That depends on what happens. An arrest in circumstances like this is standard practice, partly because it grants the suspect additional rights. If the burglar was stabbed with the screwdriver, I suspect there will be no charges against the householder.

There is nothing wrong with the law. How do you determine whether it was self-defemce without asking questions? You surely don't want a world where a householder can simply say "It was self-defence mate" and that is the end of the matter.

Well, since you ask:

IMO once someone breaks into you home they become fair game - I would not require the occupant be attacked first before they could respond with force.

I'm not saying there should be no checks & balances - it would still be considered excessive if you BBQ'd a burglar after killing him , but you shouldn't have to wait until your own life was in danger before the law kicks in on your side.

But how do you verify that before questioning someone? If Farage stepped through my front door without being invited in, can I just stab him without worrying about the consequences?

But how do you verify that before questioning someone? If Farage stepped through my front door without being invited in, can I just stab him without worrying about the consequences?

Justifying murder is NEVER right. Self-defense is the only argument and you better be bloody sure and call an ambulance and police immediately...

In your scenario did he ring/knock first? Did you have the chain on?

Let's say that my story (which you seem to think should automatically be believed) is that I opened the door to him and that ha brushed me aside and walked through the door. I asked him to leave. When he didn't budge and started to get angry, I stabbed him.

Which is why I advocate extending the definition of self-defence to include defence of property as well as person - it would not *be* murder then.

If it were 'Joe Bloggs' who did that, then I would say you were right to stab him - I just wonder why you used Nigel Farage for your example - did you think I would advocate different rules if it were him?

To summarize though - my position is : people who don't respect others rights, don't deserve to have their own rights protected.

[Awaits more strawman arguments to try & convince me otherwise]

Your argument is petty and flawed. The law isn't about over-reacting, it's about keeping law and order. Your version of utopia is the Wild West. Too many Cowboys and Indians films I think, where you get to decide what is and isn't justifiable and society stops being civilised. Giving people Carte Blanche to become judge jury and executioner is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin....

Society is civilised - criminals are not!

If it were 'Joe Bloggs' who did that, then I would say you were right to stab him - I just wonder why you used Nigel Farage for your example - did you think I would advocate different rules if it were him?

To summarize though - my position is : people who don't respect others rights, don't deserve to have their own rights protected.

[Awaits more strawman arguments to try & convince me otherwise]

I'm truly alarmed that anyone can seriously think this.

Then we have something in common.

I am alarmed - at how blasé people can be over crime. The softly softly approach has been tried for years and has utterly failed - that's why we need a get tough policy!

Then we have something in common.

I am alarmed - at how blasé people can be over crime. The softly softly approach has been tried for years and has utterly failed - that's why we need a get tough policy!