<< COLUMN FORGETS NAME ~ MAIN ~ EARTH DAY TO LIVE AGAIN >>
BAT USED
Intruder smashes his way into a Sydney house, fights with resident, loses. Outcome:
The resident has been charged with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm and will face Blacktown Local Court today.
UPDATE. Batter up in court:
A man claims an intruder he’s accused of bashing with a baseball bat yelled, “I’m going to kill you” as he broke down the door to his Sydney home.
Darryl Stoneham, 37, from Doonside, in Sydney’s west, faced Blacktown Local Court today charged with malicious assault inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The charge related to an alleged attack on David Kuusik, 38, who, according to police facts, broke into Stoneham’s home last night.
Outside the court:
Stoneham’s sister Kerry Davidson said the charges against her brother were “very unfair”.
“He (Mr Kuusik) smashed into his home, he did a home invasion, my brother protected himself, they should fix the laws up for innocent people who don’t deserve to be treated like this,” she told reporters.
As predicted by Nick in comments:
The two men are believed to have been known to each other before the incident.
I take it that it isn’t an issue of self-defense, but one of proportionality. One may not respond to a threat with more force than necessary to stop the danger. This means that ordinary citizens are legally expected to have control over their adrenalin drenched emotional responses at all times - just like professionally trained police officers and military forces.
This is one of those laws that sounds reasonable only so long as you pay absolutely no attention to reality and the way man reacts to certain aspects of it. The behavior this man displayed is precisely that which must be brought under the conscious control of those authorized to use force, training costing a small fortune and payed for by those who intend to be protected.
Why is this citizen then penalized when the police aren’t there to protect him? I’m sure he hasn’t contemplated suing the police just because reality dictates that they can’t be everywhere at once. Why is he expected to have the same specialist training as a professional - and be held accountable as though he did? Why is he held to be morally responsible for the situation when he certainly made no choice to be attacked in his home? Where there is no choice, there can be no moral condemnation.
This is where we learn all over again why juries matter. Will he get a jury trial?
Posted by Thon Brocket on 2006 04 26 at 03:34 AM • permalinkThat’s well put Saltydog. Its also difficult when most of us will never be in a serious fight. How do you know when you have definitely incapacitated someone? If a reasonably strong looking bloke broke into my house and i managed to get him down, i wouldn’t know when he was stopped. And my thoughts would be that if i haven’t genuinely rendered him harmless and he gets back up, then i’m for it. Mainly because, although i’m not small, i’m useless when it comes to fighting.
It’s a cliche but -
It’s better to be judged by twelve than buried by six.Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 04 26 at 03:50 AM • permalinkIn a situation like the man faced the instant rush of adrenalin can make you do more damage than you might normally do. If frieghtened for your life swinging a bat 3, 4 or 5 extra times wouldn’t be hard to do. I am not an Australian but if this story is accurate I doubt the guy will do any time. It does make you wonder what kind of a wanker would even charge him though.
The householder will no doubt have to do jail time, while the thief gets away with it all.
Should have topped him good and properly if you ask me. Dead men tell no tales.
I’m so far over all this handwringing for poor criminals I’m coming out the other side.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 04 26 at 04:19 AM • permalinkFrancis H, you just stated this bloke’s defence:
How do you know when you have definitely incapacitated someone? If a reasonably strong looking bloke broke into my house and i managed to get him down, i wouldn’t know when he was stopped. And my thoughts would be that if i haven’t genuinely rendered him harmless and he gets back up, then i’m for it.
And he will win this one on the basis of that. The issue IS proportionality; ie, ‘he went down, and kept belting him’. The answer is obvious ‘I thought he was going to get back up’.
Actually better if he had killed the bugger, though (advice to me froma lawyer friend) as a dead goblin cannot whine to the court in his shiny suit, and sitting ina wheelchair (it’s de riguer in these cases)about how he comes from a broken home, has acne-caused self esteem problems, was laughed at by all the kids at school, lost his sexual partner in a horror shearing accident, etc etc etc etc etc
MarkL
CanberraAnd some people wonder why the police and the judiciary are held in contempt by otherwise rational and law abiding citizens.
