Yes, Self-Defense can go to far. When you continue to increase the force needed to protect yourself comparitive to the necessity or potential reasonable risk, that's the case.
To me, in regards to a home invasion, there are three points where that's the case. If the individual is fleeing with clear intention to leave the area (not just retreating a bit to attack again), is unconsious, or is bound in some fashion. In all those cases, escallating to the level of severe bodily damage or death moves beyond the realm of self defense. In cases where the individual has been unarmed and is in a captive position (backed into a corner, on the ground, hands up, etc) I think a reasonable judgement needs to be made, as an individual like that could still potential pose a threat if they have a weapon concealed yet at the same tiime are clearly not as large of a threat as potentially earlier
Outside of those cases, in regards to a home evasion, there's little I would say doesn't consitute self defense. If someone enters your home it is entirely reasonable to assume a weapon is on them and take lethal force at that point up until such a point that one of the above scenarios is occuring, in which case its time to call the cops and let them deal with it.
In regards to something on the street, more common sense is needed. If a guy in a bar starts to try and fight you outside because he thought you were looking at his girl, its acceptable to punch back. It wouldn't be self defense that, one the guys down, you start kicking and stomping repeatedly to his head. If he's threatening or actually does produce a weapon of some sort however, then taking action up to a point where the above situations are met would be okay in my mind.
Ultimately though, if you honestly and truly feel your life is in danger, you do everything and anything you need and say to hell with the consequences because no consequence can be worse than the loss of your life or the life of your loved ones. If me killing someone who I honestly believe is trying to kill me or my wife gets me 5 years in prison I would think nothing of it.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -Thomas Sowell
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
Im not trying to argue law Im saying what REASONABLE people are asked to do is wrong. He came into my house with the intent to kill me, as long as he is there if my only weapon is a club or ax etc I whack him until he stops twitching.
If I have a gun, yes i guess it is reasonable to just point it at him, an ax though isnt that safe.
it just irks me that he breaks into my house with the intent to kill me and Im asked to respect ANYTHING of his, **** HIM!
Now, to be clear, I was not there, I don't know for sure what was in his mind, nor do I see the situation, so it is really impossible to judge for me this particular case. Going by the provided information and the fact that a jury was convinced, I suspect he did go too far. The jury convicting is key to me, as juries will tend to side with a homeowner in such a case, but that still is just a guess on my part.
I voted other. I need to know what happened before I can say if the sentence was right or not,
I can understand why there are some suspicions something else happened - what were the other friends doing while this fight was happening at the doorway / how long was the general melee before the near fatal blows happened and the defendant supposedly went too far etc.
The newspapers link this to the story in Norfolk of a farmer laying in wait and shooting two burglars breaking into his home but I don't read that the defendant did this in this case. He was sitting watching TV, 6 men tried to break into his house and he defended his property and his life. I personally think as has been said that this was "thug" vs "thugs" and so the jury probably felt more inclined to convict him. There are echoes of another case though - Omari Roberts went to visit his mother and found her house being burgled. There was a confrontation and he stabbed one of the burglars, killing him. The other burglar was wounded but when the surviving burglar was questioned by police-the police decided to prosecute Roberts.
One year of hell later, the police dropped the charges but only when the surviving burglar confessed he'd lied in his statement.
I strongly feel that the weight of the law is still very much against the householder in this country.
This is different from the case of two brothers Munir and Tokeer Hussain who were tied up in their home while their families threatened. The brothers broke free, chased the attackers and caught and beat one to a pulp. They were definitely safe when the attackers fled and their intention in the chase was to cause as much harm as possible. These two guys were sentenced for 30 months which is why I think Bowman's previous record had a part in him being sentenced for 5 years.