Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

[Member-Deleted]

There are laws already in place for protecting one self but I to think that they don't cover the problem that arises with the potential violence that could be dished out by these individuals on law abiding citizens the reason the self defence laws aren't more user friendly to the possible victim is the powers don't want hero type individuals taking it upon themselves and deciding to dish out self defence on people who they are only arguing with or had an argument with and then claiming self defence when confronted with the issue so the powers err on the side of caution by restricting the amount of self defence one can dish out on a criminal which at present gives the criminal the advantage We all know many people get beaten up over disputes and self defence is claimed as a result even in and around dwellings what law should change is the break and enter with intent of doing harm then the dishing out of self defence and the amount should be decided by victim in that moment especially when the criminal is armed that way the victim can argue their case rather than charged straight up with assault for beating a felon intending to harm you

[wanneroo]

I believe having the ability to defend yourself is a basic inalienable human right that trumps anything government says or does.

I can tell you if I'm Australia and someone is trying to kill me or put me in the hospital, I'll do whatever I need to do to stop it and escape. People that worry about laws when that happens are the ones that end up dead or disabled for life.

[bigrich]

This isn't about firearms for self defence no, it's about the right to defend yourself. I believe we have that right, however the police and perhaps the courts seem to want to side with the criminal in cases like this. Why does this happen is the question I'd like answered. But I personally would like to be able to own a firearm for self defence. It's not a big surprise when this subject arises when talking about self defence because we are all firearm owners on this site. What amazes me is that a large proportion of people on here would disagree with me and even go as far as not wanting me to express that opinion on here because they believe it is somehow morally wrong, or it might upset someone.

i wouldn't say that people disagree with you, it's more a case of this site being monitored by feds and trolled by anti's looking for dirt. duncan61's case is all too common unfortunately myself, i'm refering to the right to defend your self and property against invaders with support from the law regarding your basic right to defend yourself. homeowners have been prosicuted for that . i beleive the granny on the remote property had the right to brandish a shotty for her self defense under the circumstances of the situation. i wouldn't dream of resorting to a firearm for self defense . i have a bread board . of coarse if some crim who chooses to home invade is real unlucky i might be sharpening a gardening impliment at the time JMHO

[Member-Deleted]

Spot on bigrich and ya can't help if the invader fell up and down the stairs 4 or 5 times making him a little worse for wear

[TassieTiger]

This situation ripples my hairs because of a personal situation that happened to me many years ago...when late one night I heard 3 ppl stealing my car.
I took after them and caught one...he fell down the stairs and I dragged him back to the house where cops were on route...

They took him from me - and interviewed him and then I saw him being allowed to walk away...I got angry.
Cops said to me - that guy said he was walking along homeward and you ran up to him and hit him...so we have let him go and will await his instructions in regards to any charges to be laid...never mind that my car was still sitting in the middle of the road from where they had pushed it and took off when I came outside...never mind the cops couldn’t get a finger print team out to verify the wankers involvement - but the cop said to me and made it abundantly clear - you do not have any right to assault anyone, anytime, anywhere...

[bigrich]

This situation ripples my hairs because of a personal situation that happened to me many years ago...when late one night I heard 3 ppl stealing my car.
I took after them and caught one...he fell down the stairs and I dragged him back to the house where cops were on route...

They took him from me - and interviewed him and then I saw him being allowed to walk away...I got angry.
Cops said to me - that guy said he was walking along homeward and you ran up to him and hit him...so we have let him go and will await his instructions in regards to any charges to be laid...never mind that my car was still sitting in the middle of the road from where they had pushed it and took off when I came outside...never mind the cops couldn’t get a finger print team out to verify the wankers involvement - but the cop said to me and made it abundantly clear - you do not have any right to assault anyone, anytime, anywhere...

real sad state of affairs in australia isn't it . that's why we need to bring public and media preasure on this subject , cause that's the only way to get action . in your case taz , it's no wonder people think about becoming vigilantes . which i would be inclined to turn a blind eye to in some situations

[Strangedog]

Back in the day Police would turn a blind eye to a lot of things and even dish out a bit of punishment themselves. That day was better.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Damn tassie. Rephrasing what someone else said......if you wanna do something do it right

[Farmerpete]

Im not signing it based on the fact its a change.org petition. change.org may as well be an opinion poll on today or sunrise for all the attention that politicians will pay. If the owner of the petition was serious about making a change it would have been either a state or federal e-petition not a petition on a site thats going to spam your inbox with $h1t after you sign

[bigrich]

Im not signing it based on the fact its a change.org petition. change.org may as well be an opinion poll on today or sunrise for all the attention that politicians will pay. If the owner of the petition was serious about making a change it would have been either a state or federal e-petition not a petition on a site thats going to spam your inbox with $h1t after you sign

that's a very valid point........

