For anyone who has ever had a bike stolen

I don't think we all have.

I would expect the perp to be facing associated charges if it went down 50/50.

IMO a Mk19 grenade launcher is a household item.

Joking aside, if people would be allowed to use lethal force to protect their property, perhaps criminals would think twice before committing a crime, which would reduce crime rates.
And in the event of someone catching a criminal, there's a chance you don't need to pay taxes to feed them anymore.

For the reasons that does not work, see the USA.

We really don't know what happened during the fight over the bike, only a pic of the thief-those injuries could have come with only 3 or 4 well placed blows during the fight over the bike, which was probably the end of the fight! As far as protecting your home, here in America guns are legal, and many states have laws allowing you to defend yourself in your home from intruders. However, you can't shoot them in the back if they are fleeing, that would be illegal, but if they are coming at you to harm you, you can defend yourself-even if they have a knife and you have a gun---too bad for them...

We don't know, as I originally suggested.

However...

We can assume that the fight was pretty one sided, from the remarks the Judge made and the fact the thief did not face assault charges himself.

When you chase down and beat on someone rather than restraining them until the real police arrive you are risking all kinds of trouble, the least of which is the moral dimension regarding the possibility they have mental health issues or similar that led to the behaviour that brought you into conflict.

I have learned the hard way to keep my powder dry, and in that scenario I know I would have not required to inflict injuries like that to subdue the man.

It would be a great idea to go and get some training for anyone who thinks that was required.

FFS. If a thief decides that morally it's OK to steal my stuff his mental health would be the last thing on my mind. Fortunately I think most would act first and consider the consequences later, the few seconds you've usually got is hardly the time for hand wringing moral dilemmas.

If it's a guy raping your mrs do you let him carry on until you've satisfied yourself through probing questioning that he didn't have a troubled childhood?

Criminals leave their morals outside, why victims should be held to different standards is beyond me.

As a trained Martial Artists of some experience, I would hope I have both the mental control and the Martial skills available to catch, stop and safely restrain someone trying to steal one of my bikes.

What I don't have is the patience to restrain the thief for several weeks, while the local Police issue me with an incident number.

Well said. Do unto others and all that.
On the question of home defence, it is legal here to own a firearm for 'home defence' the wording is ambiguous to say the least and it is generally recognised that of you are shot by a householder whilst burgling their home it's your fault, in Switzerland pretty much everyone owns a gun (it is required by law) but there is very very little gun related crime, I think it it's a question of education , in the US the right to bear arms has been twisted out of all recognition and guns are seen as some kind of status symbol (in the UK too it seems) and something to be lauded whereas in europe people have seen first hand what happens when large groudps of people run around shooting things and the majority want nothing more to do with that.

That is only amongst criminals.

Handguns of any sort are illegal in the UK and have been for many years, with rifles and shotguns extremely tightly controlled.

As the saying goes 'When you criminalise all the weapons, the only people with weapons, are the criminals'.

Um no.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/com ... test-guns/

There are a few from the uk on here who shoot, so are they criminals too ?

Quite a sweeping generalisation if I may say so.