Man shot dead on Melbourne suburban street.

[Oldbloke]

Well, this could get interesting. All the facts are not in yet, but seems, the invader was shot by someone living in the house. My guess is that the person who shot the invader/criminal is about to be put through the mincer.


"A man attempting to invade a Donnybrook home with a group of armed intruders has been shot dead.
A female resident of the home was assaulted and is being treated in hospital.
What's next? Police are investigating whether a second man who presented to hospital with gunshot wounds was involved.
Police say a man shot dead on a suburban street in Melbourne's outer fringe was taking part in a home invasion at the time."

Full story here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-07/ ... /103291296

[wanneroo]

At least from what has been presented in the abc story, sounds like a very fair shoot. Anyone violently entering your home should be matched with force on force.

[straightshooter]

Wanneroo
Don't waste our time teasing us with your US style thinking.
This is Australia!
Each State Government and increasingly the Federal Government has an ABSOLUTE monopoly on force.
If an individual is faced with violence or even deadly force from an attack in their home their only lawful recourse is to dial 000 and report it and ask for assistance if they are still able and take comfort that there is a distinct possibility that their attacker may one day be discovered and brought to some sort of justice.
If an individual does counter imminent deadly force with deadly force then, if they survived, they are very liable to be charged with a multitude of offences leading them to contemplate whether a fight for survival in fact was the sensible option.
These constraints of course do not apply to the instruments of enforcement of State power where even the most egregious examples will be exonerated via some sort of inquest or revue.

[Oldbloke]

Shoot an intruder in this country and you get charged for murder.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16608

[Larry]

I would say wait and see. There are provisions to protect yourself. It even sound like it may have been the intruders gun.

[Oldbloke]

I would say wait and see. There are provisions to protect yourself. It even sound like it may have been the intruders gun.

Agree. We will see. It's early days.
Been wondering how that bloke in NT that the police were harassing because he had a 303 when he gave that woman first aid. Can't find anything ATM.

[Tank]

I would say wait and see. There are provisions to protect yourself. It even sound like it may have been the intruders gun.

We have ‘no right to self protection’ in Australia.
I slotted an intruder with a maglite years ago and had he not been a particularly bad lad….would have been charged summarily. Was told in no uncertain terms that my actions were ‘unlawful’.
Luckily he had an armful of warrants and the local police took no further interest in me….
Maglite……not a firearm.
Once again…..we have no ‘rights’.
Sad hey?

[Lazarus]

I care more about what I might bring inside on my shoe, than the physical well-being of some violent waste of skin who tries it on like that.

Unfortunately, our police/nanny state expects us to weigh that factor while the junky swings a machete at us, as we simultaneously dial our critically overburdened emergency system.

And when our increasingly paramilitary police called, they are just as likely to wrongly charge or even shoot us. If we have a mental health issue, getting shot by the state is more of a likelihood than a possibility.

But we can rest assured, that when we are violently mistreated by them, the secret, in-house investigation will insure nobody's career path is in jeopardy.

We have only 4 rights here:

""These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).""

That's it.

[rc42]

From coverage so far, it appears that all persons involved were 'known to police' which is usually the libel free way of saying 'criminals' and the firearm was illegally held and unregistered.
As all involved are not cooperating with police it isn't clear whether the invaders brought the firearm with them and lost it in a struggle or whether the residents already had it and just used it, it was reported that they tried to hide it elsewhere after the shooting.

This is where the police (and media) focus should be, criminals with unregistered firearms.

[on_one_wheel]

Perhaps the intruders didn't read the sign?

YOU ARE ON CAMERA
AI TECHNOLOGY HAS
ALREADY FITTED YOU
FOR A SUIT AND COFFIN

[wanneroo]

Wanneroo
Don't waste our time teasing us with your US style thinking.
This is Australia!
Each State Government and increasingly the Federal Government has an ABSOLUTE monopoly on force.
If an individual is faced with violence or even deadly force from an attack in their home their only lawful recourse is to dial 000 and report it and ask for assistance if they are still able and take comfort that there is a distinct possibility that their attacker may one day be discovered and brought to some sort of justice.
If an individual does counter imminent deadly force with deadly force then, if they survived, they are very liable to be charged with a multitude of offences leading them to contemplate whether a fight for survival in fact was the sensible option.
These constraints of course do not apply to the instruments of enforcement of State power where even the most egregious examples will be exonerated via some sort of inquest or revue.

Well, even in the USA there are differing laws everywhere on defending yourself.

The thing I have learned in life is when you are dead you are dead and there is no respawning or hitting the reset button.

