I agree, we disagree. The supposed “prevailing view of defending yourself as poor form in general in the UK” simply is not there, maybe the notion of reasonable force is considerably narrower here, but even Tony Martin (yes I know you never mentioned him) probably would have been found not guilty if it wasn’t for the facts that he’d shown poor judgement in discharging his firearm previously and had apparently boasted about his intention to bag him a thief.
I agree, that argument on its own is no argument whatsoever. IMO there is a very healthy disrepect for the law (and authority in general) in the UK.
Eek!
My first thought is: what have you got against the insane? *
I’ll keep an eye out in Great Debates for when gun control comes up again.
*If I was the sort of person to use smileys there’d be one, right there
I think the idea of reasonable force is about the same between our countries, at least according to this site. The problem is you cannot use any tool for self defense, which makes it a bit difficult if the bad guy has a stick/rock/knife/gun or if he’s just a damn site bigger than the attackee. This is where the main difference lies.
Tony Martin was totally out of control for a number of reasons, but I’ll address the main one:
He used deadly force to protect his property. IIRC, he wasn’t threatened at all. I imagine that simply turning on the lights so the punks saw him with his shotgun and saying “Get out” would have motivated them to leave quickly, thereby ending the confrontation without bloodshed. Lethal force is not justified for your stuff. You can get more stuff. You can’t get another life.
I don’t have anything against them. It’s my other four personalities that have a problem with the insane.