ALz wrote:If you believe it's a good idea, please sign:
https://www.change.org/p/the-australian-government-bring-castle-law-to-australia-let-australians-protect-themselves-families-and-property?recruiter=66703970&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=d78107c0-09d9-0130-cc3e-4040f855b16c&utm_content=fht-13492323-en-gb%3Av2
bigrich wrote:yup , signed . criminals have all the rights, victims don't. serial serious offenders are out on bail and early parole cause of a soft c*ck system. remember the murder of jill meagher in melbourne and the career criminal out on parole who did it ? just one of thousands of cases of justice system fails . after what he did , ivan milat should've been given lethal injection , rather than taxpayers paying for him to be locked up for all these years. what does it cost to keep a crim in maximum security per year ? probably a lot more than i earn police are overworked and crims aren't scared of jailtime or legal consequences . time for law abiding people to have the right to defend their castle
Member-Deleted wrote:Flame me if you wish but this sort of discussion just fits into the narrative that all LAFOs are at heart gun-toting rednecks who can't wait to use our firearms on other people.
Alz, your first [of 2] posts said you once lived o/s. Maybe this ideology belongs over there....
Member-Deleted wrote:Flame me if you wish but this sort of discussion just fits into the narrative that all LAFOs are at heart gun-toting rednecks who can't wait to use our firearms on other people.
Alz, your first [of 2] posts said you once lived o/s. Maybe this ideology belongs over there....
trekin wrote:It is lawful for a person who is in peaceable possession of a
dwelling, and any person lawfully assisting him or her or
acting by his or her authority, to use force to prevent or repel
another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the
dwelling, if the person using the force believes on reasonable
grounds—
(a) the other person is attempting to enter or to remain in
the dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence
in the dwelling; and
(b) it is necessary to use that force.
A simple and effective Castle Doctrine, with no duty to retreat, that I support.
TassieTiger wrote:trekin wrote:It is lawful for a person who is in peaceable possession of a
dwelling, and any person lawfully assisting him or her or
acting by his or her authority, to use force to prevent or repel
another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the
dwelling, if the person using the force believes on reasonable
grounds—
(a) the other person is attempting to enter or to remain in
the dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence
in the dwelling; and
(b) it is necessary to use that force.
A simple and effective Castle Doctrine, with no duty to retreat, that I support.
It’s also the interpretation of this law that screws ppl over. Would it not be reasonable to believe that anyone whom has illegally entered your property/home is doing so with the intent to harm / steal or another illegal offence? Most would say yes...
But in the real world outcomes, if you touch up someone who broke into your house, you are guilty of excessive force or similar charge - until you can prove otherwise.
TassieTiger wrote:that does not define anything - you might “believe” they are coming to steal your firearms, they might be really thirsty and need a glass of water...and inevitably 2 x lawyers will result in an outcome. You are far from guaranteed a win regardless of a lawyer...
I’m sure you’ve heard of the stories of thieves breaking in to a premises and injuring themselves and during the property owner ? Same thing...
TassieTiger wrote:“ ole mate ? He doesn’t want tap water - he wants cold water from your fridge. He is unarmed and believes he knows you and knows you won’t mind him coming inside via a busted window - he may have the wrong house, but he is so thirsty he’s not worried about that...”
The “person using the force” can believe what ever he wants, can say what ever he felt (see thread re grandma who pointed gun toward someone last year and got charged - she had every right to believe she was in danger, but it did not help her)...it appears from at least many precedent cases - that the courts do not agree and take a very dim view of self defence...
straightshooter wrote:You must surely be totally befuddled to believe that a petition coming from plebs is going to go anywhere.
It is little more than a distracting diversion for plebs often-times removing their gaze from something far more serious quietly taking place.
The only time a petition can be successful is when it provides cover for a course of legislative action already decided on by some or all of the ruling elite.
TassieTiger wrote:Your missing the point a little - I 100% guarantee, regardless of QLD laws vs other states laws, that one could quite easily find an insane court decision pertaining to someone who "believed" they were using self defense to protect themselves and then ended up getting F'd over it in one way or another - or very similar.
I recall from a few years back now and the "exact" facts I cant recall, but it went along the lines of - a kid broke into the Gympie hotel - got caught and was ejected. That same kid then attempted to climb the hotels roof in an attempt to gain entry and when the publican saw said kid, hurled abuse / something at the kid and he fell and broke a leg - and sued the publican. I was living in QLD at the time and recall the uproar...it's these situations Id like to see taken from "grey" and "debatable" to "clear cut" - no case to answer.
TassieTiger wrote:^Who is advocating the use of fireArms for self defense? The advocation is for the right to defend ones families safety and personal property without due risk from “grey” areas being applied.
I’m with you BR, it’s easy to sit back, do nothing and cast stones and say it will never work...baaaaaa go the sheep.
This might do nothing...the next one might do nothing...but who knows, the 3rd or 4th attempt might just reference the 1st petition and as a rolling stone or what ever - it might just be enough to be referenced somewhere / sometime to stop the erosion of more civil rights...it might not be THE answer, but it IS something...
one of the reasons we are all in our current big brother baby nappy climate is because the govt can rely on enough sheep to do nothing...
bigrich wrote:TassieTiger wrote: i dunno why BBSS keeps gravitating to firearms being used for self defense and running afoul of GCA . :
Member-Deleted wrote:bigrich wrote:TassieTiger wrote: i dunno why BBSS keeps gravitating to firearms being used for self defense and running afoul of GCA . :
Ummm, because this is a gun forum for the Shooting Community....
but you're absolutely right bigrich, you didn't refer to firearms, I made it about firearms... but then, I wouldn't get any exercise at all if i didn't jump to conclusions