The politics of self-defence

Peter From Maidstone

It is your opinion that the actions of Mr Hussain were disproportionate. It is not the opinion of a great many people. And if the law does not reflect the opinions of most people most of the time then it is not the Law but an imposition by some other agency.

Since the career criminal had already been convicted of 50 other offences but was allowed to roam the streets to offend even further then many people will wonder if the actions of Mr Hussain were not entirely proportionate to the criminality of his violent attacker, and that is the 'the Law' which has consistently failed to protect the lawful majority.

If the Law (which is now irrevocably politicised) will not defend us then it seems entirely proportionate and reasonable that we defend ourselves. You insist that it is the role of the jury to deliver a verdict - but somehow this thug had been allowed to wander the streets after committing at least 50 other crimes. This shows clearly that the justice system is not fit for purpose howver much you suggest it is.

Frank S

I think whatever comes to mind is justified for the occupants of a house invaded by burglars. In the split seconds available, some will try to run from them, some will faint, some will do what they are told, some will beat them senseless, and some will will kill them. Short of nutters who kill them slowly over a fire, I think we should do whatever we like to burglars. Anything has got to be an improvement over the coddling they will get once they under 'police protection' and into the caring maw of the justice aka 'criminal recycling for maximum lawyer/judge income' system.

charles hercock

Be careful Chris -remember Will Haigh ant the man of the night made this a plank of their bids.We will win this time-do not jeopodise it

Dennis Churchill

In a secular democracy can any law that is contrary to the values of the majority of its citizens have legitimacy?
Our judiciary seem to think they are a priesthood getting guidance from a set of absolute rules –possibly handed to one of them on a recent mountaineering expedition.

Dennis Churchill

In a secular democracy can any law that is contrary to the values of the majority of its citizens have legitimacy?
Our judiciary seem to think they are a priesthood getting guidance from a set of absolute rules –possibly handed to one of them on a recent mountaineering expedition.

Charles

Key point is that it shifts the burden of proof from the householder (who currently has to demonstrate that his reactions were reasonable) to the prosecution (who must now prove that they were disproportionate).

Not an unreasonable change, given innocent until proven guilty, etc.

The courts are totally comfortable with "gross" versus "ordinary" proprortionality, so don't let that distract you.

Philip Walker

But at present, doesn't the defendant have to prove that they were proportionate in their use of force, and wouldn't a sensible alteration place the burden on the prosecution to prove that they weren't?

ndm

Great post - although the "theoretically" opening the final paragraph seems unnecesssary.

Dennis Churchill

In a secular democracy can any law that is contrary to the values of the majority of its citizens have legitimacy?
Our judiciary seem to think they are a priesthood getting guidance from a set of absolute rules –possibly handed to one of them on a recent mountaineering expedition.

davefromluton

Grayling is a major disappointment and he should be dropped.
It is madness to have him in the shadow cabinet while David Davies is excluded

Augustus

"No matter how provoked"?

Clearly, What happened to him and his family sets Hussain apart from other 'vigilantes'. Furthermore, for the law to achieve justice the judge should have taken into account everything that happened. Laws change, but moral principles should also be part of the legal system. If we simply follow the law word for word, are we not prisoners of it? How could society ever progress if we were bound to always follow the same laws? Judge Reddihough's decision must go against his own moral values and the principles of justice.

Dr Iago

An American friend of mine (a Vietnam Vet) whilst living in a Southern state in the 1980’s awoke to find an intruder in his bedroom. Unfortunately for the burglar my friend habitually slept with a gun under his pillow, which he used to shoot the burglar in the head. The police arrived, questioned my friend about the incident and then took the body away, after they left my friend went back to sleep. There is no amount of liberal hand wringing or pseudo intellectual claptrap (all of which would promptly vanish if its espousers found themselves in a similar situation), which will convince me that my friend or the police did anything wrong. Words like disproportionate are bandied around casually by people who have never experienced the lasting trauma and loss occasioned by violent crime, frankly they make me want to spit. The absolute core of the social contract is between the state and the citizen is the ability of the former to protect the latter from the crime and violence. If the state fails in this primary duty of care then make sure that you don’t do anything “disproportionate”. If you’ve been a good meek victim and not been “disproportionate” victim support will contact you, only they can’t at the moment because there is currently a six month backlog. We’ll send a couple of detectives round to sympathise for tea and biscuits to ask you how you feel. In the unlikely event that we catch somebody we’ll let you right a statement that can be read out before we pass the suspended sentence. Have you ever been a victim of violent crime Mr Blackburn?