Hence I think folks can cause trouble for themselves in these situations if they try to remember every aspect of the law while someone is bashing their brains in.

Therefore, my policy is if I get attacked with lethal force, I will do my best to escape but if not, I will respond in kind to defend my life and I would rather survive and have legal trouble than end up dead.

As I have seen, no one at all in government cares if you end up dead from some criminal, so always look out for yourself because no one else will.

[wanneroo]

I would say wait and see. There are provisions to protect yourself. It even sound like it may have been the intruders gun.

Agree. We will see. It's early days.
Been wondering how that bloke in NT that the police were harassing because he had a 303 when he gave that woman first aid. Can't find anything ATM.

His name is Ron Sterry. After he got let off by the judge the police came back and ransacked his house trying to find something else to charge him with and tried different things which didn't fly and the best they could get him on was a tin of air pellets. Haven't seen anything further in the past 18 months.

Seems to me with as violent as crime is in Alice Springs, the cops would be better dealing with that than a tin of air pellets.

[Oldbloke]

I would say wait and see. There are provisions to protect yourself. It even sound like it may have been the intruders gun.

Agree. We will see. It's early days.
Been wondering how that bloke in NT that the police were harassing because he had a 303 when he gave that woman first aid. Can't find anything ATM.

His name is Ron Sterry. After he got let off by the judge the police came back and ransacked his house trying to find something else to charge him with and tried different things which didn't fly and the best they could get him on was a tin of air pellets. Haven't seen anything further in the past 18 months.

Seems to me with as violent as crime is in Alice Springs, the cops would be better dealing with that than a tin of air pellets.

Yes, I wonder what's happening with Ron? Last I heard courts were still dealing with it and now NSC has imploded.

[straightshooter]

Wanneroo
Don't waste our time teasing us with your US style thinking.
This is Australia!
Each State Government and increasingly the Federal Government has an ABSOLUTE monopoly on force.
If an individual is faced with violence or even deadly force from an attack in their home their only lawful recourse is to dial 000 and report it and ask for assistance if they are still able and take comfort that there is a distinct possibility that their attacker may one day be discovered and brought to some sort of justice.
If an individual does counter imminent deadly force with deadly force then, if they survived, they are very liable to be charged with a multitude of offences leading them to contemplate whether a fight for survival in fact was the sensible option.
These constraints of course do not apply to the instruments of enforcement of State power where even the most egregious examples will be exonerated via some sort of inquest or revue.

Well, even in the USA there are differing laws everywhere on defending yourself.

The thing I have learned in life is when you are dead you are dead and there is no respawning or hitting the reset button.

Hence I think folks can cause trouble for themselves in these situations if they try to remember every aspect of the law while someone is bashing their brains in.

Therefore, my policy is if I get attacked with lethal force, I will do my best to escape but if not, I will respond in kind to defend my life and I would rather survive and have legal trouble than end up dead.

As I have seen, no one at all in government cares if you end up dead from some criminal, so always look out for yourself because no one else will.

Although I must start with an initial statement, which is that most women and some men might have difficulty in comprehending the subtle sarcasm in my earlier post, I am in agreement with your reply.
What you are describing is the fundamental concept of Natural Law, wherein a person's most precious possession is their life.
The psychopaths and sociopaths who seek to have power and influence over us or intimidate us have no need for such concepts except when it happens to suit them.

[womble]

Wanneroo
Don't waste our time teasing us with your US style thinking.
This is Australia!
Each State Government and increasingly the Federal Government has an ABSOLUTE monopoly on force.
If an individual is faced with violence or even deadly force from an attack in their home their only lawful recourse is to dial 000 and report it and ask for assistance if they are still able and take comfort that there is a distinct possibility that their attacker may one day be discovered and brought to some sort of justice.
If an individual does counter imminent deadly force with deadly force then, if they survived, they are very liable to be charged with a multitude of offences leading them to contemplate whether a fight for survival in fact was the sensible option.
These constraints of course do not apply to the instruments of enforcement of State power where even the most egregious examples will be exonerated via some sort of inquest or revue.

Well, even in the USA there are differing laws everywhere on defending yourself.

The thing I have learned in life is when you are dead you are dead and there is no respawning or hitting the reset button.

Hence I think folks can cause trouble for themselves in these situations if they try to remember every aspect of the law while someone is bashing their brains in.

Therefore, my policy is if I get attacked with lethal force, I will do my best to escape but if not, I will respond in kind to defend my life and I would rather survive and have legal trouble than end up dead.

As I have seen, no one at all in government cares if you end up dead from some criminal, so always look out for yourself because no one else will.

