Every Man should protect his property

PROPERTY in law means anything you own and the basic means of ownership is, of all things, including the right to destroy. If one can destroy something, without causing harm to anyone else, then that, to our mind, is the supreme fact of ownership.

But property needs to be protected too.

A Latin maxim goes thus: The law does not assist those who sleep over their rights. Unfortunately neither Latin nor any other languages tells us exactly how to do it. And how things can go wrong.

This is a very old case and was reported more than 60 years ago. A man had a store. This was in the days when stores had glass fronts and a door with a bell which would sound when someone entered. In other words, security was lax. Now the man would find that things were getting stolen. Someone would break in and steal.

Obviously his store was more prone to theft at night.

So our dear store-owner booby-trapped his door. Enter the store on the quiet ..... and get shot.

He rigged up his door so that if some person tried to break in, the door would activate a mechanism. The business of the mechanism was a rifle. It was aimed at the door. It would fire at the unsuspecting intruder. Bang, Bang.

Door. Rifle. GOTHIM!

The first victim was a small boy. Maybe he tried to steal some sweets. Instead he got a piece of lead. Badly injured but not dead. Thankfully.

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

a)   A man has a right to protect his property. Granted.

b)   A man must protect his property. Granted.

c)    No one has a right to enter someone else’s property, without permission. Granted.

d)   No one can steal, or try to steal, someone else’s property. Granted.

So does the blame lie squarely on the boy? Only on the boy? And why not?

Well, the American court held the store-owner guilty of endangering the life of a citizen. The court agreed that a man has a right to take care of his property but not by risking the life of another. If the store was booby-trapped, it was the duty of the store owner to warn others, including would-be thieves.

Seems crazy, doesn’t it?

Not really so when you recognise a basic fact of a civilised society operating under the rule of law. ‘YOU CANNOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS’. If there is theft, and the precautions were adequate, one has to complain to the police. Many would say that that effort is of no use. But that is the right way. Otherwise, on the pretext of saving property, enmities will be settled by lynching.

People, law-abiding citizens like you and I, will be liquidated for any odd reason. The shoe pinches the one who wears it and we should not be the ones to ask for street justice. It can backfire. The court was correct. It said,   .........

THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NOTICE WARNING THE INTRUDERS.

So, whether it is a shot-gun or an attack dog or a trap, warning signs need to be prominently displayed. It forewarns a person and tells him he is entering at his own risk.

The question in one’s mind is how is one to protect his property? Can one use force? How much of force? The answer is that the force has to be proportional. One cannot shoot dead a pick-pocket or an eve-teaser. One can use a pistol if attacked by an assailant with a knife; but the use must be controlled, IF CONDITIONS PERMIT. Protect yourself you must, but not with the aggression of a murderer.

There is a saying that let the punishment fit the crime. In the same way, let the counter force fit the force. But if in doubt, like an attack in the dark, one can go all out in self-defence. After all, how does one gauge the danger at that time?

Finally, one now knows why signs are put up saying “BEWARE OF DOG”.

But has anyone ever seen a sign that says, “DOG OK. BEWARE OF OWNER”? Bet we know of places where those are necessary!

Bapoo Malcolm is a practising lawyer in Mumbai. Please email your comments to bapoomalcolm@gmail.com or mail@moneylife.in

Courtesy By: Moneylife