I've separated this from the rest of your post because I feel it deserves special attention.
Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
during the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland (NI laws are similar to English laws in this respect) a British soldier shot three times at the windscreen of a car that was speeding towards a road block he was manning. As the car crashed through the road block and sped away, the soldier fired a fourth shot through the rear window, killing the driver. At his trial, it was held that the first three shots were fired in self-defence, and if the driver had been killed by one of those shots, the soldier would have been exonerated: but the fourth shot was murder.
Not having all the facts of this case I can only judge based on my own feelings, but this just seems wrong to me.
I must assume that the soldier was manning the barricade for a reason, probably to prevent the free movement of IRA terrorists. When the car sped towards the barricade, and the soldier, the driver was attacking a duly authorized representative of the law, using a deadly weapon (the car). This is a felony, in my book, and the soldier is justified, as you and the courts noted, in firing at the vehicle.
When the car broke through the barricade, even though it was no longer aimed at the soldier, the driver was still committing a felony and could be considered to be a danger to the public. (If he's willing to break down a barrier manned by an armed soldier, stopping for a little old lady in a crosswalk probably wouldn't be high on his list of priorities.)
It's my opinion that the soldier was performing his duty by trying to stop this criminal, even using deadly force. An average citizen, not being tasked with defending the public, might be considered to have acted wrongly, but not this soldier. He was screwed by the very system he was trying to defend.

This reminds me of another item I read regarding British justice. (I can't find the article anymore, but you may have heard it.) As I recall it, a British citizen was attacked in his home, possibly by a drug-crazed individual, and he defended himself with a knife. The attacker was wounded, but not killed. The citizen was arrested, tried and convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on his attacker! As I remember the article, the victim's prison sentence was longer than that of the attacker! Where's the justice in that? That tells me that the British government is more worried about its citizens having the balls to stand up for themselves than they are about fighting real crime.