View Single Post
  #156  
Old 04-05-2009, 12:38 PM
chain2's Avatar
chain2 chain2 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lacombe County
Posts: 1,533
Default Well said Bushrat.

Quote:
The right of self-protection
By Lorne Gunter, The Edmonton Journal
April 3, 2009

The development of "consent policing" in the 19th century was a great achievement. However, it did not extinguish homeowners' absolute right to defend their families, themselves and their property from criminals.

Prior to Robert Peel's creation of London's "Bobbies" in the 1800s, most policing consisted of a paid sheriff or village constable who pressed civilians into duty if ever a criminal was too dangerous for him to arrest on his own. Citizens, though, remained largely responsible for their own protection.

Still, even after people "consented" to hiring and authorizing full-time professional police forces, they did not relinquish their right to self-defence nor to the personal protection of their property and loved ones.

Professional police were an add-on -- not a replacement for -- the citizenry's own authority.

In the nearly 200 years since, many of us -- including police chiefs and politicians -- have forgotten that police are the servants of the public. They exist to supplement our own very real personal right to protection.

If we wish to leave our safety entirely up to the police -- as most urban dwellers do, me included -- so be it, but there is nothing that obliges us to.

There are laws against firing a gun within city limits in most cities. And if you wound or kill an alleged perpetrator (or worse still, an innocent bystander), you can be brought up on manslaughter or even murder charges. Yet, despite all those restrictions, there exist ancient rights that empower all of us to self-defence.

Which brings me to Brian Knight, the 38-year-old central Alberta farmer who was charged by police last Friday for vigorously defending his property.

Police claim Knight witnessed his 4x4 all-terrain vehicle being stolen from his property far from any police station. He chased the thief off his land, rammed him into a ditch, shot him as he tried to escape and organized a posse to track him down and bring him in to police.

Knight is charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm, assault and dangerous driving.

Knight's actions might seem a bit excessive just to keep a thief from taking an ATV. But it's not the ATV, it's the principle.

Burglaries are psychologically damaging. In addition to making the victim angry, they can leave families feeling violated and vulnerable. If burglars are left unchallenged they will come to feel freer and freer to commit their thefts.

At least in a city there is still a reasonable expectation that a 911 call will get the police to one's home in a matter of minutes if one is reporting a burglar in the house. Not so out on the isolated stretch of prairie 30, 50 or more kilometres from the nearest RCMP detachment. There, the right we never gave up to defend ourselves becomes very real and practical.

Was Knight's response to the attempted theft more aggressive than I would have made in the same circumstances? Probably. But was it within the realm of what was reasonable? Certainly.

The attempted theft was not just about the loss of an ATV but about maintaining the thin web of law and order out beyond where professional policing is timely and consistent.

Knight's case puts me in mind of Tony Martin, the Norfolk, England, farmer who killed one teenage burglar and wounded another on his remote piece of land in the summer of 1999.

Never mind that between them, the burglars had nearly 100 prior court appearances, most for theft, or that they were rummaging around in the dark at Martin's farm in the middle of the night and that when he happened upon them he had no way of knowing whether they were armed or not.

Martin was convicted of murder for defending himself and his home. Even though his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter, he still served twice as much time in prison as the surviving burglar.

Police kept Martin in prison almost an extra year because the family of the teen he killed had made "specific death threats" against him and had placed a "contract" on his head. If he were released, police would not guarantee his safety.

So Martin -- the possible victim of a criminal "hit" -- was locked up, while those who threatened him went free.

The final insanity was the approval of legal aid for the surviving crook so he could sue Martin for the wounds the farmer inflicted on him.

Let's hope our system does not become as topsy-turvy as the British one, where concern for the rights of the criminal, and police and prosecutorial mistrust of the citizenry has turned the law on its head.

Don't prosecute Brian Knight.

Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
__________________
"A mountain has got to be lonely without sheep on it."
Dick Proenneke
Reply With Quote