A Current Affair - Home invasion - Correct response we can do

jeeg on 23/07/2014 - 23:55

Hi guys,

After watching tonight's ACA (http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8879124/brazen-thieves-tak…), I had a question regarding the kind of actions we as house owners can or cannot/shouldn't do in response to a house break-in.

A kid in the ACA show said he used a bicycle handrail thingy to bash the intruder on the head. My wife said this is not legal because we are not allowed to harm an intruder…strange law that protect the intruder and not the home owner she said…I wasn't sure so I googled.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1704008

After reading whirlpool's forum (granted it was an old thread dated back to 2011), I am now thinking the law is on the house intruder's side…Am I correct/wrong?

Home & Garden

Comments

  • Parentheses on 24/07/2014 - 00:05
    +36

    Jail or dead - which one would you prefer?

    I wouldn't even consider the law as even being a factor until after the event - do what is necessary, sort the rest out later. You aren't going to get anything even close to reliable legal advice online anyways, best case scenario you don't get the exact opposite of the correct answer.

    • StewBalls on 24/07/2014 - 10:32
      +53

      Agreed. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six!

    • This Guy on 26/07/2014 - 01:32
      +1

      Mate, not worth it. They want money, not half the police force chasing them.

      If they are dumb enough to rob a house when someone is home, they will get caught. And they will get extra time because you were home.

      Seriously, there are so many better targets than an occupied home. Targets safer for them which will make them seriously more money.

      If they are pathetic, sure, stand up to them. If you think a life is in danger, I wish you the best of luck. But if they are armed, or you out numbered, being an hero for a few grand of stuff is stupid.

    • Serapis on 26/07/2014 - 03:23
      +1

      I remember some case (don't think it was Australia) about a guy being sued after an intruder broke into his home, tripped on the kitchen counter and broke his leg… don't even have to attack the intruder to be liable these days…

      Anyway, key word is intention, make sure there was no intention to do them harm and do everything in self defense (not defense of your property but for your own personal safety.)

      • wonderboy on 26/07/2014 - 11:09
        +20

        That was the movie Liar Liar

        • fusion17 on 27/07/2014 - 06:31
          +1

          LOL
          Thank you sir.

        • Serapis on 14/08/2014 - 01:52

          Zomg must go back and watch it now!

      • patinadiary on 27/07/2014 - 18:15

        Beat them into a pulp, then claim self defence. MG style.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2014 - 19:02
      +9

      Bash the guy unconscious, hide him in the attic/basement/garage, log into OZBargain, we'll sort you out.

      PS. Looking forward to a post titled "Burglar bashed unconscious but alive to a certain extent. How to make the following proceeding pleasant?"

      PPS. Also keen for a OZB get together as part of sorting it out :) I don't like burglars.

      • c0balt on 26/07/2014 - 20:51
        +16

        "How many Eneloops in series to produce enough current across the heart to stop it?"

        • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2014 - 23:43
          +6

          Not sure how many in series. I know about a dozen Eneloops in a cloth bag, swung 1 foot higher than the heart, repeatedly, should also do the trick, with a little added mess.

        • stumo on 27/07/2014 - 15:29

          6D maglite. Its not a weapon

        • [Deactivated] on 28/07/2014 - 22:21

          @tshow: Homer: can you swing a sack of door knobs
          Jimbo: can I
          Homer: we supply the sack you supply the door knobs

        • altomic on 01/08/2014 - 12:29
          +1

          @tshow: careful, you could be charged for battery.

        • lasertip on 03/08/2014 - 16:38

          @altomic:

          He's right. See Bird v. Holbrook

          Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bing. 628, 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (1825).

          Facts: Holbrook (D) set up a spring-gun trap in his garden in order to catch an intruder who had been stealing from his garden. D did not post a warning. Bird (P) chased an escaped bird into the garden and set off the trap, suffering serious damage to his knee. Bird sued Holbrook for damages.

          Issue: May a property owner set up a trap without notice in order to harm or catch an intruder?

          Holding and Rule: No. One who sets traps without posting a notice is liable for any damages caused. No man can do indirectly that which he is forbidden to do directly. If P had come into D’s garden while D was there, D would not have been able to use the same force to expel P from the garden. The court held that in such a case even a thief can recover damages. The court stated that while setting traps or “man traps” can be valid as a deterrent when notice is also posted, D’s intent was to injure someone rather than scare them off.