Although I must start with an initial statement, which is that most women and some men might have difficulty in comprehending the subtle sarcasm in my earlier post, I am in agreement with your reply.
What you are describing is the fundamental concept of Natural Law, wherein a person's most precious possession is their life.
The psychopaths and sociopaths who seek to have power and influence over us or intimidate us have no need for such concepts except when it happens to suit them.

Inalienable right to life as bestowed by your creator

United nations charter lists it as the most important human right

We are the only liberal democracy that does not have the right to life in their constitution.

[Lazarus]

Inalienable right to life as bestowed by your creator

United nations charter lists it as the most important human right

We are the only liberal democracy that does not have the right to life in their constitution.

That would be mum

[womble]

Mum can challenge your right to life in the high court after you were stabbed to death .
Or you can fight it in court should you defend your life .

The right to life is implied here by law.
It's not an express right as it is in the constitutions of free countries /western democracies.
Here the courts decide .

The NFA outlawed self defence with a firearm here in 1996.

Obviously criminals get around this with unregistered firearms by claiming it belonged to the intruder or assailant.
They've covered both bases in law.
Proportional force.
Not their gun.

Police officers and foreign diplomats and their staff may also defend themselves with firearms.
Their lives have greater value to the state than citizens.

There are also some caveats for American citizens visiting Australia.

[bladeracer]

The NFA outlawed self defence with a firearm here in 1996.

The NFA didn't outlaw it, but you can't deliberately go armed for for the defence or yourself or others. But if you happen to be armed for lawful reasons (if hunting for example) then you can still use whatever reasonable force you have available at that moment, including a firearm. They will still charge you for using that firearm in breech of your genuine reason for obtaining that firearm.

[on_one_wheel]

Money can be protected with deadly force because money is far more important than human life.

[straightshooter]

Inalienable right to life as bestowed by your creator

United nations charter lists it as the most important human right

We are the only liberal democracy that does not have the right to life in their constitution.

That would be mum

Only if mum was a hermaphrodite.

[stihl88]

I heard a few years ago from someone high up in the legal fraternity that no magistrate will convict someone who shot an intruder in self defense like this. Shoot them in the back while they're fleeing and that's a different story, you'll serve time for sure like that guy did out in Thomastown when sleeping at his a factory maybe 5-6 years ago...

[bladeracer]

Inalienable right to life as bestowed by your creator

United nations charter lists it as the most important human right

We are the only liberal democracy that does not have the right to life in their constitution.

That would be mum

Only if mum was a hermaphrodite.

Can hermaphodites get themselves pregnant?

[straightshooter]

Inalienable right to life as bestowed by your creator

United nations charter lists it as the most important human right

We are the only liberal democracy that does not have the right to life in their constitution.

That would be mum

Only if mum was a hermaphrodite.

Can hermaphodites get themselves pregnant?

I suspect, in theory yes but in practice no.
Were it possible the progeny would have to be a clone of the hermaphroditic parent.
Nevertheless read the first line of my subscript below.

[Lazarus]

Inalienable right to life as bestowed by your creator

United nations charter lists it as the most important human right

We are the only liberal democracy that does not have the right to life in their constitution.

That would be mum

Only if mum was a hermaphrodite.

I was wondering who the pedant would be

[alexjones]

This is why I will always say Aus is a S hole. Self defence of life or property is a basic human right and nobody should have to explain themselves.

Using a firearm for self defence is not ilegal anywhere in Aus, however due to storage laws it makes it difficult from a legal perspective.


The bloke that killed old mate in Sydney with the sword a few years ago would of got off on self defence but because he chased him into the street to stab him the judge said he was no longer in danger and became the aggressor.

[Lazarus]

This is why I will always say Aus is a S hole. Self defence of life or property is a basic human right and nobody should have to explain themselves.

Using a firearm for self defence is not ilegal anywhere in Aus, however due to storage laws it makes it difficult from a legal perspective.


The bloke that killed old mate in Sydney with the sword a few years ago would of got off on self defence but because he chased him into the street to stab him the judge said he was no longer in danger and became the aggressor.

A woman, or a metrosexual, can carry a can of hairspray to primp their 'do quite legally, but if they were to admit that they were carrying it for possible defence against rape or murder, that intent makes the innocent can of hairspray an "offensive weapon".
So no it is NOT legal in NSW to use deadly force to defend against criminal trespass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_(Australia)#:~:text=Unlike%20South%20Australian%20law%2C%20s420,inflicted%20to%20prevent%20criminal%20trespass.