Well put Demonwolf. In the famous Tony Martin case he shot the offender as he was running away and therefore could not claim he was in fear of his life or serious harm. No court in Britain, as far as I know, has ever managed to convict someone for using proportionate force to protect themselves, others or their property. It's when the force used is disproportionate that things go wrong. It is always the offender who dictates what amount of force is proportionate. The more he resists lawful apprehension the more force that can be used in response. Same rules for everyone that dictated how I did my job.
Section 3 of The Criminal Law Act 1967. 'A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstance in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large'. That bit of legislation applies to each and every British citizen or person lawfully allowed to be in Britain at the time.
If George Digweed had been in fear of serious harm, which he had every reason to believe at the time, and had responded or been able to respond with deadly force then it would be at least one less criminal to bother people and the best of luck to him if he had managed to do so and he would have had overwhelming support form the public as well as the courts. Lagopus.....
