I agree
But in order to act fully in putative private defence, the limitations of private defence apply (on the facts as you mistakenly believe them to be).
So therefore one cannot act in putative private defence if one deploys excessive or unnecessary force.
We call this self defence elsewhere - but the law is basically the same.
If one has subjective intention to deploy excessive or unnecessary force, yes. The point was correct, just I foresaw the terminology getting very confusing if you carried on down that road!
By the way, if you see that post of mine I quoted from a while back: it is exactly what I say for OP's case
Remember you said findings were weaselled out of, and I do agree, so much vital stuff is missing... What about this one: Did the magazine rack move? according to the court: who knows, who cares!