          Disposition: Affirmed.

      • DrStinge on 29/07/2014 - 09:35

        80% off - Tshow Refurbished

    • onlyletters on 26/07/2014 - 23:35

      Kill and hide the evidence. Win-Win

  • Riczter on 24/07/2014 - 01:08
    +2

    Isn't there somethign about resonable force when it comes to self defense?
    So if an intruder comes in with a knife, you can stab him or blugeon him, but cant shoot him or kill him, but if he walks in with a gun, then you can pretty much kill him legally in self defense??

    • StewBalls on 24/07/2014 - 11:04
      +10

      Not quite correct.

      IME, reasonable force in response to any lethal threat is not judged to be contingent upon the specific implement of the threat, but merely the veracity & immediacy of it. If you have a real fear for your life or the life of another person, and that threat is imminent, you can use any means at your disposal to nullify the threat.

      That said, if you use a firearm, you may face some firearms related charges after the fact, depending on your individual situation; but these will be inconsequential in comparison to a possible manslaughter charge, and may even be mitigated in the context of the overarching event.

      I've actually seen this tested in court a few times over the years.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/07/2014 - 15:49
        +3

        I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is correct. My understanding is that you are allowed to defend yourself (but not your property) depending on your perceived threat to yourself or others (I don't know if the dog counts or not).

        You don't know if they are armed or not, it is an unknown threat but if they have broke into your home you might reasonably expect that they could be armed and dangerous, and therefore pose a threat.

        Unless there is reason to suggest that they are not a threat (eg: If the intruder is actively running away from you, surrendering, or showing himself as clearly unarmed/unthreatening), any steps that you believe are necessary to defend yourself from the intruder are probably justified.

        There is such thing as a "Justifiable Homicide" which is not a criminal offense, but that's if you even kill them (you might seriously injure them instead).

        Be prepared that if you are faced in the situation you will face a lot of scrutiny (in Australia) so it's best not to have the attitude that you would kill/attack an intruder no matter what, but rather you should be prepared to do so if you have to. The best course of action would be to hide or run away from the intruder and let them take what they want (which you can claim on insurance) and not have the legal hassle, unless you think that you are stuck in a dangerous situation.

        Most burglars would probably try to run away if they get caught anyway as they are looking for easy things to steal to make money for drugs, etc. not to upgrade their charges to assault, murder, etc. if they get caught.

        Being caught for burglary is basically a slap on the wrist, maybe a very short jail stint for repeat offenders. I think it is better this way otherwise some burglars might think that they have nothing to lose if they are going to be locked away from a long time if they caught anyway, so they might as well not refrain themselves from violence if it makes no difference if they get caught anyway.

        • Wallyt99 on 25/07/2014 - 17:56
          +8

          The most correct thing you said was 'I am not a lawyer'

        • alittlelewd on 25/07/2014 - 22:56

          @Wallyt99:

          Yet he speaks with the conviction of one, and down to the rest of us like he is one. Not a single source given, just his opinion, which is wrong.

          The law is the law. Using proportionate and reasonable force is fine when there is potential for harm against you, others, your property or other peoples property.

          If there's someone breaking into in your house then it's reasonable to think that they could cause you or others a lot of hurt before you have the chance to say, call the police. Using force proportionate to the perceived threat at the time (not the actual threat in hindsight) is acceptable, be what that may with what you have around.

          Self defence laws in NSW.
          http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/8e0f7e062dcea119ca256ecf00098abb/$FILE/17-98.pdf

          Self defence laws (under the crimes act 1958) in Victoria.
          http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt5.nsf/d1a8d8a9bed958efca25761600042ef5/f9c3f0c5b55efae0ca2577cf007e1381/$FILE/58-6231a222.pdf

        • Peace Maker on 26/07/2014 - 01:09
          -1

          @alittlelewd:

          The law is the law

          Ummm, thanks?

        • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2014 - 20:13
          +2

          @alittlelewd:

          Yet he speaks with the conviction of one

          My opening line is "I am not a lawyer". I'm not sure how you could be mistaken that I could be one? Derp

        • Sindex on 27/07/2014 - 00:36
          +14

          I am a criminal lawyer in NSW and actually I reckon the Land of Smeg is pretty well on the mark. The self defence laws around Australia are somewhat complex, with a long history, and different versions in each state, but on the whole I reckon they're pretty sensible.

