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.