[flutch]

But the Russians revolution started as just a idea.....

are you suggesting the Bolshevik revolution was a good thing?

[bigrich]

But the Russians revolution started as just a idea.....

are you suggesting the Bolshevik revolution was a good thing?

Not at all . The point was sometimes “just a idea “ can grow and turn into something much bigger. A better example would be the American revolution. Or the French Revolution depending on your views off history. Modern society is full of apathy and everyone seems to be side tracked by a increasing more complex society and social media . JMHO

[trekin]

For Taz, at 1630 yesterday, the pub that one of my daughters is a manager at was held up at gun point (replica hundgun) by four men. Her bar staff recognised the gun as a replica, and took these scum to task and touched two of them up pretty good before they were able to get away. Unfortunatly, a sixty yo regular who stepped up to help, was beaten so badly he is not expected to survive. The local coppers ran three of the scum down within the hour, and they started bleating on about sueing the pub and staff for their injuries, and that it was in self defence that the old bloke got bashed. Coppers told them, in no uncertain terms, that, that crap doesn't wash up here, and that they had lost their right to that defence the moment they entered the premises with intent.

[TassieTiger]

Im not signing it based on the fact its a change.org petition. change.org may as well be an opinion poll on today or sunrise for all the attention that politicians will pay. If the owner of the petition was serious about making a change it would have been either a state or federal e-petition not a petition on a site thats going to spam your inbox with $h1t after you sign

Agreed as well - but please let me know where your petition might be so I can sign yours?

[TassieTiger]

Im not signing it based on the fact its a change.org petition. change.org may as well be an opinion poll on today or sunrise for all the attention that politicians will pay. If the owner of the petition was serious about making a change it would have been either a state or federal e-petition not a petition on a site thats going to spam your inbox with $h1t after you sign

Agreed as well - but please let me know where your petition might be so I can sign yours?

[straightshooter]

For Taz, at 1630 yesterday, the pub that one of my daughters is a manager at was held up at gun point (replica hundgun) by four men. Her bar staff recognised the gun as a replica, and took these scum to task and touched two of them up pretty good before they were able to get away. Unfortunatly, a sixty yo regular who stepped up to help, was beaten so badly he is not expected to survive. The local coppers ran three of the scum down within the hour, and they started bleating on about sueing the pub and staff for their injuries, and that it was in self defence that the old bloke got bashed. Coppers told them, in no uncertain terms, that, that crap doesn't wash up here, and that they had lost their right to that defence the moment they entered the premises with intent.

Can you see how sloppy use of language sometimes is the cause of a lot of problems for victims.
Wouldn't it have been better to say - when confronted, they were compelled to defend themselves for fear for their lives
In circumstances such as this, when speaking to Police, trying to 'big note' oneself even in a subtle way is only a recipe for a lot of problems.

[trekin]

For Taz, at 1630 yesterday, the pub that one of my daughters is a manager at was held up at gun point (replica hundgun) by four men. Her bar staff recognised the gun as a replica, and took these scum to task and touched two of them up pretty good before they were able to get away. Unfortunatly, a sixty yo regular who stepped up to help, was beaten so badly he is not expected to survive. The local coppers ran three of the scum down within the hour, and they started bleating on about sueing the pub and staff for their injuries, and that it was in self defence that the old bloke got bashed. Coppers told them, in no uncertain terms, that, that crap doesn't wash up here, and that they had lost their right to that defence the moment they entered the premises with intent.

Can you see how sloppy use of language sometimes is the cause of a lot of problems for victims.
Wouldn't it have been better to say - when confronted, they were compelled to defend themselves for fear for their lives
In circumstances such as this, when speaking to Police, trying to 'big note' oneself even in a subtle way is only a recipe for a lot of problems.

No mate, I don't, as those are my words, and my words only. The staff at this pub are pretty well versed at how to word a report to the police, as this is the fourth time this year alone that they have had an armed robbery happen there.