          We certainly don't need any of those 'stand your ground' laws that lead to some very twisted results.

          I'm writing this late at night without references, so I might make mistakes. Remember that even Judges disagree about complex questions like this, so sometimes we don't know what the law is until the case ends up in court :)

          The basic gist of Australian self defence laws is:
          - It's a defence to any criminal charge if you were defending yourself or others, or defending property or preventing trespass,
          - as long as your actions were reasonable in the circumstances as you perceived them.

          If you actually kill someone, and you genuinely believed you or someone else was at risk of grievous bodily harm, but your actions were an excessive response to the situation, then you're guilty of manslaughter not murder.

          You can read the NSW laws in sections 418 to 424 of the Crimes Act, but to fully understand them you'd also need to read a lot of cases (decisions made in court).

          There are lots of interesting questions about how you put the 'reasonable person' (determined by the jury) into the shoes of the person perceiving the threat.

          But, anyway, if somebody is just knicking your property and running away, don't pick a daft fight because they may well be intoxicated and unpredictable. However, if you are under threat, you are certainly allowed to defend yourself.

          And don't get your legal info from ACA :)

        • c0balt on 27/07/2014 - 13:48
          -3

          @Sindex:

          Hey Sindex, being a criminal lawyer - could you be so kind as to provide a source of a single case where a homeowner was found to have used excessive force and was convicted of a crime even though he was the original victim of a break and enter?

          Because you say you are agreeing with 'the land of smeg', yet you then go on to say that people can use force when..

          "- It's a defence to any criminal charge if you were defending yourself or others, or defending property or preventing trespass,
          - as long as your actions were reasonable in the circumstances as you perceived them."

          Which isn't what the land of smeg is saying, but what others are saying in argument to him.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/07/2014 - 20:06
          +2

          @c0balt:

          Which isn't what the land of smeg is saying, but what others are saying in argument to him.

          This is what I'm basically saying

  • Davo1111 on 24/07/2014 - 03:25
    +1

    Fairly sure reasonable force is the term used in terms of self defence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_(Australia)#Self-defence

    As for keeping a weapon around the house for self-defense, my understanding is that is illegal. i.e. You may have to justify keeping a baseball bat near the door when you don't play baseball.

    IANAL

    Just watched the video - Most of these scumbag thieves are likely to run as soon as they hear any human intervention, so the chances of a break in, let alone a fight a very slim. Call it an educated guess - but most of the "invasions" on the news seem to be drug/gang related.

    • Serapis on 26/07/2014 - 03:28

      Well source of OP's thread was ACA, not exactly a source i would deem accurate or even defined as 'news', and they also have a tendency to dramatize everything.

    • bargaino on 28/07/2014 - 11:35
      +1

      As for keeping a weapon around the house for self-defense, my understanding is that is illegal.

      Carrying a weapon in public is illegal. That does not apply at home though.
      Anyone heard of any such law?

  • Ughhh on 24/07/2014 - 06:15
    +12

    Not sure what we can do, but I'm sure most people now would be facebooking and taking a selfie in the situation.

  • jeeg on 24/07/2014 - 08:14

    So the kid who hit the intruder on the head when the guy is trying to steal his brother's ps3 is vonsidered reasonable force in self defence?

    • c0balt on 25/07/2014 - 13:44
      +4

      'Reasonable force' also considers the persons involved. At least that's how it is in Victoria with the 1958 Crimes Act.

      I.E. It would be reasonable for a 150cm 45kg girl to use a baseball bat hit to subdue a 190cm 100kg intruder when he wasn't looking as he searched room to room, if intent has already been established that he is robbing a place and the girl felt she was in danger of being assaulted.

      If it was the other way around, well trouble would be had, because it's unreasonable to think that a 190cm 100kg man couldn't subdue a 45kg 150cm girl without using the bat, or that his life was in danger without establishing that the girl had a weapon and intent to cause harm.

      So without knowing every little detail about that kid and the robber, I would say that given the circumstances that he used reasonable force to prevent injury to himself or his family - even if he caved the guys skull in.

      It's important of course if you ever find yourself in a situation such as this to never deviate from the line "I believed at the time, given the facts present at the moment that my life (or the lives or others) were in imminent danger and that if I didn't use reasonable force, that my life (or the lives of others) could have been lost.".

