There is a myth in America that the Brits have no right to self-defence, that they cant protect themselves. You read it here all the time.
This is bunkum. And as I have posted here many times, I myself (Sept 2008) actually have personal victim experience of this issue (attempted burglary and assault).
Whilst it is true that the US has more leeway than the UK (because many householders carry guns), the British have the right of self defence, to death if necessary (as we saw in a case last year). And the last two govts have in fact STRENGTHENED the law on behalf of victims/homeowners on self-defence.
While I agree that it has been strengthened of late, Americans have two perspectives, of the horror stories that came out of mostly England for years; and the other is the relative ease by which Americans can smite villains without significant legal threat in many cases.
This relativity is important, as in the case of Germans who for many years drove on much of the Autobahn at speed, and embraced that ability as a precious right, to whom the 88.5km speeds of America’s freeways felt like driving in a parking lot.
That is, from here, Britain looks like a dangerous place.
I hear you... but the problem is borne out in the link given above that discusses the British law and some case history. The law is monstrously complex when it doesn’t need to be. My main complaint with the British approach to self sefense is that it must only be ~reasonable~ and ~proportionate~ to the threat. The defender can use more force than the attacker, but only just barely enough more. It’s then the burden of the defender to prove that they didn’t use too much force in their own defense.
The presumption should always lie with the defender that they did what they needed to do, without any second-guessing by juries or prosecutors that weren’t there.