[TassieTiger]

For Taz, at 1630 yesterday, the pub that one of my daughters is a manager at was held up at gun point (replica hundgun) by four men. Her bar staff recognised the gun as a replica, and took these scum to task and touched two of them up pretty good before they were able to get away. Unfortunatly, a sixty yo regular who stepped up to help, was beaten so badly he is not expected to survive. The local coppers ran three of the scum down within the hour, and they started bleating on about sueing the pub and staff for their injuries, and that it was in self defence that the old bloke got bashed. Coppers told them, in no uncertain terms, that, that crap doesn't wash up here, and that they had lost their right to that defence the moment they entered the premises with intent.

The fact these pricks even had the gall to bring it up shows where society’s head is at...
Food on the coppers - but if the wankers get a smart arse lawyer....?

[trekin]

Your missing the point a little - I 100% guarantee, regardless of QLD laws vs other states laws, that one could quite easily find an insane court decision pertaining to someone who "believed" they were using self defense to protect themselves and then ended up getting F'd over it in one way or another - or very similar.
I recall from a few years back now and the "exact" facts I cant recall, but it went along the lines of - a kid broke into the Gympie hotel - got caught and was ejected. That same kid then attempted to climb the hotels roof in an attempt to gain entry and when the publican saw said kid, hurled abuse / something at the kid and he fell and broke a leg - and sued the publican. I was living in QLD at the time and recall the uproar...it's these situations Id like to see taken from "grey" and "debatable" to "clear cut" - no case to answer.

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but, now that we can up load PDF files, I think you'll find some interesting reading here. As I said earlier, self defence and defence of dwelling are seperate areas of law, which very few people know or understand.

QCA09-375.pdf

(91.47 KiB) Downloaded 254 times

QCA13-361(1).pdf

(169.41 KiB) Downloaded 339 times

QCA13-339.pdf

(144.03 KiB) Downloaded 266 times

[TassieTiger]

Re the first one - cusKelly was successful in obtainING a retrial but then got 9 years for manslaughter...
so - A drunken man attacked him in his home, heard by numerous witnesses (including an ambo) that his intent was to cut the throat of cusKelly who defended himself and he gets 9 years.
If this doesn’t scare the crap out of you...what does.

[Ziege]

Signed and had over 40 others do the same just now. Bout time criminals and the likes lost their ability to intimidate the public and peaceful

[trekin]

Re the first one - cusKelly was successful in obtainING a retrial but then got 9 years for manslaughter...
so - A drunken man attacked him in his home, heard by numerous witnesses (including an ambo) that his intent was to cut the throat of cusKelly who defended himself and he gets 9 years.
If this doesn’t scare the crap out of you...what does.

If you actually followed the case, the murder conviction was over turned due to the princple of law of defending his dwelling (a defence not offered to him by his lawyer, and not considered by the judge) overrides self defence in this situation, and not for the reasons that he based his appeal on. He was subsequently charged and convicted of manslaughter on the evidence that his blood alcohol level wasl above the level that is medicaly and legally considered for being able to reasonably believe anything. However, the outcome for the appellant is here nor there, the fact that that QLD Supeme Court upheld the princple of Castle Doctrine (Section 267 of the QLD Criminal Code) is the important takeout froms this.

[SAnewb85]

As long as you use a level of force that is equivalent +1 (basically you can only use just enough force to gain control of the situation) and you can argue that you had a "reasonable" fear of the intruder/person committing the assault/crime you shouldn't have an issue.

I think the grey area in Oz is found in whether you had the opportunity to hide or take cover instead of confronting the assailant.

That's my understanding at this point but I'm not a lawyer so I may be wrong.

[TassieTiger]

^ Mate - that’s what I thought as well but reading the actual court docs above...yeah, better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. Apparently...

[trekin]

^ Mate - that’s what I thought as well but reading the actual court docs above...yeah, better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. Apparently...

Where, exactly in the court docs I posted, does it say it is better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. ??

[trekin]

As long as you use a level of force that is equivalent +1 (basically you can only use just enough force to gain control of the situation) and you can argue that you had a "reasonable" fear of the intruder/person committing the assault/crime you shouldn't have an issue.

I think the grey area in Oz is found in whether you had the opportunity to hide or take cover instead of confronting the assailant.

That's my understanding at this point but I'm not a lawyer so I may be wrong.

