> Makes you wonder what the courts would have done if the homeowner had actually killed the dirtbag in question.
Reasonable force is permitted in the Crimes Act 1961 S.48 if used in defense of one's self or another person (but not property). The test for reasonableness is "...such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use."
Conceivably that might include lethal force.
That said, by default the Police seem to tend to prosecute and let the matter be settled in court. "Reasonableness" is a very hi hurdle, and is therefore more prudently interpreted to be "minimal force".
That said, there are several recent instances where the jury has declined to convict -- even when a firearm has been used in defense of self. Naturally, a very expensive form of acquittal, it can ruin the defendent.
It certainly seems reasonable to me to resist being killed with an edged weapon by discharging a firearm at the assailant.
Especially when one has retreated into ones own home and that home has been violently entered by an armed assailant.
That said, by default the Police seem to tend to prosecute
Just so I'm clear on your rules, do the Police make the decision to prosecute or do you have prosecutors or Grand Juries who decide that?
L