For several reasons the media coverage of the Salford Burglary, represents an important part of the civilising process of the United Kingdom.
The coverage demonstrates the current freedom in this country that enables fair and accurate reporting. The detail contained in the reporting also suggests that the current law may be wrong when a householder is faced with an intruder, irrespective of whether or not that intruder is wearing a mask. The burglary and the untimely death of a criminal in many ways shows us that our laws, reporting systems, ideals, and beliefs, are subject to advancement and improvement.
But what strikes at the core for me; is this idea of 'defending your property'. I have explained in an earlier post, that any person faced with hearing or seeing an intruder in their home will at that precise moment be faced with absolute terror. There will be no thought about 'reasonable force', the 'rights of the criminal', or the 'defence of my property'. It will be a case of 'flight behavior'; with or without bowel movement, raised alertness, increased heart rate, sweating and so on.
The occupier will not know if the intruder is there to steal, or to rape, or to beat, or to kill.
So can we all please stop going on about 'his right to defend his property'. No one is defending their property, because the mere presence of an intruder whether masked or not, and whether alone or accompanied, whether armed or unarmed, for that precise moment in time is a real and absolute threat to the safety of the occupier and his or her family.
If you decide to break in, and as a result you are killed, then tough luck. No one deliberately set out at the start of that day to kill you. No one plotted your demise. You chose to break in, and the consequences of your act, should be yours alone.
The current debate is almost as fundamental as the last significant change in law, when those who stole a sheep or lamb would not be convicted by a jury who knew that they would be hung for the offence. Instead the punishment became deportation, and at that point jurors began to convict again.
The law is wrong regarding the need to attack an intruder. There is a need, simply because the occupier is in fear of his or her safety and the safety of anyone else in the household. The law has to be changed and that change needs to be well publicised by the media. Everyone should know that if you break into a property, then you run the risk of injury or death. This risk should include no legal consequence against the true victim i.e. the law abiding citizen at home who upon hearing or seeing an intruder is struck with fear.
Peter Flanagan should not be charged with any crime.
Custom Search
