By Dr. Wanjiru Njoya from Lew Rockwell
Self-defense is an ancient common law right under which necessary and reasonable force may be used to defend one’s person or property. As Sir Edward Coke expressed it in 1604: “The house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress as well for defence against injury and violence . . . if thieves come to a man’s house to rob him, or murder, and the owner or his servants kill any of the thieves in defense of himself and his house, it is no felony, and he shall lose nothing.”
The meaning of reasonable force has always been heavily context dependent, considering the facts of the case including the intentions of the parties. If a trial were to become necessary in the scenario described by Coke, the court would have to establish that the intruders were indeed thieves intent on robbery or murder, or at any rate that the homeowner reasonably believed this to be the case. The use of force to defend oneself from an attack inherently carries the risk of causing the attacker’s death, making it necessary to ascertain that this was not merely a homicide masquerading as self-defense.
Otherwise, anyone could shoot another and argue that he thought it was an intruder, as happened in the Oscar Pistorius case.
If the attacker shoots first, it is clearly not unreasonable to shoot back. Difficult cases arise where the attacker is unarmed or armed only with the natural weapons of his own fists. The old common law rule, as reported by the Michigan Law Review in 1904, was that
“it was not necessary the assault should have been made with a deadly weapon, but that an assault with the fists alone, if there was apparent purpose and ability to inflict death or serious bodily injury, was sufficient to justify the killing in self-defense. . . . a mere battery by the fists alone, will not justify an homicide, even where there is a great disparity of physical power, without a plain manifestation of felonious intent.”
The felonious intent of the attacker (intention to inflict death or serious bodily injury) has long been treated as key to justifying killing the attacker, and such intention could only be judged in all the circumstances of the case. Mere words would not suffice, as one might shout, “I’ll kill you!” with neither felonious intent nor ability, and conversely an intention and ability to kill may be exhibited clearly without any words being uttered.
In the context of comparative law, Uwe Steinhoff controversially goes further to argue that self-defense ought to be lawful even if the attacker did not use his fists: “An attack need not involve physical force; rather, an attack is every threat of violation or actual violation of an interest that is protected by law (that is, of a right) insofar as this threat stems from human action.” Steinhoff distinguishes between an “attack” and “harm” as in his view one is still entitled to defend oneself against an attack without waiting to see the degree of harm, if any, that might result from the attack.
Imagine a scenario where a weak and puny man launches himself at a weightlifting champion with intention to cause harm, only for the attacker’s fists to bounce ineffectually off his victim (as happened once to Arnold Schwarzenegger). In Steinhoff’s view, the victim in this case, bigger and stronger than his attacker though he may be, would nevertheless have a right to defend himself with a reasonable degree of force.
The aim in mentioning these examples is not to comment on the current law, which is too heavily circumscribed by legislation and case law to permit brief summary. The aim here is instead to highlight some of the difficulties in ascertaining the boundaries of self-defense. Legislative rules are typically detailed and encompass numerous conditions and exceptions.
For example, in New York, “deadly physical force” generally cannot be used unless
“the actor reasonably believes that such other person [the attacker] is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating.”
That is easy to state, but in reality, how would one “know that with complete personal safety” violence can be avoided by retreating? In many circumstances where deadly force is used or threatened, there are no guarantees of “complete personal safety.” In Steinhoff’s example, it is rarely clear that there is no other way to save Snow White other than by taking out the evil queen: “Yet one is certainly allowed to tackle the evil queen with physical force in order to prevent her from giving the apple to Snow White if there is no other way to save Snow White.”
It is in practice often difficult (though not impossible) to show that there was no other way to avert the threat other than by use of deadly force, primarily because decisions must often be made in split seconds. The point here is that on a test of reasonableness, it would not suffice simply to say “there was no other way”—it would be necessary to show this to be in fact the case. It is one thing to understand clearly the meaning of self-defense and another to ascertain whether defensive action is justified on the facts of specific cases.
Natural Law and Natural Rights
From a natural law perspective, the right to self-defense is an element of the right to self-ownership. Self-defense entails the right to wield force in defense against any forceful invasion. As Murray Rothbard explains:
If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property, it then follows that he has the right to keep that property—to defend it by violence against violent invasion . . . for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against attack, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him. P/2
More importantly it’s also our right to defend ourselves up to and including deadly force, from a corrupt and crooked govt, justice system and police. Especially one that tries to take out right to self defense away or dilute it.
