Australian man gets charged for defending family

[pajamatime]

this is the exact material we need to expose the problem for what it is.

https://www.facebook.com/9NewsPerth/videos/1073747895970703/?fref=nf

A Perth father is facing the threat of police charges because he fought back against a home invader. The Parmelia dad caught and beat the intruder. He says he was protecting children inside the house.

[aaronjo]

I saw that story yesterday, shameful that the intruder is possibly getting scott free while the homeowner is getting charged.

[bigfellascott]

Good on him - I would have done exactly the same too if put in that position by an intruder, any person would if they had half a brain and wasn't a complete coward that just relies on the police to solve all their problems for them.

Fooked if I'd be waiting around to be the victim - smash em good and proper I say, I'll bet the perp thinks twice about doing something like that again.

[Baronvonrort]

If I was on the jury I would be unlikely to convict him.

[tom604]

If I was on the jury I would be unlikely to convict him.

a standing ovation would be more likely

[Oldbloke]

The law is an ASS. Or is that the police?

[valkyrie]

god this country absolutely disgusts me sometimes.

[Heckler303]

..............

What. A. Load. Of. WANK


You SHOULD be able to protect yourselves from these f'ed up monsters, he was watching his daughter WHILE SHE WAS SLEEPING. DO THEY NOT REALISE THAT HE WAS NOT ONLY BREAKING AND ENTERING, BUT HE IS POSSIBLY ALSO A PEDOPHILE!?


How we can be so utterly pathetic and moronic to let these sorts of people get off scot-free for committing these f'ed up criminal activities, BUT THEY CHARGET THE MAN FOR FIGHTING BACK? HE DESERVES A BLOODY MEDAL!


You know what, I'm sick of this sh*t, we need to do something about this becaues this simply isn't bloody well fair

[Gwion]

It's all about reasonable and proportionate force. Telling national TV that you got the offender down and then proceeded to ram his head into the fence isn't the best opening for a defence against disproportionate force. Remember, if someone is running away from you it is not self defence, it is assault.

There's also the "citizen's arrest". If WA is anything like Vic, then there is a requirement to "finds committing and continues to commit". Once the offender is running away, he is no longer continuing to commit. Never attempt a citizen's arrest, especially if you have given them a flogging!

It might seem like you are "catching the guy", but you are wading into very swampy waters.

Anyway. I hope the magistrate or jury finds in his favour.

[Vati]

Sounds a lot like defending the intruder/criminal I've got to say Gwion. I don't think you are, but that's all that kind of argument can do.

I'm sure we all understand the "if he's running away it's no longer self defence" argument in theory. In reality the guy broken into someone else's house at night and was found standing over a child planning who knows what. None of that happened by accident, the guy knowingly decided to broke the law, invade someone else's sanctuary and would have know who knows what if he hadn't been interrupted.

To be crystal clear I am NOT advocating excessive violence against the intruder, but I have zero sympathy for them and whatever happens in the heat of the moment. I don't want to get dramatic and say he 'got of lightly' with just getting a beating, but I definitely wouldn't say it's too much.

He make his bed, now he's laying in it.

Putting a hypothetical out there....

Say you chase an intruder out of the house and hit him once with a bat in your driveway, hospitalising him, no longer self defence?

Say you find him in your daughters bedroom and hit him once with a bat, hospitalising him, perfectly Ok in your opinion?

(Take all that as it's intended, not having a go or starting an argument. Just a conversation)

[Newdave]

"Reasonable and proportionate" , this country is a joke . We should have have a castle law in this country. I don't understand how any reasonable person can disagree. You cross that line and enter someone's home in the middle of the night . You should leave all of your rights at the door . We are a nation of victems and what's worse is the majority are proud of it.

[Gwion]

Sounds a lot like defending the intruder/criminal I've got to say Gwion. I don't think you are, but that's all that kind of argument can do.

I'm sure we all understand the "if he's running away it's no longer self defence" argument in theory. In reality the guy broken into someone else's house at night and was found standing over a child planning who knows what. None of that happened by accident, the guy knowingly decided to broke the law, invade someone else's sanctuary and would have know who knows what if he hadn't been interrupted.