Add this travesty to the non-prosecution of “men of middle eastern appearance” waving illegal Glock handguns around in the streets in a notorious part of South West Sydney.Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 04 26 at 04:36 AM • permalinkIts clear the guy who had his house broken into talked too much when the police arrived. Admit to hitting the f..ker when he enters (and for f..k’s sake hit him hard so you don’t have to compensate when he’s down and squirming to escape), but don’t tell them you continued to hit him when he was down!
Of course the police would have no option other than to charge him!!
What a joke. This is the second time this has happened in as many weeks in Sydney.
I hope these people opt for a trial by jury and that each of the jurors have a good read of this.Posted by Hank Reardon on 2006 04 26 at 05:05 AM • permalinkUnbelievable. Did the legal concept of “a man’s home is his castle” not make it to your shores?
Texan Courtney Mann recently showed an intruder what she could do with a Louisville slugger. What else do the authorities expect people to do during a home invasion?#19 tdw77
Its clear the guy who had his house broken into talked too much when the police arrived
Should some person break into your house and you do manage to belt him with the bat that you keep at your bedside, for just in case, you should consider not telling the cops that you keep the bat at your bedside for just in case. Apparently they can do you for that too.
You have to be completely defenceless when you lie down to sleep at night. You have to have no whacking implements within easy reach. While some possibly drug-crazed intruder who definitely has no respect for the law goes rifling through your belongings you are required to somehow get out of bed and go rummaging through your cupboards and boxes to find a suitable whacking instrument, all without being detected by said intruder who, undoubtedly, will have close to his hand the heavy implement he used to force your door.
#19 absolutely right. Get to a lawyer and get him/her to prepare your statement. Worked for one of Victoria’s top criminal barristers long time ago; never forgot that lesson. And no, I haven’t yet had to use it :) Remember once being called up on a Sunday (I wasn’t working for them then) to prepare a statement for a man wanted for murder who was going to give himself up. But not without a statement prepared by the lawyer; I don’t think they can then take a statement from you.
Texas Bob, you are beginning to worry me.
OK: woodchippers have the fun element, but are a tad messy unless you live in some place where the snow hangs about for more than a nanosecond when it hits the deck.
Too many bloody deserts out this way for that to be the go.
However, remote tropical estuaries lined with mangoves and filled with hungry crabs and small fish… NOW yer talking!
And it is thrifty and green: recycling!
Anyone else got a favourite method of disposing of the bodies of those who have pissed them off?
MarkL
Canberra#6 and #7:
You’re right that no sane jury would convict, but sadly this is not the real problem. The real problem is that by the time the jury gets to render a verdict, the poor guy has been financially broken in the legal system. Most people who can afford a house do not qualify for legal aid, so he’ll pay out tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses before he gets off. Talk about punishing the innocent!
Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 04 26 at 06:25 AM • permalink#23 Janice - you’re so right about whacking instruments. Check out the law in Queensland - Restricted Items Section 3: a billy club, a baton or any device constructed or designed as a telescopic baton, not being a toy or a category M weapon, that if used is capable of causing bodily harm.
That means I’m stuffed cos I keep a billy club under the bed on account of it would take too long to get my rifle out of the safe in an emergency.
The guy probably spilled his guts to the cops cos he made the mistake many law-abiding types make after such an event - he assumed the cops were there to help him. They weren’t, they were there to enforce the law.
Still and all, I wouldn’t mind the full background on this, it doesn’t smell 100% kosher. Methinks the assailant and householder knew each other previously.
—Nick
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 04 26 at 06:56 AM • permalink#27 Stevo. No, no no. The Chain Saw is strictly used for the prosecution of the deed (but never in YOUR home – preferably outside or someone else’s home). Also, along that same thought – nix the shotgun (except for exceptions listed before).
