I am very confused. Why would a man, being robbed in his home by four armed gunmen, be sent to jail for eight years defending himself with a sword? Is there more to this story than found in this article? Thanks!

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2687311>

While the story appears in the scotsman the offense occured in England.

All the law basically says about Self-defense is that you are able to use any force that you think is reasonable to defend yourself.

There does not seem to much detail in other reports but it would seem that (from the report of four stabs) that he carried on attacking the guy after he was no-longer a danger.

People may try and compare to the farm Tony Martin - the farmer who was sent to prison for shotting a 16 year-old burlgar to death, I would however point out that:

1) Martin was banned from having a firearm after shotting at a pasting car and on a previous occasion shotting out his brother's windows.

2) he was waiting in the dark for them

3) he was a nutter.

I think there's a number of people here in the UK who would quite happily move abroad if they had the option. Certainly I've looked into it, though unfortunately I can't even apply for a Green Card, let alone obtain one, so that idea is ruled out.

(Though if I'm working freelance from home, as I am currently, I'm not sure whether that would count as "employment" or not - for the purposes of living in the States).

Constable Norman Gibson: The term that the law uses is 'reasonable force'. Whenever I am teaching shopowners and staff about reasonable force I would explain that the law would look at the circumstances and the level of injuries. There is a need to recognise the difference between lawful force and assault. Whenever a police officer uses reasonable force to restrain someone that is not an assault, it's reasonable force. If it goes beyond the boundries of reasonable force it can become an assault. There is also the question of intent. If someone comes into your house and you lift what is refered to as a weapon of convenience (something close at hand) and they get seriously injured and your intent was simply to protect yourself I believe the law will support you.

However if you announce in advance that the next person that breaks into your house you're going to assault them or seriously injure them, I do not believe the law will support you because you are not looking at the circumstances and your intent is to seriously injure.
found this on http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/talkni/ask_a_cop.shtml
which kind of explains how the homeowner could have been found guilty.

I remember discussing the fires in Canberra last year with a policeman friend of mine, and he was talking about a guy they'd caught looting homes in the area. What the cops did was handcuff him to a resident's garage door, and walk away for about ten minutes. When they returned they guy had apparently 'fallen over' very hard a few times.

Obviously that's a risky judgement call - if the guy had been killed, or the story got out too far, it'd be the end of the road for those cops, but I think there's too little old-fashioned justice at times. Maybe we can't have it these days because people are better armed, more vicious or care less about their neighbours, but it's a shame.

Same cop also told me that if someone breaks into your house you're better off killing than wounding him.

____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.

I did some checking with some people - guy was a drug dealer - the robbers were after his stash but got some cash instead - he stabbed the guy in the back as he was running away.

Charles,

Thanks! Those are the details that make the case make sense! What a shame they could not be reported by a supposedly professional newspaper.

Greg