Don't hurt home invaders in Australia

[R-Tex12]

An Aussie homeowner has been charged with assault after defending his home during a home invasion. There's probably more to this story, but it does seem to represent the current PC thinking re poor, misunderstood and misguided criminals. It's my understanding that it's almost certain that a person will do prison time if he defends himself and/or his family with a firearm. Can anyone verify?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18932923-29280,00.html


Man bashes home invader
From: AAP
April 26, 2006

A SYDNEY man has been charged with assault after an alleged intruder was bashed repeatedly with a baseball bat.

Police said the 37-year-old was at his Herakles Street home, at Doonside in Sydney's west, about 8.30pm (AEST) yesterday when a man broke in. The intruder, aged 38, allegedly used a piece of wood to force his way in by knocking the door off its hinges.

Police said a scuffle broke out before the resident allegedly hit the intruder in the head with the bat and continued to beat him after he had fallen to the ground.

The alleged intruder was airlifted to Westmead Hospital and is in a serious but stable condition.

The resident has been charged with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm and will face Blacktown Local Court today.

 

[James T Thomas]

when in the course of human events...

R-Tex12:

I am not able to help you with input as to the voracity of this; but along similar lines, I wonder if the public is still permitted to protest their government and current state of restrictive controll over their lives?

I had visited Sydney in 1969, and at that time there was an open park inside Sydney where the public could speak out against the social injustices of the day, etc. What they would do was to find a knoll and bring a "soap box" and begin to rant and rave. But unlike in the USA, instead of being viewed as a crackpot, if their issue was sound, and their oration tolerable, soon a crowd would gather and it could turn into quite a public event. It was part of their culture that I found unique to them and quite "Aussie" to speak out about things.

Now I suppose with the internet availability today, this custom may have dwindled into obscurity, however, I hope it has not.
I will check this post of yours from time to time, and hope that the Australians who were such a virile bunch when I knew them still have a "backbone."

How about it "mates?"

 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Stop the threat

Police said a scuffle broke out before the resident allegedly hit the intruder in the head with the bat and continued to beat him after he had fallen to the ground.

If this account is correct, then it's possible that the homeowner crossed over the line. If the BG is incapacitated after the first blow to the head with the bat, then I believe it does cross over into assault. If the guy is still trying to attack, then by all means, keep hitting him until he quits trying to attack. But if he's on the ground, incacapitated/unconscious, then there's not a lot of legal justification for batting practice with this guy's kidneys.....

 

[ArmedBear]

Yes.

My state law clearly states that I have the right to shoot someone who breaks into my home, because I can reasonably assume he means my family harm. I don't have to play 20 questions.

BUT, the law also states that self-defense ceases once there is no threat. That means I'm NOT allowed to keep beating someone who is incapacitated and unarmed, just because I'm angry. At that point, it becomes assault and battery.

Self-defense must have a definition.

BTW do the Aussies play baseball? I thought they played Cricket.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The alleged intruder was airlifted to Westmead Hospital and is in a serious but stable condition.

I believe I've just spotted the problem. The criminal should have been told to walk. He might have ended up in still more serious condition, but at least he'd have had time to consider the error of his ways.

In all seriousness: any criminal who invades a home should be considered fair game. It's time for the criminals to fear us instead of us fearing them.

 

[LAR-15]

Only one Australian state/territory has passed a law permitting self defense and this must not be it.

 

[Lupinus]

he crossed the legal line present in most everywhere that allows self defense. Once the threat is neutralized you can not continue to harm him.

Personally I could care less if someone takes a bat to someone who broke into their house give them a few extra whacks for the homeowners trouble. But the law doesn't see it that way in most places to my knowlage.

 

[Master Shake]

Aussie Home Invaision

According to the post the perp broke the door down and attacted the homeowner.If that is the case then to hell with the perps "rights".In my state [Oregon]he would most likely be full of holes with a tag tied on his toe.So what,he was a violent criminal and earned a violent death.He wasnt just a thief who snuck in the back door to take some property,[there is a Biblical passage regarding killing a thief during the day vs. night in the Old Testament somewhere]this guy was a "Home Invader".The perp is very lucky to be alive.Unfortunatley in the Commonwealth it is becomeing more and more regular for for citizens[subjects realy]to try to call the "police" and wait while they are being victomized.The Queen forbid someone defend themselves and invalidate uniformed goverment agents trying to do thier job.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

It works the same way everywhere. If there is no threat, force cannot be used. If the guy is on the floor and not moving, force must cease.

Sure, a guy who breaks in "deserves" whatever he gets but that's not how the law works in Australia or the US or anywhere else, because the part about "deserving" something is a matter to be decided by the "system" (ie, a court), not an angry homeowner.

 

[Diomed]

They have baseball in Oz?

 

[White Horseradish]

Probably a cricket bat.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

British rules on self-defense probably apply to their
former penal colony OZ:

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect
themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest
or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make
fine judgements over the level of force you use
in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do
what you honestly and instinctively believe is
necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be
the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and
in self-defence. This is still the case if you use
something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the
circumstances and the fear felt, the more
force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

If you have acted in reasonable self- defence,
as described above, and the intruder dies you
will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there
are several such cases where the householder
has not been prosecuted.

However, if, for example:

- having knocked someone unconscious, you
then decided to further hurt or kill them to
punish them; or

- you knew of an intended intruder and set
a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than
involve the police,

you would be acting with very excessive and
gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

On this case, if the intruder had died of the first
blow it would probably have been accepted, but
hitting him after he was down jusr was not cricket,
even if the bat was.

 

[ArmedBear]

hitting him after he was down

The Anglosphere, including the US, considers this to be decidedly unsporting.

 

[Battler]

I should probably clear this up a bit - there's a bit of cultural stuff missing from your understanding going on here.

In Australia, burglary isn't nearly as stigmatised. I realise that sounds a little strange; but let me go further - stealing sutff isn't that stigmatised. And it isn't that uncommon.

Most parents would be displeased if their kid was a burglar; but it's a little closer to their kid engaging in underaged drinking, "boys will be boys" and all of that.

It's common, and perceived to be common.

Basically, if you talk to an Australian about shooting a burglar, particularly one with a few sons, the picture in his head will be of you shooting his son.

Also, people tend to "project" legal penalties onto self defense situation, not immediate harm. The penalty for burglar, particularly the "first one", is nothing, he'd have been yelled at by a judge and let go. Instead, this poor burglar got the "penalty" of a cricket bat, far in excess of the law's "penalty".

Twisted; but that's how it is. That is how this homeowner will be charged, by a jury half-filled with people who saw that he beat the crap out of a basically good burglar for nothing.

 

[ArmedBear]

Basically, if you talk to an Australian about shooting a burglar, particularly one with a few sons, the picture in his head will be of you shooting his son.

That's why a certain class of Americans want guns banned, too. Perhaps we can send them your way?

Good luck down there. I wasn't aware that burglary was considered no big deal. Burglary is one of the worst detriments to quality of life in populated areas; you can hardly turn around without your stuff disappearing. I've lived in places that were somewhat like that in California beach towns. Must be miserable to live in Sydney.

Is it okay to beat someone up when you find him riding your surfboard?

 

[Battler]

Heh, not to worry, I live in Texas