Self Defense in Australia


PDA






Cortez
April 4, 2006, 10:50 PM
I thought it might interest US readers to know how self defence laws operate in Australia, so that if you ever decide to come here to stay, you won't get too big of a shock.

First up, the federal government and the individual state governments will not permit you to own a gun for self defence (unless you are a senior politician or a powerful businessman in which case, the laws are made "flexible" to cater for your needs - you won't find anything written in the Acts to cover this by the way).

Second, the various State laws, with one exception allow you to use "reasonable" force to protect yourself in the event you are attacked. The onus of proof that the force you used was reasonable is on you, the victim. Nowhere is there a definition of what constitutes "reasonable" force. It depends on how each judge interprets it.

What has become general practice in Australia is that, if for example, your home is invaded, the law will expect you to submit to whatever demands are made of you. If you do resist, you must only use force in direct proportion to the force being used against you. However that means that you are reacting all the time and implies that you can only kill an assailant if he kills you first - not a very satisfactory outcome.

If you harm an assailant in any way the chances are that he will sue you and the records shows that he will generally win his case, you will be fined or imprisoned and he will get off scot free - I kid you not.

The other alternative which the law encourages is, that if you can, you flee from the assailant. This assumes that you can and/or that there is no one else in the house that you need to protect.

The only state that permits a realistic type of self defence is New South Wales, which recently changed its laws to permit a householder to use whatever force he/she believes is necessary to protect thier lives. The onus of proof that the force used was excessive rests, in this state, with the prosecution.

Getting attacked on the streets in any state in Australia offers you very few alternatives. Usually attacks are by "packs" of youths, armed with knives, guns, baseball bats, iron bars, etc. Most such attacks result in the death or severe and permanent maiming of the victim. You are not permitted to carry anything that could be used as a weapon in your own self defence and that includes sprays, hat pins, etc. Your only hopes are that you are in company and can fight off such an attack or you can run away faster than them.

Going back to home invasions - if you are already a licensed firearm owner, the law requires that your firearm be locked in a substantial safe. The firing mechanism must be separated from the weapon and stored in a separate safe and ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a different storage facility again, a safe being the preferred option.

You don't have to be too bright to see that if your home is invaded and you use a firearm to defend yourself, then not only will you be in trouble for possibly using excessive force, you will also be charged under the relevant firearms act with various offences because there is no way you could get access to your weapon and have it in a usable condition unless it was already out of its secure storage and loaded, all of which is in contravention of the law.

It is also never a good idea to have some other form of self defence close at hand, such as a baseball bat or knife, or sword. As far as the court is concerned having such a weapon "on hand" constitutes "lying in wait" for an assailant and this too is against the law.

The result is that most home invasions, which are invariably carried out by more than one person these days, will see the occupants killed or severely injured and/or raped and the offenders are rarely, if ever caught.

So, why don't you drop down this way for a visit? As our latest tourist ad says, "So where the bloody hell are you?". The answer to that ought to be "somewhere safer than Australia".

Have fun.:banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Self Defense in Australia" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mbs357
April 4, 2006, 10:54 PM
Doesn't sound like a good place to be.
And here someone tried to tell me that things were going great in Australia.
No, the person wasn't in Australia.
No, I didn't believe him.

psychophipps
April 5, 2006, 12:09 AM
Yeah, it's amazing how well things are going there and in the UK since their respective firearms bans. I mean, dramatically increased crime, the inability of the citizenship to defend themselves through reasonable means and a general feeling of fear by the populace because their respective governments think that only badguys should be doing any harming of people regardless of the situation.

What? This isn't your idea of "going well"? :uhoh:
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

Standing Wolf
April 5, 2006, 12:14 AM
I thought it might interest US readers to know how self defence laws operate in Australia, so that if you ever decide to come here to stay, you won't get too big of a shock.

I always wanted to visit Australia, but it's not going to happen: I don't visit socialist hell holes.

F4GIB
April 5, 2006, 12:23 AM
Now Tim is going to come along and tell us that there is no assaultive crime in Australia, it's all made up by John Lott. So you have nothing to fear and no need to defend yourself.

mrapathy2000
April 5, 2006, 12:37 AM
sounds like a odd penal colony. guards making the laws but sounds like passage to get out is not illegal. wouldnt mind seeing Australia but way things are forget it.

