Defense of others

[Festus Magnus]

I just read this particular story: http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/0 ... g-harassed

Props to the gentleman for stepping in to help that lady. It's a right shame that he's reluctant now to try and help others, though I certainly don't blame him one iota given the circumstances.

So the question is: can a firearms owner legally use his or her firearm in defense of others?

I suppose my confusion lies in the Australian govt's understanding that self defense isn't a legitimate reason to possess a firearm. But does that disqualify such a use if the opportunity arose?

Another question I suppose would be: is it actually a good idea to use a firearm (if one is available) in such a situation? In all honestly, if I saw two gentlemen violently assaulting a woman in a dark carpark, I would think some drastic intervention is necessary.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Common confusion, because the reason of self defence, is not permitted for the reason of firearm ownership,
[ in total contravention of our Bill of Right, in force today, this minute....yes indeed... ]

Most people incorrectly assume this means you can not by law use a firearm for defence.....mind you this was part of the 'plan'

In defence, whether self or not, YOU decide what level of force you use, but consider the proportionality will be the deciding factor.

Dont forget the saying, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6...

If I were to witness an assault, whether in a dark alley or anywhere for that matter, apart from the fact that I'd have to explain why I had my 'hunting' rifle on me....another part of the plan.... I would only consider using it if I was of the belief that life was in danger....because once you lift the muzzle, the intent is to kill. "I only meant to 'wing' him wont wash later on...

[Baronvonrort]

The self defence laws in NSW have a provision on breaking the law to defend yourself, so depending on whose interpretation is right on the day it could allow you to break some laws in self defence.

I guess if you shoot them you would have more problems than if they surrender without a shot being fired.

www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_ ... /s418.html

[GLS_1956]

A few years back, when I got my carry permit, then a concealed carry permit, we were told that the permit did not make us "Junior Policemen" which is to say we were not supposed to intervene in what we supposed to be criminal acts. Now the class was taught by an off duty Sherriff's Deputy and the examples he gave were good and did prove his point, such as you may be seeing an undercover bust going down or might actually be witnessing an act of self-defense where it now appears the perpetrator is the victim, so his suggestion was to observe and call the police, to let "professional handle it".

And while such advise is sound and more over most likely to keep one out of court, especially since the training course, which was and is required to get the permit, emphasizes that the only valid reasons for use of deadly force is to "Protect yourself, close family members and friends, and coworkers from death or great bodily harm". In the latest 'news worthy' reporting, that in which a criminal is shot, have been cases where an armed citizen has stopped armed robberies at stores, convenience, liquor, and department. There was in the past, a few years ago, also been reported incidents where the armed citizen had held at gun point a deranged man who was threatening persons in a shopping mall's parking lot, in this case no shots were fired but it was caught on the mall's security camera.

So since in those mentioned cases the citizen was not prosecuted for their actions what does mean when it comes to being a "Good Samaritan", at least in Oklahoma or the USA? For me I'd like to think that if I were to feel that a violent crime were being committed I would intervene on behalf of the innocent.

[adam]

I just read this particular story: http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/0 ... g-harassed

Props to the gentleman for stepping in to help that lady. It's a right shame that he's reluctant now to try and help others, though I certainly don't blame him one iota given the circumstances.

So the question is: can a firearms owner legally use his or her firearm in defense of others?

I think this is very unlikely. And even if you weren't convicted, the authorities can still take your firearms away from you - and I expect they would.

If you present your firearm there's a chance you would be considered the aggrivator, throwing fuel on the fire. Any deaths = your fault. In the same way that police are blamed for trying to intervene in a pursuit if the crook does something that causes injury or death to others, you'd face the same issue. (Probably in a greater way).

Also, in some cases I understand, as GLS has mentioned - you could create more problems than good - even the police can get it wrong with the training they do. Good intentions do not necessarily create good results, and in situations you're untrained for, with the rush of adrenalin there's a good chance you could stuff it up.

