thanks lagopus - nice to see the facts Vs "common knowledge"
I appreciate lagopus' input also, but regardless of what the letter of the law says, the culture has instilled a mindset in of some of the other commenters. All situations would be different, but the forethought is to just plan to give up the watch, money, trophy, etc., submitting complete control to the criminal.
Also, the letter of a '60's era personal defense law is likely interpreted much different today. Gil brought it up earlier, but current knife laws, as laid out on the British government's website, have extremely narrow reasons that need to be shown just to be in possession. I'm sure firearm possession and use is much narrower.
It might also be intuitive that Digweed would have been cleared should he have discharged a gun during that incident, but clearly, Monday morning quarterbacking shows that no one in the Digweed residence died, so it may not be so clear that deadly force could've been used in defense. Just an opinion is all.