Ryder
April 5, 2006, 01:07 AM
so that if you ever decide to come here

That's funny but tourists would provide a larger pool of victims and allow for the safety in numbers which sheep require.

I used to dream of going there when I was young. Sad, now that I can afford it now but it's no longer an option.

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 01:26 AM
What is really tragic about the situation in Australia is that the only people who have seen the changes come in and undersstand what has been lostr are those older folk who were born around the 1940s.

Then kids could walk the streets in safety. Couples could go out of a night to the ciinema, restaurant or party, or even just to window shop, in complete safety.

Things started to change in the 60s and nowadays, no one in their right mind goes window shopping or sightseeing of a night, even in the smaller towns and cities. The reason is fairly simple. There is a reluctance to crack down on youth crime, so much so that they can literally get away with murder and remain untouched by the law. As an example of this, there was a murder committed at night outside of a hotel in the town near where I live.

A harmless drunk, well known to the pub crowd, on leaving the pub was set upon by a gang of 8 youths who used lumps of wood to beat him to death. The murder was captured on a security camera outside the hotel and the youths responsible for the attack were all caught. However because the youth/s who actually struck the killing blows could not be identified, none of them were prosecuted. They were caught on news camera laughing their heads off outside the court room, following their discharge. We have some curious laws in Australia.

This same group still commits assaults in town on a weekly basis but are virtually untouchable by the law. Real head shaking stuff.

Sensible people stay at home of a night and lock themselves in, hoping that their security is adequate and they are never forced to try to defend themselves.

Cuda
April 5, 2006, 02:51 AM
If you do resist, you must only use force in direct proportion to the force being used against you. However that means that you are reacting all the time and implies that you can only kill an assailant if he kills you first - not a very satisfactory outcome.

Very strange..

C

P95Carry
April 5, 2006, 02:59 AM
I am appalled and in fact (as an Ex Brit) see Oz as being even worse with respect to what folks can or cannot do to protect themselves.

It is obvious to most logical people that cops cannot be around to protect - only to ''mop up'' and try and solve a crime. Lot of use that is for saving lives!

It is a sad state of affairs that the victim is so little considered and all the bias seems toward criminals. I thank heaven for being a United States citizen, with a reasonable right to try and protect myself - I carry daily all the time and hope to never have to use that - but I sure feel I am at least exploiting my innate human right to defend both myself and those close to me.

I can but hope the populace sees thru this farce and that things can one day go full circle, such that self defence becomes not a dirty word but the right it should always be.

Spiphel Rike
April 5, 2006, 07:01 AM
Care to post some statutes/quotes from the law e.t.c?

As for home invasions, who else knows the criminal is there? ;)

Weak worthless judges are causing most of the crime problems here, since they'll let people off for all sorts of things, sometimes even things that deserve a painful execution.
The mindset of the area you live in probably has a lot to do with convictions, for example, police have often let homeowners off even though they chased the invader down the street and continued to use force.

I'm sure that anyone who reads enough of the "use of force" threads here would be able to justify most of their application of force pretty easily, even in Australia.

Also, considering how easily the real criminals get off, i'm sure you could get away without a conviction recorded :rolleyes:

beerslurpy
April 5, 2006, 09:36 AM
Shoot, shovel and shut up? Still, I'd rather just wait around for the police and not worry about becoming a criminal because someone broke into my house and attacked me.

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 10:13 AM
For Spiphel Rike

Reproducing extracts from each states criminal law in relation to self defence would be excessively lengthy. If you are really interested you can do a search on the web under the heading Criminal Law, Self Defence and then name the Australian state or territory.

Each state or territories laws relating to this issue are slightly different from each other.

To make my point, I will reproduce here a small section from the Criminal Consolidation Act 1938 (?) South Australia which relates to Self defence. Remember, you asked for this and this is only a very small part of the self defence section:

Division 2—Defence of life and property
15—Self defence
(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence if—
(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; and
(b) the conduct was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist1.
(2) It is a partial defence to a charge of murder (reducing the offence to manslaughter) if—
(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; but
(b) the conduct was not, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist.2
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person acts for a defensive purpose if the person acts—
(a) in self defence or in defence of another; or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself, herself or another.
(4) However, if a person—
(a) resists another who is purporting to exercise a power of arrest or some other power of law enforcement; or
(b) resists another who is acting in response to an unlawful act against person or property committed by the person or to which the person is a party,
the person will not be taken to be acting for a defensive purpose unless the person genuinely believes, on reasonable grounds, that the other person is acting unlawfully.
(5) If a defendant raises a defence under this section, the defence is taken to have been established unless the prosecution disproves the defence beyond reasonable doubt.


