The questions that occurs to me are:

(1) If sufficient force to cause internal injuries that lead to what the verdict of an inquest called unlawful killing is reasonable, then what is unreasonable?

(2) Is it now a precedent in law that any individual can unlawfully kill any other individual as long as they do it with reasonable force?

(3) Is unlawful killing permitted as long as it is with reasonable force for only certain occupations, and if so, what are they?

(4) Did the jury consider the circumstances whether Harwood was justified in using force in the first place?