Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

[Sergeant Hartman]

Ziad - your saying that you only agree with deadly force for a home invasion IF it’s crystal clear the intruder is intent on killing you. I’ll 100% agree to your position - if you can answer how you will know this is the intruders intent ?

TT you are trying to argue... i just don't want to. Good luck

[Hammar]

"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." All other arguments are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. You can go on and on about the legal repercussions of using lethal force in defence of yourself and family if necessary but if someone breaks into your home and attacks you (or your family) they have forfeit their right to life if it should come to it. No amount of backwards laws and legal punishments will change the fact that my family would want me alive (even in prison) and not in the ground.
My conscience would be clear.

[TassieTiger]

Ziad - your saying that you only agree with deadly force for a home invasion IF it’s crystal clear the intruder is intent on killing you. I’ll 100% agree to your position - if you can answer how you will know this is the intruders intent ?

TT you are trying to argue... i just don't want to. Good luck

How ? How am I trying to argue? Seriously?

[Ziege]

He is done Tassie, he has no basis for any of his garb. Yourself, me and a few others have called him on his lack of insight and lack of any actual information other than repeating empty rhetoric. He won't "argue" because he has nothing to counter your points and has no way to make you look bad or way to belittle you for your stance. He is spent

[Sergeant Hartman]

Lol... zeige that funny.

I am done because its obvious nothing i will say will change TTs mind, nor anything he has said has been reasonable enough to make me change my mind.

We just going in circles, so i have two options say something to upset him and get a reaction or agree to disagree and move on.

Obviously that's something hard for you both to do right now.

[TassieTiger]

Ziad - you have stated, openly a point of view. All I want is for to show me how you arrived at that point of view. That’s not being argumentative, and I actually said - I’ll side with you if you can show me how you arrived at your conclusion - so, saying I’m not open to changing my mind is wrong.

Please tell me - how can you know, what the intent is of someone breaking into your house is? OR - how would you handle that situation ? At what point - is there a point - where you’d consider (heaven forbid) deadly force? Just because I’m asking you a question about your position, doesn’t make it an argument.

[straightshooter]

The thread seems to have devolved into discussion of competing righteous fantasies so consider this one.

Your honour, I and my family were sleeping peacefully in our home in the dead of night when I was awakened by distressing noises at my front door.
I took a firearm from it's locked cabinet and ammunition from it's locked container, then locked both again in compliance with the law and went to investigate.
At that moment two masked and armed men smashed through the front door.
In that instant I was in complete fear for my life and the safety of my family so I shot them.
How could I have possibly known they were Police officers?

[Ziege]

Only reason it's going in circles is you fail to make any valid rebuttals Ziad

[Ziege]

Why are the police invading the house unannounced without a warrant and masked?

[Ricochet]

Edited... Thanks TT.
Ok, so what some of us including myself previously believed was fact: The use of deadly force is legal in Australia, you just have to be able to justify it and be able to explain it in absolutely crystal clear terminology, explaining that genuine fear was your motive and not that they deserved it or forfeited anything.
Any attempt at self defence resulting in death or injury while the option to turn and run is there and not taken will potentially land you with charges of assault, homicide or manslaughter or similar.

Second point which is basically a fact but not actually written anywhere in law is that police and judges don't like it even when it is justified and will try and jail you for it anyway regardless of what you use to apply deadly force and ESPECIALLY if you use a firearm.
So basically the law expects us to not retaliate.

Were should be pushing for MP's to push for a remodelling of laws regarding use of violence and or weapons in self defence and revisions of sentences for home invasions, rapes, murders and other violent crimes.

[TassieTiger]

Fact: The use of deadly force is legal in Australia, you just have to be able to justify it and be able to explain it in absolutely crystal clear terminology, explaining that genuine fear was your motive and not that they deserved it or forfeited anything.
.

I thought this to be true as well - but please read the actual court examples linked by trekkin. I think you’ll be shocked...