#26 MarkL. The wood chipper is strictly for cleanup/disposal. And you are correct; the most acceptable technique is pointing the exhaust over a body of water. But for cryin’ out loud people, clean the thing afterwards. Nothing spells L-A-Z-Y like a filthy, stinking wood chipper. I remember a few years back, after a guy disposed of his former wife, he failed to properly clean his chipper and the next thing you know he’s on Death Row.
It’s all about maintenance.#5 very very well stated salty. as ‘brutal’ as it appears to those solomonaic wizards who make these laws, i’ll be damned if i’m going to leave a fellow in a condition to get back up when my back is turned to dial the cops.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 04 26 at 07:21 AM • permalinkas I doubt he would extend me the same courtesy.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 04 26 at 07:22 AM • permalinkProportionality? Proportionality my arse. It’s a fine thing one ponders in hindsight.
In the moment, however, if someone is in the process of smashing my door down, what should I assume he’s there to do? Burglarize, bash, bugger or butcher me? I hardly think it unreasonable to assume the worst and do whatever it takes to put him down and make sure he stays down. And I don’t give a shit about the criminal getting his head caved in by an enraged homeowner. I call it an occupational hazard. Don’t like it? Get a job at MacDonalds.
Regarding this specific case, I’m with Nick. Seems like a rather indiscreet and improbable way of breaking into a house.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 26 at 07:22 AM • permalinkPS. I hope I didn’t sound to insensitive in my post above.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 26 at 07:28 AM • permalink...that should be “too”. Illiterate buffoon.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 26 at 07:29 AM • permalinkA police officer once told me if you shoot someone burgling your house make sure you kill him then put a round in the ceiling. The latter now becomes your first warning shot as he tried to attack you and you were forced to defend yourself. Better if he has some nasty weapon in his hand as the unequal force argument can be used against you.
Reminds me of an event that occurred in Brisbane some years ago when a young teenager was shot and killed when he broke into a dwelling late one evening whilst the occupant was asleep in bed. Seems the intruder was hell bent on thumping someone with a piece of timber or tree branch but apparently got the address wrong. His smashing of a window woke the occupant who in the dark saw someone coming at him, reached for his high powered rifle near the bed and let fly with a round that hit the youngster in the shoulder.
Police were notified but when they arrived the teen had bled to death. Less than 24 hours later they announced the home owner would not be charged with any offence. The S hit the F in no time with Civil Libertarians crawling up the walls. Media was all over the story. Bereaved mother of victim relating that deep down he really was a lovely lad but…..you know the rest.
Turned out Mum had tossed him out of home some months earlier for his criminal and drug related activities. Had a record as long as your arm and a comment made to me by a police officer was that they knew he was destined to end up as he did. Hence the decision not to lay charges against the homeowner. I seem to recall though the matter did eventually go to trial but I’m not sure of the result.
#38 Spag Oz - I recall that case clearly but there’s a detail you got wrong - it was no ‘grab the gun from under the bed’ job, it took about 20 minutes to unfold. The boy who got shot (and a mate) were outside the (wrong) house for some time yelling abuse and demanding the occupant come outside to be bashed. The occupant yelled back that he was armed. The soon-to-be deceased broke a branch off a tree and smashed a sliding door. The young man inside yelled again that he was armed but the perp entered the house and was shot as he crossed the room.
Of course, none of this was told in The Brisbane Courier Mail until several months after the event when the householder went to trial. Prior to that, the deceased was front page in the CM as a nice little lad, the apple of his distraught mum’s eye, who never did a thing wrong and was shot for no reason at all except maybe because he was black.
When it got to trial, the above full story emerged, as did the nice little lad’s long as your arm criminal history.
Meanwhile, on the Gold Coast around the same time, a robber armed with a gun went into an antique store and waved it in the face of the female owner. The woman’s son stepped out of a back room and shot the guy in the back as he was turning round. Perp injured but still alive and, miracle, the shooter isn’t charged.
