We had a few cases here previously regarding home invasions. It all culminated in a law that allowed the home owner to take any necessary action they deemed reasonable. The problem I have with these laws, vs a castle law like Texas where a person criminally trespassing has 'no defense under the law', is the 'reasonable' part. Now, fortunately, our judges here are fairly reasonable themselves, and tend to be rather conservative. If someone with a history with the law enters your household, chances are your bat to his head isn't going to cause issues. But, that's the thing. Without a castle law, it is left to a bit of a chance. I mean, getting back to that 'resonable' part - how do I know what is reasonable since it isn't defined in the law. Judges and law makers say it means what you think is reasonable force to defend yourself. OK, so this makes several assumptions. Am I a reasonable person when someone enters my house and starts to attack me, or am I simply in a rage defending myself, and perhaps my life or the well beign of my family? Afterall, how am I meant to know what is in the mind of another person? This other person is obviously willing to break the law and enter my house, right? So they have a completely different mindset, and likely different idea of reasonable than I do. How can I know how much force they can enact upon my own person, and how am I, without any previous experience, to know how much force to use to repel them in a 'reasonable' manner? Granted - I have heard of defense attourneys using this exact defense in court to good effect. But, still, without something ingrained in the law, it makes it more difficult than I think it should be, and protects law abiding citizens less than it should do.
There's a few precedents: A farmer in Ireland, and one in the UK, were arrested and convicted ultimately of manslaughter for killing intruders with a firearm(shotguns). One did shoot an intruder in the back as he was tryin to escape. The UK shot them in his house. UK guy was out after 3 years. The Irish case, where the farmer actually messed with the crime scene moving the body he made, and had shot the man in the back and multiple other times(though he himself was attacked physically by the assailant), got 6 years for it. 6 years for the charge of murder - which makes you think...I dunno... might be worth it.
Had he not messed with the crime scene and made a false report, one judge said he might not have been convicted of the offense, and got manslaughter, and may have been released for time served up to the end of the trial.
But, as a Texan, I have my own approach. It is a lot easier to ask for the forgiveness of my peers later in court than it is to come back to life after some intruder has murdered me. I will always play for keeps if someone decides to enter my home. And I do have an American passport still...
