Self defence petition

[WesleySnipes]

Home investions with the intention of murder, abduction, etc where the perpetrator is unknown to the victim is extremely rare in Australia. Break ins are by contrast quite common and I know of several people that have been robbed repeatedly but almost always when no one is home.

I don't think I could ever justify shooting some drop kick after a quick hit if I busted them in my house (not that I'd be accommodating mind you). And if it was violence they were after then I highly doubt I'd ever have a chance to get to any sort of firearm in time to use it.

It's kind of a moot point to be honest because the real criminals that everyone is up in arms (no pun intended) about, the ones that are armed, aren't ripping off peoples TVs. They are involved in fairly lucrative drug syndicates, stand over operations and other rackets and if one of them is knocking on your door I highly doubt you are the sort to be claiming the moral high ground.

As I won't have a questionnaire on the door for a criminal to fill out before they enter my house with criminal intent, I definitely won't be gambling with my life or the life of my family on the good intentions and moral righteousness of a criminal. I also won't be thinking if it's highly unlikely or not, the fact is it happens, and you and your family might be the victims. However unlikely it is is irrelevant.

As you said, they may of just had a hit of whatever drug, people under the influence can often be extremely violent and unpredictable. To a smackhead who is high on cocaine it is reasonable to assume they aren't inside your house to be friendly, so you have to act accordingly. Defending yourself and your family is an inalienable civil right.

[1290]

Your response must be proportional to the threat.

[MeccaOz]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

[WesleySnipes]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

I don't see how that is in the middle? That IS the point. If a young teenager breaks into your house unarmed looking to steal your toaster and you have time to observe this, deadly force is not justifiable. Sound simple? But in reality it isn't, and in the heat of the moment all you know is that someone is in your house and could potentially cause harm to you or your family, and it is up to you to use justifiable force to stop the threat. What is justifiable and what is a threat is extremely hard to quantify when you're in that position, and at the end of the day they are in your house, and your family's lives may be in danger so it's a pretty slippery slope. At the end of the day no one wants to take a life and deadly force should always be the last option after all others are exhausted.

[MeccaOz]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

I don't see how that is in the middle? That IS the point. If a young teenager breaks into your house unarmed looking to steal your toaster and you have time to observe this, deadly force is not justifiable. Sound simple? But in reality it isn't, and in the heat of the moment all you know is that someone is in your house and could potentially cause harm to you or your family, and it is up to you to use justifiable force to stop the threat. What is justifiable and what is a threat is extremely hard to quantify when you're in that position, and at the end of the day they are in your house, and your family's lives may be in danger so it's a pretty slippery slope. At the end of the day no one wants to take a life and deadly force should always be the last option after all others are exhausted.

Without dragging up my past, I have been in a similar situation as the hypothetical we are talking about. I assume everyone is different, in my case, with adrenaline running full on, we got to the fisticuffs stage, and then the person took off and left, but for a second or two there I honestly thought I was going to have to take that extra step, I didnt want to so Im glad I didnt have to. What Im saying is justifying your actions is alot easier in the moment than it is in a court room. I doubt you can convey to a jury the intense desire to survive and have your family survive when your the only thing standing between him and them, the jury wasnt there, and that I think is why people have a hard time with the legalities of self defence, yes you can pick apart every action taken in a court room, was it right, maybe, maybe not .. but trying to convey that it was your only choice because it was a split second decision that needed to be made right then and there is the hard part. It's to much to put on the victim

[WesleySnipes]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

I don't see how that is in the middle? That IS the point. If a young teenager breaks into your house unarmed looking to steal your toaster and you have time to observe this, deadly force is not justifiable. Sound simple? But in reality it isn't, and in the heat of the moment all you know is that someone is in your house and could potentially cause harm to you or your family, and it is up to you to use justifiable force to stop the threat. What is justifiable and what is a threat is extremely hard to quantify when you're in that position, and at the end of the day they are in your house, and your family's lives may be in danger so it's a pretty slippery slope. At the end of the day no one wants to take a life and deadly force should always be the last option after all others are exhausted.

Without dragging up my past, I have been in a similar situation as the hypothetical we are talking about. I assume everyone is different, in my case, with adrenaline running full on, we got to the fisticuffs stage, and then the person took off and left, but for a second or two there I honestly thought I was going to have to take that extra step, I didnt want to so Im glad I didnt have to. What Im saying is justifying your actions is alot easier in the moment than it is in a court room. I doubt you can convey to a jury the intense desire to survive and have your family survive when your the only thing standing between him and them, the jury wasnt there, and that I think is why people have a hard time with the legalities of self defence, yes you can pick apart every action taken in a court room, was it right, maybe, maybe not .. but trying to convey that it was your only choice because it was a split second decision that needed to be made right then and there is the hard part. It's to much to put on the victim

You're exactly right. The fact is no one wants to take a life, but if there's a threat to your family you have to neutralise it. It's not up to anyone to tell you what you should of done or what other alternatives you could of used. There was a threat, you acted pumped with adrenaline to stop it in any way necessary. Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6 I believe is the saying?

And I'm glad you lived to fight another day so to speak. That incident could of gone any which way immediately and you had the right to defend yourself accordingly.

[becks]

she is aiming at his "equipment"in the picture

Sounds like a winning strategy to me

[Bourt]

TBH I can't see many people feeling sympathy for a home-invader getting shot in the junk.

And on the plus side, you didn't have to kill anyone. Justice!