As much as it grinds me to say this - unless it's a loved one your defending in Australia you're better off (for you) to stay right out of it.

Or - if you really want to be able to help people, forget your firearm and learn some self defense. Your hands are always with you, and the chances of you being in a situation where you could defend yourself or someone else with your hands is far greater than you just happening to be somewhere with your firearm when a horrific act is unfolding.

Just remember - Australian laws lean to favoring the criminals. If you need to use lethal force don't expect the authorities to side with you after you've hurt or killed that poor person who was just misunderstood, and there were other opportunities available that you didn't see at the time but were expected to take because people were able to come up with those options after 2 months of deliberating what you should have done in the moment.

[Supaduke]

This subject has circled around Australia for decades. People will argue various points and scenarios till the cows come home. The reality is, if you are a law abiding citizen, the statistical probability of being presented with a situation, in which the use of lethal force is legally warranted , is near enough to zero. The Australian justice system has no time for vigilantism. The use of lethal force is an extremely serious occurrence. The taking of life, no matter how justified you think you are , will mean being dragged through the legal system for years , even decades. You will almost certainly lose your firearms. People will probably quote exceptions. These are just that...exceptions. Think long and hard about the use of lethal force. If you really feel the need to be armed, keep a lump of 2 x 4 handy. If you wish to consider the use of lethal force I strongly suggest you study up on the crimes act and learn it inside out, especially section 462a. It is complex and convoluted. Bottom line, leave your guns in the safe unless going hunting or to the range and learn a martial art. And also +1 to what Adam said

[Heckler303]

Bottom line, leave your guns in the safe unless going hunting or to the range and learn a martial art. And also +1 to what Adam said

Right right right, because fists and legs are equal force to a knife or a gun.

[Supaduke]

Bottom line, leave your guns in the safe unless going hunting or to the range and learn a martial art. And also +1 to what Adam said

Right right right, because fists and legs are equal force to a knife or a gun.

Care to hypothesise a scenario where you have your gun handy, in a legal situation, where you might be presented with a gun/ knife wielding assailant?? If you are out and about minding your own business why do you have a firearm? . I didn't write the laws mate, but we all have to abide by them even if we don't agree with them. This is not America , never will be. If you are being targeted by gun/knife wielding perpetrators then I would probably start questioning some of your life choices.

[Title_II]

The "proportionality" will look like the 4th of July turned horizontal. Cleanup is going to be a bitch. Plus the fire department.

[adam]

Right right right, because fists and legs are equal force to a knife or a gun.

+1 to what supaduke said...

I'd take the chance over someone being unarmed, but with combat training which involves disarming offenders (which many self defense training teaches now) over someone unarmed & without training any day.

I'll also take the chances over that than the stars aligning that you just happen to legally have your firearm with you in a situation that presents itself with no other option than to have to get your firearm out of the boot, then get your ammo out of the locked container, and then load it, and do whatever you're going to do.

Optimum situation would be for the laws to change to allow non lethal carry, but this is Australia, and options are extremely limited...

So, I'm left not being sure what your point is? Are you advocating to carry firearms illegally? Are you suggesting that there's a greater chance of 'just happening' to be in a situation where you have your firearm is handy is greater than being in a situation without one? Or do you just like to belittle people's suggestions who try and contribute something positive advise on what can be done with no real purpose or thought behind yours.

[Heckler303]

@Adam

I didn't say or imply any of what you are trying to suggest, you've gone way over the top with assumptions made from just very little evidence. What I was trying to put across was that against a person armed with a weapon vs yourself armed with just your limbs you were born with, they already have the full house. If you have been trained professionally by somebody to disarm an attacker and have gotten into the mentality to always be aware of your surroundings as well as having a fast response time, then you stand a chance against them.