That is correct for self defence, even up here in QLD. However, a Castle Doctrine does not require the same level of justification, by the defendant, for some actions, such as "you can only use just enough force to gain control of the situation" and "whether you had the opportunity to hide or take cover instead of confronting the assailant."
For example, Section 267 of the QLD Criminal Code states that:
Defence of dwelling
It is lawful for a person who is in peaceable possession of a
dwelling, and any person lawfully assisting him or her or
acting by his or her authority, to use force to prevent or repel
another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the
dwelling, if the person using the force believes on reasonable
grounds—
(a) the other person is attempting to enter or to remain in
the dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence
in the dwelling; and
(b) it is necessary to use that force.

As opposed to Section 271, which states:
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
(1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked
the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the
assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence
against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not
such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable
apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person
using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable
grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person
defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for
the person to use any such force to the assailant as is
necessary for defence, even though such force may cause
death or grievous bodily harm.

[AussieCapitalist]

There is a reason Americans use the term "god given rights" because it means they are given to everybody and can not be changed by a government, not now or not ever. Self defence by all available means in ones home is a basic human right and must be granted to everybody.

[TassieTiger]

^ Mate - that’s what I thought as well but reading the actual court docs above...yeah, better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. Apparently...

Where, exactly in the court docs I posted, does it say it is better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. ??

Clearly sarcasm is lost in translation - thought it was mental enough that you’d get it...so you really believe a court doc round say that?
But - the Point being - cusKelly in court link 1, was at home drinking with his partner and was attacked with what may have been lethal intent - in fact an off duty neighbour (ambo) recited that the deceased was going to cut a throat or kill him or words to that effect. CusKelly attempts to sway intruder but is unsuccessful - cusKelly grabs a knife hoping that would definitely sway the intruder, but a scuffle breaks out - intruder wears the knife - once, in the chest....ultimately, cusKelly does 9 years for manslaughter. Had he laid down and copped the beating ? A few months in hospital...thus the alignment I was trying to make.
Regardless of the laws intent - there’s arguable criteria from any angle and the fact remains that it’s open to interpretation and therefore exploitation.

[Ziege]

There is not one single excuse for the current state of the laws in place. You have one life, no one can give it back if taken, you have one body, no one can give you another one if it is damaged.

What f***ing nerve do people have to tell anyone that they can't do whatever it takes at any length to protect that one life and one body, if I fear for my life, Goto the closet and open the safe and defend my life and body against intruders one or many, I shouldn't have to face any kind of legal repercussions.

In the current state of affairs I would be hauled off for a myriad of crimes, crimes that should never be crimes... Defending your own. Life is one of the few things that is imperative to define one as being free, the fact we can't is definitive proof that we are considered livestock in this country

[trekin]

^ Mate - that’s what I thought as well but reading the actual court docs above...yeah, better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. Apparently...

Where, exactly in the court docs I posted, does it say it is better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. ??

Clearly sarcasm is lost in translation - thought it was mental enough that you’d get it...so you really believe a court doc round say that?
But - the Point being - cusKelly in court link 1, was at home drinking with his partner and was attacked with what may have been lethal intent - in fact an off duty neighbour (ambo) recited that the deceased was going to cut a throat or kill him or words to that effect. CusKelly attempts to sway intruder but is unsuccessful - cusKelly grabs a knife hoping that would definitely sway the intruder, but a scuffle breaks out - intruder wears the knife - once, in the chest....ultimately, cusKelly does 9 years for manslaughter. Had he laid down and copped the beating ? A few months in hospital...thus the alignment I was trying to make.
Regardless of the laws intent - there’s arguable criteria from any angle and the fact remains that it’s open to interpretation and therefore exploitation.

So, where does it say in that doc, that he is convicted of manslaughter? Where does it say anything other than, on the evidence before the court of appeals, that Section 267 (Defence of Dwelling) afforded him protection from prosecution, and that to deny that defence, for the reasons given by the trial judge, was a miscarriage of justice, and that the pior conviction of murder be set aside (overturned) and that the case be retried allowing Defence of Dwelling as a defence.
Yes, ultimately, he was convicted of manslaughter at retrial in the lower court, but only on evidence that the prosecution had withheld from the first trial, and therefore from the court of appeal.
A Castle Doctrine is defined as such; "A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used." You still have to justify those "certain circumstances", unfortunatly, cusKelly, was deemed to have not by a jurry of his peers.
As I said before, irrespective of the outcome for the appellant, the fact that that QLD Supeme Court upheld the princple of Castle Doctrine (Section 267 of the QLD Criminal Code) is the important takeout froms this.