[…] Pages: 12 […]
Irene Laird – “… if they hadn’t all been shot to death by the Police while defending their rights and their property!”
… not to forget the doe-eyed “police” recruits shot in the back of the head from afar by “police” snipers as a sacrifice to Satan. All the Hired Mercenary Freemasonic “police” in Queensland would have been dancing a merry little jig after THAT one.
AND they GIFTED the Trains’ property to THEMSELVES for a nice new country-club-style MASONIC LODGE to carry out all their initiations and Satanic rituals away from PRYING EYES.
And let’s not forget, folks, it’s OFFICIAL, broadcast on national television – if you’re Christian, then you’re a TERRORIST.
FREEMASONS, folks – is there anything they CAN’T do?
The bloke trying to rob the 7-Eleven might think differently if the owner pulled a shotgun from under the counter and pointed it in the robber’s direction.
That said, and being on side with the right to own weaponry, the fact is that there are a lot of angry and crazy people out there, drug-addled, and so on, whom you would never allow to have a “piece” ever.
If we have-and we do-the right to self defense, then so be it.
The rest can sort itself out.
“Tell him he’s dreaming”! I reckon that statement would have been used by that family up north, if they hadn’t all been shot to death by the Police while defending their rights and their property!
FYI
DUMBS
Deep Underground Military Bases
Gene Decode gives an introduction of what they are.
Credit: RealGeneDecode Rumble
https://rumble.com/v4kosif-2024-03-13-dumbs-decode-part-1-introduction-updated.html
Speaking of the souless…
Credit: Fox News and MJTruth
https://rumble.com/v4mdfdl-p.-diddy-is-panicking-behind-the-scenes.html
I personally don’t like guns, but people should be given he right to defend themselves.
That said, there are a lot of idiots in the public that don’t deserve to own a firearm because they lack discipline, self respect, respect for others and self control.
Did these souless programmed people emerge from the DUMBS to cause havoc on us!
How many NPC’s, clones and hybrids are causing chaos on this planet as appose to humans with a soul.
It’s a trifle academic to discuss our rights when we know damn well we have none, and to pretend we do is asking for a whole lot of grief.
What you need is a plan for the eventuality of physical assault, or theft of expensive items from one’s home. This event is going to come to all of us within a few days of (a) the non-availablity of fuel in Australia; (b) the non-availability of food; or (c) the non-availablity of electricity. The name ain’t Murphy, but I would count on all three happening in the same time frame.
For most of us, weapons are essential. Unless one is a champion boxer or martial arts star, the thugs arriving at the door, or window, or hole in the roof, are likely to be stronger and tougher and, just count on it, more numerous than you.
Conversely, the governent has decreed that you cannot have a suitable weapon, said restriction to prevent you from massacreing another 34 people in Port Arthur. That is what you will surely do, as John Howard well knows.
Thus, whatever weapon you decide to have on standby must be reasonably on-hand for innocent reasons. ie BBQ. The best is a container of chilli powder. If home invaders are bunched up near your door, in an arc-motion, hurl the contents in their eyes. If that does not suffice, a small coffee jar of petrol will have a similar effect, but with the added benefit of marrying with the barbecue lighter you also have on standbye; prelit, of course.
What to do then? If you leave them to their own devices, some months later when they recover, you are in a shitload of trouble. They will tell the judge that they had only come around to bring you the word of Jesus and the Judge will believe them and recognise you as evil incarnate. And a listed climate denier, therefore a heretic. Guilty as charged.
So this is in fact a holding situation. And this is where a high covered box trailer comes in handy.
Cable tie them securely and drive them out bush, at least a kilometre from the track or road, and cable tie them to sapplings. Then go home and think to yourself “It is entirely possible they will chew through the cable ties and, having learned their lesson, mend their ways and find God”. God moves in mysterious ways and you have merely been a minor element in God’s Plan. “Amen”.
Ever heard of Crim Mesh and 3M makes a carbon covering, which goes over insides of windows which stop them from shattering – the widows behave like the front windscreen of a car, shatter, but don’t break. I use both around my home. Expenditure is offset by home security and a lower household insurance premium, potentially.
There’s a thing called ‘occupational hazard’. If you are a thief and are committing your crime, if the homeowner blows a big ass hole in your body, it is an occupational hazard. It is easy to understand.
