Drawing a line with home intruders and self defence

[GreyCrow]

The law is well-intentioned, but how are you supposed to determine a reasonable response when you wake up and find someone in your house?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Force
The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property. Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. Reasonable force is also known as legal force.

A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

 

[GreyCrow]

Apparently that gets you into a spot of bother!

Only if the police can prove he entered your house. See my post above. This is actual advice given to me by a serving police officer.

Reasonable force or Legal Force can be defined in self defence terms (from the above site)

Self-defense is a defense to certain criminal charges as well as to some civil claims. Under both Criminal Law and Tort Law, self-defense is commonly asserted in cases of Homicide, Assault and Battery, and other crimes involving the attempted use of violence against an individual. Statutory and case law governing self-defense is generally the same in tort and criminal law.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.

The bolded bit is the most important. You cannot use a knife on an unarmed person. ( but if you have a spare non-set knife then place it in the intruders cold hand) . If there are other people in the house you will/should be able to be exempt from the requirement to flee/escape

 

[WA ROO]

Apparently that gets you into a spot of bother!

Don't know anything about this officer,I was asleep until you knocked on the door,really I was

 

[jasonwilde]

The law is well-intentioned, but how are you supposed to determine a reasonable response when you wake up and find someone in your house?

In your young child's room too.

 

[Norwood1878]

"If he dies he dies"...

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Another "reasonable force" case?
Where should the line be drawn when someone breaks into your home?

Doesn't matter where it's drawn, so long as it's drawn with their blood.

 

[Present Not Past]

If they break into your house at 3am visibly carrying a weapon - then it's kill or be killed isn't it?

 

[little graham]

What if its police trespassing on your property?

They're armed

 

[Present Not Past]

What if its police trespassing on your property?

They're armed

If they're there to arrest you then I suggest you hand yourself over quick smart.

 

[little graham]

If they're there to arrest you then I suggest you hand yourself over quick smart.

Only idiots don't take that for granted. but what if they're actually trespassing, have no warrants are just being campaigners? It happens everyday in the lower class areas.

 

[Present Not Past]

Only idiots don't take that for granted. but what if they're actually trespassing, have no warrants are just being campaigners? It happens everyday in the lower class areas.

If you haven't done anything wrong - what's to fear?
Some campaigners just want to torment the Police - and then compain when they get what they deserve.
Police are there just to keep the place safe from campaigners.

 

[little graham]

If you haven't done anything wrong - what's to fear?

Why do pigs carry guns? if they've done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear right?

 

[Present Not Past]

Why do pigs carry guns? if they've done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear right?

They fear the scum of the earth that they have to deal with so that we don't have to - murderers, rapists, drugged out zombies, child killers, bikies, wife bashers, bank robbers etc etc.
Yes, they have done nothing wrong - but their lives can be in danger at anytime any day of the week. When they get a call to go to a domestic dispute they don't know if they're going to a murder site with an armed suspect.

 

[WCErevival]

So what happened to his mate? Wouldnt he be charged too?

 

[sherb]

Maybe the legal system could devise a questionnaire for distribution to all householders.

So that if anyone discovers an intruder in their house, he/she could ask said intruder to complete the questionnaire to know the appropriate level of force to be used in dealing with them.

Eg - are you armed, purpose of intrusion (eg theft, murder, assault, sexual perversion), level of fighting ability, are you currently high as a kite, etc, etc.

It would only take 5-10 minutes, the homeowner could offer a cup of coffee to his/her "guest", and once sorted then the intruder could be dealt with as the law requires.

 

[Present Not Past]

There's no way that Ben Batterham needs to be in prison now. Someone needs to bail him out, or find a way to bail him out. Does he even have a lawyer representing him?
Edit: I see the man who strangled his housemate is now out on bail.

 

[Dry Rot]

Some good info here:

In NSW, a person will not be held responsible for a crime if they were acting in self-defence, meaning they believed their actions were "necessary" to defend themselves or another person; to prevent them being unlawfully detained; to protect property; or to prevent a criminal trespass. Importantly, their actions must be "a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them", which is an objective question.

It does not matter if a person's perception of the threat – for example, that the attacker had a knife – turns out to be wrong. But the judge or jury may disbelieve the version of events offered by the accused....It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an accused was not acting in self-defence, rather than the accused bearing the onus of proving they were acting in self-defence.

There are two significant limitations on the defence. First, if a person uses "excessive force", they may not be found guilty of murder but may be found guilty of manslaughter if they killed their attacker and their response was not reasonable. Second, if a person was only seeking to protect property or prevent a criminal trespass, rather than protect a person, they cannot rely on self-defence in a murder trial but could rely on it as a defence to a lesser charge such as assault.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/murder-an...rself-in-a-home-invasion-20160328-gnsq7q.html

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

What if its police trespassing on your property?

They're armed

Key Rhist.

 

[little graham]

Key Rhist.

You have no teeth, you shouldn't open your mouth .

 

[little graham]

 

[CbayT]

I'd work on the basis that anyone who has chosen to break into your home has the worst intentions. It's 2am and you are asleep and have kids in the house. Wake up to the noise of an intruder. You have no idea who they are, what they are armed with or their criminal history. If the crook dies, so be it. I imagine in this instance, the police believe the crook may have been killed whilst being detained and at a time when he was no longer a threat. Well he's no threat no more. Any criminal lawyers on here care to advise how the courts generally see these sort of cases?

Reasonable force

the inference from the hospital reported in the paper suggests his injuries were significant. IE they kept going after he was significantly incapacitated or unconscious.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Have seen this pop up on facebook (have friends that live in Newcastle where it happened), with people defending the guy charged.

My thoughts are that if someone is put into a vegetative state, such that they think it's advisable to turn off the life support, maybe we should wait for all the facts to come out. Sounds like a serious beating was handed out.

 

[Pie eyed]

If you can believe the news article, the dead guy should have not resisted.
Simple.
The guys who belted him could not possibly have known he was just released for aggravated robbery on a technicality so that's not really in their court.
It appears he contributed to his own death by fighting.

Slippery slope though.
I confronted a bloke in my darkened hallway in the middle of the night, who was clearly there for no good, but when I asked what the "F" he was doing there he said he was a bit drunk and in the wrong house and left without argument or delay.
I had no need to put his life or mine in danger.
I would say he contributed to his own life.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I think we should wait for the court process to be completed before jumping in with ill informed comment.


Except for little graham , if he is denied the right to make ill informed comment he would be silent...oh, wait...

 

[Pie eyed]

Reasonable force

the inference from the hospital reported in the paper suggests his injuries were significant. IE they kept going after he was significantly incapacitated or unconscious.

What interference? Link?