How far one is justified in using a revolver in beating off or capturing burglars in one"s house is, as already mentioned, a matter which can only be decided by the facts of the particular case. a.s.suredly where a man is awakened in the night by the noise of burglars breaking into or already in his house, and seizes his revolver and confronts the robbers, he would be justified in firing if the robbers threatened to attack him, and it is a.s.sumed that he would also be right in firing at a robber making off with booty who refused to stop when challenged to do so, if there were no reasonable chance of arresting him in any other way; though in the latter event he should endeavour so to shoot as to cripple rather than kill.
Indeed it may be said, extraordinary though the statement may seem, that even in the hurry and skurry of a conflict with burglars the mind should remain calm and collected, so as to judge whether a mortal shot is required, rather than one which will only "wing" the opponent.
In connection with this branch of the subject, the justification of a fatal shot may to some extent depend upon whether the robber was himself armed. If he were, then the killing him would be more easily justifiable than if he were unarmed. This is somewhat instanced by the law regarding an a.s.sault and battery in self-defence, which is that where there is an a.s.sault the person resisting must show that his a.s.sault committed in self-defence was not more violent than he in good faith believed to be necessary and committed on reasonable grounds, so that it would not be right to inflict a heavy beating on a person who had only committed a slight a.s.sault upon one. So when all danger is past and a man strikes a blow not necessary for his defence, he commits an unjustifiable a.s.sault and battery,--and this principle would apply to the preventing of crimes, so that though one might be acting correctly in firing at and killing a man who was murderously a.s.saulting a third person, yet, after the a.s.sault had been committed, it might be wrong to kill the murderer if he were only discovered when running away, unless that was the only means of arresting him.
Another point which has sometimes exercised the minds of those in the habit of carrying revolvers is whether they are justified in using such a weapon to put an end to pain on the part of dumb animals where recovery is almost impossible. It may be said generally that no one can with safety interfere in such cases, even with the most benevolent intentions, so that if a horse, dog, or other animal has been so injured as to be suffering extreme agony, yet it would not be legal to put the poor creature out of its misery, unless with the consent of the owner.
The exception has been made by the Injured Animals Act, 1894, but that only empowers a constable to kill a horse, mule, or a.s.s which is so severely injured that it cannot be led away, when the owner is absent or refuses to consent to its destruction, after a certificate has been obtained from a certified veterinary surgeon that the animal is mortally injured or so severely that it is cruel to keep it alive.
The exception that has been introduced by the Act of Parliament pa.s.sed in 1894 and called "The Injured Animals Act, 1894," provides for the slaughter, without the owner"s consent, of horses, mules, or a.s.ses, in cases of injury so serious as to make it cruel to keep them alive. It does not apply to animals other than those enumerated above, and is hedged round with such restrictions as to render it of little avail. These in brief are as follows: A constable must find the animal so severely injured that it cannot without cruelty be led away, the owner must be absent or refuse to consent to the destruction of the animal, and the constable must obtain the certificate of a veterinary surgeon that the animal is mortally injured, or so severely that it is cruel to keep it alive. After doing all this the constable may kill the animal.
The foregoing statements as to the law are not exhaustive, but they are made with the intention of helping the revolver-carrying section of the public to know what they may be responsible for and on what occasions or emergency they may safely use their weapons. To make sure that no legal error has crept in, these statements have been submitted to Mr. C.
Willoughby Williams, of No. 1 Brick Court, Temple, Barrister at Law, who is of opinion that the law as set out is correct.
It will be seen, from what is said above, that if a gun or a game license is obtained, it is not illegal to carry a loaded revolver, so that if any one had to go along a lonely road, or had received a threatening letter which had alarmed him, he would be quite in his right in taking about with him a loaded revolver. It would even be quite right for any one to carry about a loaded revolver in his pocket merely as a protection in case he should be unexpectedly attacked, but any one carrying about with him such an article should be prepared to use it only in cases of great emergency, and should keep a clear head on his shoulders.
Another example of the advantages of carrying a revolver would be if one were attacked by a mad dog. In such a case, if the dog attacked in a ferocious manner, it would be permissible to shoot the dog, but it would not be allowable to shoot a dog on the supposition that he was mad, unless he was attacking one; though, of course, if there were no doubt about the dog"s being mad, then, for the sake of others, it would be wise to shoot him.
Again, if while carrying a revolver any one were pa.s.sed by a runaway horse, and such horse were about to run over a child, it might be permissible to shoot the horse in order to save the child, if one were too far off to catch hold of the animal. These, however, are all matters of degree, and what would be right and proper to do in one case might in a case almost similar be quite wrong.
NOTE.--Since the first edition of this book was issued, the Pistols Act of 1903 has come into force. This Act stops the sale, by retail or by auction, or the letting on hire, of any pistol (which would include a revolver), unless the purchaser has a gun or game license, or is ent.i.tled to use or carry a gun without such license, or unless the purchaser shows that he purposes to use the pistol only in his own house or the curtilage thereof, or that he is about to proceed abroad for a period of not less than six months. The Act also prevents the sale or hiring out of a pistol to a person under the age of 18 years, and places a very heavy penalty on any one knowingly selling a pistol to a person who is intoxicated or not of sound mind.
APPENDIX C
THE LAW OF CARRYING WEAPONS IN THE UNITED STATES
The statutes of the various States upon the subject of carrying weapons are substantially similar, the main differences relating to the persons exempted from their operation, and to the manner of carrying the weapon, some making it an offence to carry the weapon at all, whether concealed or not; others prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons only.
These statutes have been held to be police regulations, and not to conflict with the const.i.tutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Weapons are considered to be concealed, within the intent of the statutes, when they cannot be readily seen by ordinary observation.
In some of the States, as in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Missouri, the carrying of "deadly" or "dangerous" weapons is prohibited. Most of the States, however, specify the weapons prohibited. Such weapons as pistols, dirks, butchers" or bowie knives, stilettos, daggers, swords, bra.s.s knuckles, razors, slugs, etc., are usually specified in nearly all of the statutes.
Officers of the law are usually exempted from the operation of the statutes. The officers must, however, be duly appointed, and in the discharge of their duties at the time of carrying the weapons.
Persons who are threatened with bodily harm or who have reasonable grounds to apprehend danger or attack, are usually justified in carrying concealed weapons. It is not every idle threat, however, which would justify one in carrying concealed weapons. The threat must be such as to cause a reasonable apprehension of danger. Examples of this exemption are found in the statutes of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas, Maryland, and West Virginia.
Persons on their own premises are frequently exempted from the operation of the statutes. This is so in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas.
Some of the statutes exempt persons who are travelling. This is so in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas.
The burden of proving exemption rests usually upon the accused. This has been expressly decided in Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In Michigan, however, it has been held that the prosecution must prove that the defendant does not fall within one of the exemptions.