The average person doesn't study criminal law nor ought to be expected to understand in detail what the law is in relation to self defence, yet the law in each state seems to imply that a person ought to be so aware. Go figure!

As for court cases where the victiim has used force to protect himself - there are very few such cases these days, particul;arly since the very restrictive Firearms Legislation that was brought in following the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you use a firearm for self defence these days, not only might you be charged with the use of excessive force, you will almost certainly be charged with numerous breaches of the Firearms Act, which means, that as a licensed gun owner, it ought to be impossible for you to prepare a firearm for use in self defence if you are obeying the relevant firearms act - SIGH!!

So, no, you are wrong somewhat in that if you use a firearm for self defence you will be in deep pooh in Australia, with the law the way it is. These days the norm seems to be that people simply become victims. They are beaten, raped, robbed and killed as the whim takes the attacker/s and there is very little they seem to be able to do about it. I kid you not.

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 10:17 AM
For Beer Slurpy

If you are hoping to sit around waiting for the police to come and save you, you will be waiting a long time. Response times of 2 hours plus are the norm and most crims are nor prepared to adopt a reasonable approach and wait for the police to turn up.

That is why home invasion is so popular these days - it's so easy and non-threatening for the crims, and that is why so many people get maimed, raped and murdered in their homes.:mad:

V4Vendetta
April 5, 2006, 10:23 AM
"I always wanted to visit Australia, but it's not going to happen:"


Me either. Shame. I wanted to see the koala bears & kangaroos. Well I have kangaroo's at my state zoo.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
April 5, 2006, 10:53 AM
Self defense in Austrailia? Tactical boomerang, mate.



http://www.interq.or.jp/tiger/abcabc/boomerang.JPG

HankB
April 5, 2006, 11:02 AM
A harmless drunk, well known to the pub crowd, on leaving the pub was set upon by a gang of 8 youths who used lumps of wood to beat him to death. The murder was captured on a security camera outside the hotel and the youths responsible for the attack were all caught. However because the youth/s who actually struck the killing blows could not be identified, none of them were prosecuted. They were caught on news camera laughing their heads off outside the court room, following their discharge. We have some curious laws in Australia.

This same group still commits assaults in town on a weekly basis but are virtually untouchable by the law. Real head shaking stuff.
Hmmm . . . if the "youths" in the gang were to begin suffering the same sort of fatal assault they committed, and there was a similar lack of evidence, would the outcome also be similar? I.e., no prosecution?

If yes, then there's a solution right there, staring you in the face.

If no, then it's clear the "youths" are bribing the local authorities.

R-Tex12
April 5, 2006, 05:03 PM
Thanks for posting the info, Cortez. I can't tell you how sorry I am that such a fabulous country is being sold out by its "leaders".

When I lived there in the early seventies, one was pretty safe day or night on the streets of Melbourne, Sydney (even Kings Cross), and Brisbane and virtually ALL the small towns. (There's not much need to mention Adelaide - I only spent one weekend there and, from what I could observe, it closed up tight after about 6:00 PM. :rolleyes: ) Of course, the pubs closed at 10:00 pm back then, so there wasn't very much activity after that.

On our last holiday in Queensland in 2005, there were numerous newspaper reports of all sorts of nastiness on very nearly a daily basis. One particularly offensive story regarded a father who had been badly beaten (in his own front yard) at his daughter's 16th birthday party. It seems some local hooligans got wind of the party and decided to crash it. When the dad tried to run them off, they bashed him savagely enough with a metal baseball bat that he was hospitalized for some time. The police responded by stating that they had been recommending for some time that, if one were going to have a party, one should HIRE SECURITY. Their statement had a tone to it that suggested that the father brought things upon himself by taking matters into his own hands in attempting to defend his daughter and his home. :banghead:

I recently read in the Brisbane Courier Mail online that there have been enough of these occurrences that there is now a move afoot to have folks REGISTER their parties beforehand with the local police. Yep, I'll bet that'll solve all the problems. There was absolutely no mention of prosecuting the gatecrashers.

