999 time out of 1000 they're there to steal. You're allowed to use as much force as they use, that'd the usual self defence law. So if someone's stealing you're stuff and you attack and stop him, or if he attacks you and you beat the shit out of him that's fine. If he shoots you and you shoot him back that's fine. 

And yet I've read the paper a number of times in the apst to find that people can still get sued or jailed despite doing what they had to do.

But if you've used the same force and elimated the threat they posed you cannot execute them. Or tie them up and hack their limbs off.

That's like asking for equal fisticuffs in war or fighting, except in the ring there are rules to obide by but in actual survival combat the rules aren't always there to save you.

It's the same on the street if a guy pushes you, that's assault you can push or hit back but if you beat him within an inch of his life or hospitalise him from a push that's excessive force and you'll be charged.

DOes that person learn a lesson from the assult charge though?, what about threats of the the electric chair for other types of assault?, back in medieval times threats of greater punishments and then carrying them out more or less had an effect on people, but now you can get all sorts of charges, come out of prison and do it all over again which shows that jail time doesn't always work either.

Edit; who said the law is perfect? If the law was perfect new laws would never happen.

I know you didn't but you imply that the current status is good enough and isn't doing much wrong despite what we're currently seeing.

Dont trust the media..

We still have very few rapes.. murdes and violent crimes.. and we are still one of the most safe, secure and happy contryes in the world..

ontopic.. just come to think about it..

I bet one of the reasons we have so few rapes on street.. is that prostitution is legal (if they pay tax) and that rape has a very high "solved rate"

Yes, I know this. It's the ideology behind the system that pisses me off.

Usually in those cases it's because the threat was already subdued, it becomes assault when you attack with no immediate danger.

All the time though?, 100% of the time?.

No its not, it's saying of someone attacks you subdue them with the force they used on you, so if they didn't use a weapon you can't start beating them up with a weapon. Or if someone punches you you can't stab them with a knife unless you thought they were going to kill you.

The whole equal force thing is asking for equal fighting in real combat, which of course when it comes tow ar and actual survival doesn't always take effect nor matter much of the time until it's over and names are taken. WHat about the elderly who have no strength to hand to hand someone stronger than them but use a weapon (that may as well cover practically anything in a home) to subdue them or drive them out?. What about generally weak people or thise who are disabled?. There are already flaws with this already.

Now you're talking about the prison system so that's not really anything to do with the self defence laws, when it comes to punishment vs rehabilitation, rehabilitation always had the lower re offending rate. Look at Scandinavian prisons for example.

The prison system, ie; punishments come into any sort of crime as ot before it's even committed, think about it if you are about to knock someone off, do you even once think for a second of any sort of outcome, even after you've done the action?. Some wouldn't think that but most tend to, some even ignore what could happen but there are enough out there who fear so much as a few months in jail to not commit a crime, fear is what can drive some to not doing anything bad, if someone ignores said fear and keeps going at it well then you need to break them until they learn the general lesson. Scan prisons are one example but we're talking the other billions on this rock.

No I don't imply any such thing, I'm stating what the law is and why they would punish someone for tieing up and torturing someone who broke into their house.

Yet you don't wish to challenge it in any sort of way let alone point out inconsistencies, why is this?, do you think the law is perfect, if not then why not challenge it at nearly every turn to actually bring about improvements?.