Fast forward a couple of years (about two weeks after Nora and I bought a very nice bedroom suite in the same shop) and the previous perp’s brother and 2 mates burst into the shop armed with rifles looking for revenge, start shooting wildly. The female owner and husband duck behind the counter, hubby grabs a revolver, sticks his hand up and starts shooting. One perp killed on the spot, another wounded, another caught later on. Result - hubby is told charges will be laid and has a nervous breakdown waiting 3 years to learn if he’s going to trial for manslaughter or murder, plus they were so shattered they had to fold the business.
—Nick
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 04 26 at 08:22 AM • permalinkHmm… thinking about it, it was good job we bought the bedroom suite when we did. Seeing pics of how bad the place was shot up, it would have been quite full of holes…
—Nick
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 04 26 at 08:25 AM • permalinkMeanwhile violence in Sri Lanka was Mooney Fran Killjoy’s theme early this morning on ABC Radio Nats.
Army headquarters was bombed by Tamil Tigers..Franny -“so the Tamil Tigers are being blamed for this..”
Guest from U of Sussex,obviously stunned and rapidly revising presenter’s cred..
“er well it really is very unlikely to be anybody else..”
He then goes on to discuss the situation which he said was serious,ongoing and unlikely to be resolved with neither party being strong enough to win.
Franny “so when d’you think we can get them back to the conference table…”
guest -“er -however much we would LIKE them to it seems very unlikely in the immediate future…”Meanwhile from Leeds in the U.K. comes this headline in the Oz..
Man on horse and cart eludes police.
(a man who had committed a serious assault escaped in a friend’s “rag and bone” wagon.
A bizarre procession on the motorway of horse and cart,followed by patrol cars,a trace vehicle,a helicopter etc failed to catch the man…)Magistrates are usually pretty good with these sorts of things, most likely the case will be thrown out and the charges dismissed. If anyone should be blamed, this may not seem popular, it is the police. They have the discretion to press charges, in this case they decided to do so. Now they will claim that they are only doing their job and that I shouldn’t harass them, but the fact remains they decide whether or not to press charges.
I thought you used chainsaws in Texas ... :)
Woodchippers give you a subtler pattern. Kind of like airbrushing.
Spag_oz — That “nice” policeman’s tricked will get you done for homicide even if it was a legitimate shoot. They can determine angle of bullet entry and shooter’s position very reliably these days, and once the police can show you falsified the circumstances any presumption of your innocence goes right out the window with a jury.
Worse, now that you’ve posted that and we’ve read it, any prosecutor researching any of OUR online habits in the event of a shooting can now show we were aware of the trick and assert and bring it up against us to color the jury’s perception of us.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 26 at 09:47 AM • permalinkBes thing to do is to catch each of the person or persons who want to charge the homeowner- stick them in the same cell with several criminal elements (recently released) - don’t leave vaseline.
Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 04 26 at 10:11 AM • permalinkHere in Florida, the crime of home invasion is very rare. Home owners have always had the right to use deadly force against intruders, but until recently that right has been restricted. Thus, the warning shot in the ceiling and that sort of thing. A law was passed removing the “duty to retreat.” Word got around that anyone who burglarizes an occupied dwelling voluntarily places his life in mortal danger.
I don’t know about Australia, but from what I’ve read about England, home invasion is common, and is considered just another form of burglary. One can get in more trouble there for questioning the sexual orientation of a policeman’s horse than for burglary.
Of course the police would have no option other than to charge him!!
Don’t know what cops are like in Oz, but here in the States, if they don’t want to arrest you, they keep asking questions until they get the answer they want.
“So he screamed ‘I’ll kill you’ and made a motion with his hand from his pocket…”
“Uh, no, he didn’t say anything…”
“If he didn’t say anything, then you might not really have been in fear for your life, so I’ll ask you again… he screamed ‘I kill you’, right?”
“Um, yes. Very loud.”
“Loud enough for the neighbor who made the 911 call to hear?”
“Maybe not that loud.”
“There ya go.”
Heard this sort of thing a hundred times.
Heard this sort of thing a hundred times.
