Castle law

[Oldbloke]

A petition calling for Castle Law to allow Queenslanders to use lethal force against home intruders has been tabled in parliament. (by Katter)


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-11/ ... /103958648

Do we need it? IMO yes. Just proof of successive governments failing to do their job.

Link to petition.

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work- ... ls?id=4077

[Oldbloke]

Copy paste of the epetition.

Queensland residents draws to the attention of the House that current legislation fails to adequately protect victims from prosecution following the act of defending themselves or others against an intruder(s) after a home invasion.

Every Queenslander deserves the right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property. Currently, in Queensland if a person chooses to defend themselves or others during a home invasion they may only use force that is reasonably necessary in all of the circumstances. What is reasonable is all of the circumstances is open to a broad interpretation. Homeowners may end up facing criminal charges such as assault or murder.

Queenslanders do not feel safe in their own homes knowing that offenders have more rights than occupants. The law does not protect victims of crime and forces them to second-guess their actions when faced with a split-second, life-threatening situation. Good laws should be in place to protect good people.

Castle Law (or the Castle Doctrine) is a principle grounded in the fundamental right to self-defence. Introducing Castle Law in Queensland would give victims the right to use whatever force necessary to protect themselves, others within the premises and their property if faced with an intruder(s). Giving victims the right to defend themselves without fear of prosecution puts the rights of victims before the rights of criminals.

A Queenslander’s home is their castle.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to do all in its power to legislate Castle Law in Queensland.

[Bugman]

Well there goes a state government that has pushed people, including politicians to be allowed more self protecting powers.
I hope it goes well. Either a Queenslander, New South Welshman etc, their homes are their castles.

[Wm.Traynor]

FWIW, I only found it under "Closed E-Petitions".

[Oldbloke]

FWIW, I only found it under "Closed E-Petitions".

Just clicking on the link I provided goes directly to it

[bigrich]

Damn , I missed the closing date for signing the petition. It got a lot of signatures and support

[Wm.Traynor]

Damn , I missed the closing date for signing the petition. It got a lot of signatures and support

Ah Rats. I must have missed the date too, by the sound of that

[No1_49er]

Some of the e-petitions are doomed to failure but there's no reason that you can't be advised of all upcoming petitions. Get on their mailing list - don't miss any of them.

[Oldbloke]

Another classic case.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-14/ ... /103926762

[on_one_wheel]

Another classic case.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-14/ ... /103926762

Sounds like a lovely bunch grubbs.
From wikki
In July 2003, the Rann Government (SA) introduced laws allowing householders to use "whatever force they deem necessary" when confronted with a home invader. Householders who kill or injure a home invader escape prosecution provided they can prove they had a genuine belief that it was necessary to do so to protect themselves or their family"

[alexjones]

I disagree with this extract of the abc article "allow them to kill home intruders without legal consequences".

It is not about killing it is about stopping the threat. If the intruder happens to die that is a consequence but not the wanted outcome.

[Oldbloke]

I disagree with this extract of the abc article "allow them to kill home intruders without legal consequences".

It is not about killing it is about stopping the threat. If the intruder happens to die that is a consequence but not the wanted outcome.

Yes, twisting the intent.

[alexjones]

I disagree with this extract of the abc article "allow them to kill home intruders without legal consequences".

It is not about killing it is about stopping the threat. If the intruder happens to die that is a consequence but not the wanted outcome.

Yes, twisting the intent.

In regards to police shootings and such have you ever seen people say "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" "should of done a warning shot blah blah"
So many people are stupid and ill-informed in regards to this type of stuff. Shooting to wound and warning shots are a concept held only by people who watch Hollywood movies. People who have experience in reality understand you shoot at centre mass until the threat ceases to be so.

Firing a warning shot shows you were not in imminent danger anyway.

[on_one_wheel]

Yes, because dead people don't sue for damages

[Oldbloke]

Bit off topic.

Judge let this bloke fo fot rape because a video game said it was ok to rape women.

Judge needs to be raped, then he might apply the law as intended. UNBELIEVABLE.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/man-c ... e9e50ada35


If he is not right in the head he should be getting treatment. No mention of that.


My bet is he will re-affend,,,soon.

[bigrich]

Bit off topic.

Judge let this bloke fo fot rape because a video game said it was ok to rape women.

Judge needs to be raped, then he might apply the law as intended. UNBELIEVABLE.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/man-c ... e9e50ada35


If he is not right in the head he should be getting treatment. No mention of that.


My bet is he will re-affend,,,soon.

Stuff like this p!sses me off. Another failure of the court to protect the community. The guy should’ve been in an institution with his level of mental health issues. We should be grateful he didn’t use a firearm in his crimes. Otherwise there’d be more talk of more draconian laws instead of dealing with the real problem of the health system treating people like him . I sometimes think I’m living in a society that’s scripted by “ Monty Python “

[alexjones]

The punishments on paper for crimes in the country are good. The problem is the punishments do not get used. I would rather see my tax dollars going to keep people in jail than to pay for daycare for other peoples kids. Your kid is your responsibility not mine. However as a society keeping criminals locked away is everyone's reasonability.

[Jorlcrin]

In regards to police shootings and such have you ever seen people say "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" "should of done a warning shot blah blah"
So many people are stupid and ill-informed in regards to this type of stuff. Shooting to wound and warning shots are a concept held only by people who watch Hollywood movies. People who have experience in reality understand you shoot at centre mass until the threat ceases to be so.

Firing a warning shot shows you were not in imminent danger anyway.

Many years ago(1970's), we were visited by a pair of detectives, who were asking Dad about some livestock he'd reported stolen down near Duaringa.

Dad was away a lot, and Mum was looking after us 4 kids; some 50kms from the nearest police station.
We'd only just learned that someone entering a house by tearing a hole through a gauze(flyscreen) panel, wasnt considered 'Breaking & Entering' in QLD.
Only 'Illegal Entry', which at the time, was considered a much lesser charge.
And about 80% of the exterior panels on our house are gauze; along the big verandahs.

Mum asked what she should do as far as defending herself and children, given the possibility of a drunk intruder.
Should she give the guy a warning shot, or pot him in the leg??
Detective looked her in the eye, and said to shoot the intruder Centre of Mass, until he stops twitching.
2 reasons:-
1). Practical - more to aim at.
2). Dead men tell no tales.

Detective told Mum that no-one was going to convict a woman defending her home and children from a drunk intruder, on a remote property..

Sadly, we dont seem to have that same mind-set prevalent in the constabulary(or Govt) any more..
These days, seems more likely the decision to prosecute will be based on how much political mileage can be made on the prosecution...