It sounds bizarre to charge someone with "possession of a knife" when he was inside his own home.

I suspect that Mr. Ali's mistake was to assume the police were there to help him, and he made a statement without asking for his lawyer (I forgot whether that would be a solicitor or a barrister in the UK). Telling the police that he had grabbed the knife for self-defense sounds like a statement made in all innocence by a man who believed he had done nothing wrong.

No disrespect intended to the law enforcement officers and prosecuting attorneys who I know frequent this forum; but there are simply far too many cases where the police have taken advantage of an ordinary citizen's naivete to coax him (or her) into making an incriminating or self-incriminating statement.

Yeah - Fidel is so much worse than that nice Senor Baptista who preceded him...

If you mean Batista then yes. Both are/were repugnant jackasses, but Batista never pretended to be anything but the scummy thug that he was. Castro on the other hand adds the stench of hypocrisy. I predict that after the old despot and his brother have been dead awhile the real human cost of their rule will come out, and they will share Stalin's fate: worshipped during their lifetimes--at home and abroad--and reviled after their deaths.

I'm sorry, did we read the same articles about the same incident?

BBC calls it a "cosh", the other papers describe it as a crowbar or club- that is the only point of contention. Either way, a metal club was there, there is no debate. A bottle, which is a very functional club unless you break it and they only easily break in movies, was thrown. Mr. Goldie, the "offended" had entered or was attempting to enter the apartment when he threw the bottle, he did raise the metal club (cosh, crowbar, who cares) and he was intoxicated. We've got an armed home invasion with assault and battery. I don't see diddly squat concerning a property crime.

Now, as for this kid's action, was he himself in immediate danger, not yet. Did he feel that his father was immediate danger, yes. Sorry, the day you can't defend the members of your household from an attacker, there is something royally screwed up in that jurisdiction. Defense should be a de facto thing in this case.

And I didn't assume anything. A .177" BB gun is only dangerous if you catch someone in the eye. You're better off using it as a club against a human. But you've assumed that this kid was in the wrong for defending himself and a family member. You've asked us to look at this from the perspective of an individual who is committing a violent act without provocation. Sorry, I don't see that as a valid point of view.

I can't imagine that no small number of Scotsmen aren't bothered by this either. As was pointed out elsewhere, you can't generate a logical or ethical argument, not here. I don't think you could make on anywhere with people who actually know what a BB gun is.

It's always been bad advice. Drag and scuff marks are pretty obvious.

I will agree that moving dead bodies around at a crime scene is not recommended. I am not all too concerned with where the body lands after I've administered my defense. I still hear about LEOs dropping items near corpses now and then, so I stick with what works.

In the end, I really don't care a whole lot how it looks one way or the other. If I have to smoke a bad guy, it will be for cause, whether the judge and/or jury will think so or not later won't influence my decision much at the time.

I gotta think more and more people who arm themselves these days in this country are of the same conclusion.

From the Oxford Online English Dictionary:

Cosh
Brit.
? noun: a thick heavy stick or bar used as a weapon.
? verb: to hit on the head with a cosh.
? ORIGIN: of unknown origin.

Definately doesn't sound like Mr. Goldie was just popping by for a cuppa.

Fortunately, here in MA, we recently had a case where, two police officers (one of whom's girfriend used to work for me), went into a home, under the ASSUMPTION that it was being broken into, without announcing themselves. Now, a little background on this.
The person's home in question is an affluent member of society. He was supposed to be away on vacation. His neighbor, late one night, noticed the lights on in the bedroom. Being vigilant, he called the cops. Well, the cops responding, apparently went into "hero" mode, and did everything they could possible do wrong. The guy's car was in the driveway. Clue one. Upon entry, they neither announced their presence, nor answered when someone (the homeowner), called out. The homeowner, assuming burglars, dailed 911, then grabbed a pistol. Still, the police failed to announce their presence. They proceeded up to the now locked bedroom, and kicked in the door. First guy through caught a bullet in the chest. Fortunately, he had a vest on. The homeowner realized they were police, dropped the weapon, and was arrested for attempted murder.
Well, they guy got off, for several reasons. First, the police did not follow protocol, nor did 911 inform either the homeowner, or the police responding, about the call from the homeowner while the cops were in the house. The police, by failing to announce themselves, created a danger for all involved, that could have been avoided. The homeowner was found innocent of any & all charges, due to the fact that he had assumed, as any rational person would, that someone kicking in his door was set to do him harm. So, as soon as he saw a silouhette, he shot at it. Upon realizing his mistake, he immediately surrendered his weapon. The court, thankfully, found him well within his rights to defend himself, due to the fact that he had unknown intruders in his home, called out & received no answer, locked his door & called 911, then, when someone kicked in his door, he feared for his life. The only thing those two officers did correctly were put on their vests (thankfully), and tell the truth (unbeleivably). I am unsure as to what the outcome was for the two officers. I know the one who was shot was fine, he walked away with bruised ribs only. As far as their duty status, I dont know.

According to the Evening Times account, Goldie dropped the cosh and then Ali fired a second shot, this time hitting his chest. It's hard to tell, but it sounds like Goldie surrendered and disarmed himself, and then Ali tried to kill him.

If it's true that Goldie was not charged with anything, it probably means he was never a real threat. So Ali's response was disproportionate.

Ali has admitted guilt. Maybe he was badly advised and would have been acquitted had he denied it, I don't know.

Generally with news reports, the more you know about the subject the more wrong they are. I'd be reluctant to make any judgements at this distance. It seems to me that the reports are written precisely to raise the kind of ire we are seeing in this thread. They like to provoke a reaction from their readers. So they minimise or miss out details in order to make reasonable decisions seem unreasonable.

Fortunately, here in Colorado, we have a "Make my Day" law. You are covered from prosecution if you exercise proportional self defense either in your home or on your property. That's right, your front yard is covered also! The way it should be.

If this scenario were to unfold in my house, I'm not sure who would have fired the final shot, me or my wife. Don't like it? Don't break into my house.

Either way, anyone that comes into my house intent on harming me or my family will be carried out. I know every shadow and creaky board in my house, and don't need a light.