[Ricochet]

Thanks Tassie Tiger.

So basically Australian law expects you to attempt to escape before defending yourself. If you do have to stand and fight you are then expected to try and not hurt someone intent on harming, raping and or killing you or someone you love, which potentially prolongs whatever scuffle takes place giving them extra chances to overpower you and tape kill etc.

This Sux

Scenario 1:
You live in a one room dwelling where your back door is blocked off by not easily removed furniture and windows you can't climb out of. Late at night you hear a noise, extract guns and ammo from safe, load weapon attempt to hide as you can't retreat and then warn armed home invading crim of intention to kill if they do not retreat. Crim tests your resolve and ends up dead for his troubles. You might escape jail in this case but all it takes is a b@stard cop and or a smart@rse lawyer and your screwed.

Scenario 2:
You hear a bump in the night, armed or not you investigate and find a scumbag breaking into your house and immediately open can of unarmed whip@ss. Your most likely screwed.

Scenario 3:
Hear bump in the night, crack open safe and arm yourself. You have a patio and laundry door allowing escape but don't use them. You hide and wait, crim enters bedroom and you warn him of intent to fire. Crim advances anyway and you;
A: fire warning shot, causing crim to cry like a baby and run.
B: fire warning shot, crim advances and you fire wounding shot then call cops and Ambos.
D: Warn crim, he advances you fire warning shot then turn his head into a canoe.
F: just drop the b@stard.
Answer if you chose any of the above options you are now f@&$#!

So the only thing you can do is let the crims assault you before you react and then you can only react if there is no avenue of escape, and after being attacked you are still expected to try not to hurt people.

Australian self defence laws suck.

[Ziege]

Yep what's more criminal than the criminals themselves is the police and government demanding people be helpless victims, mind readers or expect them to only use the exact same force in return. Absolute bulls**t...

[AussieCapitalist]

Australia is the land of the coward Ricochet. We are not allowed to stand our ground or defend our property. Someone breaks into your home and starts sexual assaulting your kids you are expected to call the police and ask the criminal to kindly stop what he is doing and leave.

If you just so happened to be cleaning your shotgun at the exact moment he broke in and it somehow went off in his direction. You will go to jail.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Tassie, ok good question. But first how many of you have had someone break into your house or know someone whose house was broken into while they were present?

I personally know atleast two, one multiple times and on all occasions the robbers just stole their belongings. In the other person case (mind you it was not in Australia, a firearm was used by the criminals) but again their intention was to steal valuables and run away.

So a chance smaller than winning lotto that you will get a criminal that wants anything more than valuables. They are either gangster wanabe or a drugie just want money for their next hit.

This is why what i said holds true, if the situation was different in that exceptional circumstance.....i am not saying anything on a public forum. I think i have said nothing in this world is black and white, most are shades of gray. But knowing Australian laws never will i bring out a firearm. There are lots of things that can be used in a deterrent manner MacGyver style.

Ohh do have a 50+ kg Shepard in the house for any interested party if they ever want to try and visit and think they can get anything value from the house that they cannot from the outside. When the Shepard dies ill probably have a great Dane.

[Ricochet]

This provides a bit of a quandary. If late one night you got up and headed to the kitchen to get yourself a glass of water and all of a sudden an intruder launched himself at you and at the end of it after a near silent scuffle that alerted nobody to what was going on, you find yourself sitting atop an accidentally snuffed attempted rapist would, you call the cops or reach for a shovel? The legal system we have at the moment actively promotes an attempt to cover it up simply because of the typical knee jerk reaction it has to violent situations without really looking into why it happened in the first place. This is rather concerning.

[Ricochet]

Ohh do have a 50+ kg Shepard in the house for any interested party if they ever want to try and visit and think they can get anything value from the house that they cannot from the outside. When the Shepard dies ill probably have a great Dane.

And then your beloved dog who is probably considered a family member more than a pet gets put down for doing it's job.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Yep it will be heartbreaking...but the alternative in TT works its my family member or i get killed or similar.

