You can still use force, not kill them if property is all that is in issue.
.......
I was referring to the wording of the clause you posted more than the words you used. But now I will refer to your words in relation to the legislation.
My reading of that clause is it only applies in circumstances of self defence. The heading alone makes that clear, as well as the content. Both (1) and (2) are specific about self defence. So if a person did not believe they needed to defend themselves, then this section is not relevant. There is nothing in there that says reasonable force to protect property is acceptable.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:28:35 PM
Yes, your interpretation may be that. Unfortunately for you, that interpretation is totally incorrect. It is written in plain English. I cant be any clearer.
Is your avatar a description of being geographically lost or cerebrally?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:52:23 PM
DMaxer, I will refer you to the thread " Anyone know what happen to a GN member know as denmonkey?"
Answers like yours are exactly the reason for Landy's comment about " Your right Magnarc we are not getting many popcorn threads these days. I used to be entertained for a considerable time reading the various discussions and opinions each night, but now I have normally moved on again in a few minutes".
This forum has changed from a supportive and happy place to one of sniping at everyone to the point where no one will post for fear becoming the butt of some nasty comment.