Sunday, January 17, 2010

Myleene Klass

This story has been around for a while, but Roya Nikkhah has written an article of clarity in today's Sunday Telegraph. Its about the reaction of a woman finding herself faced with a threat to her home and her two year old daughter. Lets recap. Myleene Klass was at home with her daughter when two males (about 18 years old) tried to break into her house. She lost it, and grabbed a kitchen knife and went for them. They bolted and she went after them. She didn't catch them, and as is usual in this sort of case, they escaped. She reported the matter to the police who informed her that she may have committed an offence. I'm sure the police filled out several long and complex forms.

Now, what is one to think of this. Is it reasonable that the law of our land makes someone who protects their own home, and others for whom they are responsible, vulnerable to being charged with an offence. As Miss Klass said "Who on earth put such a ridiculous law in place and how on earth have we got to a point where this law was considered reasonable". A very good question. She then tells us "The bottom line is they have no right to be there. You have every right as a homeowner to protect your own house and family and the law should be on your side". This woman would do a great job as our Justice Secretary.

Its always been my opinion that if someone enters our house uninvited, and on finding them, I judge them to be a threat to me or any member of my family, they would be attacked by me, brandishing whatever weapon I could lay my hands on. There would be no questions asked until I was absolutely certain that all capacity to threaten had been extinguished. And you can interpret that however you like. It may not be wise, but its how I'd react. I am filled with admiration for Myleene Klass. Its just a pity she failed to make some mark on the two intruders - so that they would think twice before trying to rob someone else.

Oh yes. I almost forgot. Here's another story from today's Telegraph about a Mr Keith Redpath who also had intruders. They stole his television and murdered him.

6 comments:

supresc said...

In the USA, where I happen to be a professional lawyer, the law is phrased in terms of protecting one's life or the lives of others. If there is a reasonable belief that one's life or the life of others in the home are in danger then in the majority of states one can use force up to and including lethal force - but to protect human life, not property, which in all practicality comes to the same thing, since protecting a family in a family home will concurrently protect the property.

All this means is that one can't leave a loaded spring gun set to go off if someone opens a door in one's property when one is not in that property. Doing so means a weapon is used to merely protect property.

Give you an example, there was a sad case where a Scot visiting Texas went to a night club, got very drunk, got offered a drive home and on the way home he sobered up in the back of a car and thought he was in danger, he shouted for the driver to stop, got out of the car, and ran up and down the road shouting for help, in panic went to a householders front door and banged on it, got no joy there and went to the back of the house and banged on that. The owner, a family man, put a few shots through his back door and killed the Scot. The householder used the magic words: I was protecting the lives of my family - I believed they were in danger and I fired my gun to protect them. The main issue here was not that he shot the Scot dead, but that he fired his weapon when the Scot was not in his house. A grand jury (or similar hearing) decided there was no case to answer and the house-holder was not charged with any crime.

In Chicago I heard an old adage, "If you shoot a guy on your property, just make sure he is in your property"; meaning: in your house and not merely in your front or back yard (there words for front and back garden). I remember a case where a Vicar was in his church hall and a guy fell into the hall through the ceiling, the Vicar took a gun (for which he lacked a gun permit) from the drawer of his desk and shot the man dead - the Vicar used the magic words, "I was protecting my flock" - meaning a group of seniors in evening song in his church hall. Again, no charge and he was let off not having a permit for the lethal fire arm.

So the issue should, arguably, turn on 'protecting life' - most people understand what that means, it is to protect life (not merely property or even one's home), LIFE of oneself or others. But there has to be a reasonable belief that one's life or the lives of others are in danger of harm.

By the way, in some states one's car is regarded as an extension of one's body (obviously one has to be in one's car). So attacking someone's car can involve the use of lethal force against the person attacking the car - the same reasoning applies, protecting one's life or the lives of others in the car.

Anonymous said...

PS - another adage: If you do shoot a guy (to protect life), make sure he is dead (so he can't sue you for medical expenses) ... I kid u not. PS: I don't have a gun, and have never ownded or kept a gun - they scare me - I believe more people die from accidental shootings in the home (especially with children playing with daddy's gun) than ever save lives from home invaders. But that's a personal belief, I don't know if its true, but I do know of several instances in Chicago where children have shot themselves or their friends playing with a loaded gun - one kid even removed the clip and thought the gun was not loaded, but killed his friend because 'one was in the breech/breach" ... not sure of the correct language.

Anonymous said...

Rougly nine years ago, my niece had her home broken into by three males, this was at 3am she came down stairs with her two nine month old twins in her arms.

The three men started asking he questions, shining a torch in her face, she though what's going on here!

She found a light switch and put the lights on.....

There where three police officers in living room, it would appear that they broke into the wrong house, they wanted someone two doors down.

ROMAN JONES Esq. said...

I can't think of a better story to perfectly encapsulate the state of modern Britain than this of Myleene Klass. This would have been almost comical had anyone described it even ten years ago, but under Labour we have been marched into a police state but one where we are more vulnerable to criminals than ever before. Not since the bandits of the Middle Ages have ordinary people had to fear for their families safety in thir own homes from 'outlaws'. This has GOT TO STOP!

supresc said...

I am inclined to think that British cops are being perverted as a group - being turned into "Russian Cops" - the kind you don't want to call or see. They can render you a victim twice over - as with parents who take action to protect their children in their own home - can anyone think of anything that is more vital and personal than a parent protecting its young in its own home.

Yet there are some in the English legal system that strongly believes a parent is supposed to retreat even in their own home, and can only put up resistance once they are backed up against a wall in their own home. In the USA, if someone has invaded your home, in the majority of states, you are free to use whatever force is necessary to protect lives of your loved ones up to and including the use of lethal force.

In the matter of Myleene Klass, a young woman, alone, in her own home, with a young child to protect merely raises a knife in her own home and that is regarded by the British/Russian cops (c/o the perversion visited on them c/o the 'British' Labour Party) as a potential offense to the extent they give her a verbal warning which the Chief Constable's staff (who were not there) later deny.

"British" Labour is alien to the British way of life - they have to go! VOTE THEM OUT!

alanindyfed said...

Under this Labour government the Law is an Ass.

But you know that, don't you?

I cannot understand Jack Straw's mentality. Probably, neither can he.
Alan Johnson is no better. "Barmy" is the word.