      It would be stupid to say "I thought he might be able to hurt me, so I wanted to hurt him to make sure he didn't hurt me", that statement gets on the record and would be hard to change after the fact.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/07/2014 - 15:56

        Whose to say that the 45kg 150cm girl couldn't have been armed with a knife or firearm, or isn't a skilled fighter.

        Sounds like you are suggesting that someone who is in this situation to say they felt like their life was in imminent danger, which would be perjury, if in fact they only felt like they were only going to be hurt.

        Might be better for someone not to attack an intruder unless they actually felt like their life was in imminent danger, rather than just do it anyway to protect property/from injury and just lie (by saying that ehy felt their life was in danger, when they didn't feel that way) to get away with it.

        • c0balt on 25/07/2014 - 16:05

          Look, I've been in this situation quite a few times when I worked security.

          I never said to use excessive force, I was trying to define what could constitute reasonable force and how it applies to the current situation, not retrospectively. By all means use communication as the first form of dealing with the situation before resorting to reasonable force if you feel your life (or the lives of others) is in danger.

          Again, I'm not advocating using force, I'm adding to the discussion of how 'reasonable force' can be defined and applied.

          The law hasn't changed.

          My advice is sound.

  • Paul Atreides on 24/07/2014 - 08:41
    +32

    who watches aca?

    • Smulder on 24/07/2014 - 10:33

      About a million people every night.

      • Cluster on 25/07/2014 - 16:25
        +27

        And that scares me.

    • gummibears on 25/07/2014 - 16:25
      +7

      My parents :(

  • blazeninja on 24/07/2014 - 10:26
    +12

    Self Defence is deliberately vague to stop abuse (see stand your ground rubbish in the US). Also stop watching ACA.

    • Diji1 on 24/07/2014 - 10:44
      +4

      I don't think it's rubbish that the victim of an attack is given license to defend themselves against injury to themselves and their property. I would rather cause an attacker injury or death than have the risk of this happening to me.

      Before you say wait for the police the fact that the attack has occurred to start with means the police are not there to defend you.

  • Diji1 on 24/07/2014 - 10:37
    +1

    You're best bet is too ring your local legal aid service or it's equivalent since asking the internet for advice is just like walking down the street asking random people - would you take any advice you got that way seriously?

    • [Deactivated] on 24/07/2014 - 11:42
      +2

      Just make sure to tell them to:

      • knock loudly on the door when they come to visit
      • shout the words "legal aid" when they knock
      • wear a bullet proof vest.
  • Malarkey on 24/07/2014 - 11:16

    so…. I can't shoot an intruder?

    • GiggidyGoo on 24/07/2014 - 11:34
      +12

      Sigh… You probably could but need the following conditions met:

      • You need a gun
      • You need a bullet
      • You need to know how to load the gun
      • You need to know how to shoot the gun
      • You need to be a nutjob
      • You need to know how to pick up soap without bending over.

      Hope that answers your question.

      • Malarkey on 24/07/2014 - 11:49
        +1

        That clears it up, thanks!

      • h4zey on 28/07/2014 - 13:36

        but what if he likes to bend over when picking up the soap

    • sillyguy on 25/07/2014 - 15:44

      You can't because you don't have a gun, but you can spit on him and hit him in the throat while he dodges. It would work very well.

      • Clementt on 25/07/2014 - 16:33
        +1

        There is a legal way to get a gun in Australia.
        You would need a license and I won't tell you how to get it.
        To have a gun in your home, you would need a bolted secure safe locker to store the gun.

        Or you can be like me, have a really huge ass Spannar in your room.
        I use it when I experience home invasion. Also, the forensic might dust any glass surfaces to take fingerprints.

        • c0balt on 25/07/2014 - 16:37
          +5

          Won't tell them how to get it? Why not? I will.

          Go to your local cop shop and ask for the forms for a firearms licence. They will ask your the reason why, give them that reason (supporting paperwork is a must) and if they accept it then you can get the paperwork for a firearms licence (depending on your needs you can get different category licence papers). Fill them out, pay the duty and then take the firearms safety test and get fingerprinted. If you pass the test then you get it stamped on the spot and can then send the forms away to get your licence by mail. Don't pass the test, then you forfeit the duty and can go through it again after a certain time after reapplying.

