Drawing a line with home intruders and self defence

[Farm Boy]

All this stuff in the media about the gang from Melbournes far East (no point glorifying their name) is pretty scary.

It's all well and good if they just want to steal the iPad and car etc, happy to hand it over in a peaceful exchange, can get it all back on insurance.

But all this stuff about them bashing people with bats and hammers is pretty concerning.

Are you better off just sitting back and cooperating in the hope they won't hurt you or your family or is it better to have a knife under the bed and get on the offensive straight away?

For those who don't have guns, I think they are better off to just cooperate. These new gangs are brazen and armed, they show very little respect for the law, and don't seem to care what happens to themselves. For the average house owner who doesn't have a gun, the only real option is compliance (and hope for the best). Nothing really out there to deter these gangs IMO.

 

[frenchfri12]

Anyone who kills a burglar gets off if i'm on the jury. The relevant law says "a full acquittal is achieved if the jury finds that an accused reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger."

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Anyone who kills a burglar gets off if i'm on the jury. The relevant law says "a full acquittal is achieved if the jury finds that an accused reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger."

the only way i'd trust 12 idiots with my life is i'm guilty. if i'm innocent i'll wave my right and face judge who has a brain

 

[Crankyhawk]

Surely the defence for the home defenders is "mental impairment due to fear and rage of having home broken into?" Given people get off all sorts of things for drunk or drug affected would surely work?

 

[Crankyhawk]

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

People shouldn't be breaking into others houses. Consequences be on your own head.

 

[Crankyhawk]

We'd all hate to be placed in that circumstance and would probably go hard. The unfortunate thing is the force you use has to be proportionate I believe.

Just has to be proportionate in the eyes of the jury...

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not sure how accurate, but from what i'd heard on the radio over the week, he put him in a headlock, used too much force, cut off air, the bloke died. Was there something released that he actually chased him and beat him to death?

I know of a coroner case where police did that to a psychiatric patient who was trying to abscond. No charges laid for anything. Coroner conclusion that psychiatric patients shouldn't be brought to emergency departments with no bed available.

 

[AM]

Just has to be proportionate in the eyes of the jury...

Before that the Police and/or the relevant Public Prosecutors Office are able to put a view as to whether the action was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It may never get to trial.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I'm not sure this is the case to be used with regards to a discussion about self-defence in the home, they chased him out into the street and continued the beat down out there.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

People shouldn't be breaking into others houses. Consequences be on your own head.

People shouldn't be crossing the road against the red man either. Doesn't justify running them over.

 

[Crankyhawk]

People shouldn't be crossing the road against the red man either. Doesn't justify running them over.

But you can say they jumPed from nowhere. And given that the cops can't prosecute those who get drunk and run in front of traffic - because magistrates just say "drunk so not responsible " the idiots get off; the cops then have to pay costs and justify it to their oversight board.

Result the police won't start to prosecute.

Result these drunk campaigners get brought to hospital instead and clutter up my ED.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

But you can say they jumPed from nowhere. And given that the cops can't prosecute those who get drunk and run in front of traffic - because magistrates just say "drunk so not responsible " the idiots get off; the cops then have to pay costs and justify it to their oversight board.

Result the police won't start to prosecute.

Result these drunk campaigners get brought to hospital instead and clutter up my ED.

You have a very strange outlook on life.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You have a very strange outlook on life.

What's strange?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

What's strange?