Herbert Thornton

David Blackburn's sneering reference to "populism at its worst" demonstrates how far he is removed both from reality and from common sense.

If Munir Hussein had cold-bloodedly waited for a week planning revenge and had then laid in wait somewhere for the knife-wielding, hardened criminal out and attacked him with a cricket bat then people might look at the matter differently.

Ken

Severely battering any intruder, or outlaw as they should more properly be called, is both reasonable and proportionate.

Even more so in the present case given that a later news report tells how this criminal went on to commit a string of further offences and then be let off because he was "not fit enough to stand trial"!

How many votes are out there for the party that promises an American-style Defense of Habitation Law (derived, apparently, from English Common Law) giving householders the right to kill any intruder who steps over the threshold?

Tired of paying jail care for pampered prisoners? Let the punishment fit the crime, bury all this Socialist mewling and wet nursing, bring back hard labour and Dickensian conditions so the outlaw thinks twice about doing the crime.

Colin

I'm of the view that this whole debate would be rendered redundant if the authorities took on board the feelings of the public in relation to burglary and home invasion. Most normal people consider these offences to be totally and utterly unacceptable. However, politicians consider them to be run of the mill and as such have de-prioritised and degraded them in the overall scheme of criminality. It seems that the key resolving agency is the insurance company.

To receive a custodial sentence for burglary is virtually unheard of these days. In fact, the chances of being charged for burglary as a result of post crime detection are practically nil. In short there are virtually no deterrents to this crime. A cursory risk / reward analysis, by a would be house breaker will show that the R.O.I., depending on what area you target, is high, to very high.

Most of us would like to see exemplary sentences handed out to house breakers - with no exceptions.

It's unlikely to happen for two reasons. Firstly, the prison population would increase massively. Secondly, and according to Jack Straw, it's all our fault for being so well off and successful...

Beer Moth

The fact that the burglar is still alive today, shows that Mr Hussein showed remarkable constraint that night.

If someone breaks into my house and takes a knife to my family, am I supposed to calmly try to persuade him to leave?

And anyway, I'd like to know how populism gets such a bad name, when the system which respects the popular vote - democracy - is sacrosanct?

Dr Iago

I have already submitted this comment to Coffeehouse, if for some reason you don't want to publish I would appreciate an explanation as to why. Thank you.

An American friend of mine (a Vietnam Vet) whilst living in a Southern state in the 1980’s awoke to find an intruder in his bedroom. Unfortunately for the burglar my friend habitually slept with a gun under his pillow, which he used to shoot the burglar in the head. The police arrived, questioned my friend about the incident and then took the body away, after they left my friend went back to sleep. There is no amount of liberal hand wringing or pseudo intellectual claptrap (all of which would promptly vanish if its espousers found themselves in a similar situation), which will convince me that my friend or the police did anything wrong. Words like disproportionate are bandied around casually by people who have never experienced the lasting trauma and loss occasioned by violent crime, frankly they make me want to spit. The absolute core of the social contract is between the state and the citizen is the ability of the former to protect the latter from the crime and violence. If the state fails in this primary duty of care then make sure that you don’t do anything “disproportionate”. If you’ve been a good meek victim and not been “disproportionate” victim support will contact you, only they can’t at the moment because there is currently a six month backlog. We’ll send a couple of detectives round to sympathise for tea and biscuits to ask you how you feel. In the unlikely event that we catch somebody we’ll let you right a statement that can be read out before we pass the suspended sentence. Have you ever been a victim of violent crime Mr Blackburn?

AndyinBrum

chasing someone down the street and then braining them with a cricket bat is not self defence or protecting your house and family, it is assualt, pure and simple. Doesnt matter what had gone in the house, the scrote was no longer an imediate threat and therefore beating seven shades of crap out of his head with a cricket bat, although satisfying is in no way justifiable, under any definition of protecting your household.

Craig Strachan

I'm sure you can appreciate how ridiculous the case of Mr Hussain looks, viewed from the United States.

Fergus Pickering

AndyinBrum, no it is not assault pure and simple. When John Prescott punched a man who punche him, that was not assault pure and simple. Assault pure and simple wouldbe Prescottpunching somebody because he SAID something, or Mr Hussein braining said chap if the chap had, let us say, called out 'Stinking Paki' or some such. Come sir, Mr Hussein was provoked. Perhaps his attack was disproportinate. We can agree to disagree about bthat, but surely you can see he was provoked. It ia a question of the degre of provocation, isn't it. Come to that, ven in the examples I gave, there was provocation. Pedrhapos assault pure and simple would be going out into the street and braining the first pakistaniI see. Though even there, you might argue there was provocation. When anybody says 'Pure and simple' in that triumpnat tonme of voice, I think we may take it they are pulling a fast oner. As you are, sir.

