former-Great Britain & become a burgler. What a low-risk job!

Assholes & idiots all.

B Woodman