Quote Originally Posted by johncar54 View Post
What amounts to "Reasonable force" in law is well established and well defined by numerous findings.

It is not a nebulous thing which 'could mean anything or nothing' as you seem to think.

It is of course subjective, as each case is considered on its own merits (in the light of the law as established over maybe hundreds of years).
I haven't found any clear, well-established definition of "reasonable force", not even on the CPS website. I understand it means that I can subdue someone, but it's all subjective anyway. I mean, that article about the burglar getting stabbed and dying says the homeowner and his family were arrested. It clearly adds doubt to the dead man's part in the whole thing by calling him a suspected "burglar", but elsewhere, it's reported that the man's accomplices fled as the police were approaching, so they were identified as burglars. At this point, what's the point of arresting everyone in the household? If it's because of the investigation on whether the dead man was running away as he was stabbed, why not just arrest the one who stabbed the dead man?

Quote Originally Posted by johncar54 View Post
Unfortunately people who have no legal training make unjustified assumptions based on dubious 'facts' which they read in the newspapers and others often believe what they say.
If your homeowners don't know what "reasonable force" is, then your government has not done a good enough job of telling the public what the "well-defined, well-established over hundreds of years" meaning of the term is. The CPS website gives examples and I think it does try to explain it as clearly as it can without listing specific courses of action, but if my definition of subduing an intruder is breaking his knees so he can't overpower a small woman like me and smashing the hand that's holding a gun and breaking all of his fingers in the process, and the jury's definition happens to be just to kick the gun out of his hand so it's out of reach, it's pretty obvious things are subjective, as we've already established. Even the CPS website says to just do what you feel is instinctively right. But people don't all have the same level of fear or feel the same level of threat in identical situations.

You have obviously never been in a situation where you feared for your life. I have. I already had the police officer on duty's number on speed dial and they arrived 4 minutes after I called, but by that time, my neighbor had already pulled out his gun and scared off the stalker who was trying to get in my apartment, a man I didn't know who found me after seeing me at the laundrette. That man had been coming to my apartment in the middle of the night and knocking on my bedroom window, sometimes staying until 2am and saying he "just wanted to be friends." Don't tell me my fear is more than what you deem "reasonable." If I'm afraid enough to use a kitchen knife on someone who's terrorising me, that fear is very real. If my neighbor had shot the man and he had been arrested, I'd have lobbied until death to free him. Good thing it happened in the US, where guns are legal and people can protect their life, loved ones and property with as much force as they have on hand.

As for Mr. Martin, I agree with the murder charge. The burglars were running away and he could've made a citizen's arrest instead, but he chose to shoot them. Besides, it was an illegal weapon.