I watched the news last night and had my grand daughter (7yo) sitting next to me, they showed the native family coming out of court carrying on like pork chops in a synagogue when the woman came rolling out of the door my grand daughter had a bit of a giggle and asked me if she had too much to drink! we all had a bit of a laugh and then tried to explain that she was very upset.... with her kid's logically set mind she said that was not someone sad or upset behaviour, she should be crying!
Did the old guy said "what is wrong with this country the bastard is innocent and we are getting nothing" or that was just a dream?

if someone wants to attack another person - weapon or not- they have got to expect at some time or another, that they will get what they dish out.
the laws really need to change on this stuff to deter the crims. if i get attacked by a knife weilding mugger, or an intruder at night, im going to assume the worst and that is that they have lethal force. i am more than happy to return such force equally in return to protect my family, or myself.

Mark _australia said...

saltiest1 said...

if someone wants to attack another person - weapon or not- they have got to expect at some time or another, that they will get what they dish out.
the laws really need to change on this stuff to deter the crims. if i get attacked by a knife weilding mugger, or an intruder at night, im going to assume the worst and that is that they have lethal force. i am more than happy to return such force equally in return to protect my family, or myself.

errr, you are already allowed to.

yes you are but if you use force greater than that by the crim, you are guilty by use of excessive force.
so if the crook breaks in with a blunt screwdriver, and you smash him to near death with a bat just because you think he has a gun, you are screwed. the law will not protect you.

saltiest1 said...

if someone wants to attack another person - weapon or not- they have got to expect at some time or another, that they will get what they dish out.
the laws really need to change on this stuff to deter the crims. if i get attacked by a knife weilding mugger, or an intruder at night, im going to assume the worst and that is that they have lethal force. i am more than happy to return such force equally in return to protect my family, or myself.

i am assuming they have lethal force. if im wrong and i use lethal force unintentionally, or a greater force than what is percieved (causing death) i am up for manslaughter. not murder.
im not about to run away when ive got my wife and daughter in the house. i probably would if i was single though......

saltiest1 said...

saltiest1 said...

if someone wants to attack another person - weapon or not- they have got to expect at some time or another, that they will get what they dish out.
the laws really need to change on this stuff to deter the crims. if i get attacked by a knife weilding mugger, or an intruder at night, im going to assume the worst and that is that they have lethal force. i am more than happy to return such force equally in return to protect my family, or myself.

i am assuming they have lethal force. if im wrong and i use lethal force unintentionally, or a greater force than what is percieved (causing death) i am up for manslaughter. not murder.
im not about to run away when ive got my wife and daughter in the house. i probably would if i was single though......

You cannot assume that because a person is in your house that they have lethal force
And again, if you could then the crooks in society would get off assaulting or killing people on the basis of assumption too - laws apply to all.

If you see them with a weapon and you use a weapon to defend yourself, then you're covered.
I don't see the issue?

saltiest1 said...

thats my issue. see them with the weapon. i didnt see it when he hit me. i also may not have seen it when he shot me, stabbed me or injected me.

edit. its a tough law and i guess thats what legal eagles are for.

OK maybe I should not have said seen. It is a reasonable belief that they intend to cause you harm and if lethal force is used, a reasonable belief that you are in fear of death or grevious bodily harm.

Eg's of recent cases in WA

(1) a normal able bodied guy sees 2 fellas near his business at night, had heaps of burglaries and knows they will be trying to break in and he shoots at them.
Convicted.

(2) old guy in house who is borderline disabled has 2 intruders who scream they will kill him, he is locked in a room and tells them if they come in he will shoot. He fears for his life for obvious reasons, and after numerous warnings from him they smash down the door and enter.... and he shoots them.
Old guy got off.

Number 1 was not yeta threatened (by words or actions) with harm, but number 2 was. So I agree with the verdicts.
You can't allow people to use lethal force (or high levels of force) against and intruder just cos they think he might be armed etc. It causes more problems than it solves.
If that were the case, you could kill just any random guy in a park at night, with no witnesses, and say "he came at me and I thought he was armed and going to rob me".

Which is what all the case law on Wiki was talking about basically

hamburglar said...

if some scum bag is in your house in the dark you can only assume they are not there to empty my bin for you .i know they should'nt be there they know they should'nt be there ,what happened to taking responsibity for your own actions? .why then should i be held accountable for an unfavorable outcome (kick in head of said scum bag)when your in your own house minding your own business? bashem to a pulp then chuckem next to the nearest pedestrian crossing

+1 it may not be right by the law, but my old man taught me much the same... [in the context of defending your loved ones - not the stereo...]

Sailhack said...

GPA said...

hamburglar said...

if some scum bag is in your house in the dark you can only assume they are not there to empty my bin for you .i know they should'nt be there they know they should'nt be there ,what happened to taking responsibity for your own actions? .why then should i be held accountable for an unfavorable outcome (kick in head of said scum bag)when your in your own house minding your own business? bashem to a pulp then chuckem next to the nearest pedestrian crossing

+1 it may not be right by the law, but my old man taught me much the same... [in the context of defending your loved ones - not the stereo...]

+2 - there's no reason anyone uninvited should be in my home at night with my innocent kids asleep in the next room, (we always lock up, so they would have to break-in) - excessive force would be used, probably driven by adrenalin (with a touch of paranoia).

+3 - Problem these days are those bleeding heart civil libertarians who go to the defence of criminals 'Oh poor Jimmy is from a broken home with abusive parents' Since when does this give you a right to commit crimes against normal law abiding citizens. Everyone these days wants to lay blame for being what that are and what they do, being responsible for your own actions disappeared long ago!

Given some of the violence and murders during home invasions lately I think its reasonable to shoot someone but you got to get it right as this storey from USA shows.

A man comes home to his empty house and then hears a burgular upstairs. He gets his gun and goes upstairs with thoughts of dirty harry in his mind. He sees movement in the darkness and shoots the thief. Next he walks over to the wall and turns the light on. Its at this point he realises he wasn't the only person home and his has just killed his own kid.