Oh, and calling Mr Hussain a vigilante is a bit of a stretch. He is not, as most of us understand the term.In his place, given a handy cricklet bat, I might have behaved in the same way. The bartin damage (if indeed ther is brain damage) is unfortunate, but the burglar's profession is not without its attendant risks.

charles hercock

Care Chris-rember Will Haigh and the man of the night went with this one.We have the will and we will win

logdon

"Though sympathising with Hussein, his actions were disproportionate: it is the function of a jury to deliver its verdict on a criminal, not a vengeful vigilante, no matter how provoked."

Although every sinew of my body says otherwise, logic tells me I must agree.

The sheer malice of the Hussein's counter attack and the huge violence meted out to the perp, (a cricket bat broken in three takes some doing) displays a propensity to reach for violence not many of us could, or would muster.

Having got that out of the way, why is the perp out free?

Why is a man with 50 convictions able to continue his crime wave?

And is this a supreme example of the utter uselessness of plod, concerned more with diversity issues and the upholding of PC than actually catching criminals?

Many of our ethnic minorities now have zero respect for British law and order. It's been rammed home to them both by the creeping influence of shari'ah and the wishy washy attitude of post Lawrence officialdom.

Here's something to ponder.

islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/12/denmark-one-thing-muslim-immigrants.html

When the idea of multiculturalism was mooted did no one stop to consider that along with a spicy plate of chicken tandoori massalla there were other aspects of life in the areas of emigration that were not quite so amicable to our tastes?

That due to various motivators and normative attitudes, response to crime in Pakistan, Turkey and Africa is not quite as pristine and ordered as our own? That in many areas, vigilanteism is an accepted method of defence?

The whole make up of what we called Britishness is now virtually destroyed. Law is skewed and condescension has crept into our judicial system.

Up until fairly recently ‘honour killing’ was pretty much ignored. One man who killed his daughter a few years ago was given a lesser sentence by a judge because of cultural considerations.

The rot starts there. And ends with this case in which a whole slew of factors impact on the dual crimes of attempted theft/assault and counter assault.

What a tangled web this Gramscian society weaves for itself.

Adam

I've seen a lot of comment from the US that this wouldn't be classed as self-defence there, either. On your own property, yes, but not with a mob, hundreds of yards away from your house. He's been appropriately punished.

PayDirt

Craig Strachan_ viewed from the UK, I think any reasonable folk would agree how ridiculous Americans are when packing a gun for the purpose of shooting whosoever they claim intrudes onto their space.

ndm

I thought this was an excellent post although I think the Theoretically is unnecessary as the first word of the final paragraph.

And as to the United States, much of its criminal justice system is cravenly beholden to "populism at its worst."

Vulture

For my sins, in the line of professional duty I've just finished reading an advance copy of a book called 'The Rule of Law' by someone his leftie publishers Penguin chummily call 'Tom Bingham' but whose actual title is Lord Bingham, Knight of the Garter and former Lord High Panjandrum at the very top of our legal tree: he was Master of the Rolls, LCJ and senior Law Lord.

The revelation that the Marxist historian Christopher Hill ( shown after death like Jack Jones to be a Soviet mole) was Bingham's Tutor at Oxford is not the least of the eye-opening titbts abt the man who presided over the creation of our present kind-to-the-criminal and sod-the-law-abiding-citizen state of 'law'.

You can tell Tom's politics from every word of the poisonous, pompous, condescending I -know-better-than-you-oiks prose. No surprise that he has advocated the outlawing of Drones - abt the only weapon left to the West in its war against terror - and fathered the Euro-style 'Supreme Court' packed as it is with Marxoid judges like himself.

Bingham and his ilk have comprehensively trashed the law and made cases like that of Munir Hussein commonplace. It is bound to provoke a backlash, and that backlash, when it comes, will quite likely be in the form of Sharia law. Under that rather non-Marxist dispensation, the lowlife who terrorised the Husseins will not just be brained by a cricket bat - nor will he live long enough to notch up another century of crimes unmolested. Its just a shame that 'Tom' Bingham won't quite live long enough to see it.

As so often the Irish have got it right by bringing in a new law (named Nally's law after a farmer sho shot a burglar dead when he caught him breaking in) on January 1st giving the citizen the right to stop a burglar in his trax. by any means without fear of prosecution.