And in reference your your first question, one of guy Ritchies movies aptly put it...beware of any man that keeps a pig farm.

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~prl23/Snatch.htm

[TassieTiger]

Tassie, ok good question. But first how many of you have had someone break into your house or know someone whose house was broken into while they were present?

I personally know atleast two, one multiple times and on all occasions the robbers just stole their belongings. In the other person case (mind you it was not in Australia, a firearm was used by the criminals) but again their intention was to steal valuables and run away.

So a chance smaller than winning lotto that you will get a criminal that wants anything more than valuables. They are either gangster wanabe or a drugie just want money for their next hit.

This is why what i said holds true, if the situation was different in that exceptional circumstance.....i am not saying anything on a public forum. I think i have said nothing in this world is black and white, most are shades of gray. But knowing Australian laws never will i bring out a firearm. There are lots of things that can be used in a deterrent manner MacGyver style.

Ohh do have a 50+ kg Shepard in the house for any interested party if they ever want to try and visit and think they can get anything value from the house that they cannot from the outside. When the Shepard dies ill probably have a great Dane.

Thank you for answering the question.
I know several ppl who have been broken into - including me, and I caught one of the pricks until cops got there, but I digress. In reality - this doesn’t have anything to do with it. The real problem at present is that people don’t know what they can do without fear of reprisal...remember when a few lawsuits happened for ppl attempting to administer first aid but accidentally caused harm? The government saw how silly this was because ppl were refusing to administer first aid and they changed the law to protect the innocent - this should not be any different.
In regards to break ins - Have you seen the videos of police trying to deal with ppl high on ice? 3,4 5 cops sometimes struggling to contain an addict - as they are off their rocket...it’s more than likely that today - someone like that would be breaking in...if the cops can’t handle an ice addict, or understand / estimate their next move - then what hope has a fearful homeowner?

I’ve got young kids - maybe my protective wall goes up a bit faster but if I fear for mine or there safety, then I’ll do what ever I feel is needed to secure their safety and I’ll have to deal with the consequences post that. It’s not a question for me, it is a need. If someone is in my house with a knife, I’m not going to be helping him with the TV...(mind you - I too have 60kg Akita’s to help me so maybe I’d just need a dog toy lol)

There might be shades of gray in the world - but This really is one shade that can be easily stamped out. There will always be extenuating circumstance - and unforeseen issues - but the law at present is clearly in the criminals favour...

Hey Ric, I’m guessing by your post you did read those links. Bloody insane mate. That cuskelly court doc is horrid...sitting at home, having a drink, gets confronted by a person over heard to want to kill him, fight breaks out on cuskelly a property and he goes to jail 9 years...how can they call that fair, reasonable...or justice...

[AussieCapitalist]

Have you lads hired a security mob to do a mock break in on your premises to show you your weak points that need improvement in your home security? It was a good eye opener to me and showed me how venerable my home is to an attack by a determined home invader. I am not a rich man so my home security lacks in a few areas.

My home is brick and it is so easy to cut through the bricks and be inside the home in no time at all. But where do we draw the line? If someone really wants to target your home they will find a way to get in. Most break-ins are crimes of opportunity where they see an open door or window and they are in and out in seconds. But you can never be to careful.

[Ricochet]

Yeah Tassie I had a look.
The guy had threatened to kill him and turns up at his door. Had he stayed inside and argued he was to pi$$ed to run he might have gotten off lighter.
I remember thinking about 20 years ago Australia's legal system was batsh!t crazy when a guy (maybe one of Gay Wsterhouse's buddies or maybe not but her name creeps into my memory) got about 15 years for some kind of financial fraud and some got got less than around 7 or 8 for murder.. it makes no sense.
I had an idea a little while ago, if the average life span us now 75 years and you snuffed some one we take the victims age and subtract it from 75 years and that's your sentence with a minimum of 35 years for a sex, hate or greed motivated killing.