          Least that's how it was for me a while back in Victoria.

        • Clementt on 25/07/2014 - 16:50

          @c0balt:

          You would need to provide a "genuine reasons" for applying it.
          Also, depends on the licenses and your reasons, thus it limit to types of firearms. I prefer a handgun like Glock or M&P.
          But there is a way to get it done with certain requirements fulfilled.

        • Serapis on 26/07/2014 - 03:33

          I'm guessing you fortunately haven't experienced home invasion yet because you're not in jail

        • Gnostikos on 26/07/2014 - 15:42

          @c0balt: In summary; it's easier to split the atom with a home-made LHC than it is to own gun on the off-chance you need a reliable self-defence tool in case of home invasion.

        • alittlelewd on 26/07/2014 - 16:27

          @Serapis:

          Because he keeps a spanner in his room?

          Would you convict a guy of battery if he was found to have beaten a person with a spanner as he experienced a home invasion?

          When it comes down to it, even if you think you would now, I guarantee that when faced with the gravity of putting a person in prison for defending himself - that you won't. So why would anyone else?

          It's a common misconception that criminals can sue the homeowner (for things like falling through a skylight), or cases where homeowner was found to have used excessive force to stop harm to themselves or others during a home robbery/invasion.

          It doesn't happen in this country. Everyone thinks it does, but I can't find single source on the internet to prove it actually happens. My father is a lawyer and even he thinks it happens, but I asked him to find me one instance of where a homeowner has been sued/convicted and he hasn't been able to produce a single case (he probably has better things to do with his time than argue with his son over trivial matters like this).

          There's no shortage of stories the other way around though, of burgulars/home invaders causing serious injury to those inside the premise.

        • c0balt on 26/07/2014 - 20:45
          -1

          @Amar89:

          Well maybe for us, but for others I would say getting a gun would be easier ;)

          Also I never owed a gun. I had to get a licence first because I wanted to shoot guns at a mates farm (parents are active in the rifle/handgun sporting community and wouldn't let me join in on the fun without a licence).

          It was their hand written note that was acceptable at the cop shop as 'supporting paperwork'. They are known to the police (for the right reasons) and they came with me when I went to the station to apply for my licence paperwork.

          So a valid reason to get a gun licence is so you can use your mates guns on their private property. It's really that easy.

          It's long expired and I have no use to get it again.

        • Clementt on 28/07/2014 - 03:22

          I did not beat the person with the spanner as it was the first time I experienced burglary. I did not caught the person stealing stuff as I was in my bedroom but when I walk out of my bedroom he was trying to run out the balcony door. He wasn't able to get out as the balcony door is locked and require a key to unlocked so I corned him and confronted him face to face. He was acting like he was in the wrong house, finding a friend and give me a crap name and said he did knock loudly. At that time, I thought he hasn't stolen anything yet but he was really afraid as I guess anyone would when I have a 30cm Spanner in my hand. He tried to back his way out while talking and I was really confused to trust his words or not. Then, he actually climb the fence to get away, that's when I called the cops as I suspect he is not there accidentally. It is just me facing this first time and really trusting on people. Also, I found out he stole some cash from my mate room. If I were to reface this situation again, I would have ordered him to lay down on the floor while I call the cops on him, and if he run towards me to flee, then I can actually use the spannar with reasonable force under self-defence. As he is the intruders and when cornered, he would try to exert violence on the homeowner and I could say he is trying to punch me.

      • Malarkey on 28/07/2014 - 10:49

        Can confirm, I own 10 rifles ;) Obviously stored correctly in a safe so it was more of a 'in theory' question

    • serideth on 25/07/2014 - 16:38
      +1

      If your life is being threatened ie. they have a gun/knife and you can retrieve your gun from your safe storage,your ammo from its storage plus load the firearm then you can use it to defend yourself. But no you can't start just start popping rounds off if you see a stranger in your house.

      As for Giggidy

      • Obvious requirement
      • If you have a gun you probably will have ammo
      • This is guaranteed if you legally have a gun in Australia due to our licencing laws
      • See above
      • Now you're just being biased
      • Bend your knees
      • This Guy on 26/07/2014 - 01:48

        You first have to find out they have a gun or a knife.

