http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nott ... 629395.stm

Good show, just a pity the 14 year old survived

+1
-1 It's never a bad thing that people live. Hopefully he'll have leant not
to do it again.

I wasn't being serious, but I did forget my customary ' ',

If you break into a persons home you really should be at risk of getting killed.

+1 very definitely.

I can see this being used as an excuse to get rid of some awkward relatives. "I thought it was a burglar, but it turned out some how to be my drunken husband Oops"

Happens quite often in the states of the US where they have rules that basically allow you to legally shoot people straying onto your property.

IMO the idea that you have the right to kill people entering your home is exterme and, largely, impractical. Most people's thoughts when confronted with a intruder isn't to kill them, it's to make them go away. Sufficient force to convince an interloper that leaving the property would be a better option seems perfectly reasonable to me. I've always had the idea of 'equivalent risk'. If you genuinely are in fear of your life - i.e. the intruder has a weapon - then you should be legally allowed to defend yourself as if in deadly peril. However if the intruder is not armed, then you taking a weapon and doing them in just strikes me as disproportionate reaction. Defend yourself, defend your property but where comes a point where you are acting in malice, not in defense.

Jon

I agree, if armed then yes no limits to the response by the householder, but if not armed then appropriate response in order to get the person out or to restrain them. Knowing what some people are like you need this safeguard.