Originally Posted by orangello
Congratulations to the guy on coming out ahead. I wonder, can he sue the perps in civil court for damages to himself & his door?
So, if he had beaten them with a short, sharpened shovel, he would've risked a charge, right? I have a thing for shovels; they have so many uses. :D
There's not much of a precedent here for suing perps, at least you don't hear about them if they do happen - although there have been criminals who have sued victims of crime for injuries they
sustained in assaults/robberies. How effed up is that?
As for the shovel, yeah I think purposely sharpening the shovel would see you in a definate amount of trouble (premeditation etc). And an unsharpened shovel would only be considered reasonable if the attacker also had a shovel - or some other implement considered a 'weapon' :rolleyes:
An interesting blog post I found here about the subject as it relates to Aust:
How do you protect yourself at home? | Daily Telegraph Your Say Blog
How do you protect yourself at home?
When a random stranger stumbled into Sarah Carr’s home by mistake, she told him to get out. Drunk, he pulled a screw driver on her and slashed her, so she thumped him with a baseball bat.
The incident comes a week after a Marrickville man forcibly held an intruder until police arrived. The intruder subsequently died from injuries sustained in the struggle.
It raises an issue of personal safety for most people.
Our legal expert, Law Society president Hugh Macken outlines what you can do to protect yourself in this blog.
The question of personal safety leads people to ask what more can be done to protect citizens.
Police resources are constantly stretched, so people are increasingly taking responsibility for their own safety with measures that are dangerous to criminals. Does this deter criminals? Probably not. Most are too desperate or too stupid to know that ordinary citizens will now do what it takes to protect themselves.
Most urban survial experts would recommend a range of strategies for fortifying your house, but householders are often unaware of hesitant to ruin the aesthetics of a home. Of course not everything has to razor wired. A bougainvillea will often do the same job on the perimeter.
But what about inside? Ms Carr says she was fortunate that her brothers played baseball.
And there are no shortage of self defence course available at almost every community centre in most suburbs.'
Its a shame the laws are so strict on firearms, because I had the means, I would have a pistol to defend myself. If someone threatened me or my family, they wont be walking away, they will be carried away in a plastic bag…
Brad of Campbelltown
Thu 27 Nov 08 (09:12am)
Jane replied to Brad
Thu 27 Nov 08 (10:11pm)
Some years ago, before we handed our guns in, a copper told me that one should first fire a warning shot, then a “disabling shot”
He further stipulated there is no way anyone could tell which was fired first.
Now I just have a 5 iron/rolling pin/skillet.
How on earth can one protect themselves when the law then charges the innocent for doing so. If there were only one intruder I’m sure I would have a good pick while they had a feed. But these cowards rarely act alone. The evil and greedy gutless wonders usually operate in pairs or packs. However, I sleep with a tyre iron beside my bed and a baseball bat beside the front and back doors. A few months in prison for protecting myself and my family would give me great satisfaction if the coward that invaded my privacy were in traction for at least the same amount of time.
K Parker of chatswood
Thu 27 Nov 08 (09:19am)
The Law here states pretty categorically what you can and can't do to protect yourself:
How to deal with a home invader | Daily Telegraph Your Say Blog
How to deal with a home invader
The old Australian adage that a man's home is castle was highlighted this week when a Marrickville resident confronted an alleged home invader who later ended up in hospital with some pretty serious injuries. Amongst all the anxiety there is one issue here that needs to be clarified. That is the law says you can take all reasonable steps to protect yourself and your property even at expense of would be burglars or assailants.
So what to do if you find yourself confronted by an intruder in the middle of the night? The law is pretty clear. In February 2002 the Crimes Amendment (Self-Defence) Act came into force and it is section 418 that is particularly relevant. A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if it is carried out in self defence. If that person believes his or her conduct is necessary to prevent themselves or anyone else being harmed or their property threatened they can take such action as is reasonable in the circumstances.
