What happened in the bucolic, quintessentially English town of Bury St. Edmunds was horrific. A two-bit bicycle crim with scores of convictions, allowed to roam freely, robbing stuff, until the Psycho Kings took him out with a 27" ninja sword (excuse me?) and a commando knife.
It seems like a simple case of self-defense, but is it? I reached out to LSPland's UK legal expert whoweighed in, thus:
On a legal take, they apparently weren't acting in self defence or defence of the home at night, nor using reasonable force in the prevention of crime under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. On the reported facts they did not effect a lawful arrest but simply killed the guy in a public place much like Al Capone or the IRA would have done. The verdict would have been the same in 1700 as the Crown does not delegate the power of execution to ordinary subjects. Indeed until the 20th century they would have faced being hanged themselves, unless they could have pleaded manslaughter successfully.
the Crown does not delegate the power of execution to ordinary subjects. There's weight in that, anyway you look at it. But what happens when the Law breaks down, when bicycle riding ciderhead junkies roam the streets unhindered, ripping off your goods. They get the ninja sword.
To put it another way, when you erode all standards of decency and declare every aspect of right and wrong, morality itself, to be a figment of our imagination or at best a practical compromise with self-interest, don't be surprised when people act accordingly.
Expect things to get a helluva lot worse and in the meanwhile, I'll call the Bury case. Three bad birds taken out with one stone.
Mos Maiorum,
LSP