That you seem to be spending your time thinking of ways you can kill people and get away with it.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Surely the defence for the home defenders is "mental impairment due to fear and rage of having home broken into?" Given people get off all sorts of things for drunk or drug affected would surely work?

not for the average person. you'll find most of those who get off on such weak defense's usually have a barrister representing them, many a year ago. i saw one such ****wit not only avoided time for a glassing charge, but the establishment i worked at were originally ordered to pay a for "mental anguish" caused by the humiliation of being pinned down in another mans urine and handcuffed in front of his family.

the bench was stacked by bog average middle class luddites who for 3 days sat mesmerised, as this the defence council explained how it was everyone else's fault but the 21 yr old "boy" who after being bumped into, walked back to his table grabbed a schooner, walked back over to the bar and hit a man so hard in the head that he not only knocked him out but fractured his skull, caused lasting brain damage, temporarily blinded him in one eye and caused him to literally piss and shit himself and as security we were branded as thugs who overacted and "viciously attacked" the "upstanding" citizen by tackling him and handcuffing him.

in the end he walked away with a 6 month suspended sentence and had to promise not to do it again because clearly he was "provoked" by being bumped into in a crowded pub.

the funny part (well to me anyway) was whilst waiting outside to be called as a witness, i watched a family crying leaving the opposite courtroom as the father was given a 18 months for poaching fish, his clearly discount lawyer looking like a caricature of a solicitor tried in vain to console them.

 

[Crankyhawk]

not for the average person. you'll find most of those who get off on such weak defense's usually have a barrister representing them, many a year ago. i saw one such ******* not only avoided time for a glassing charge, but the establishment i worked at were originally ordered to pay a for "mental anguish" caused by the humiliation of being pinned down in another mans urine and handcuffed in front of his family.

the bench was stacked by bog average middle class luddites who for 3 days sat mesmerised, as this the defence council explained how it was everyone else's fault but the 21 yr old "boy" who after being bumped into, walked back to his table grabbed a schooner, walked back over to the bar and hit a man so hard in the head that he not only knocked him out but fractured his skull, caused lasting brain damage, temporarily blinded him in one eye and caused him to literally piss and shit himself and as security we were branded as thugs who overacted and "viciously attacked" the "upstanding" citizen by tackling him and handcuffing him.

in the end he walked away with a 6 month suspended sentence and had to promise not to do it again because clearly he was "provoked" by being bumped into in a crowded pub.

the funny part (well to me anyway) was whilst waiting outside to be called as a witness, i watched a family crying leaving the opposite courtroom as the father was given a 18 months for poaching fish, his clearly discount lawyer looking like a caricature of a solicitor tried in vain to console them.

It was a police officer who told me that a lot of Victorian magistrates seem inclined to allow justification of antisocial behaviour (walking in front of traffic, public nuisance) if they are drunk/drug intoxicated and therefore "diminished responsibility". With the case you mentioned, I wonder if the middle class luddites got direction from the judge to find their verdict?

Does show that the home defender in this case could argue provocation (if being bumped into is provocation enough to cause permanent brain damage, its not a stretch to suggest home invasion = death)

 

[Crankyhawk]

That you seem to be spending your time thinking of ways you can kill people and get away with it.

No, just relaying a case where someone was restrained to point of airway compromise and anoxic brain injury leading to death where there were no consequences. Thought that it was similar to what has happened here (the only difference is that in the case I relay it was police officers restraining)

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It was a police officer who told me that a lot of Victorian magistrates seem inclined to allow justification of antisocial behaviour (walking in front of traffic, public nuisance) if they are drunk/drug intoxicated and therefore "diminished responsibility". With the case you mentioned, I wonder if the middle class luddites got direction from the judge to find their verdict?

Does show that the home defender in this case could argue provocation (if being bumped into is provocation enough to cause permanent brain damage, its not a stretch to suggest home invasion = death)

i take the word of cops the same way i take the word of the 3 wardens i've known professionally with handfuls of salt. there is a prevailing view within the correctional industry that magistrates award sentences based on how many beds are available. everyone has biases which is why its important to step back and consider the source.

whats more likely, that a signficant number of magistrates are taking a weak stance or that your cop friend perceives this to be true despite the fact we have an ever growing number of people in this country being locked up for nonviolent offences.

