Indeed. I would really like to see rigid, proper codification of the extent to which we're allowed to defend ourselves, not some mamby-pamby and vague standards that leave you at the whim of a jury regardless of what is actually true and right.

Now, some of the enablers here will go on and argue that we can defend ourselves - but I ask you, knowing the quality of people in this country who would form your jury, are you willing to trust potentially criminal charges to nullification? Even without the nullification, you're still forced to play.

That's a risk I cannot take, and so I am effectively only offered the option of surrendering to my abuser. That's disgusting and a violation of the fundamental rights the social contract was even signed to protect.

The police are a reactive organization, by and large. That doesn't work when it's the here and now when something has to be done. Since the state cannot protect the fundamental right to property, and makes no effort to ensure restitution by the thieves (since making back or replacing those assets is an intimately personal problem, and therefore safely ignored), it's de facto prohibition of the last line of defence is nothing short of a travesty that needs to be fixed.