@Supaduke

I fully realize the state of the laws, I too have spent time as well reading through the practicality of self defense here. I was talking about the practical scenario sense, regardless of anything else. If you put two people in a ring to fight to the death, then give one a trident and the other his fists, who is going to come out on top? Unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger or a professional wrestler I doubt you could win against the person wielding the enormous pointy stabby thing.

[adam]

What I was trying to put across was that against a person armed with a weapon vs yourself armed with just your limbs you were born with, they already have the full house.

Which is why I was advocating if he wants to learn to play - learn how to land a royal flush.

FWIW - I've gone up against a few trained people. (Not military, but in civil self defense). Their bare hands, vs me with a rubber knife. I can say I was significantly impressed with the number of options, and the number of times they were able to disarm me, or inflict fatal injuries on me - and I wasn't able to stab them once even with multiple attempts.

They advocate that the first option is to not get into a fight with a guy with a knife anyway, but at least if they have to - they have an idea of what they can do.

It's the only form of self defense we're currently allow to prepare for in Australia - our hands and legs. Everything else is *cough* *cough* whatever item is close by. Lucky for some they play baseball and their bat is stored under their bed.

[Baronvonrort]

FWIW - I've gone up against a few trained people. (Not military, but in civil self defense). Their bare hands, vs me with a rubber knife. I can say I was significantly impressed with the number of options, and the number of times they were able to disarm me, or inflict fatal injuries on me - and I wasn't able to stab them once even with multiple attempts.

They advocate that the first option is to not get into a fight with a guy with a knife anyway, but at least if they have to - they have an idea of what they can do.

It's the only form of self defense we're currently allow to prepare for in Australia - our hands and legs. Everything else is *cough* *cough* whatever

The first time I did knife fighting I was a 17 year old brown belt against 3rd/4th and 5th dans, If they stuck fist-foot-arm out I slashed it, not much they could do they all got cut.
If you're up against someone with a knife there is a good chance you will get cut.

When it comes to sticks I reckon a Hanbo is pretty good to have handy, lots of good strikes can be done along with submission holds and takedowns, if someone waves a knife at you just break their forearm with a fairly simple strike and they will drop the knife.
Hanbo is fairly easy to learn,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJFJ4BirHWo

In the early 80's the old lady who lived next door to me had 2 juvenile delinquent home intruders surrender when she pointed a .22lr at them, if it's armed robbery pointing a gun at someone and asking them to empty the till without a shot being fired then surely defensive gun statistics should include those who surrender without a shot being fired like the 2 who pleaded guilty to trespassing with my neighbour.

[adam]

The first time I did knife fighting I was a 17 year old brown belt against 3rd/4th and 5th dans, If they stuck fist-foot-arm out I slashed it, not much they could do they all got cut.

Maybe that's the difference? In the stuff I've seen, it's been about defense, not offense. In those instances it was me with the knife attacking them, not the other way around.

Just interested - what did you find when you were doing martial arts? When you were doing martial arts, was it easier to attack, or easier to counter attack (let the other person make the first move)?

Good advise re hanbo - looks interesting and effective.

[Baronvonrort]

The first time I did knife fighting I was a 17 year old brown belt against 3rd/4th and 5th dans, If they stuck fist-foot-arm out I slashed it, not much they could do they all got cut.

Maybe that's the difference? In the stuff I've seen, it's been about defense, not offense. In those instances it was me with the knife attacking them, not the other way around.

Just interested - what did you find when you were doing martial arts? When you were doing martial arts, was it easier to attack, or easier to counter attack (let the other person make the first move)?

Good advise re hanbo - I'm going to look into that a little more.

There is no easy answer on whether best to attack or wait for them and counter, I reckon there is some truth in the saying attack is the best form of defence, if you have a pretty tight attack.

With a Hanbo it would be easy to attack or counter attack ,being shorter it's easy to swing around the house and doesn't require a prohibited weapons permit like other martial arts weapons do in NSW.
It would be one of the easiest sticks to learn.