Wow. Your place must get broken into quite often.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 04 26 at 11:02 AM • permalinkIf someone breaks into your house with the express intent to hurt you, why should it matter if you knew him previously? I would do what that man did to defend myself, maybe only trying to break the intruder’s arms and legs rather than kill him. And then afterwards, I would have hysterics in front of the police, scream and cry, have myself hospitalized, and have my lawyer file a civil case against the intruder for emotional distress, asking millions in punitive damages. Not that I would get millions from a loser like that, but I could harass him for payment for the rest of his miserable (and hopefully crippled) life. That’s proportionality in my book.
Re #7—Uh, not so fast, remember Tony Martin? Far as I know he’s still doing hard time in the UK for shooting two thugs who broke into his house; one of them was a juvie with over 30 previous convictions (not arrests, convictions! he’d been a busy lad in his formative years) for fun things like burglary, assault, assault w/ GBH, etc.; his loving mum sobbingly referred to him as a “loveable rogue”, and a jury sent Martin away. Oklahoma, where I used to live, was one of the first states to enact a “Make My Day” law, and the number of home burglaries and home invasions immediately dropped conspicuously. Precipitously, in fact.
Elderly Indialantic widow Judith Kuntz woke up to the sound of glass breaking. She had just enough time to grab her gun and aim at the man coming through her bedroom doorway. She took him out with one shot to center mass.
Which illustrates the importance of having a gun that has enough stopping power.
Sammie Foust’s dad had told her that her gun was too small. “Wounded dogs will bite you, a dead dog won’t,” he’d said.
When a man broke into her house, came into her bedroom, and proceeded to cut the Cape Coral woman up, it took four shots from her .25 to finally kill him, and he was beating her in between every shot. Full of bullet holes, he just about beat her to death.
(Sammie’s story is in the comments at the link.)
#29—We’re fortunate in having the best place in the whole world to dump bodies: the Everglades.
Its name has been thrown into a million heated arguments. As a final resting place it is non-pareil - it’s the Florida version of the Tomb of the Unknowns.
Over half the landfill in the New Jersey meadowlands is dead bodies. The dumping ground of choice among tri-state mobsters, it’s conveniently located, affords privacy and concrete is not required.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 04 26 at 01:32 PM • permalinkYes, while it’s true that the occasional body is, um, exhumed, what goes on in the Meadowlands pretty much stays in the Meadowlands. Varments and toxic waste do take their toll. Not as efficiently as the Florida gator, though, I will admit.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 04 26 at 02:19 PM • permalinkKyda reports: “Over half the landfill in the New Jersey meadowlands is dead bodies. The dumping ground of choice among tri-state mobsters, it’s conveniently located, affords privacy and concrete is not required.”
So, when global climate “change” wipes away the Jersy shore, will all the bodies be revealed? And can we make a coral reef out of them?
My wife’s technique is to grab her 9mm from the night stand, roll onto the floor, aim in the general direction of the doorway and wait until a shadow appears and unload the clip.
My wife prefers the Chow Yun-Fat two-gun style. She generally doesn’t wait for the shadow, but shoots at the wall in the direction of the footsteps, then waits for the thud. 34 rounds of that, and it’s drop the clips, pick up the spackling trowel.
Of course, she prefers FMJ, since the hollowpoints tend to clog with gypsum.
#53 Rebecca - In terms of the victim’s need to defend himself, you’re right, it matters not one jot that they knew each other previously.
However, it tends to change the complexion of such tales when one learns that the victim is not exactly innocent in exposing themselves to assault.
99 per cent of home invasions in Australia are criminals on criminals, often drug related.
Not to be confused with aggravated burglary in which a homeowner encounters a person burglarising their home and violence ensues.
Incidentally, if I remember my court reporting days well enough, the difference in Australia between ‘break and enter’ and ‘burglary’ is whether the homeowner is actually home at the time (ie. if you nip down the shops, come back and find the house has been robbed, it’s break and enter; someone breaks in during the night, it’s burglary).
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 04 26 at 04:42 PM • permalink#10 DaveS
If someone breaks into my house, things are going to get pretty fucking disproportionate real fast.
Too true.
#13 i4cu2
He may not do gaol time, but he will be destroyed by the legal costs.
It’s wrong.
