Keith Devens .com

That immediately loses all credibility by bringing up the case of Tony Martin, the farmer who was jailed for shooting teenagers in the back as they ran away from him and his dogs. Not self defence in the slightest, and he should have been jailed for a very long time.

The law's not as silly as made out either. The law states that 'reasonable force' maybe used to protect person or property, which is fair enough if understood correctly. So if someone breaks in and you knock them to the floor and tie up, you should be fine. I mean that's fair reasonably. But lawyers and judges have allowed reasonable force to become no force whatsoever. The Senior police guy in the country recently said that he wants the law changed so that any force is fair if it's in defense of property. This still means that Tony Martin was in the wrong though, because as Jim points out, he shot them in the back while they were running away, and that's not defense, that's revenge.

"So if someone breaks in and you knock them to the floor and tie up, you should be fine."

Call me crazy, but if someone breaks into my place packing heat I'm not likely to charge them without a gun unless I have a death wish (which I don't.)

The article seems to imply that if I, for instance, managed to incapacitate the burglar by kicking him in "the stuff", and then tied him up, I'd be liable.