This may contravene the European Human Rights Act, but the Irish, like the French but unlike we idiots, seem to ignore that when it suits them.

Meanwhile Mr Hussein and his brother rot in jail, and the scumbag who invaded his home walks free to burgle, threaten and possibly kill again. All thanks to 'Tom' Bingham and his not-so-learned friends.

Mr. Green

This debate would be null and void if criminals received custodial sentences which, if nothing else, kept them off of the streets.
All of this wrist slapping does nothing except give the career criminal a "get out of jail free" card, so they can re-offend.
Mr Hussain should not have been in a situation where he needed to defend his home and family because the career criminal should have been put away for any one of his previous crimes.

procopious

The idea of a reasonable use of force in a situation of terror and fear is absurd. Mr. Hussain was beaten and threatened with the butchery of his family. Civilisation had vanished and the only law was that of survival. Those who say that Mr Hussain, having repelled the attackers, had a duty to revert immediately to the standards of a civilised man in a civilised society haven't explained yet how you actually switch from extreme emotion to calm reason. And of course Mr Hussain is a civilised man in normal circumstances, indeed as a husband, father and member of his community he is exemplary. The fact that such a man committed violenceif, it shows anything, shows just how terrible this assault on him and his family was.

Frank P

logdon (8.38am)

Characteristically yours is the best comment I have read so far on this issue, anywhere!

Kildar

As a professional man (Banking) from a working-class background and as an ex-martial artist (instructor) I have to say that some of the comments here are cowardly nonsense. In a fight there are no guarantees and one must never let an assailant gain the upper hand, because if you do your life will be forfeit. If you get the upper hand over an assailant you must incapacitate them, even if that means killing them. Otherwise there is no guarantee that they will not get up and end your life with a knife, club or other weapon.

Munir Hussain would not have been thinking of “disproportionate violence”. He would be thinking, “I cannot let him get up/get away or he will kill me”. “He knows where I live and may come back with a gang before the police get here”. “I must protect my wife and children”. He would have been filled with fear and an overwhelming desire to survive. He was absolutely right to do what he did and the fact that a few over-privileged Spectator readers want to deny the truth of this is irrelevant. The idea that a person under assault can determine what is disproportionate is insane and some of the commenters here have no conception of what they are talking about.

I have been attacked twice in recent years (I am in my fifties) and on both occasions saw the attacker off. On both occasions I was singled out from other people on the street because I was wearing good clothes. This fits in with the socialist perspective (including that of socialist judges) that victims provoke criminals by having homes, cars, families, etc. Vulture is right of course, one of the ways in which socialism has weakened this country is to reframe the laws around self-defense to render citizens defenseless. The law provides no defense to the good people and encourages the bad, as in the Munir Hussain case.

I was recently attacked in Covent Garden in broad daylight by an underclass thug. I met violence with violence and he ran. Luckily for him, I was too slow to catch him. I told a Labour-voting friend about my experience and he blamed me for fighting back, saying that I had made the situation worse. He also told me he was troubled at the though of having a “violent” friend. This is how feminised socialist men approach street crime. The victim should submit for the good of the socialist consensus.

Peter of Maidstone is right, real men would side with Munir Hussain. The fundamental problem is that our society has travelled so far down the path of socialist idiocy that even a supposedly right-wing blog like Coffee House attracts commenters who think that the current laws are correct , its just a matter of degree and interpretation. As I said previously, cowardly nonsense. One can either obey the law or save one's life and family.

Dr Iago

I submitted this comment last night but for some reason it wasn't published. If decide not to publish it again, I would appreciate an explanation as to your reasons.

An American friend of mine (a Vietnam Vet) whilst living in a Southern state in the 1980’s awoke to find an intruder in his bedroom. Unfortunately for the burglar my friend habitually slept with a gun under his pillow, which he used to shoot the burglar in the head. The police arrived, questioned my friend about the incident and then took the body away, after they left my friend went back to sleep. There is no amount of liberal hand wringing or pseudo intellectual claptrap (all of which would promptly vanish if its espousers found themselves in a similar situation), which will convince me that my friend or the police did anything wrong. Words like disproportionate are bandied around casually by people who have never experienced the lasting trauma and loss occasioned by violent crime, frankly they make me want to spit. The absolute core of the social contract is between the state and the citizen is the ability of the former to protect the latter from the crime and violence. If the state fails in this primary duty of care then make sure that you don’t do anything “disproportionate”. If you’ve been a good meek victim and not been “disproportionate” victim support will contact you, only they can’t at the moment because there is currently a six month backlog. We’ll send a couple of detectives round to sympathise for tea and biscuits to ask you how you feel. In the unlikely event that we catch somebody we’ll let you right a statement that can be read out before we pass the suspended sentence. Have you ever been a victim of violent crime Mr Blackburn?

