Self defence: A right or not?

My understanding is that using even one's hands when trained in martial arts, can be construed as responding with unreasonable force.  I have to admit that I would rather err on the side of the attacked than the attacker.  That being said, if the attacker is a "victim" of some crime such as physical or sexual abuse (example spouse or child) then I would fall back to the idea that their response was in effect "self-defense". 

I have little sympathy for those who are into making others hurt. Yes, I know, that they have all had rotten childhoods and have all been victims themselves.  But, this is not good enough to excuse "choices" that they make in the present.  We operate to remove cancers in the body, we remove rotten fruit and vegetables from the storage bins in order to protect the healthy fruit, we repair through replacement, wood, metal and concrete our structures.  This is nature.  Perhaps there is a higher morality in natural law than in social law.  Survival of the species is not about survival of individuals, unfortunately.  The fittest is not just about physical, it is also about communal, social, moral and ethical concepts that ensure the strongest possible suvival opportunities of humankind.

We become weaker when evil is given more rights ensuring that the path of darkness and destruction is sanctioned and nourished by social and legal societies.

We become weaker when evil is given more rights ensuring that the path of darkness and destruction is sanctioned and nourished by social and legal societies.

Can I get an "AMEN" from the choir, please?

Eagle

Beautifully said. 

Well put, Eagle, well put indeed.

Most countries abolished the right to bear arms more than a century ago. It used to be the law that one could carry arms within city walls and especially outside of them, to defend oneself against footpads, highwaymen and bandits. The days of Dick Turpin being long gone, these rules were abolished.

Apparently,  In England it's still legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow within the walls of York, as long as it's after dark and not on a Sunday (true story)....    

Where I grew up (in the American South) the only time the "reasonable force" issue comes up is if some fires after reloading!

 

Florida amended its self-defense laws a couple years back.  If someone threatens your life or even your property, there are almost no limits to what can be done in self defense.  All the gun control people screamed that there would be bloody rivers running down the streets as convenience store owners blew away children stealing candy bars and as homeowners shot anyone who stepped across their property lines, but that never happened.

What did happen is that anyone can use force, even lethal force to protect themselves if attacked without having to worry about a judge, jury, and prosecutor second guessing if the poor misunderstood attacker's motives were truly violent or not.

I wonder if this means that I could subject a burglar to waterboarding or not? 

I like the 2005 language from our government.

As quoted here;

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/gary_slapper/article2581201.ece

Guidance issued in 2005 by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers says that anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others or to prevent crime. It couldn’t be plainer. It is based on the common law and section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. A citizen isn’t expected to make fine judgments over the level of force used in the heat of the moment. The official advice says:

“So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon”

The problem here would be to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shop-keeper did not have an immediate alternative than to use the assailants own weapon against him. If not, then the shop-keeper overreacted and is then guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and, probably, manslaughter

You have that backwards. It is the prosecution that must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shopkeeper overreacted. He is innocent until proven guilty. They have to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that he used more than reasonable force. Nobody has to show that what he did was reasonable, merely raise a reasonable doubt that it was manslaughter,

Unless there is a lot more to the story than we've heard, no jury will convict.

And it is up to the defence to prove reasonable doubt, yes? Innocent until proven guilty means nothing, not when there are a multiple ways to interpret guilt. In this case, the prosecution will not have to do jack. You really think any jury will consist of solely high-minded, liberal humanitarians who all believe in lofty principles? The shopkeeper did do the act, there is no doubt about that. The workload rests on the defence, who needs to prove that he had no choice. Therefore, the problem is to prove that his actions were justifiable, and thus I did not have anything backwards.

I always carry a pair of scissors (cheap Chinese, about 4" long, red plastic handle) in my bag. As a teacher they one of my tools of trade and I use them often in the classroom so I can counter any argument that they are carried as an offensive weapon. 
They are also ideal as a weapon - the brand I use has a point nearly as sharp as a knife. If you slip your fingers through one of the handles you have something akin to knuckle dusters.
It is best to find any way you can to resolve the situation without resorting to weapons  - hand over the money etc. You may, however, find yourself in a situation where the only option is to defend yourself.       
A guy who threatened me with a blade from gardening shears changed his mind when I showed him the scissors - held in the "approved" position with the fingers through the grip.