        You then run to your safe. Unlock it. Unlock the ammo box. Load the gun. Find the guy. Shoot.
        If you can do that, you had enough time to run to safety. You just committed murder.

        "But my family was in danger"

        You ran away to your gun safe, leaving your family vulnerable just so you could 'legally' kill a guy… If this guy was there to kill, your family is already dead.

        Self-defence laws are there to stop people getting killed for a grand or two of property (which the thief will only get a few hundred for).

        Edit:spelling

        • Malarkey on 28/07/2014 - 10:51

          My safe is right next to my bed, honestly it would take less than 60 seconds to open the safe, open the ammo compartment load a few rounds.

        • This Guy on 28/07/2014 - 16:15

          @Malarkey:

          If a burglar had a gun, they wouldn't be robbing homes.

          A mate of mine pulled a gun on an intruder. Almost killed his best friend. His best friend was crashing on his couch because he got kicked out by the misses and didn't want to wake anyone.

          You asked on the internet if you can shoot an intruder. You don't have the training to do it safely. I get that you care about your home, but pulling a gun at an intruder risks your family.

        • Malarkey on 29/07/2014 - 12:07
          +1

          @This Guy:

          I'm just having some hypothetical fun, I agree that it would be rare for a burglar to carry a gun. I'm confident I know what I'm doing considering my previous deployments.

        • This Guy on 29/07/2014 - 13:41
          +1

          @Malarkey:

          Sorry mate, you came off like some of my hunter mates.

        • Malarkey on 29/07/2014 - 13:43

          @This Guy:

          All good mate :)

    • Serapis on 26/07/2014 - 03:32
      -3

      No, picking up the gun shows you have intention to cause GBH and that alone can land you in jail

      Furthermore if a cop comes to assist and they see you with a loaded gun, guess who's going to get shot?

  • c64 on 24/07/2014 - 11:42

    just say he lunged at you and so you hit him over the head

    • ProjectZero on 28/07/2014 - 17:48

      Lol, when i saw this i thought of this.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/07/2014 - 11:47
    +1

    So you googled a whirlpool thread, but didn't think to google the applicable laws?

    • Diji1 on 25/07/2014 - 13:34
      +2

      The problem is even if he/she did do this laws are written in fairly hard to interpret language for whatever reasons.

      From my experience I can say it really helps to have a qualified person explain them in layman's terms or else you risk not fully understanding the ramifications of the law.

  • cytotoxic on 24/07/2014 - 12:12
    -2

    Why confront them at all? Get out to avoid a confrontation, call the cops from the neighbour's house. Or, if confrontation is inevitable, just give them what they want so they leave. Possessions can be replaced with insurance

    • Diji1 on 25/07/2014 - 13:42
      +5

      OK. And in the real world what are you supposed to do if they're intent on harming you - allow them to beat you up because that's what they want? Do you think an attacker is going to let you leave the property if they haven't run away?

      Are you going to leave your children in the house with an attacker while you run next door?

      What if you don't have any close neighbours?

      Just give them the jewellery that your mother gave to you which cannot be replaced?

      Are you aware that criminals are more likely to return to premises where they have successfully carried out an attack?

      I find it really hard to countenance handing over control of a situation like you're suggesting. I suspect it may be very psychologically damaging once you do as it put you in a position of helplessness. Helplessness is a bad psychological position for various reasons. Just my take.

      • This Guy on 26/07/2014 - 02:03
        -2

        If they want to hurt you, fighting back is going to escalate the violence.

        If there is more of them then you, you are going to lose.

        Laying beaten on the floor is not going to help you children.

        If you don't have close neighbours, you should notice a car coming a mile away. If can't intimidate them before they get to your house, it might be wise to run or comply.

  • lasertip on 24/07/2014 - 12:36
    +14

    A snippet from the WA Criminal code. Google the laws relevant in your state.

