I suspect

that a large majority of people think that although there's nothing wrong in principle with a test based on permissible "reasonable force", there's a good deal wrong with what appears to be the typical application of that rule, resulting too often in the punishment of homeowners whose property and lives were forcibly invaded. Of course the police always need to investigate whether the owner has acted wholly disproportionately, but in my view his acts ought to be presumed lawful within a very broad spectrum.

Posted By: paulg, Sep 5, 10:42:45