However, if the intruder is killed then self defence is harder to establish and a charge of manslaughter may result if the response causes death and is not judged by the court to have been a reasonable response in the circumstances. It is rare for the police to prosecute where a person has clearly acted in self defence and when they do the accused is usually acquitted. This was seen in the case of Arbed Jarwad Hersch who was acquitted of murder after stabbing Mohammed Tariq Kahn with a screw driver after a road rage incident.
There are also powers which allow a person to arrest and detain another person until the police arrive if that person is in the act of committing an offence or has just committed a crime. This is a general power of arrest and a defence based on â€śself defenceâ€ť is not available when making a so called citizens arrest.
It is a given that the Courts will take into account the circumstances they face and the response to the threat if they are charged. Where it is clear cut then no charges would even be laid.
At the end of the day, the law protects homeowners and always will. What it doesn't do is allow vigilante action or for individuals to have a licence to kill.
- NSW Law Society President Hugh Macken
With the understading that reasonable force is the only acceptable responce. And knowing I am being invaded by the presence of an intruder in my home. Surely my reasonable responce is to be measured against my own level of fear for my life? The courts sem to be asking victims to wait till they are mortally wounded before responding with deadly force. Surely the act of tresspass particulary dark should be met with deadly force to avoid confusion which may result in the victim being dead and too slow to remove a perceived threat?
Tue 18 Nov 08 (07:25pm)
The Courts will apply a subjective test. That is, what knowledge did the person who was forced to defend themselves have at the time? There have been cases where a potential victim was being threatened with what was thought to be an iron bar but was in fact a piece of plastic tube. He was acquitted of murder and manslaughter after stabbing his assailant with a screwdriver. What matters is what you perceive the situation to be, not what is discovered with the benefit of hindsight.
Wed 19 Nov 08 (08:23am)
if u beat an intruder half to death expect to go to jail. if you can not restrain them without using extreme violence you may well be best to wait til they leave.
commonsense of hell
Tue 18 Nov 08 (07:41pm)
If there is a choice of “fight or flight”, take flight.
Wed 19 Nov 08 (08:19am)
The SSAA (Sporting Shooters Assoc of Aust) also has something interesting to say on the matter:
SSAA - Firearm Control - Assessing the Impact
Firearm Control - Assessing the Impact
We are confronted daily with instances where people are assaulted, robbed, raped and in a significant proportion of cases killed in their own homes at the hands of increasingly bold and violent 'break and enter' criminals. Yet by and large, law-makers remain staunchly opposed to the idea that the right to self-defence should be guaranteed, even more so the freedom to defend one's life with a firearm. However, the recently released study, Crime, Deterrence, And The Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns (8), prepared by Chicago University professors John Lott and David Mustard, is shedding new light on the effectiveness of private firearm ownership for self-defence in the home.
Lott and Mustard's work reveals some surprising facts concerning the incidence of what are described as 'hot crimes'. These are crimes such as burglary and break and enters where the perpetrator is likely to come into contact with a victim - in other words, break-ins where miscreants deliberately force their way in while the home is occupied, or 'home invasion'. Comparing break-in statistics for the US, Canada and Britain, Kenneth Mays (9), drawing on Lott and Mustard's data, points to a startling differential. In both Canada and Britain, countries with very restrictive firearm laws at least comparable to Australia's with regard to self-defence, more than 50% of burglaries fall into the category of potentially 'hot crimes'.
By comparison, in the US, where private firearms ownership for self-defence in one's own residence is commonplace, less than 13% of break and enters are committed while the occupier is at home. This is a very significant 400% reduction.
Obviously the possibility that one might be met by an armed occupant has a significant deterrent effect on potential home invaders. Mays notes the possibility that a potential victim may be armed "raises the criminal's expected risks or costs from committing these type of crimes." (10) The result is that in the US experience, far fewer burglaries are perpetrated where innocent people are likely to be hurt or killed in their own homes. At some point in the not too distant future will we see an Australian victim of home invasion suing a state government for damages as a result of not being allowed to possess a firearm for self-defence?