Edward Sutherland

Mr Blackburn,like the unfortunate Mr Munir, I keep cricket bats in my home, one by the front door and the other in my bedroom. They were left behind by my sons, but I've not retained them for sentimental reasons. I have every intention of defending myself should I find myself in the appalling situation faced by Mr Munir.A more civilised response will have to wait until we have a vaguely efficent police and robust laws that sees thugs appropriately punished.

Craig Strachan

ndm: "And as to the United States, much of its criminal justice system is cravenly beholden to "populism at its worst." "

I doubt this case would ever have made it into the criminal justice system in any U.S. jurisdiction. Given the facts, Mr Hussain would never have been prosecuted.

But your wider point is correct - the U.S. system is much more responsive to the will of the people, rather than the deracinated judges who seem always to prevail in Britain.

Craig Strachan

@Dr Iago: Yes, this story becomes incomprehensible in an American context long before the part where Mr Hussain is prosecuted and imprisoned. It diverges from the experience of most Americans right at the beginning, where the Hussain family is terrorised by "knife wielding intruders".

In most U.S. homes (including mine) those losers would be bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Noa Zrk

The injustice in this case was not caused by the law, which I believe is correct. It was caused by the inequitable and simply plainly wrong decision of the Police, CPS and Ministry of Justice decision to prosecute Hussain and not to prosecute his assailant.
Further manifest injustice is then perpetrated by the failure of the Police to catch the remaining burglars and the respective punishments meted out.
But the real failure is in the series of individual decisions which led to this situation and the cumulative lack of judgement and moral courage by the respective institutions which they display.

Verity

Craig Strachan - I don't know which state you live in, but I lived in Texas and in the city I lived in, when I had an intruder, the police told me, "If he comes back, and puts one foot over your threshhold, shoot to kill. Don't shoot to wound."

Bracing attitude. Cheered me up immensely.

AAE

The hand-wringers are all so wise after the event and I must say that I wasn't surprised to hear them use Belgrano defence ("they were running away"). Mr Hussein didn't know that his attackers might not, in the twinkling of an eye, return to further assault and terrorise his family, and when Mr Hussein went after his assailants with a cricket bat he didn't know that they weren't carrying knives or guns. And as a matter of interest, does anyone know why the police haven't charged Mr Hussein's attackers with a racially-motivated crime, or does the fact that he is a millionaire make him less of a vulnerable member of an ethnic minority?

Craig Strachan

I'm in California. Funnily enough, I got advice from a friendly ATF agent - a parent at my daughter's school - on the best weapon for home defense purposes. He recommended the Mossberg 500 12-gauge "because you don't have to be all that accurate with it"!

I doubt I could shoot to wound if I tried.

Verity

Craig Strachan - Good! Never shoot to wound!

Fergus Pickering

A modern cricket bat breaks quite easily. I've seen Pietersen do it at least twice. The old style bats were stronger. I assure you I'm not making this up. Any cricketer will tell you the same - at least any cricketer old enough to be able to compare these things. I expect the bat broke at the neck and further down. Nothing to it.

Herbert Thornton

"There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our heart; a law that comes to us not by training or custom or reading but from nature itself, if our lives are endangered, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right." [Cicero]

Herbert Thornton

Since writing the previous post, a few further thoughts occur to me, based on the viewpoint of morality as expressed by Cicero.

The first is that the unwillingness of government to adequately protect its population from criminals constitutes a serious moral deficiency on the part of government.

But in the case of Munir Hussain the matter goes beyond mere deficiency. By imprisoning Munir Hussein, government and the law under which he is being imprisoned are punishing Munir Hussein for acting morally.

That offends Natural Justice. It demonstrates that law that treats Munir Hussein as a criminal is itself fundamentally immoral. It is very bad law.

People would have felt more respect for the government had Ministers immediately recognised this and made it clear that they would take steps to amend the law to ensure that this kind of injustice would be undone and not be repeated.

Similarly, people would have had more respect for the Judge in the case had he decided that rather than apply such an immoral law, he preferred to resign.

Archie

Criminals had better not even consider breaking into my home whilst I am there. I confidently predict they would not survive! Time to start electing our judiciary and senior police officers. What say, Verity?