    1. Home invasion, use of force to prevent etc.
      (1) It is lawful for a person (the occupant) who is in peaceable
      possession of a dwelling to use any force or do anything else
      that the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, to be
      necessary —
      (a) to prevent a home invader from wrongfully entering the
      dwelling or an associated place; or
      (b) to cause a home invader who is wrongfully in the
      dwelling or on or in an associated place to leave the
      dwelling or place; or
      (c) to make effectual defence against violence used or
      threatened in relation to a person by a home invader who
      is —
      (i) attempting to wrongfully enter the dwelling or an
      associated place; or
      (ii) wrongfully in the dwelling or on or in an
      associated place;
      or
      (d) to prevent a home invader from committing, or make a
      home invader stop committing, an offence in the
      dwelling or on or in an associated place.
      (1A) Despite subsection (1), it is not lawful for the occupant to use
      force that is intended, or that is likely, to cause death to a home
      invader unless the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds,
      that violence is being or is likely to be used or is threatened in
      relation to a person by a home invader.
      (2) A person is a home invader for the purposes of subsection (1) if
      the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person —
      (a) intends to commit an offence; or
      (b) is committing or has committed an offence,
      in the dwelling or on or in an associated place.
    • terrypoon on 28/07/2014 - 00:32
      +1

      How about the WA CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ACT 2006 - SECT 25
      Citizen's arrest

      arrestable offence means an offence the statutory penalty for which is or includes imprisonment.
      2) Any person may arrest another person (the suspect ) if he or she reasonably suspects that the suspect has committed or is committing an arrestable offence.
      (3) Any person may arrest another person (the suspect ) who is doing or about to do an act that the person is entitled to prevent under section 24(1)(a), (b) or (c).
      (4) A person is not entitled, by reason only of subsection (2) or (3), to enter a place or vehicle where the person suspects the suspect is.
      (5) A person who arrests a suspect under subsection (2) or (3) must as soon as practicable —
      (a) arrange for a police officer to attend; or
      (b) take the suspect and any thing relevant to the offence to a police officer.
      (6) For the purpose of complying with subsection (5), a person may detain the suspect until the police officer attends or until the suspect is taken to a police officer.
      (7) When a police officer attends or the suspect is taken to a police officer —
      (a) the officer may arrest the suspect if, under section 128 or an arrest warrant, the officer is authorised to arrest the suspect; but
      (b) if the officer does not arrest the suspect, the suspect ceases to be under arrest.

  • jeeg on 24/07/2014 - 14:37

    Thanks for that. Appreciated the response.

  • xuqi on 25/07/2014 - 14:14
    +4

    I have asked the same question from police officers in WA & SA. Their response was; Do what is necessary to protect yourself, but leave us someone to take away when finished.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/07/2014 - 16:03
      +4

      Sure, leave the body for them. Easier than disposing of it yourself.

      • Davo1111 on 25/07/2014 - 17:55
        +1

        you gotta dig a deep hole :(

        • Serapis on 26/07/2014 - 03:36

          or a lake, a boat, a barrel and a few packs of cement :P

    • OldBugger on 25/07/2014 - 23:45
      +8

      I had a bloke trying to break into my parents bedroom one night years and years ago when I was a teenager on the farm. I could hear something or someone scrambling up the wall to the top windows which were open. Mum and dad were busy watching Sale of the Century in the other side of the house. I don't think I really believed it could be an actual person, maybe a big rat or something, I don't know. But I played along with the intruder story in my head and got the 0.22 bolt action out of Dad's closet, slid in a bullet and waited in the darkness of the room. When I saw a hand come through all I could say was "You bastard!" There was this thud as he fell to the ground outside.

      I raced to Mum and Dad and it took what felt like 10 minutes for them to understand what I was blabbering on about and why I was holding the gun. Mum called the local police while Dad and I drove around the road and property in the HQ ute. He drove while I was half out the window scanning with the spotlight we used for roo shooting in one hand and the gun in the other. This sounds very redneck I know.

      I wasn't really sure what I would have done if the guy did come through the window… or just jumped out into the spotlight beam for that matter. But I'll never forget what the policeman said who visited an hour later. "If you have an intruder, it's best to just get out of their way. But if you are going to shoot them, make sure you kill them." Country cops… long time ago.

  • Clementt on 25/07/2014 - 15:28
    +4

    If this happens in US, this is what a homeowner might do.

    http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/tom-greer-shoots-…

  • Cluster on 25/07/2014 - 16:34
    +1

    You can take reasonable steps to defend yourself and your family if you feel threatened. An intruder in my house would in no uncertain terms be very unwelcome. That intruder is either there to harm financially or physically. I would do everything possible to get the intruder out of my house. That is very different to, say, cornering the intruder and physically assaulting to exact punishment or revenge rather than self defense.