#15 Hi Nilk - good luck with the
jobreal job hunting.All the focus seems to be on the poor criminal who has in the first place done the wrong thing. The victim or the original crime (break and enter in this case - or was it a home invasion? different laws I think in Qld for this since this (part 1) and (Part 2)).
The rights of the criminal seem to be very well looked after, at the expense of the victim.
#38
A police officer once told me if you shoot someone burgling your house make sure you kill him then put a round in the ceiling.
Obviously this police officer didn’t live in an apartment building…
The latter now becomes your first warning shot as he tried to attack you and you were forced to defend yourself.
If your life was in grave and immediate danger, you would have been justified in shooting him. If however you had time to fire that warning shot, it could be argued the threat probably wasn’t immediate and thus your actions were not a last resort, nor were they proportionate.
If you were lucky, you might get “discharge firearm in a public place”.
I should suggest that people specify where they are writing from as wihslt ‘friendly advice from police officers’ is usually useless when faced by an unfriendly prosecutor, legal positions vary from place to place. In Australia, people are generally not encouraged to shoot other people as seems to be the case in the lead story.
It is my vague understanding there are some states in the US, where not only can you shoot an intruder, you can then go after their family, school teachers, doctor who delivered them etc.
These subtle geographic issues do matter when giving/receiving advice in a forum such as this, and the IANAL (I am not a lawyer) prefix should be liberally applied.
Even if you killed a person in total self defence, as a last resort when your life was directly threatened, I would still not tell the attending police officer anything.
I would simply say “I am really happy to assist you, but am extremely tense right now and would like to speak to some people first”.
Those people should be the best criminal lawyer you can afford. This is not an admission of guilt, and simply responsible.
Beyond that, if you have a right to remain silent, exercise it! Or log in here for advice :-)
#62 Thin Man
I seem to recall also some old English law which defined “Burglary” of a home as being between the hours of 9.00 pm and 6.00 am the following morning. Outside of that and it’s Housebreaking.
Under Insurance Law burglary used to be defined as “theft consequent upon forcible & violent entry.” Housebreaking did not require violence which meant the mere act of turning the knob of an unlocked door or window to gain access meant you had a good chance of claiming for theft of contents even if you had gone out for a while without locking up.
The terms Burglary & Housebreaking used to cause me quite some interpretation problems during my 25 years as a Loss Adjuster.
Nick. I stand corrected on the details of that shooting at Rochedale. You jogged my recollection.
I also recall the incidents in the antique shop…quite a bizaar case of attempted revenge. You may also recall the incident where a housebreaker was given a hiding by the owner, sustained injury, took the owner to court and (I think) received compensation. His excuse for being on the property was to shelter from a rain shower (on a dry sunny day).
I would simply say “I am really happy to assist you, but am extremely tense right now and would like to speak to some people first”.
Excellent advice. That’s what I’ve heard as well, just worded a little differently. Key points:
1) Tell officer you want to co-operate
2) but are frightened
3) and wish to speak to your lawyer first.Weird coincidence. While reading these comments, someone knocked on my front door. I didn’t recognize the voice, so I yelled “I’m busy.” through the closed and bolted door. He went away. I didn’t mention the loaded Glock 23 I was holding in my right hand.
Better safe than sorry.
Posted by Spectre765 on 2006 04 26 at 09:15 PM • permalinkIn NSW there is an Act (sponsored by John Tingle) which protects homeowners from malicious prosecution in self-defense cases.
I will bet my socks that this was between two dodgy characters both known to the police, maybe with a dodgy deal not working out between them, and the householder knocked the invading bad guy down THEN turned him into a basket case.
NSW Police like cops everywhere may have a few issues, but in general are trusted because they earn trust.
#48 - Along with the Everglades (topped only by Hawaii’s vocanoes for body disposal) Florida also has laws that let you defend yourself, with deadly force if need be, even in public places. For information on legislation (current and/or pending) in other US states, check out the NRA-ILA website.
Does Australia have an equivalent to the National Rifle Association, btw? Sure sounds like you could use one.