[Gwion]

The first time I did knife fighting I was a 17 year old brown belt against 3rd/4th and 5th dans, If they stuck fist-foot-arm out I slashed it, not much they could do they all got cut.
If you're up against someone with a knife there is a good chance you will get cut.

You will get cut. Not probably, not most likely. You will. That is the reality of knife fighting or defense against a knife. That is why most schools advise taking your first opening to get the bejesus outta there. It is up to you to control where and how badly you get cut. Anytime you decide to engage in a physical conflict, you HAVE to accept the reality that you will, in all likely-hood, get hurt. It's one of the first things drilled into students, just after they have learned to find their own arse. Accepting the risk and facing the fear and reality of injury is quite often the biggest hurdle for people defending themselves.

As for using lethal force... if you truly believe it is absolutely necessary, you rolls the dice and you takes your chances; after all, it's all about survival. Deal with the fall out later. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

[happyhunter]

The first time I did knife fighting I was a 17 year old brown belt against 3rd/4th and 5th dans, If they stuck fist-foot-arm out I slashed it, not much they could do they all got cut.
If you're up against someone with a knife there is a good chance you will get cut.

Knife fighting in a dojo is a game. If you want to learn how to knife spend some time in prison.

[adam]

You will get cut. Not probably, not most likely. You will. That is the reality of knife fighting or defense against a knife. That is why most schools advise taking your first opening to get the bejesus outta there. It is up to you to control where and how badly you get cut.

+1. I agree, but getting cut vs getting stabbed is a huge difference. Yes - the first line of self defense is always to get out of there if possible and practical. However the OP was talking about defending others who are in a bad situation, so that is where my focus is.

It's like any fight. Both parties will most likely end up getting hurt. The question is which party will be walking away with some bruses vs which one won't. (And which party is likely to stop, and which party is likely to go off their head and continue until someone is dead). Once again, within the spirit of this thread - we're dealing with defending others, where walking (or running) away isn't an option.

That's why I advocated that self defense courses are an option. If you're the type of person who's going to step in to help someone else out instead of walking by - there are very few options available to you. Running isn't one. Pulling out a gun isn't another. So far the two viable options I've seen here are learning self defense, or learning hanbo.

Without the ability to use tools (tasers / pepper spray, etc) - in Australia the chances of you getting hurt by intervening is significantly high. To what extent that hurt is depends on how prepared you are, skill, and the situation at hand.

[Gwion]

Self defence includes the defence of others under immediate threat. Also often neglected, is that self defence can also be defending another against them selves. In this case, a person running towards an open 3rd story window (threatening themselves with lethal force) may possibly be shot in order to stop them, that is, lethal force used in response to immediate lethal threat.

There are a number of clear phrases that need to be remembered in any situation involving self defence, either of self or of others:
- finds committing and continuing to commit: it is not self defence if they have just attacked someone but are now walking away. As soon as the threat is abated, any defensive action must desist and the welfare of the victim should be the primary focus.
- reasonable and proportionate: there is an escalating scale of force that must be adhered to and it is highly subjective. Lethal force can only be used in immediate lethal threat. Let's say some one comes at you with a knife, you disarm them then stab them with said knife... you are in trouble. This ties in with finds committing and continuing to commit.
- reasonable believe there is a clear and real risk to life or safety (or 'reasonable fear for...'): tying this is in with the first two, a threat to cause bodily harm "i'm gonna flog your brother" does not justify a pre-emptive attack. However, a threat to kill when you reasonably believe the threat poses a clear and real risk due to the individual's size/ability/mental state, etc, may actually give you cause to act in a pre-emptive manner. This is again very subjective and all comes down to the principle of the 'reasonable man'.

Nothing in this is clear cut and simple, so, as i say: you rolls the dice and you takes your chances. If it comes down to your survival or the survival and safety of another, you decide to act and accept any outcome or you choose not to act and accept any out come.

