Comment: Violent self defence not the answer
Tim Larkin is a grade one hard man.
The US Navy Seals have a reputation as being among the elite of military special forces... and Mr Larkin is the man who taught them how to fight in hand-to-hand combat.
Now he is bringing his methods to Bristol and there is sure to be controversy surrounding the visit.
In the UK, the law allows a reasonable amount of force in self-defence, but it must be relative to the perceived threat. In other words, a weedy-looking burglar heading out of a house cannot be dragged back and beaten within an inch of his life.
In the world of Tim Larkin, our laws have not kept up with the reality of life on our streets.
He is not advocating violence for its own sake, but he makes it clear that there are situations when "it is the only answer". And that could, in some situations, lead to an attacker being "disabled, disarmed... and maybe even dead".
The problem arises when we enter the grey areas when it is unclear whether there is likely to be a physical threat.
On the one hand, the householder, armed with Mr Larkin's tips, could find himself in front of a judge if he defends himself with such excessive force that serious injury is caused to the burglar. Some would say that the burglar had it coming but the facts are that our laws prevent excessive force and a prison term could undoubtedly wreck a person's life.
On the other, an ill-judged attack could lead to a passive burglar feeling the need to defend himself. This could lead to our householder suffering far worse than if he had stood back.
There is no doubt that many people, quite rightly, feel the law does not offer enough protection.
But people also need protecting from themselves and while Mr Larkin's approach may gather some sympathy, it is probably not the right one for this country.
6 Comments
View all
by Wayne, Bristol
Thursday, August 27 2009, 4:15PM
“I have had the pleasure of working with criminals for over a decade who target the innocent and often vulnerable law abiding citizens of Bristol. During my time there is always one thing that is blatantly obvious to my colleagues and me.
The role I played would look at risk managing the release of offenders who have a history of violence, drugs and even sex offences. We would discuss how we can protect the public even though we have intelligence and also the prisoner may also indicate that he will re-offend upon release!
The current situations allows for criminals to constantly reoffend and collect a string of short sentences due to the judges believing their sad stories and list of excuses, then judges taking this into account giving leniency time and time again.
If we took a hard line and locked up the most persistent and dangerous offenders for life (meaning life) this would change our streets for the future immediately, making a safer place for the law abiding public and a deterrent for those who see our system as a soft touch.
Why should someone who has murdered, raped or sexually abused children be allowed a second chance to offend again and make more victims and the streets unsafe.
In every other industry apart from law we learn from our mistakes and take measure to prevent people being put at risk, but when it comes to criminals and crime we ditch all common sense and make ridiculous decisions to keep the human rights of offenders above those of victims on every level.
I have seen so many crazy decisions being made in my life and nothing is being done to improve the situation. If this was a business we would be closed down for incompetence.
Our country would be far safer if we built new prisons for the future with excess cells available and filled them with all our persistent offenders rather than release them early because we have no more cells available!(this is constant issue for the prison service)
Imagine if we kept all the dregs of society behind bars, this would create a safer place and reduce all of our insurance policies and give the chance for funding to be spent on health care, education rather that security and most importantly they would not be able to create any more victims!!!!!!!!
For those who are reading this and are against strong sentencing and everyone should deserve a second chance, you probably live in a world outside of where these people operate or you have never been affected by these people. I started with a positive attitude thinking that I can make a difference but I was proved wrong almost every time.
There will be those who say if we change the life of one persistent criminal to be law abiding then that makes it all worthwhile. But in the real world this comes at a cost of millions of pounds from the tax payer and further more all the ones who fail the probation courses and rehabilitation courses go on to continue in there illegal activities ruining perhaps the lives of young and old innocent people at a cost that the victim may never get over.
As you can probably detect I have strong feelings and many more, my views are first hand and can be justified from real situations of our shocking legal system!”
by Steve, Horfield
Tuesday, August 25 2009, 10:16PM
“As well as the physical side of things, people need to train for the stress of the situation.
Also people need to practice verbal and body language defences too.
One of the world's top guys for this (Dik Chance) lives and teaches right here in Bristol.
And there are plenty of other home grown instructors here in Bristol (like Dik and Kevin O'Hagan) who's methods are better and more suited to our environment and laws.
A good, honest and above all legal defence will be better in the long run. It's no good learning to defend yourself in a way that's going to ruin your life anyway.”
by Roy, Clifton
Tuesday, August 25 2009, 9:35PM
“My police friends tell me that a 30-seater coach filled with the criminals known to them to cause 90% of the crimes in Bristol and driven into the docks would make life not only better for the rest of us but also for the drug-dependent losers themselves.
I'd be in favour of action rather than box ticking.”
by sarah, Bristol
Tuesday, August 25 2009, 7:24PM
“My point was that it may not be necessary to 'beat up' the scrawny thief, more that he would think twice if there is a suggestion of reprisal. The naive comment referred to the writer's assumption that householders would be motivated into beating up said scrawny thief, hence attracting possible criminal proceedings against themselves. The average householder would prefer to have the confidence to stand their ground when faced with said scrawny toerag, rather than feel the need to beat him to a pulp. It is a question of the threat of reprisal as opposed to actual violence.”
by Fred, Filton
Tuesday, August 25 2009, 10:34AM
“I think the point being made is that whether we like it or not, the law as it stands means that beating up the scrawny burglar could lead to the householder being in the dock himself. That may not be right, but the law's the law until someone votes for change. Rather than being naive, I think it's realistic.”