I called Victoria Police’s firearms division and specifically asked if I owned a properly stored registered firearm and an intruder broke into my house armed with a weapon (eg: knife) and lunged at me to harm or kill me, could I use my registered gun to defend my self and my property, and I was told bluntly no. So I responded and said well there is no point applying for a licence if a robber can legally kill me and I have no means to defend myself.
The only home invaders I am concerned about are from the government authorising “persons” refer:
Emergency Management Amendment (Temporary COVID-19 Provisions) Act 2022 (WA)
77I. Authorised COVID-19 officers (1) The State Emergency Coordinator may authorise persons to act as authorised COVID-19 officers while a COVID-19 declaration is in force.
77N. Powers of officers in relation to persons exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus
(1) While a COVID-19 declaration is in force, for the purpose of limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, an authorised COVID-19 officer may direct any person who has been exposed, or any class of person who may have been exposed, to the SARS-CoV-2 virus to do all or any of the following — (a) to remain in an area specified by the officer for such period as is specified by the officer; (b) to remain quarantined from other persons for such period, and in such reasonable manner, as is specified by the officer; (c) to submit to infection prevention and control procedures within such reasonable period, and in such reasonable manner, as is specified by the officer.
77Q. General powers during COVID-19 declaration
(2) While a COVID-19 declaration is in force, an authorised COVID-19 officer may take, or direct a person or a class of person to take, any action that the officer considers is reasonably necessary to prevent, control or abate risks associated with COVID-19.
Note, folks, your COMMON LAW right to defend your property against the UNLAWFUL & ILLEGITIMATE corporate “Sheriff” sent around by the UNLAWFUL & ILLEGITIMATE corporate “Local Council” to throw you out of your house for your unpaid UNLAWFUL & ILLEGITIMATE corporate “council rates”.
We’re talking about a CORPORATE GANGSTER PROTECTION RACKET here, folks, inflicted on every Australian all across our country now for DECADES. All run by numerous little corporate FIEFDOMS masquerading as “Local Government”, DESPITE Australians EXPLICITLY REJECTING “Local Government” in a referendum DECADES ago.
We told them NO, but they just went ahead and DID IT ANYWAY with their CORPORATIONS dressed up as their FAKE UNLAWFUL “Local Councils”, and PISSED IN OUR FACES while they did it. Surprise!
In a perfect world, there would be an awful lot of “Local Council Sheriffs” pushing up daisies right about now.
Self Defence is a God given right….end of statement !!
Thieves and robbers, and corporate ones, which includes government officials where the corporate Coup DeTat has taken place and their unlawfully operating courts, are all classed as just thieves and robbers.
If they come to your door, they have entered your property without the owners permission, unless they have officially got your permission in advance.
This is covered in Royal Assent Law, and we have the right to remove intruders with any force that is required.
And in Australia we also have a “Bill of Rights” 1688/9 Article 7 from memory, but the traitors muddy the waters and suppress this info even the so called gun clubs have been convinced to go down the corporate agenda and thus fracturing the right of the living to this unalienable right…
https://www.thecommonwealthofaustralia.com.au/bill-of-rights-1688/
When I was in the NSW Police Force 1960 the Judges or Magistrates in court asked the intruder WHERE YOU THERE LEGALLY YES OR NO no rights for a NO answer should still be the first question asked for any intruder with the same result .
Unfortunately, even where self defense is a valid legal argument, it is not applied equally in Australia. Certain groups may not enjoy such a defense, regardless of the outcomes, or the offense.
See Home Invasion Act 1998 NSW
In the USA they have Constitutional rights including gun rights and they can and will use them over and above any natural law and rights.
They at least have that much.
In Texas every neighbour has a gun and law and order is surprisingly kept under control.
Apparently Texas is claimed to be one of the safest places to live in America.
Ask a Politician to try to figure that one out.
Just spend an hour looking up super Libtard California, where robbers are now allowed/encouraged to walk into supermarkets and shops, fill their trollies and walk out without paying, as long as it’s below a thousand bucks.
https://www.facebook.com/furryhatguy/videos/wow-were-allowed-to-steal-up-to-950-at-stores-in-california-because-of-prop-47-s/6858370534175078/
It seems the Indians and Chinese are the only ones fighting back.
[…] Pages: 12 […]
[…] Pages: 12 […]