Introduction
There has been an ongoing debate about the scope of a state's right of self-defense against an actual armed or imminent attack by non-state actors . According to Subsection-B of 13-404. Justification-self-defense, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect him against other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force. Therefore it is justified to say that, the law of self-defense should allow householders to commit acts of extreme violence against intruders without any legal sanctions .
However self-defense poses a great challenge to a criminal jurisprudence increasingly attentive to the moral significance of legal defenses. Seemingly, it expresses a preference for one life over another in a system of law supposedly premised on the equality of lives. The taking of one life to save another is in some circumstances rarely permitted by law. Duress as a defense is allowed by few jurisdictions, and those with a necessity defense usually require that the harm avoided be significantly greater than the harm inflicted. This is a requirement that seeks to exclude most of the forms of self-protective killing. On the other hand, householders are to some extent allowed to exercise violence to intruders with no legal sanctions. Otherwise, the intruder may cause harm to the householder if no self-defense is exercised . On the contrary the householder acts are limited to the intruder’s action. If the intruder surrenders the householder should not commit extreme acts on him .
In self-defense there is provision of unapologetic and strong defense to killing. In case the householder does no defend themselves the intruder could forge an attack against them and kill him instead. This seems to support what George Fletcher Calls justification. That a defense which treats an otherwise criminal action as fully warranted by the circumstances, as a positive good rather than a forgivable lapse. The features of self-defense that have the excuse flavor, specifically its provisions for reasonable mistakes, seem derivative or secondary.
The level of a justice and impunity is on the rise; therefore the citizens are left with no options but fight for themselves ‘take the law in their hands.” The fact is that if the intruder is handed over to the investigation department, the probability of the householder attaining justice is low. Consequently, the citizen will commit acts of violence that are extreme to intruder as they defend their family or loved ones due to the fear of losing them. Therefore, the legal regulations can and should be modified to cater for intruders strictly. This will give confidence to the householders that if the intruders are presented to the courts they will attain justice. Hence, chances of householder’scommitting extreme acts of violence will be low or none.
As stated, the law of self-defense in the United Kingdom is born out of common law. Therefore, defending property, defending oneself and defending others is derived from laws made by judges rather than a law made by the government in an Act of Parliament. In addition, as the force used in reasonable circumstances so it is applied in the defense of one’s property, oneself, or others. The force in reasonable circumstances such as; to defend others, defend property, defend oneself, prevent crime, effect or assist in the lawful arrest of persons unlawfully at large, or assist or effect in the lawful arrest suspected offenders or offenders.
The attacked householder or if the householder believes that he is about to be attacked, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself violently against the intruder. The reason for the attack is for self-defense, property defense or even defense others. With the given cases, then it is justifiable why a violent action will be the reaction from a householder with an intruder. At times the householder acts violently due to fear of the unknown. The fact that the intruder does not express their motive for being found in the householder’s premise, then it leaves the householder with a lot of uncertainty of what to expect from the intruder. Thus in the name of defense, violence manifests. It would not be guilty of an offence since there is reasonable use of force to act in self-defense lawfully.
Oftenly, the householder strikes pre-emptively. Consequently, there is no requirement to draw back when attacked even when the opportunity to do so presents itself. Once the householder fails to avail of such an opportunity then it simply becomes a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether it was necessary to use force at all. It is only ruled out to be self-defense when the householder does not act out of factors such as aggression, bravado, or revenge. In such a circumstance is deemed to act unlawfully in self-defense as in all situations he does not honestly believe that it is necessary for him to defend himself, and such he would be guilty of the offense charged.
“Walk away if you safely can. If you cannot walk away safely, only use as much force as will allow you to get away. If you cannot get away, use only as much force as is necessary to neutralize the threat.” A householder in a defense attack by an intruder cannot be expected in the heat of the instant to estimate the specific amount of force necessary for defense. As a consequence, once honestly proven, it is powerful evidence that the amount of force used was reasonable and hence the householder is innocent. Although everyone has a right to be protected by law, a householder is justified to act violently once faced by an intruder if only they have a reasonable cause for their action and should be proved by a jury.
References
Bird, C. The concealed handgun manual: How to choose, carry, and shoot a gun in self defense.
San Antonio, Tex: Privateer Publications, 2008.
Cramer, P. (2006). Protecting the self: Defense mechanisms in action. New York: Guilford Press.
Lazzari, M. R. (1994). Self defense. S.l.: M. Lazzari.
Gill, T. D. (2002). The 11th of September and the international law of military operations. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers.
