A fundamental principle of any democracy, and liberal society, is private property. We are free to own and control the land. It liberates us from public ownership, which is a method to control the lives of the occupants; it’s why I disagree with social housing.
But importantly, as owners of the property, how do we respond to a violation of our home? The intruder is not welcomed nor invited, and used aggression to gain entry. You and your family might be facing injury or, potentially, death.
The response is not premeditated; it is a reaction to a intrusive antagonist. Of course, every action has a consequence and individuals have duties and responsibilities. I assert, though, our lives are sacred and free from any form of coercion; if endangered, it is natural to defend yourself and your home. Whilst acknowledging the consequences.
In a true liberal society, self defence is mandatory and a necessity.
danielfurr
Defence of property has always been proportionate provided it is reasonable in response to actions put to the defender. Shooting someone running away and thus killing them is not reasonable in response to burglary, especially when you are a marksman and reload your gun while doing so. Nor is chasing down and beating a man who has burgled you. Reaction should not be a crime in it’s own right.
As I commented on my blog, Cameron has not changed the law, in spite of Right Wing papers suggesting he has.
http://politicalparry.co.uk/2011/06/cameron-said-im-going-to-change-very-little-on-crime-and-sell-it-to-you/
http://politicalparry.co.uk/2011/06/defence-of-property-has-not-changed/