The Castle Doctrine

[Supaduke]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... s462a.html

There is everything you need to know right there.

[doc]

A real life example of somebody shooting an intruder, intruder survived, in Australia, that I was involved in as a witness so no conjecture is necessary.

Unarmed man is shot in a lounge room after making a verbal threat. Police turn up *three* years later and arrest the shooter. Shooter is initially hit with a long list of nine charges, including attempted murder at the top of the list and arrested. A five hour interview follows (and I've heard the tapes), two hearings (shooter pleads guilty) in the magistrates court followed by trial and sentencing by the County court. This process happened over 18 months while shooter on bail.

Conclusion, shooter is convicted of the charge of 'endangering life', given a suspended sentence plus substantial bond (the result of breaking bond a lengthy custodial sentence) and a conviction recorded.

Interestingly, not one of the initial charges related to the firearms act. Two decades later the persons record comes up only as 'serious assault' on police system with no details of the assault.

Do you know if the two were known to each other?

Do you know the reason for the firearm (and ammo) being available in the first place? Or was it more <verbal threat made> - defendent leaves room, goes to get keys, goes to other room, opens up safe, gets gun out, goes to ammo locker, gets ammo out, loads firearm, walks back into room, lines up intruder and then shoots?

The 3 years later bit though is pretty pathetic I would have thought.

[happyhunter]

A real life example of somebody shooting an intruder, intruder survived, in Australia, that I was involved in as a witness so no conjecture is necessary.

Unarmed man is shot in a lounge room after making a verbal threat. Police turn up *three* years later and arrest the shooter. Shooter is initially hit with a long list of nine charges, including attempted murder at the top of the list and arrested. A five hour interview follows (and I've heard the tapes), two hearings (shooter pleads guilty) in the magistrates court followed by trial and sentencing by the County court. This process happened over 18 months while shooter on bail.

Conclusion, shooter is convicted of the charge of 'endangering life', given a suspended sentence plus substantial bond (the result of breaking bond a lengthy custodial sentence) and a conviction recorded.

Interestingly, not one of the initial charges related to the firearms act. Two decades later the persons record comes up only as 'serious assault' on police system with no details of the assault.

Do you know if the two were known to each other?

Do you know the reason for the firearm (and ammo) being available in the first place? Or was it more <verbal threat made> - defendent leaves room, goes to get keys, goes to other room, opens up safe, gets gun out, goes to ammo locker, gets ammo out, loads firearm, walks back into room, lines up intruder and then shoots?

The 3 years later bit though is pretty pathetic I would have thought.

Well known to each other. The firearm was one of many kept on the premises for the purpose of hunting. The threat was of a violent nature and verbal and soon as it was made the shooter immediately left the room without saying a word, returning a very short time after with a loaded shotgun.

The guns were not kept in locked storage as this was before that requirement. The shooter had been licensed but the license had expired two years prior. The guns were stored in the roof and access was through a man hole in the laundry. The ammo was kept in the crate and stored in the shooters bedroom wardrobe, so he had to first retrieve the gun from above the laundry ceiling via the man hole then go to the bedroom to get the ammo.

He then walked into the lounge room, told the intruder once to leave, then shot him through the lower leg (it was an aimed and deliberate shot), then other people in the room rushed towards the shooter in attempt to disarm him, but before they got there he broke the gun (it was a hammerless SXS) and removed the second cartridge, held the gun high above his head and handed it to another person.

After that, the now bleeding profusely intruder crawled to the front door, where the shooter, now with a fire iron in his hand was about to bash in the intruders skull. Apparently, at this moment, with fire iron held high and about the strike, the shooter decided the intruder was no longer a threat, put down the fire iron, walked to another room and just sat in a chair without saying a word. Right through the event he never said jack, and he just sat quiet waiting for the cops to arrive thinking somebody would call them, but nobody did.

The reason the cops took three years is nobody talked (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) and the intruder told the ambos that he shot himself by accident while cleaning the gun. It was another investigation of something that had nothing to do with the shooting that by chance let the cops stumble onto the truth and the charges being laid.

I'm no expert on the law, but this is the experience I've had relating to somebody threatening another person where they live and what happens when the threatened person responds with force.

[doc]

Thanks hh... that extra information sheds a lot more light on the situation. It seems as though it was used more in retaliation / revenge to the threat than genuine self defense. The 3 year difference is also understandable as well as the guilty finding given the extra information.

[GLS_1956]

I think naturally the conversation went to guns, however I didn't intend it to.

My simple, not so simple question, was about use of any force to overpower or kill the adversary. This is nothing to do with guns.

I understand where you are coming from, juststarting, although the two examples I used did involve the use of firearms, there have been reported incidents that the persons defending themselves in both Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground case have used baseball bats, tools, including a chainsaw, and martial arts.

One thing that needs to be remembered that even in "Pro-gun" and "Pro-self-defense" states, people have been prosecuted and convicted for assault and battery as well as manslaughter and murder while claiming they were covered under the afore listed ordinances, and I might add in most cases rightly so.

[bigfellascott]

Not much good being the chalk outline at the scene of the crime, much rather it be the arsehole who started the crime to be the chalk outline.

[happyhunter]

There really isn't any law regarding this topic except the laws of nature, fight, flight or freeze.

[ebr love]

Kinda disappointed genesis and hello kitty didn't jump in. It ain't a party without them.

Don't poke the bear, you'll upset the mods

[juststarting]

LOL, I'll be iight

[MR. WINCHESTER]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

Way too much thinking involved, in a critical situation.
If things 'go stupid', I'm not gonna debate the issue with myself or anyone else ...
I'll be more than ready to use whatever force necessary, to maintain 'control'.
NB: 'control' means staying in front / ahead, NOT on an equal footing.

[MR. WINCHESTER]

Kinda disappointed genesis and hello kitty didn't jump in. It ain't a party without them.

WEIRDO !

[Gwion]

We are not required by law to leave or flee; only to adhere to the escalating scale of force and keep force reasonable and proportionate.

Way too much thinking involved, in a critical situation.
If things 'go stupid', I'm not gonna debate the issue with myself or anyone else ...
I'll be more than ready to use whatever force necessary, to maintain 'control'.
NB: 'control' means staying in front / ahead, NOT on an equal footing.

If you ready on, you will see I said exactly the same thing. Do what you need to do and witty about the fall out later.

That said. "Too much thinking". It really isnt.
All it is about is being reasonable. If you are a reasonable person you know when it is time to stop without giving it too much thought.

You and others focus too much on the word "equal" but what it says is "proportionate". I suggest you look up the escalating scale of force.
It just basically means if you

[MR. WINCHESTER]

Gwion
Win / control are more easily achieved by instinctual behaviour, compared to 'proportionate' or 'reasonable'.
The rules of engagement can be argued AFTER the event .... if you insist.

[Gwion]

You still miss the point, Mr Winchester.

Some times your 'instinctual' response will be legally viewed after the fact as proportionate. In other situations it will be viewed as unreasonable.

As someone else mentioned above, if you can't tell the difference between which situation calls for what level of response you are likely to end up in trouble; either with the legal system or the hospital system.

[MR. WINCHESTER]

And my point ....

I will always prioritise avoiding 'the hospital system'.

The law, well ....