[TassieTiger]

Part of the issue AC is that with ICE or other mind altering drugs, the addicts dont have the mental fortitude to think - that one has cameras, that one has an alarm, that one doesn’t - they just go for what ever...they have little reasoning from some of the reports I’ve seen.
There are quite a few reports down here of ppl having their garage door up and despite being active around the house - they find pricks inside...so, one has to wonder - if these arsehsts can be so game as to casually walk onto your property and into your house - knowing your home, how far away can their mindset be away from...well, I’ll just kill em if they confront me...same mindset? Reaching? Maybe...but maybe not and therein lies the problem for me.

Doors and windows are minor obstacles to would be criminals - the social contract that exists that says you shant kick my door in and enter my house is really an illusion and the current laws make it even more so.

[Sergeant Hartman]

The problem is that under the law the ice addict is apparently not responsible for his actions... while you are.

It's fkdup but it's what it is, you hope that it never happens to you. I do hope and wish they change the laws... But castle doctrine is probably over kill. The courts system needs a bit of a tweak

[Ziege]

You can be charged/punished severely if your dog attacks anyone, anywhere. It's not a viable alternative if the goal is avoiding legal ramifications for protecting yourself or a loved one.

[Ricochet]

You can be charged/punished severely if your dog attacks anyone, anywhere. It's not a viable alternative if the goal is avoiding legal ramifications for protecting yourself or a loved one.

Edited.
If your dog mauls an intruder in your own home even with our stupid laws you won't get in trouble unless the pr!ck convinces a court you sic'd the dog onto them, or that doggo was a deliberately trained attack dog. Dog is still looking at a potential needle though.

[trekin]

Tassie, ok good question. But first how many of you have had someone break into your house or know someone whose house was broken into while they were present?

I personally know atleast two, one multiple times and on all occasions the robbers just stole their belongings. In the other person case (mind you it was not in Australia, a firearm was used by the criminals) but again their intention was to steal valuables and run away.

So a chance smaller than winning lotto that you will get a criminal that wants anything more than valuables. They are either gangster wanabe or a drugie just want money for their next hit.

This is why what i said holds true, if the situation was different in that exceptional circumstance.....i am not saying anything on a public forum. I think i have said nothing in this world is black and white, most are shades of gray. But knowing Australian laws never will i bring out a firearm. There are lots of things that can be used in a deterrent manner MacGyver style.

Ohh do have a 50+ kg Shepard in the house for any interested party if they ever want to try and visit and think they can get anything value from the house that they cannot from the outside. When the Shepard dies ill probably have a great Dane.

Thank you for answering the question.
I know several ppl who have been broken into - including me, and I caught one of the pricks until cops got there, but I digress. In reality - this doesn’t have anything to do with it. The real problem at present is that people don’t know what they can do without fear of reprisal...remember when a few lawsuits happened for ppl attempting to administer first aid but accidentally caused harm? The government saw how silly this was because ppl were refusing to administer first aid and they changed the law to protect the innocent - this should not be any different.
In regards to break ins - Have you seen the videos of police trying to deal with ppl high on ice? 3,4 5 cops sometimes struggling to contain an addict - as they are off their rocket...it’s more than likely that today - someone like that would be breaking in...if the cops can’t handle an ice addict, or understand / estimate their next move - then what hope has a fearful homeowner?

I’ve got young kids - maybe my protective wall goes up a bit faster but if I fear for mine or there safety, then I’ll do what ever I feel is needed to secure their safety and I’ll have to deal with the consequences post that. It’s not a question for me, it is a need. If someone is in my house with a knife, I’m not going to be helping him with the TV...(mind you - I too have 60kg Akita’s to help me so maybe I’d just need a dog toy lol)

There might be shades of gray in the world - but This really is one shade that can be easily stamped out. There will always be extenuating circumstance - and unforeseen issues - but the law at present is clearly in the criminals favour...