[<<Genesis93>>]

This must be the most misunderstood, muddied topic..... and that is exactly by design I believe. Our laws are geared away from firearms, period.

Self defence is DAMN WELL FREAKING SIMPLE. You DO what you NEED to do.

If you stop and think, oh, the penalty under section2 paragraph 7 is that... but then..... ITS TOO LATE!!!

The police want NO firearms in the community. Period.
The police want no firearm USE in the community. Period.

Whether sport or defence, they force us to separate the ammo from the guns, then lock up tightly the guns SO WE DONT USE THEM WHEN IN NEED..... if it WAS to protect the community by preventing theft, then why did they recently sit back and watch the thieves drive away with what they knew was a stolen safe-full of firearms hanging out of the back of a car!! (Blackburn, Victoria) If the priority WAS preventing the theft of firearms, and passage of firearms to the criminal element - they would have said bugger the "no chase" message from HQ on the radio - Lets go!.....

THEY are one of the very few classes of people who can CARRY and NOT infrequently USE for self defence. Recently a new class was added though; Border Farce, sorry Force officers, to protect themselves, not others... not YOU!
This is wrong.

Our pollies not only have armed 'soldiers' protecting them, but they have automatic rifles to do the job.... not just semi auto! Not that they are necessarily highly trained, I was recently chatting with one toting an 'auto' and the convo went something like: "oh... 223Rem" response "naaah 5.56"...I didnt bother to pursue that point other than to add that my wife standing next to me uses the 'same round' to shoot rabbits with.....3 seconds of uncomfortable silence.... as he adjusted his tactically enhanced pistol grip hold.....



AFP nice guns

[Title_II]

Self defense is not simple.

When you know you are legally justified, you do very bad things to people very quickly. When you are unsure, many people play grabass or throw punches and stuff until they realize it is too late and they are about to be seriously crippled or killed.

[adam]

Are we still talking defending other people here?

If not, I agree - Self defense (defending ones self or family) at the time when it's necessary is simple if you're talking 'at the time'. Do what you have to.

But I also disagree - Self defense - from a legal point of view - whether discussing it prior to or after an event - is anything from simple.

And if we're still on topic of defending others instead - which is definitely not simple: When to step in, how to step in. Weighing up the risks of a situation. Is the person you're trying to defend likely to team up with the offender and they both attack you together (not an uncommon occurrence especially if drugs or alcohol is involved), etc... it gets complicated very quickly. And then you get to throw the law in on top of that, and it's easier to see through pea soup than that mess...

It all depends on perspective.

Plus, I believe there is wisdom in legally assessing potential situations before they occur, instead of just living life as it comes and dealing with the problem then. A classic example of this would be thinking in advance how you would explain to the police why you happened to have a baseball bat handy when that intruder broke into your home. A simple person unprepared would be in all sorts of hot water. Someone with a little knowledge beforehand has a much greater chance of walking away with a pre-prepared reason ...

[Supaduke]

One thing to bear in mind. The use of lethal force is a complex issue and a legal minefield. Should you so choose to go down this path you should avail yourself of the relevant issues regarding legality. If it's all too complicated , then perhaps you shouldn't be considering it as an option.

With all due respect to my fellow forum users. Getting emotional and using rhetoric is of no help to anyone. The forum as a community would be far better served keeping information useful and realistic. I understand that some people would like it to be a different way, that our laws are crap etc.
But the law is what it is.
The old adage of "better too be judged by twelve , than carried by six " is an easy line to deliver in the comfort of your lounge. Not so much if you are in a court room. As an example, a mate of mine was involved in a fight. He was outnumbered, in serious danger of being badly hurt.
He punched a man in the eye with a key held in his hand. The man lost his eye.
Court proceedings lasted almost two years. My mate swore it was self defence, including witness testimony to support him .
He ended up serving 18 months in port Phillip prison.
What started as a fairly innocuous situation rapidly escalated into a terrible event. One man is now half blind and another had over three years of his life consumed by this ordeal. And there was not even a fatality .