I don't know if we'll return to Oz soon, but if we do, it will be to Queensland. When we're there, we are usually based somewhere along the Sunshine Coast and we enjoy getting out and about. If we get down to Riverview, I would consider it a privilege if we could buy you a drink or two.

Rick

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 05:04 PM
Hmmm . . . if the "youths" in the gang were to begin suffering the same sort of fatal assault they committed, and there was a similar lack of evidence, would the outcome also be similar? I.e., no prosecution?


Probably not. I neglected (deliberately) to mention that it was a gang of Aboriginal youths that committed the crime. You would have to understand the politics involved to understand why this complicates the issue.

Also, and it surprised a lot of people at the time, the law doesn't seem to recognise that you can be an accomplice to an act and be punishable under the law for that act.

Mind you, I wouldn't want to be part of a group of white people carrying out a similar bashing on an Aborigiinal. I think the court findings would be somewhat different.

And no, I'm not being racist. It's simply a reflection of how things actually are here.

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 05:25 PM
For R-Tex12

I would enjoy a drink or two with you as well. Many thanks:)

What you had to say about this current trend of gate crashing parties is only too true unfortunately. This has been going on for some time but it seems to be escalating now.

I don't know how a homeowner is supposed to handle this sort of situation. You start off with a small party of 20 people and suddenly the word gets around, usually by text messages on mobile phones by some of the neighbourhood hoons and before you know it your party is now over 100 people and you have a riot/invasion on your hands.

When you ring the police, you are lucky if they respond within two hours if at all. It seems the best way to get them there reasonably quickly is to tell them you've just shot and killed someone, even though you haven't. The police don't really want to get involved in this sort of business as it can be really wild and they worry about themselves getting hurt!

I suppose we are getting to the stage where we will have to hire gangs of local thugs to act as protection. Sound familiar?

Spiphel Rike
April 5, 2006, 05:31 PM
"Probably not. I neglected (deliberately) to mention that it was a gang of Aboriginal youths that committed the crime. You would have to understand the politics involved to understand why this complicates the issue."

You've got that right. It doesn't make a lot of sense to apply the law the way our judges and the government do. The old Australia was a great place, but a few pieces of legislation and a bit of time has turned it into a disappointing place.

Why'd you deliberately neglect to mention the nationality of the criminals? It is a part of the case, especially over here.

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 06:11 PM
Here it's a way of being labelled "racist".

R-Tex12
April 5, 2006, 08:00 PM
I do not know if Mr Katia (in the story below) is of Aboriginal descent or not. The photo accompanying the article shows fairly clearly that the victim was not. The sentiment expressed in the story is representative of the mood that seems to be prevalent in modern day Australia. The court obviously feels that the perpetrator, because of his youth (never mind that his deceased victim was also youthful), should be accorded leniency because he used only a "modest" (!) level of violence and because he is a youth who shows "considerable promise" due to the fact that he recently enrolled at a university.

My observation based on my last stay in Australia was that the courts tend to excuse all sorts of criminal behavior if the offender is either youthful or a member of an ethnic minority (or, amazingly enough, drunk. No kidding - I can't tell you how many newspaper reports I read in which part of the legal defense presented by the perp or his lawyer was that his judgement was impaired because of alcohol or drugs. Such a defense wasn't always successful, but it was nevertheless used with amazing frequency).

Just to keep things firearms related, it seems that, along with many types of guns, there is now a move to ban SLINGSHOTS in Queensland. I am not talking about the Super-Duper Whammo slingshots that have the wrist supports: those are ALREADY illegal. They're called "Shanghai's" in Australia. The ones being debated now are the plain old Y-shaped slingshots that we used to be able to buy for 25-cents at the dimestore. If I'm incorrect in any of this, I hope Cortez will chime in and correct me.

Grrrr.

Rick


http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,18671980-952,00.html

All a life is worth?
Cameron Atfield and Amanda Watt

April 01, 2006

THE grieving father of a man who died after being robbed of his shoes, phone and watch in Brisbane's CBD has called for tougher sentencing laws after learning his son's killer could be out of jail in three years.




