"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.

It was a fun continent while it lasted.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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!"

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

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.

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).

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.