COMMENTING on a recent case in Johor, senior criminal lawyer Salim Bashir Bhaskaran is reported to have said “if despite knowing that a person could have defused an act of crime without causing harm, but still used excessive force and causing the death of the criminal, it would no longer be considered as self-defence”. Very easy to theorise, but just how does it work in real life?

May I ask, how many lawyers themselves, if surprised or shocked by intruders in their houses, will calmly consider the different options available for their self-defence, and settle on one that is not excessive so that the intruders are not harmed more than what is “reasonable”?

While contemplating “reasonable” and “not excessive force”, will the intruders wait for the lawyers to decide and make their self-defence move before moving onto them, or pre-empt and strike before the lawyers have decided on the kind of force to use and looked for an appropriate object or weapon to defend themselves reasonably, without excessive force?  

When a person embarks on a crime, he forfeits all his rights to his safety and life, like a parachuter who must know that if the parachute(s) fail to deploy, he is dead. So why should the law, and lawyers, defend his “forfeited rights”?

It is not a question whether the robber had a screwdriver (as in the reported case), a knife, a gun or just bare hands, for even bare hands can be lethal.

The victim’s impulses instinctively prepare him for the worst and the victim has no wilful control over this.

Criminals enter people’s houses with intention – intention to commit a crime; intention to do whatever is necessary to commit the crime; intention to “self-defend” themselves if discovered or set upon by the victims, even if it means injuring, maiming or killing the victims.

Intention does not happen spontaneously, for example, when acting in self-defence on the spur of the moment. It is something that is planned beforehand.

The thief plans his mission in advance. He prepares himself; he arms himself; he chooses the time and place to commit the crime.

The victim, on the other hand, plans nothing against the criminal. He defends himself to the best of his ability. Remember, in the process he himself might get killed, severely injured or maimed. In how many such cases have the thieves or intruders been charged with murder?   

Survival instinct takes over when one is in sudden, unexpected danger. How do you tell instinct to “defuse an act of crime without causing harm, or using excessive force that might cause the death of the criminal”?

So what intention can be imputed to a tenant in a house (whether owner or not of the house) who is surprised by the intruder and reacts spontaneously to defend himself, his family and his property?

What state of mind is a victim in when suddenly faced with unknown eventuality? What chemical reactions are running through his mind at that moment?

Is he in a fit state of mind to calmly consider the options and decide on the methodology that will not cause “more than reasonable harm” to the intruder, before doing anything? Would chopping off the hands be reasonable?

One victim may just freeze and be totally helpless, another may try to hide or escape, and yet another may confront the intruder with anything that comes to his hand quickly, as every second counts.

There simply is no time to consider the options that will not cause more than “reasonable” harm to the intruders. So legalistic talk about “fine line between committing murder and acting in self-defence” is most absurd to say the least.     

The “fine-line” argument can apply only in the case of crime victims whose reflexes have been trained to react in particular ways under particular circumstances, e.g. the police “Stafoc, Stagg and Sting” teams.

The minds and reflexes of these people have been trained, and undergo regular “revisions”, to know what is “excessive force” and how much and what kind of force to apply in a given situation.

Even ordinary policemen are not capable of this as can be seen in the case of Aminulrasyid Amzah and a few others where they used excessive force. So how can the general public be expected to know and practice “sufficient or reasonable” force?

What happens in a reverse scenario, where the robber panics and flees, and falls to his death? Will the victim be charged with being the root cause of the robber’s death? 

Enough of legalistic arguments to defend criminals. Stop pampering and defending them by turning tables on the helpless victims.

Any intruder who gets killed while committing his crime does not have any rights against his victims. They should be considered to have “mati katak”. They go knowing the consequences, and it is their own funeral if they get killed. 

The law should be amended to give full protection to people genuinely defending themselves or any other law-abiding person who is being set upon by criminals anywhere and in any way. This is one effective way of fighting crime.

It is unacceptable that criminals are being defended and accorded “rights” to their life and wellbeing even when committing crimes, injuring or even killing others. – January 10, 2018.

* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.