To be crystal clear I am NOT advocating excessive violence against the intruder, but I have zero sympathy for them and whatever happens in the heat of the moment. I don't want to get dramatic and say he 'got of lightly' with just getting a beating, but I definitely wouldn't say it's too much.

He make his bed, now he's laying in it.

Putting a hypothetical out there....

Say you chase an intruder out of the house and hit him once with a bat in your driveway, hospitalising him, no longer self defence?

Say you find him in your daughters bedroom and hit him once with a bat, hospitalising him, perfectly Ok in your opinion?

(Take all that as it's intended, not having a go or starting an argument. Just a conversation)

Not defending the intruder, just discussing the realities of the law rather than griping that "this country is a joke". I don't believe it is.

Now, i'm by no stretch a lawyer, so what i say is just what i say. I have trained a lot of martial arts and worked in the security industry in Vic, so my comments are based on that training in the law and "building legal walls to defend yourself". Stating on camera that he rammed the offenders head into an iron fence is kind of like taking a sledge hammer to your "legal walls".

In the end, it all comes down to whether the home owner is found to have acted reasonably. I hope it is found that he has because the intruder deserves some serious legal repercussions.

As for your hypothetical, it is just that: hypothetical. From understanding self defence and use of force laws in Vic & Tas (for my own benefit, it's hard to prove I 'reasonably fear for safety' as a black belt with many years of training), if the person is running away they are no longer a threat and if you pursue you leave yourself open to charges. This isn't an opinion of right or wrong, it is the law as i understand it.

If you intend to use force to defend your self or your family in case of an incident, it is a good idea to know the law in your state.

[pajamatime]

Sounds a lot like defending the intruder/criminal I've got to say Gwion. I don't think you are, but that's all that kind of argument can do.

I'm sure we all understand the "if he's running away it's no longer self defence" argument in theory. In reality the guy broken into someone else's house at night and was found standing over a child planning who knows what. None of that happened by accident, the guy knowingly decided to broke the law, invade someone else's sanctuary and would have know who knows what if he hadn't been interrupted.

To be crystal clear I am NOT advocating excessive violence against the intruder, but I have zero sympathy for them and whatever happens in the heat of the moment. I don't want to get dramatic and say he 'got of lightly' with just getting a beating, but I definitely wouldn't say it's too much.

He make his bed, now he's laying in it.

Putting a hypothetical out there....

Say you chase an intruder out of the house and hit him once with a bat in your driveway, hospitalising him, no longer self defence?

Say you find him in your daughters bedroom and hit him once with a bat, hospitalising him, perfectly Ok in your opinion?

(Take all that as it's intended, not having a go or starting an argument. Just a conversation)

Not defending the intruder, just discussing the realities of the law rather than griping that "this country is a joke". I don't believe it is.

Now, i'm by no stretch a lawyer, so what i say is just what i say. I have trained a lot of martial arts and worked in the security industry in Vic, so my comments are based on that training in the law and "building legal walls to defend yourself". Stating on camera that he rammed the offenders head into an iron fence is kind of like taking a sledge hammer to your "legal walls".

In the end, it all comes down to whether the home owner is found to have acted reasonably. I hope it is found that he has because the intruder deserves some serious legal repercussions.

As for your hypothetical, it is just that: hypothetical. From understanding self defence and use of force laws in Vic & Tas (for my own benefit, it's hard to prove I 'reasonably fear for safety' as a black belt with many years of training), if the person is running away they are no longer a threat and if you pursue you leave yourself open to charges. This isn't an opinion of right or wrong, it is the law as i understand it.

If you intend to use force to defend your self or your family in case of an incident, it is a good idea to know the law in your state.