Moses Rupert Katia, 19, was sentenced yesterday to eight years' jail for the manslaughter of Paul Markham, 23, outside an inner-city pub last February.

But sentencing judge Justice Ken MacKenzie recommended Katia be considered for parole after serving three years.

Minutes after hearing the sentence, the victim's father Roy Markham said the punishment would not make up for the death of his son.

"There should be set sentences, there should be deterrents, not this carry-on that he didn't mean it or whatever," he said.

The court was told Katia, a graduate from St Joseph's, Gregory Terrace and a member of their first XV rugby side, had drunk up to 15 rum and colas before the attack. He was walking with a friend through city streets shortly after 5am when they came across Markham passed out on a bench outside the Embassy Hotel.

They leaned over him and were seen to take his mobile phone and shoes.

Security cameras showed Katia returning a short time later and approaching Markham, who was urinating against a row of bins. Katia flicked a piece of rubbish at him before pushing a bin against the back of his legs, causing him to stumble.

Minutes later he followed him to a seat 12m away and punched him and stole his watch before fleeing from the scene. Markham, who was also heavily intoxicated, was discovered slumped on a bench by a passer-by who called paramedics. He died in hospital the next day from severe head injuries.

Prosecutor Ross Martin told the court Katia rang police after seeing himself on surveillance footage on the television news of the man wanted in relation to the attack.

But Mr Martin said Katia initially distanced himself from the attack and engaged in "damage control" before eventually coming clean on what had happened.

Mr Martin said Katia's youth, lack of criminal history, guilty plea and the "modest" level of violence used went in his favour, but the attack was on a "helpless" victim who was then abandoned.

But defence counsel Bob Mulholland, QC, said his client had been oblivious to the fatal consequences of his punch.

Mr Mulholland said Katia had given up alcohol, was extremely remorseful for his actions and was a man of "considerable promise", having begun university studies.

"It is a case of a young man of considerable promise who lost his way in a mindless act of alcohol-induced violence . . . (that) he will regret for the rest of his life."


Justice MacKenzie had to consider other manslaughter cases when deciding on a sentence – including three sentences of 10, nine and seven years.

The two higher sentences involved attacks of much greater violence than that displayed by Katia.

He also was obliged to take into account Katia's youth in determining the appropriate punishment.

Katia was also sentenced to four years' jail for robbery and six months' jail for stealing, both to be served concurrently with the eight-year sentence.

The 153 days he has spent in custody already were declared as time served.

Yesterday's sentencing hearing was moved to court eight – the largest court room in Brisbane's district court building.

Dozens of supporters, all sporting pink flowers, rallied to show support for the Markhams.

"What happened has affected everybody, and it's important that they (the Markhams) know they're not alone," a woman said as people filed out of the court room.

Roy Markham said the gesture was appreciated, particularly after the support shown by school friends of Katia and Matthew William La-Chiusa, who faced charges of stealing relating to the same incident.

Cortez
April 5, 2006, 08:19 PM
"Mr" Katia is either Samoan, or Fijian descent. Very big boy and powerful looking too. I watched the video of the incident on TV (yes it too was caught on security camersa) and it was an extremely savage beating - "modest" level of violence indeed!! You have to wonder what really goes through judges minds.

Crime, it seems, and murder in particular, seems to pay, more and more in Australia. I once sent a letter to the editors of several major national newspapers, suggesting that all criminal law be junked and that there be only one law on the Statute Books - that of not being a willing and compliant victim. I was actually lectured by several responders about how victims were often their own worst enemies and almost invited attack!!!:banghead: SIGH.

As for slingshots (shanghais) - yes they are all banned now, along with cap guns some types of water pistols, all replica firearms etc. Talk about a firearms phobic society! Crossbows were banned last year and there was even talk at one stage of making compound bows available only for licensed shooters! THis will come one day.

Meanwhile, criminals can obtain firearms of virtually any type for reasonable prices on the black market in any capital city in Australia, no hassles and no paperwork. Our police are too busy carrying out close scrutiny of licensed shooters to be bothered with criminals.:cuss:

I just love this place at times. I wish I could find the country that I was born into. It must have disappeared down a black hole somewhere.:(

mordechaianiliewicz
April 5, 2006, 09:10 PM
What did I tell you in a previous post Cortez?

