Smart Brits

We need some thinking like this in the U.S.

Householders should be able to use whatever force is necessary to defend their homes against criminals, even if it involves killing the intruder, the country's most senior police officer said yesterday. [T]he current legal test of "reasonable force", which has evolved in common law, seemed to be weighted against householders and left the public confused about their rights.

Sir John suggested replacing it with legislation that put a statutory duty on police, prosecutors and the courts to presume that the force someone used in their home against a violent intruder was within the law, unless the facts clearly disproved this.

I've been saying this for a long time, and it applies to many situations. We have a wonderful set of rights for citizens laid down in our constitution. (At least when you can get our government to admit it, that is.) However, it is important to remember that these rights were primarily put in place to defend innocent people against predation by out of control government, military and police representatives. They are also in place to ensure that innocent people aren't unfairly found guilty in a court of law for lack of due process.

As far as I'm concerned, once you make the decision to arm yourself, pick the locks and enter my house with the intent to do mischief, all bets are off and I don't give a tinker's damn about your rights. Left to a choice of wondering whether or not you might be about to assault or kill my wife, I'm going to assume that you are armed and dangerous. And if I have the means at hand to seriously disable or even kill you in a fair fight, you may rest assured that I will do so. (Important Note: In Jazz's dictionary, a "Fair Fight" is defined as follows: I'm behind you with a gun, baseball bat, or some other potentially lethal weapon and you don't know we're fighting yet.)