60 Minutes (the Australian version) has done a story on the use of deadly force in self-defence.
Unfortunately it sufers from the same problem that many of these stories do. Tony Martin (who was convicted of murdering a burglar) gets to present his account of what happened which makes it look like he acted in self-defence.
TARA BROWN: What led to you firing the gun?
TONY MARTIN: Fear.
TARA BROWN: Were you under attack at that point?
TONY MARTIN: I thought I was, yes, or was about to be attacked. Because the people downstairs, as I went down the stairs, put a torch on me. You might think that’s quite mild, but I can assure you at any point if somebody put a torch on you, it’s quite alarming, to say the least.
Unfortunately, for Martin, it was obvious to the jury that his account was untrue. They visited the house and could see from where the shot had hit the wall that Martin could not possibly have fired from the stairs. It is this sort of reporting that makes people think that killing in self-defence is not lawful. I covered this matter in excruciating detail in this post. This additional comment by Martin gives an indication of why the jury decided that Martin had set out to kill a burglar:
I’ll say this—without sounding callous—it wasn’t unfortunate for them. It was unfortunate for me what happened because I ended up with a murder charge.
The other stories suffer from the same problem—we are just hearing one side of the story from people who obviously want to argue that acted in self-defence. Perhaps they did, but we cannot conclude that unless we hear both sides of the story.