(1/2)

The fact that they arrested Richard Osborn-Brooks in the first place proves that the police (!) has a very different opinion – and it is their perception that matters. Furthermore, there are many cases which show that self-defense is effectively illegal in the UK, regardless of what is written on paper.

One of the most famous cases is Anthony Edward Martin, who shot a burglar dead and wounded another one in his home in 1999. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a career criminal; the idea that Martin could have acted in self-defense was rejected by the appeal court, who felt that he had laid an insidious trap for those poor unsuspecting burglars. So he tried the Insanity Defense next and successfully had his charge reduced to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.

Despite that, the British legal system kept insisting that he is an extremely dangerous man who had committed a heinous crime. Accordingly, his parole application was flat-out rejected without further reason, and they released him not a day earlier than they absolutely had to.

(2)

The Brits also awarded the second, surviving wounded burglar thousands of pounds in compensation and only pedaled back when a tabloid published pictures of him climbing and cycling despite his allegedly grave injuries. "The Sun", of all papers, was a force of truth and justice in this case. Let that sink in!

The thug was released after serving just half the time that Martin did, by the way. In fact, he was jailed again for dealing Heroin afterwards and still got out earlier! He has earned thousands of pounds with interviews after that, and his lovely supporters put a bounty of tens of thousands of pounds on Mr Martin's head who will hence never be safe for as long as he still draws breath.

So as for what is "perfectly legal" in the UK and what is not: I judge the quality of a legal system by its actions. Richard Osborn-Brooks dodged a bullet here, but without international attention, this could have ended very differently for him…