Drawing a line with home intruders and self defence

[CbayT]

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

In NSW self defence is only a defence against a murder charge if there is a threat to people not property or trespass

 

[jasonwilde]

Maggie5 what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Maggie5]

Maggie5 what are your thoughts on this?

Cheers, Jason - taking a break from SRP at the moment.

 

[walsingham]

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

Being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean an attacker is incapable of exercising deadly force. It would be a travesty of justice if someone is getting their head stomped on or having their windpipe crushed and manage to put hands on a weapon and use it only to be convicted of murder.

 

[GreyCrow]

Being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean an attacker is incapable of exercising deadly force. It would be a travesty of justice if someone is getting their head stomped on or having their windpipe crushed and manage to put hands on a weapon and use it only to be convicted of murder.

I agree and I would hope the jury sees it that way. But the law states it can only be equal. I know of a person who was convicted of manslaughter because even though the other person was twice the size and trying to break the door down , it was the use of a knife ( through screen door) that made the self defence case weak to non-existent. Could he have taken his chance with the jury? Who knows

 

[Procrastinator35]

Reasonable force

That's what the lawyers will argue over & for a jury to decide upon....From what we know thus far, I'd say Manslaughter would be the final plea bargain.

 

[medusala]

Only caught a snippet, but looks like it's true.
Also heard that his neck was broken, but it doesn't say that in the article.

Mr Batterham and a 32-year-old friend became involved in a fight with Mr Slater, which continued outside on the street

​

Similar happened in the UK. The key was the bit you highlighted ie the fight continued off his property and the person got jailed for that reason.​

 

[Present Not Past]

Yes, I had you pegged as the kind of guy who only laughs at his own jokes.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Someone breaking into your house doesn't give you the right to beat them to death.

 

[evo]

Some good info here:

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

Interesting.

So you can beat the shit out of a burglar if you find them in the lounge trying to pinch your bigscreen. Just don't kill them.

 

[Present Not Past]

Someone breaking into your house doesn't give you the right to beat them to death.

Agreed. However, until the intruder yields and surrenders to you when do you let off the pressure?

 

[Chief]

Only caught a snippet, but looks like it's true.
Also heard that his neck was broken, but it doesn't say that in the article.

Mr Batterham and a 32-year-old friend became involved in a fight with Mr Slater, which continued outside on the street​

​

He's out of the house. Chasing him and beating him unconscious is pretty much a textbook case of excessive. Once he's out, lock your doors and call the police and your neighbours to warn them.

 

[Ruck Machine]

​

He's out of the house. Chasing him and beating him unconscious is pretty much a textbook case of excessive. Once he's out, lock your doors and call the police and your neighbours to warn them.

Unless he was in possession of property.

 

[walsingham]

Someone breaking into your house doesn't give you the right to beat them to death.

By breaking into someone's property you're forfeiting your right to safety.

 

[Underdog]

By breaking into someone's property you're forfeiting your right to safety.

To a degree, sure. But suggesting that someone breaking into your house automatically gives you the right to kill or maim them is bullshit.

 

[walsingham]

To a degree, sure. But suggesting that someone breaking into your house automatically gives you the right to kill or maim them is bullshit.

Someone breaking into your home doesn't GIVE you anything. The right to defend yourself, loved ones and property is reserved and inherent. That there might be circumstances where the use of deadly force isn't needed to defend against an intruder is beside the point.

 

[Present Not Past]

To a degree, sure. But suggesting that someone breaking into your house automatically gives you the right to kill or maim them is bullshit.

I don't think there was any intent on the homeowners part to main or kill the intruder. I think the intruder was struggling as much as he could because he knew if the Police got a hold of him he was going back to prison for another long stretch.

 

[Underdog]

I don't think there was any intent on the homeowners part to main or kill the intruder. I think the intruder was struggling as much as he could because he knew if the Police got a hold of him he was going back to prison for another long stretch.

From what I understand, the threat to home and occupants had passed. The damage looks to have come when a citizens arrest was being undertaken - that's a different set of laws.

 

[Max zero]

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.

Eh I don't know. People have been put on life support after 1 punch attacks.

The injuries may have come from a sustained excessive beating or it could of come from hitting his head on the curb.

Too early to tell.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Eh I don't know. People have been put on life support after 1 punch attacks.

The injuries may have come from a sustained excessive beating or it could of come from hitting his head on the curb.

Too early to tell.

Either way you want to just hold fire and wait for some facts. Reports were that his body was covered in bruising.

 

[Lebbo73]

Either way you want to just hold fire and wait for some facts. Reports were that his body was covered in bruising.

I am not saying killing him was the right thing to do. However, you have no one else to blame when you break into someone else's place. He dug his own grave and gave someone a chance to bury him!

 

[Chief]

Unless he was in possession of property.

He's dead. Not worth a tv.

 

[Doley4Life]

Australia is such a backward joke where you become a criminal for stopping a criminal commit a crime against you inside your own home.

I believe that you give up your rights when you commit crimes. Once you enter somebody's home with less than savoury intentions l, then you are fair game in my opinion.

It is an absolute travisty that the criminal has more rights than the accused. Australia needs a 2nd amendment.

 

[coerced]

Regardless of the what the law says, sounds like the right result occurred with the death of the intruder.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/home-inva...-for-raping-teenage-girl-20160330-gnudbn.html

 

[Gough]

Australia is such a backward joke where you become a criminal for stopping a criminal commit a crime against you inside your own home.

I believe that you give up your rights when you commit crimes. Once you enter somebody's home with less than savoury intentions l, then you are fair game in my opinion.

It is an absolute travisty that the criminal has more rights than the accused. Australia needs a 2nd amendment.

You're right, arming everybody to the eye teeth has made America an immeasurably better place to live.