Originally Posted by
dark_horse
What you seem to fail to understand, as I have said before, is that reasonable force is just that ... '
reasonable.' With that in mind, you need to understand that
anyone has the right to use
reasonable force,
anytime and in
any situation. That's why it's called 'reasonable'. The key point for any court is to understand what that means in practice, as it will depend entirely on the situation:
- If someone is pointing a real, loaded gun at a child's head, I suspect it would be reasonable to disable that person by shooting them - preferably with a non-lethal shot at, say, the arm or leg.
- It is (now) reasonable to fight an intruder and remove them from your house. However, as an aside, it is NOT reasonable to chase them down the street and beat them in the head with a cricket bat, leaving them brain-damaged (as happened a few years ago in England).
- Notwithstanding the point father_ted makes about licensed premises in Scotland, it is reasonable for a bouncer to remove a person from a bar or nightclub - again, so long as they aren't given an unnecessary kicking on the way.
This is why it is so important to argue against those who say that only state actors should have the power of force. In their world, the child is shot, the intruder makes off with all your valuables and nightclubs are overrun every night with persona non grata - all while waiting for the police (and perhaps trying to reason with the perpetrator).
.
1. Your statement on "reasonable force" is too broad to be entirely valid in English law, IMHO, unless you are using a non-legal definition(and one more in concert with society's norms etc).
2. English courts have quite often held the opposite in situations very similar to your hypothetical scenarios(I'd pull up the cites, but I'm not using my laptop and don't have time to VPN in to Westlaw). IMHO, English law, with a few notable circumstances, is very restrained in the allowances it gives non-state actors to exert force without consequence - and is certainly more restrained than many courts in the US.
3. Your comments on state actors and use of force is more philosophical rather than legal. However, legally speaking, English courts do allow agents of the state much greater use of force without repercussion than random members of the public. On a philosophical point, confining the use of force to state actors, prevents vigilanteism and allows (presumably) trained, judicious, and state-sanctioned use of force where necessary. Your use of force argument is actually quite libertarian and would, IMHO, be more favorably received in a Texas or Virginia courtroom, than it would in a CA, NY, or English court.
Side note regarding use of force: Old dude in VA shoots a crackhead begging him for change in parking lot and is charged(notably, not attempted murder, btw). Old dude's defense lawyers say the crackhead was "aggressively panhandling" and his use of force was "reasonable." Prosecution (stupidly, imho) countered by saying that even if it was ok to shoot the crackhead, the public was in danger. The defense brings in the old dude's army instructor who testifies what a great marksman he is and how the public wasn't in danger from him deciding to shoot the crackhead. The jury finds for the old dude.
Those same set of circumstances would play out much, much differently in an English court.