Hey Ric, I’m guessing by your post you did read those links. Bloody insane mate. That cuskelly court doc is horrid...sitting at home, having a drink, gets confronted by a person over heard to want to kill him, fight breaks out on cuskelly a property and he goes to jail 9 years...how can they call that fair, reasonable...or justice...

Again, can you point out, where in that document does it say that he is be sentenced to 9 years. Where abouts in that document does it state that Section 267 of the QLD Criminal Code does not give one greater protection from prosecution for ones actions in defence of their dwelling.
Let me put this to you. As an advocate for an "all bets off, anything goes" Castle Doctrine, if the deceased, in the above case, was your son, would you still be so tolerant of the homeowners actions knowing that he (the homeowner) had a BAC over 0.2?
Physiological effects of various blood alcohol levels

Blood alcohol level Physiological effect

0.01–0.04% (10–40 mg/dL) Mild euphoria, relaxation, and increased social interactions.

0.05–0.07% (50–70 mg/dL) Euphoria with loss of inhibition making a person more friendly and talkative. Some impairments of motor skills may take place in some individuals, and as a result, in some countries, e.g., Germany, the legal limit of driving is 0.05%.

0.08% (80 mg/dL) Legal limit of driving in United States. Some impairment of driving skills may be present in some individuals.

0.08–0.12% (80–120 mg/dL) Moderate impairment to significant impairment of driving skills depending on drinking habits. Emotional swings and depression may be observed in some individuals.

0.12–0.15% (120–150 mg/dL) Motor function, speech, and judgement are all severely affected at this height of blood alcohol. Staggering, and slurred speech, may be observed. Severe impairment of driving skills.

0.15–0.2% (150–200 mg/dL) This is the blood alcohol level where a person appears drunk and may have severe visual impairment.

0.2–0.3% (200–300 mg/dL) Vomiting, incontinence, symptoms of alcohol intoxication.

0.3–0.4% (300–400 mg/dL) Signs of severe alcohol intoxication and a person may not be able to move without the help of another person. Stupor, blackout, and total loss of consciousness may also happen.

0.4–0.5% (400–500 mg/dL) Potentially fatal and a person may be comatose.

Above 0.5% (500 mg/dL) Highly dangerous/fatal blood alcohol level.

[straightshooter]

The problem is that under the law the ice addict is apparently not responsible for his actions... while you are.

Yet another variation of "the devil made me do it"

[Sergeant Hartman]

Good point trekkin.

Shooter, mate that's what the courts and judges say/do...i don't agree with it but i am not a judge

[TassieTiger]

^ not quoting as it’s just getting insanely long.
@ trekkin.
Was cuskelly given 9 years? Yes. Does it matter what the court docs say, when the ultimate outcome is....9 years??

What is the actual point asking me if it was my son that was deceased? It’s insane - what if my son killed someone drunk driving? What if my son killed someone shooting ? These are laws that are in place - and sorry to my son if he reads this but if he breaks into someone’s home, attacks them, Was heard to say his intent is to kill that person and he comes out on the wrong end - he has crossed the line.

And again - how is it relevant trekkin re ABV when your in your OWN home drinking ? In saying that, are you now saying that, ppl should moderate their actions at home, in case someone breaks in ?

[Sergeant Hartman]

Actually can i say. The relevance is the same as when you asked me what would i do if someone was in my house intending to rape or kill my family members.

To answer the other question, when you are drunk your judgement is impaired. Hence you are not allowed to drive a vehicle or operate machinery when drunk. So while i might agree that there shouldn't be a restriction on what you do when you are in your home... but if those actions effect another person directly or indirectly then yes there are restrictions.

Simple example if you hit your child a lot it can become a DHS or police issue. Or planning a terrorism action it becomes a police or asio issue. Even though you were just minding you business at that point in time.

This situation the owner was extremely drunk and there is a reasonable chance he used excessive force in the eyes of the court because he was not in control of his actions..hence he ended up in jail.