It's the inconsistency that I don't get. My pub got burgled one night, and I woke up and crept downstairs to find a couple of lowlives wheeling the cigarette machine over towards a window that had been forced open. I grabbed the nearest thing (which happened to be a cast iron barstool) and swung that a few times with fairly bloody results. They both legged it, or as close to legging it that you can manage after being smashed around the head with metal furniture and were quickly picked up whilst they were trying to stop the bleeding a couple of streets over.If threatened in your own home at night I don't see why you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the burglar. People have been tortured and killed in their own homes....if you get a chance you take it....and I don't think you go for a minor wound either. You want this person down and out....not maddened with you.
The Old Bill told me that they were repeat offenders who usually went armed with knives, and that they'd let me know when the court case happened so that I could watch the sentencing. The blood evidence found in my pub was important in the end and helped secure a conviction and custodial sentence.
At no time during this event did the Police ever consider bringing charges against me for assault or GBH, and one officer even thanked me and said that I'd sent a fairly loud message out there that burglary is a hazardous profession.
What I don't understand is why this latest case even attracted a charge against the householder, despite all the existing guidelines that allow for heat of the moment actions when confronted in your home when I wasn't even cautioned. I mentioned to one of the officers that they were lucky it wasn't a knife that had been the first thing I'd laid my hands on as I'd have used that just as happily as a 40lb stool and I certainly got the impression from him that they didn't really care what happened to the burglars...what has changed?