Yeah but no (I know where u are comming from and respect that). You're explaining the current maze that is self defence. Most people here and out there on face book don't give two s**ts about the current state of the laws all they know and care about is the fact that these laws protect criminals more then law abiding citizens. Problem is currently there is not enough incentive not to commit a crime in the first place...eg. Laws making it safer for a criminal to commit a crime against a citizen...like they are a protected bloody species or something. Currently due to the poor laws surrounding law abiding citizens right to self defence it makes more sense to kill the attacker and make up your own story then to leave the attacker breathing lol

[Gwion]

It's a touchy area. What i'm hearing is that people would like to see the law changed so it's ok to chase someone down, beat them to the ground and then slam their head into an iron fence. I don't agree that changing the law to allow that "as a right" is a good idea.

As my principle instructor used to say to me, in any situation you do what you think is necessary and deal with the consequences later. If you have acted reasonably you will successfully defend any charges.

There is a shifting line between acting reasonably and committing a crime. The law, as it is, allows for that line to be defined on a case by case scenario. I think you'll find that even given a radical change in the laws, this guy would still face charges, it's just that he would have more weight to a legal defence as defined by set parameters.

Assault is assault, homicide is homicide. Laws of self defence, no matter how lenient, only allow you to defend any charges brought against you for your actions. In the end, each individual is responsible for their own actions.

[pajamatime]

It's a touchy area. What i'm hearing is that people would like to see the law changed so it's ok to chase someone down, beat them to the ground and then slam their head into an iron fence. I don't agree that changing the law to allow that "as a right" is a good idea.

As my principle instructor used to say to me, in any situation you do what you think is necessary and deal with the consequences later. If you have acted reasonably you will successfully defend any charges.

There is a shifting line between acting reasonably and committing a crime. The law, as it is, allows for that line to be defined on a case by case scenario. I think you'll find that even given a radical change in the laws, this guy would still face charges, it's just that he would have more weight to a legal defence as defined by set parameters.

Assault is assault, homicide is homicide. Laws of self defence, no matter how lenient, only allow you to defend any charges brought against you for your actions. In the end, each individual is responsible for their own actions.

Not sure people want the right to slam someone's head against a fence m8. They want a solid castle law put in place so that they can protect their property and family from evil individuals that wish to do harm without fear of being labeled a criminal them self. Our current laws require us to be defenceless! And as much as I respect your opinions I feel you are missing the big picture of things....allot of people have done allot less and still been charged. Another thing See what happens if a lafo protects his family with a fork and then gets charged. Good bye firearms licence lol

Our laws are very anti law abiding citizen and treat our life's like they are less important then that of the police. Look what they get to defend themselves with in public? Clearly the average law abiding citizens is far less important then other class types!

[Gwion]

Sorry mate. Under the pump right now so just briefly.

My point is, that even if the laws were changed to allow some weapon of self defence, there would still be charges brought in many instances, to clarify the implementation of the law. Self defence is a legal defence, it is not a get off with out facing the court ticket.

Sorry... gotta go.

[1886]

For info, the WA Police have now publically informed that they are not charging this guy.

[coloradoboy]

that is what happens when you allow a country to be overtaken by liberals and people like your Tony Abbott who doesn't even seem to have the same values underpinning conservatism.

Australia needs some of us true republicans pronto - Rick Perry did very well for Texas and he's the man.

[Title_II]

Castle doctrine usually puts the burden of proof on the prosecution when force is used against someone in your home (and sometimes extended areas) that has no right to be there. It is assumed that you are in fear for your life, serious bodily injury, etc. and are justified in using all force including lethal force.

Now, prosecution can still try to prove you were not in fear for your life. If it's a 6 year old girl yelling, "Where's my mommy!" or a guy dressed as a water company employee reading the meter in your basement then he may have an argument you were not in fear for your life. If it is your wife or sister then they likely had reason to be there and castle protection can be lost and regular self defense resumes. If you hang an intruder from your rafters there's a pretty good chance you weren't in fear for your life the moment you killed him.

[brett1868]

Was announced on the news this morning that no charges will be laid Common sense managed to prevail in this case.

[bluerob]

The law is an ASS. Or is that the police?

The govt plays with the laws that the Police are supposed to enforce.

Some do a great job and some shouldn't be working "in the job."

It's a difficult job that rarely gets the level of respect that it should (not directed at your comment).

