well if somebody is threatening to kill you than a 'reasonable application of force' (the key legal principle, here) would be to retaliate and cite the legal defense of self-defense. there are a lot of cases where people break and enter property with the intention and motive of only stealing property - which is a crime, if not a serious one - but home-owners then shoot or take the burglar hostage for redemptive purposes. that is not just and lawful behaviour - according to legal precedent, anyway. a particularly bad case is
R v Martin, where a farmer with a history of break-ins ended up shooting two fleeing burglars in the back with his shotgun. he was rightly arrested and had a reduced sentence because of diminished responsibility (the defense argument rested upon the point that repeat-experiences being the victim of burglaries put him in an extremely anxious and unreasonable mental state).
rthki: think what you're saying. you are hoping that the media will interfere and influence a court-decision? that's dangerous and again, far removed from any proper concept of 'justice'. the media interfering with legal cases is a major nuisance and perversion of justice: the 'public' should not be involved in impartial legal decisions. even jurors are meant to be without stereotype, discrimination or preconception.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-10 09:55:33)