Is this the way to treat a Mugger?

[MMI]

Can't find that case, but what's your opinion about this one?

From the BBC News website on 30/01/2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7860347.stm

Neighbour jailed for sword death

A man who killed his neighbour with a samurai sword in a row over a football has been jailed for 11 years for manslaughter.

Father-of-three David Martin, 40, was killed by Gary Kelly, 38, in Mitcham, south-west London, last January.

The Old Bailey heard Mr Martin had earlier intervened when a 10-year-old boy said his two friends refused to return his ball.

He was then attacked in Kelly's front garden in Rutter Gardens.

The Old Bailey had been told the incident was triggered when the boy telephoned Mr Martin, who heard him cry out in pain after being kicked.

"The boy decided to leave the football game and wanted to take his football with him," said Edward Brown QC, prosecuting.

"His friends, however, decided not to give him his ball back, teased him and played pig in the middle with him, and the like."

Mr Martin went to help and had picked up a bicycle belonging to one of the friends, and had also grabbed a boy by the scruff of the neck, the court heard.

Kelly, who had been drinking and smoking cannabis, and had nothing to do with the boys, came out of his house and threatened Mr Martin with a beer bottle.

Mr Martin returned home and took a piece of wood, used as a parrot perch, and headed back to Kelly's property.

Kelly emerged with the sword and part of a snooker cue which he used to attack Mr Martin in the front garden, said Mr Brown.

Mr Martin died when one of his major heart blood vessels was cut.

Kelly told the court he acted in self-defence.

Judge Christopher Moss said to Kelly: "You had lost your self-control by reason of provocation.

"Your use of the sword was quite deliberate."

Mr Martin's wife, Angela, had told the court in an impact statement: "It feels like my heart has been ripped out and part of me is missing."

... Although I've just discovered this one, which I understand is a leading case here regarding the use of weapons in self defence. This interesting fact here is that the intruders were armed with guns, while the victim-turned-killer had only a sword, but a lethal weapon neverthless.

But the principle to be drawn out of the decision is that, whatever the situation, you must act with moderation and self control if you are going to plead self-defence to justify your use of violence.

R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349: The defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. In a non-criminal context, it would not be expected that ordinary householders who "go too far" when defending themselves against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

(Wikipedia: Self-defence in English Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law)

[Thorne]

Can't find that case, but what's your opinion about this one?

In this case I would probably have to agree with the court. There is little evidence of self-defense in the story as posted. The swordsman, though still on his property, had to come out of his house to confront his "attacker" and appears to have been just as provocative as his victim. They were both wrong, but Kelly is still alive. That's manslaughter, at least.

... Although I've just discovered this one, which I understand is a leading case here regarding the use of weapons in self defence. This interesting fact here is that the intruders were armed with guns, while the victim-turned-killer had only a sword, but a lethal weapon neverthless....

This one's a little more ambiguous, but it does appear that the sword wielder went too far. If he had killed his attacker with a single stroke I would have to say it was justified. But having sliced him several times, presumably after he'd been disabled, puts a different light on things. Again, barring evidence to the contrary, he went too far.

What's unusual, though, is that it's usually the guy who brings a knife (or sword) to a gunfight that winds up dead. I guess British criminals just aren't as proficient with guns as their American counterparts.
Maybe that's a good thing!