Sorry, but, my best mate has been a copper for 27 years and what he's been through in one day would do most for a year, if not longer.

He's seen and done things that I'd have to think 5 times about when he's got a nano second to decide.

[pomemax]

!st Mistake letting the intruder walk again beat to a pulp take in boot to remote location what hes going to tell cop well i was in this house when it happened .
2nd mistake reporting it
IT WAS A COP THAT told me this years ago when we had a prowler

[brett1868]

I'm of a similar mindset, someone breaks into my house it's not likely they advertised their plans on social media and no one's coming to look for them if they go missing.

[Baronvonrort]

A friend of mine found someone who broke into his house,he beat the crap out of him and dumped him on the footpath, the criminal called the police and told them he was bashed after breaking into his house.

The police turned up to investigate saying this person is alleging he was bashed after breaking in,my friend replied I have not been broken into,nothing has been touched, I have never seen this guy before,he then asked the police if they are sure they have the right house.
The police left he heard nothing more abut this.

[jays]

For info, the WA Police have now publically informed that they are not charging this guy.

[adam]

"Reasonable and proportionate" , this country is a joke .

Agreed. The intruder had who knows how long to consider what they were going to do, and plan how they would react if various situations arised.

The victim - at night time probably asleep wakes up to find this threat to themselves and their family has no time to consider the consequences whilst the mind isn't fully awake - and is expected to be able to think the same as a court room full of people during the day after they have hours to listen to all the facts and deliberate.

I saw an episode of Blue Bloods once. I remember the commissioner being questioned by a reporter. I can't remember the exact question but he asked a question back - a bloke has just raised a gun towards you - what do you do. The reporter paused to think about it, and the commissioner said 'bang - too late - your dead'. It was a brilliant example even if a fictional show that in these types of situations you don't have time to ponder about what is reasonable or what options you have available to you.

This is what victims have to deal with. Unlike the intruder - split moment situations they don't have time to deliberate or consider and in many times after they've been woken up from a deep sleep and aren't fully awake at the time - but judged as though they should have been. It's not a fair playing field, and the rules are all against the victim in this country.

[Gwion]

Glad to see charges were not pressed.

A perfect example of the "reasonable man" at work. Police and prosecutors obviously felt the man acted reasonably, given the circumstances, and prosecution was not necessary.

Some of you guys seriously need to get your head around how the law works in these situations. It is not expected that you sit back and consider what you will do in a situation. It is just expected that reasonable people behave within certain parameters.

An example:
Reasonable = finding someone inside your house and using force to subdue or evict them; even weapons that are to hand may be used if you reasonably fear for your, or your family's safety.
Unreasonable = finding someone inside your house and using force to subdue them, then continuing to use the baseball bat to cave their head in with repeated blows, leaving them in a coma or dead or permanently brain damaged.

It's pretty obvious. It's all about how far you take things.

[adam]

It's pretty obvious. It's all about how far you take things.

But as I see it - it's not that obvious as to whether you'll be charged.

It's not just on what you do. It depends on the quality of cops you get at the day and/or what magistrates. One person can (and has) gotten away with shooting an intruder, and another has been put up and charged he punched the intruder. The innocent have to wait to see whether or not they're 'lucky' enough to be at the mercy of the right people.

Hopefully there are more common sense level headed people that will drop the charges than not, but still - it's not all obvious - there's a lot of luck involved as to whether you'll get charged or not.

[Gwion]

You are always likely to be charged. It's that simple. If there is violence involved, there are likely to be charges if the police are involved. Self defence is your defence against charges, not a get off free without facing court ticket. Even under laws such as the "castle doctrine", that is still the way it works. If there is any question of reasonable action or claims of unreasonable behaviour, charges will be brought and faced.

[Title_II]

You are always likely to be charged. It's that simple. If there is violence involved, there are likely to be charges if the police are involved. Self defence is your defence against charges, not a get off free without facing court ticket. Even under laws such as the "castle doctrine", that is still the way it works.

That is not the way it works under Castle Doctrine, see above. It is also not the way it works under Stand Your Ground (CD in public).