[webstersII]

"If you fought back against an attacker and, at some point, a jury decided that the force you used was disproportionate, then you could be found guilty of a crime."

Thanks for the clarification.

That sounds similar to the law in many states in the U.S. You can only use reasonable force against an attacker, i.e., you can't kill someone just because they take a swing at you. If they pull a deadly weapon on you then that's a different case and you can respond with deadly force.

Also, many states make the inside of your home a special case and will not prosecute for just about anything that you do to an intruder. But there are a number of states which require you to use no more force than necessary even in your home, and if you have the chance to retreat from the attacker then you are obligated to do so.

[Kenton]

"If you fought back against an attacker and, at some point, a jury decided that the force you used was disproportionate, then you could be found guilty of a crime."

I'm thinking of that scene in "The Patriot" where Mel Gibson attacks the British column that has just killed one of his sons, burnt his house, and taken his other son off to hang.

After Mel and his two youngest sons kill the entire British patrol, one poor Red Coat tries to flee into a creek, and Mel springs on him with his tomahawk and hacks him to bloody chum.

The chopping went on for like 30 or 40 seconds. Kind of a mess...

I'm thinking that maybe that they might find something that a little on the "disproportionate" side...

[Fido969]

That sounds similar to the law in many states in the U.S. You can only use reasonable force against an attacker,

Do those force limits apply only when you are defending yourself? Are there "force limits" that an attacker should mind as well?

Anyway - what is going on with the Brits? Once a fierce and proud nation, they seem to be turning into a bunch of scardy-cat panty-waists!