and while i'm not aware of the law as it stands in victoria, i do have a few NSW law books sitting in my den and after confirming online that these are still current, well without typing out at entire paragraphs most state crimes act consider diminished responsibility irrelevant to INTENT, in other words where it can be shown that you did something deliberately a magistrate must direct the jury that diminished responsibility cannot be taken into consideration and that jury is not to factor it into arriving at their verdict.

and on top of that intoxication itself cannot be used to invoke diminished capacity, the accused instead must rely on medical evidence of mental impairment.
ergo if you're a lifelong pisshead, you can have a doctor testify that you have brain damage caused by your alcoholism and the brain damage is what causes your mental impairment.

in order for diminished responsibility to apply, ironically enough. they would require documents from doctors in your EM stating that state said person was pissed as a mute.

also diminished responsibility in and of itself is an actual proper "defence" under commonwealth law, in other words the burden of proof is on the accused.
in fact for diminished capacity to apply the crown has to prove guilt, you can't be found not guilty on grounds of diminished responsibility (because to arrive at diminished capacity you have to have proved guilt which requires mens rea) it is purely about reducing things to either a lesser charge or leniency in sentencing.

a person must admit guilt to an offence in order to ask for diminished capacity, I'm not sure if your cop friend was simply ranting and so never explained things to you properly or your taking it out of context.

but at the end of the day by invoking diminished capacity you would have to surrender your ability to argue self defence. the wording on how to direct juries is rather long winded but boils down to: "the defence is that of abnormality of mind is sufficient to reduce, but not to exclude, liability."
when you've killed someone and you take responsibility for it legally, well:

 

[VineyIsLORD]

For those who don't have guns, I think they are better off to just cooperate. These new gangs are brazen and armed, they show very little respect for the law, and don't seem to care what happens to themselves. For the average house owner who doesn't have a gun, the only real option is compliance (and hope for the best). Nothing really out there to deter these gangs IMO.

Please.

This behaviour has been going on in Dandenong, Noble Park, Broady, Sunshine and Springvale for decades.

Anyone talking about carrying a knife "just in case" is a fool. 99% chance that knife ends up being used on you if you try and pull it on an aggravated bunch of teens without a conscience between them. Home invasions etc happen in poor neighbourhoods. There's just a lot more people going poor thesedays so there's a lot more home invasions and robberies.

I for one respect the shit out of the fact that Apex are at least hitting people in Toorak rather than doing it to their own communities. God forbid the rich experience a bit of day to day horrific violence that us outer suburban plebs have grown up with.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

It was a police officer who told me that a lot of Victorian magistrates seem inclined to allow justification of antisocial behaviour (walking in front of traffic, public nuisance) if they are drunk/drug intoxicated and therefore "diminished responsibility". With the case you mentioned, I wonder if the middle class luddites got direction from the judge to find their verdict?

Does show that the home defender in this case could argue provocation (if being bumped into is provocation enough to cause permanent brain damage, its not a stretch to suggest home invasion = death)

Lets be honest, Vic cops don't know shit because they haven't taken the effort to actually follow legal processes at any point in their history.

 

[NitroFan]

People shouldn't be crossing the road against the red man either. Doesn't justify running them over.

you're comparing breaking into a persons house with crossing the road against the red man...?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

you're comparing breaking into a persons house with crossing the road against the red man...?

Neither act carries the death penalty in Australia.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Anyone who kills a burglar gets off if i'm on the jury. The relevant law says "a full acquittal is achieved if the jury finds that an accused reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger."

So you would essentially break the law to make an outcome that fits your opinion rather than the actual laws of Australia?

Fine by me personally, but that would kind of suck for the murder victims family.

 

[frenchfri12]

So you would essentially break the law to make an outcome that fits your opinion rather than the actual laws of Australia?

Fine by me personally, but that would kind of suck for the murder victims family.

Their family should be jailed for being an accessory.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Their family should be jailed for being an accessory.

Haha I respect that. Go hard or go home right.