March 24, 2004

POST-CIVILIZATION EUROPE (Via the Corner)

Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years (Will Batchelor, PA News, 3/23/04)

A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed for eight years today. . . .

When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times. . . .

After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: “Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells’ death.

“I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the circumstances.”

I've read the quote over and over, and I can't for the life of me figure out what Detective Chief Inspector Haworth is saying. For our foreign visitors, in the US it would be more likely that the other robbers would be tried and convicted for Swindells' death than that the victim would. Oh, and in the US the "victim" would be the stabber, not the stabbee.

ETA: This must be misreporting, mustn't it?

Posted by David Cohen at March 24, 2004 12:07 PM
Comments

"Severity of the circumstances"?

Those seem like weasel words. If the homeowner
was convicted why can't the detective just
say "Severity of the 'crime'"?

He can't quite bring himself to say it that way.
It might shatter his own false consciousness.

Posted by: J.H. at March 24, 2004 12:27 PM

It was a fun continent while it lasted.

Posted by: Chris at March 24, 2004 12:55 PM

Produced the weapon and stabbed four times without being shot?

And I can't help but note, samurai swords are designed primarily for sweeping slashes, not stabbing; though, to be fair, stabbing would be more effective in the likely case the blade wasn't sharpened. In which case we have a man being imprisioned for fighting off gun-wielding robbers, in his own home, with a pointy stick.

Posted by: Mike Earl at March 24, 2004 1:05 PM

Well, obviously they need to ban private samurai sword ownership. Access to that kind of lethal power should be strictly monopolized by the state. Private citizens just aren't qualified to wield such weapons in the public interest.

Posted by: Twn at March 24, 2004 1:11 PM

This is what I do not understand - this law must have some popular support among the British masses. Explain to me the reasoning of a person who believes that he is safer because of this law. Is he thinking that he may be forced to rob his neighbors someday? Or is he fearful that if robbers believe that they will be met with armed resistance, they will use deadly force to subdue their victims before robbing them? How do you gain a sense of security from abject surrender?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 24, 2004 1:19 PM

The homeowner was a drug dealer and all the stab wounds were inflicted from behind. The fatal one was apparently in the left thigh. I suspect a conviction on the SOB principle.

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/lancashire/archive/2004/03/10/NEWS6ZM.html

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/lancashire/archive/2004/03/09/NEWS7ZM.html

Posted by: Random Lawyer at March 24, 2004 1:42 PM

Aha!! That might well be it.

On the other hand, there are cases like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$I0ARFIRUC0CBZQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2003/05/08/nmart08.xml

I think British common law has come to be slanted against self-defense, whatever the backstory in the sword-wielder's case.

Posted by: Twn at March 24, 2004 1:54 PM

Mike: Well, any good katana (which I presume this is; it would be devilishly hard to stab with a no-dachi, and not many folks have a full katanake with wakizashi) has a diamond-shaped point, that would be quite handy in a pinch.

I note, though, that you are of course correct: It would be easier to slice than to stab.

Posted by: Chris at March 24, 2004 2:00 PM

Maybe he should get one of these for the next robbery:

http://www.bugei.com/subcategory_11.htm

It would be easy to increase the "severity of the circumstances" with this baby.

Posted by: Jack Sheet at March 24, 2004 2:11 PM

I picture myself on the jury: While the judge drones on about reasonable force and the sanctity of life, I ponder.

On the one hand, the guy didn't do anything I wouldn't have done. Heck, I've got a 12-gauge for visitors like that, and I wouldn't blame him a bit if he'd done all four of them instead of just one.

On the other hand, the guy's a drug dealer and I've got a chance to send him up the river for eight years. He's probably committed a dozen other crimes for which he hasn't been prosecuted, he's obviously not the kind of guy I'd want to live next door to, and if my verdict means drug dealers have to live in fear of intruders (because the law won't enforce their right to self-defense), so much the better.

Posted by: Random Lawyer at March 24, 2004 2:13 PM

RL: I believe neither you nor I would have a chance to test that hypothetical, as I think a showing of being a member of any Bar is usually good enough for a peremptory strike.

Posted by: Chris at March 24, 2004 2:26 PM

I was hoping there was more to it. But I still think that the verdict is wrong.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 24, 2004 2:54 PM

Random:

Unfortunately, your judge's precedent doesn't carve out (sorry, no pun) law abiding citizens and it's a slippery slope. What if the intruders were even bigger drug dealers who had committed even more crimes?

Posted by: John Resnick at March 24, 2004 3:41 PM

John:

I was just thinking of what I'd do if I were on the jury and were overly worried neither about the precedent it might set nor about the learned judge's instructions concerning the law. I agree, it's a slippery slope and no way to run a legal system.

Of course, in Red America the drug-pushing homeowner wouldn't be charged with manslaughter (let alone murder), because a Red American jury would acquit on that charge the minute they realized the homeowner stabbed a robber who broke into his house at night with a gun and three friends. He probably would still go to jail for the drugs and/or parole violations, though.

But if the jury thought drug dealers were running amok in the streets, immune from meaningful prosecution (cf. New York City, c. 1991), the temptation to convict on the homicide charge would be there. I don't do criminal work, but I can also imagine a game of prosecutorial hardball here -- no drug charges, just the murder charge, to try to force the jury to do something to the guy. That decision might be driven by leftist ideology (self-defense bad), lack of evidence (didn't find any drugs in the house) or the SOB principle, probably some combination of the three.

Posted by: Random Lawyer at March 24, 2004 3:59 PM

The homeowner, drug dealer or not, should not be convicted for self-defense merely because he's a bad person. "Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit o fthe law, for my own safety's sake!"

Posted by: John Thacker at March 24, 2004 4:13 PM


At least the Europeans are consistent - they convict him just as they convict the Israelis for defending themselves.

Posted by: pj at March 24, 2004 8:03 PM

Seems to me that home invasion is among the most serious of crimes.

I'd be likely to acquit, I think.

BTW, the samurai sword my father brought home from the war, which had been used to chop heads off Australian prisoners (lovely people, those Japanesee) would easily cleave a Scottish home invader from chaps to navel. A child could do it.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 24, 2004 8:46 PM

In Colorado, one can kill a home intruder, no questions asked, whether it be with firearm, sword, or garrote, irrespective of the armed status of the intruder(s).
In fact, a woman in Colorado was aquitted of wrongdoing after shooting through her door to kill an unarmed drunk, who had kicked through her screen door, but who had not breached the main door.

Twn:

In fact, Australia is moving to ban the private possession of swords.
(Not because of this case).

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 25, 2004 3:16 AM

But this is the British Isles, not the US. There the law is based around one important concept:

The Rabble Must Be Reminded Of Their Place.

Posted by: Ken at March 25, 2004 12:32 PM
« POST-CHRISTIAN AND PAST CARING: | Main | BEERS GOGGLES: »