This government isn't a valid one. You pay taxes into a system which cannot provide even the very basic foundation of government, which is protecting it's citizens from challenges to their liberty, safety and property.

What's worse, it actually bans you acting to prevent that damage yourself.

In America, we have a saying about our sytstem of government. We have 3 boxes to defend our liberty.

The ballot box

The soap box

The cartridge box

The ballot box ain't workin' and every time you get on the soap box, you are shouted down. Either pick up the cartridge box, or move to the US. We'd love you hear. But, if you feel a duty as an Australian, well, you know my thoughts.

HankB
April 7, 2006, 09:48 AM
. . . it was a gang of Aboriginal youths that committed the crime. You would have to understand the politics involved to understand why this complicates the issue.That sheds a great deal of light on the matter. Given the increasing climate of "political correctness," "tolerance," and "respect for diversity" in the USA ( :barf: ) I believe I understand the politics of the situation far better than you give me credit for.

A pity this is the sort of thing our countries have in common. :(

Baba Louie
April 7, 2006, 10:19 AM
Sounds like a prudent strategy would be to "become" a criminal once in awhile and revert to "the Law of the Jungle" as need be, if the criminal element has more rights than the average Joe. When in Rome and all that...

Not that I'm advocating doing just that mind you, just a passing thought.

How can anyone expect a "reasonable person" to respect laws that allow no self respect for the individuals?

The Collective mindset at work is a wonderous, yet horrible thing to behold, in that while trying to do-good, common sense says they are setting themselves up for one heck of a fall.

When everyone is a criminal with no-one paying attention to the laws passed or with there being no "consequences" for any actions taken, the day to day situation(s) becomes survival of the fit, who, hopefully are good and moral people. Depending on a government to save or assist you is dangerous to your well being, fiscally, physically and mentally.

Alas. (walks away from the computer muttering under his breath)

LAR-15
April 7, 2006, 01:21 PM
Aren't weapons bans in Australia on a state to state basis though?

Carl N. Brown
April 7, 2006, 01:52 PM
"{Australian} governments will not permit you to own a gun for self defence "

The New York State courts ruled that New York City under the
1911 Sullivan Act could not issue pistol permits for target shooting,
but only for concealed carry or on-premises self-defense. NYC
target shooters must qualify for on-premises self defense permits.

Tennesse law requires that legal transport of a gun in a vehicle means
in a case locked in the trunck unloaded. Open carry in the passenger
compartment is "going armed" a criminal offense. A handgun carry
permit is required for open or concealed carry for self defense.

Virginia law requires that legal transport of a gun in a vehicle means
open carry in the passenger compartment. Locked in the trunk is
"concealed carry" a criminal offense. Open carry for self defense is
legal; concealed carry for self defense requires a permit.

And some people call Australia "Oz"?

TallPine
April 7, 2006, 02:33 PM
"where the bloody hell am I...?"

Armed in Montana, and planning to stay here ;)

fallingblock
April 8, 2006, 04:45 AM
and quite a few non-shooters as well, have expressed similar sentiments:


I just love this place at times. I wish I could find the country that I was born into. It must have disappeared down a black hole somewhere.


Having said that, I was born into a jurisdiction where I could, at the age of 12, ride my bike down to the R.E.A. (railway freight office), collect my latest surplus rifle mail order purchase, in person and ride home again unmolested. After a good cleaning, the rifle usually went to school for 'show & tell'. My classmates were well versed in the history of various military rifles.

Small-town Indiana in the '50's and early '60's.:(

Stand_Watie
April 8, 2006, 05:14 AM
"Mr" Katia is either Samoan, or Fijian descent. Very big boy and powerful looking too. I watched the video of the incident on TV (yes it too was caught on security camersa) and it was an extremely savage beating

Interesting irony - the very first officially justified killing we had in Dallas after our CCW law went into effect that I recall, was of a 300 lb Samoan administering a roadside beating to an IRC 150 lb guy after a traffic accident. No reflection on the violent tendencies of Pacific Islanders, they come from a very laid back culture from everything I have heard, but these two incidents, combined with my observations of watching 'World's strongest man' competitions on ESPN cause me to question if Samoans, like Scandinavians, are genetically predisposed towards general largeness in terms of overall muscle mass. So much for asians being 'tiny':D

If you enjoyed reading about "Self Defense in Australia" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!