No matter the situation, think VERY carefully about the use of firearms in any sort of situation that involves pointing or using it on a human being.
There are always alternatives....

[headspace]

Supaduke, thanks for inserting a moment of clear and logical thinking into a post that has not only been done to death but is completely unrealistic. I've been around a fair bit, and apart from active service have never seen a situation where a gun would have been an asset. That includes bar fights in far away places where chairs and bottles were considered normal weaponry. I would suggest that no one on here has ever put a round in a warm body, and hopefully never will.

[adam]

I would suggest that no one on here has ever put a round in a warm body, and hopefully never will.

If you're talking about people, then I agree with you completely. If you're including foxes, well....

[adam]

Not technically defense, but I think this paints a good picture of how to report the happenings of an event:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaki ... 1d70cce713

___________________________________

An intruder who was physically confronted by the father and son owners of a business he had just ram-raided is recovering in hospital with serious head injuries.

Pat Fisher, the 49-year-old owner of Mandurah lawn mower sales business Mower Magic, said he was buying fish and chips on Sunday night when a security company contacted him to advise multiple alarms had gone off.

Mr Fisher and his son drove to the business expecting the burglar to be gone.

However, when they turned up, they saw a truck and stolen trailer that had crashed through the back door of the workshop and been loaded with equipment.

"I was greeted by someone with a balaclava who was trying to give it to me," Mr Fisher told 6PR radio.

"He's seen us and tried to leg it out and that's when we pulled him up.

"He had a bit of a fall over, bit of a collapse and hit the ground, and we just basically pinned him down and tried to restrain him.

"But I think he must have given his head a bit of a belting on the way down and then we've called paramedics because he wasn't in good shape."

Mr Fisher's son spoke to police overnight after clashing with the man, saying they had done nothing wrong and the incident had happened very quickly in the dark.

"The rule of thumb is don't touch what you don't own," Mr Fisher said.

"As long as he's (the intruder) fine, that was our concern because he's had a bit of a tap on the chin on the way down and we want to make sure he's fine."

The man is in a stable condition in hospital.

_________________________________________________

[GLS_1956]

I know I posted earlier about how my State, Oklahoma, views the use of a personally carried, permitted, gun.

With all of the guidance and history that has gone with that, I will say this. I always carry a gun when I attend Sunday morning church service, because sociopaths have attacked church congregations in the past and I will not sit by and let innocents be hurt. The same holds true for movies, restaurants, and while shopping. Admittedly I figure that in a case where someone is threatening others, I too would be able to claim a feeling of being in danger and legitimately valid in protecting myself and others.

I know what Christ told us in Luke: 22:36.

[Title_II]

Laws vary by state, but generally in the US, if someone else is in fear for their life or serious bodily injury a third person can act on their behalf the same as if it was themselves. I believe this comes from Common Law, and although Oz is a little more skittish of self defense, I would assume the resultant version of your laws are at least similar.

[Supaduke]

Australia does have a self defence law, it is completely legal to defend ones self and others. The issue here is the use of firearms. The threat must be imminent and immediate. Because of our storage requirements , and the fact we can not carry a firearm as a defensive weapon, proving the threat was immediate when you had time to go and retrieve your firearm is where the problem lies. Couple that with the fact that firearms are viewed in Australia as lethal force, meaning to enter some sort of situation with a firearm shows an intent to kill. No matter what your ideas were. The argument is often distorted by the claim that you are not able to defend yourself at all. This is simply not true.

[Mr.Seacucumber]

If someone comes into our back yard I have a 6ft piece of tassie hardwood. I mean I know I can defend myself with it and at the end of the day it is just a big stick. If I was in public and someone else was getting attacked, I have no idea what I would do and hopefully will never know.