|
When spousal arguments exceed "reasonable force"
© by Mike Keenan 
If you have been paying attention, there has been much debate in the media lately regarding the issue of "reasonable force." For example, in England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. The key is to act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment. Thus, if you are attacked and in self-defence, you genuinely believe you were in peril - even if in hindsight you are clearly wrong, you will get off.
What does this mean for seniors? I will provide an example. Miriam and I engaged in a row the other day. Unfortunately. the energy that we employed tended to escalate much like how a tiny fire starts from small twigs and then rapidly moves into the larger fuel. The larger fuel for Miriam was a series of insults directed at me. I couldn't get into a new pair of pants. She frowned and said, "Perhaps you should not eat so much ice cream." I replied saying, "Oh ya, well, perhaps you should not eat so much peanut butter and leave big gobs of it on the spoon for me to clean up." To which she replied, "I never liked your mother." This is precisely how "reasonable force" gets out of hand. You start off with a small complaint, not being able to get into your new pants, and pretty soon, your mother, who has done no harm, becomes a fair target for abuse. Which leads to the following question: Can an intruder be chased if they run? The answer, of course, depends upon how you interpret the threat. If someone snuck into your house in the wee hours of the morning, and you arose from bed and caught the thief rummaging through your antique collection of old vinyl records that you have been meaning to convert to digital music, well what should you do? It all comes down to the fundamental question of what was proportionate in the moment and what the householder genuinely believed. If the intruder flees the scene with your Roy Orbison collection, then at that very moment, they might not be presenting a threat to you any longer. Should you pick up your handy baseball bat, parked beside your chair and chase after the intruder and give him or her a good swat? Miriam never flees. She remained ready to engage so I picked up my psychological bat. "Your father was a complete ass," I said, swinging like Babe Ruth for a home run. "At least I had a father," she replied. "Yours was always out drinking." Now, this is a good example where "reasonable force" has clearly been exceeded. My father liked a drink or two, but he eventually returned home. I do not recollect ever, a time when he forgot to return home. And my father has been dead for two decades. She was clearly off base. "Miriam," I said, it is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result, but my father has done you no harm and he has long left this mortal coil." Notice the fancy term, 'mortal coil?' I like to throw these kinds of brilliant terms into our debates because I think that your case should get more points if you employ colourful terms. Latin phrases are always the best. I tend to favour 'quid pro quo.' If desperate, I will employ any foreign phrase to bulk up my arguments. I might say to Miriam, "That's a lot of guacamole," resorting to Mexican. Once, I said, "That's a lot of zuppa di pesce." We had been at an Italian restaurant, and I noticed it on the menu. "Miriam, I concluded, "prosecution could result from your excessive and gratuitous force, such as in attacking someone who is unconscious or dead." She shrugged and said, "The law is quite complicated, isn't it?" I thought it wise to leave it at that. |