All quiet, weapon cleared. It’s not the best neighborhood, but at least I have a “Plan B”. Most of my neighbors aren’t as fortunate.
Posted by Spectre765 on 2006 04 26 at 10:56 PM • permalinkIf TV and movies have taught me nothing else it is that the bad guy always comes back for one more scare.
The crazy German did it in Die Hard, Scar did it in the Lion King, and last night on Prison Break, that weedy little trailer trash did it to the mob guy with a razor blade.
Hit em once for protection, hit em again as punishment and one more for good measure.
Posted by The (WHMECDM) President on 2006 04 26 at 11:43 PM • permalinkHit em once for protection, hit em again as punishment and one more for good measure.
And for God’s sake, don’t use any corny one-liners until after you have killed them.
See also Evil Overlord rules 13 and 14.
For those non Australian resident readers Australia generally follows English common and Statutory law with respect to the issue of self defence. There is a relevant article by Mark Steyn no longer on his website noting the case of a lady in (I think) Cornwall who used her shotgun on marauders and suspected rapists and was found guilty. You can imagine Mark’s response to that.
Ours and English law has simply not caught up with the modern reality of drugs and violence. What was intended centuries ago is no longer relevant. The fact is today people who invade our homes are not gentleman jewel thieves leaving a rose on our pillow. They tend to be vicious drug addicts who are serial offenders only transiently out of prison and who really do not care if they are sent back.
I reiterate the advice given above for anyone unfortunate enough to be in this position or almost any position of potential conflict with police: “I am happy to cooperate but feel under pressure right now, I feel that I need professional advice.” Apart from anything else if there is subsequent legal action and you don’t get the advice you have established with that comment that you were not thinking clearly at the time you made any comments thus making said comments worthless in court.
Going from the sublime to the ridiculous, I recently read of a New York (State?) legislator who proposed a new rule to govern police use of firearms: Law enforcement personnel would be required to shoot “to wound” only, and to make every effort “not to kill” any possible criminal. Must have never recovered from watching old Lone Ranger or Hopalong Cassidy tv shows where all shots fired by the heroes would only nick or graze the bad guy’s gun hand without otherwise incapacitating him. All that combat shooting training about aiming for the center of mass? Forget that - insufficiently sensitive and intolerant.
Posted by Bruce Lagasse on 2006 04 27 at 02:33 AM • permalinkCheck this out: Common Sense Breaks Out in Italy.
We will see whether Prodi and the Communist Left reverses this new law.
The Italian parliament has passed legislation allowing people to shoot robbers in self-defence.
The law permits the use of guns and knives by people in homes or workplaces to protect lives or belongings.
“Today criminals will have more to fear while there will be fewer problems for honest people,” said Mr Castelli, who belongs to the Northern League.
The law was passed in Jan 2006.
Posted by Kosmopolit on 2006 04 27 at 07:22 AM • permalinkBeing a dodgy character should not take away your right to defend yourself from dodgier characters. I read of a case somewhere in the US (sorry, no link) wherein a cocaine dealer found it necessary to kill someone who had attempted to rob him at gunpoint. He had the wisdom to call the police and report what had happened rather than attempt a coverup. He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum for the amount of nose candy present when the police showed up, but the shooting was deemed justifiable.
77 Bruce
old Lone Ranger or Hopalong Cassidy tv shows where all shots fired by the heroes would only nick or graze the bad guy’s gun hand without otherwise incapacitating him.
Shucks, Pardner, everybody knows that if you angle your shot just right, you can just nicely graze the perp’s skull and knock him temporarily unconscious. Without any of that troublesome concussion action or other side effects either. That’s what police should do, but inexplicably they don’t. They’re just mean, is why.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 04 27 at 03:58 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Total fucking bullshit- someone should break into the idiot who charged him for the crime and rob the guy blind then beat the shit out of him. What the fuck is wrong with our society when a man can’t even defend his own home? The idiots who made the law should be placed in a cell with a bunch of recently released homicidal ex-criminals then given the choice between a phone call to the police and a hand gun.