    If the home owner finds themselves in court in front of a jury then consider that jury is made up of 12 average people from the community who would likewise want to protect their family if they had an intruder in their house. I have been on a jury and seen how the process works. It's a bit of a mysterious black box that no one is allowed to question or intervene in. The key takeaway is that the force must be reasonable to a reasonable person. Bludgeoning an intruder to an inch of their life for example would probably not fit that scenario.

    One area where people can get into trouble is meeting an intruder in the home, leaving the house (there is no one else inside), going to get a weapon (shovel from the shed), returning, and attacking the intruder inside the house. That area gets very murky as the defendant is returning to the danger instead of fleeing it.

  • yesterdaysnews on 25/07/2014 - 16:48
    +4

    If you're ever in this type of situation, intentionally soiling yourself is not a bad idea as it adds to the 'in fear of your life' argument.

  • tko6070 on 25/07/2014 - 22:05

    Pepper Spray is legal is WA, I'd suggest that would quite easily disable an intruder without harming them.

    • alittlelewd on 25/07/2014 - 22:16
      +2

      Pepper spray.. in an enclosed environment, potentially with other family members around? Are you insane?

      Just use a cricket bat, less chance of hurting yourselves or those you are trying to protect.

      • eug on 27/07/2014 - 23:29
        +1

        Pepper spray overspray isn't going to kill your family members. Better them getting some overspray and the intruder temporarily blinded, than the intruder grabbing the cricket bat off you and bashing your head in.

        Or spray the intruder, THEN use the cricket bat on the intruder's knees. :)

    • bibendum73au on 22/04/2015 - 13:47

      Pepperspray is a controlled weapon in WA. You cannot carry it for self defence.
      You can carry it however when you walk your dogs to protect them from other dangerous dogs.

      Welcome to WA…….

      • bargaino on 22/04/2015 - 15:32

        It makes sense. Its like knives - we don't want everyone carry knives routinely, or simple fights/assaults will escalate.
        But you don't want to ban knives. The law says you need a valid reason for carrying one, a reasonable compromise.

  • striker5950 on 26/07/2014 - 01:13
    +1

    Australia has the dumbest and most ridiculous laws about self defence in a home intrusion situation, in america if you kill a home intruder you are well within your legal limits, you have the right to protect ur self and your family by using any force necessary. And i just wish we had that here. However try that here in Australia and you will be prosecuted, so the law is telling us to basically bend over to the intruder.

    Yeh ok so ill just wait till the intruder takes out his weapon so i can see what would be a good weapon to choose for my self because it has to be on the same level of the intruders by law, maybe ask him for a timeout while i go find a weapon to fit the description :/

    At moment of panic you cant think straight and you would want to eliminate the threat ASAP so like the person above said, screw it i rather go to jail than die or have harm done to my family..
    Btw I spoke to a police officer who is also my mate's friend and he said in his words " mate knock the sh!t out of him and do what you have to do and after your done throw a clean knife next to him before we get there"

    • Davo1111 on 26/07/2014 - 02:46
      +3

      Seriously though, do you know anyone who has been "home intruded"? AFAIK all of these incidents seem to be drug/gang related.

  • yjun355 on 26/07/2014 - 11:00

    In reality as people have mentioned you can't really prepare yourself. If such a thing happens, you dont know how you will react and make decision in split second. How can one access whether:
    a. It is like low risk i.e. intruder who wants to avoid conflict and was expecting no one to be home.
    b. Intruder (armed/unarmed) is willing to do whatever to takes.

    Its a pity that AFTER THE INCIDENT, the law treats them completely different scearnio. So, in a., the intruder is actually a victim and goes on its favour (eg. if intruder is hurt).

    Probably, in Australia you are very likely for encounter a. But the point is that you cannot tell and cannot assume.

    I was curious on what is the history of cases:
    Wasn't there a recent case where someone came in and murderd the family?
    I also recall a while ago where intruder hurt himself trying to break in and sued the owner of property and was awarded something ridiculous in damaged.

  • cantstanzya on 26/07/2014 - 11:48
    +12

    I'd dive under my pile of Eneloops, shine my Cree in their eyes, then stab them through the heart with my Woodworm umbrellas.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2014 - 14:59
    -2

    The biggest error anyone can make is to take online advice or opinion by people who have never been in a fight or flight situation or from anyone who is not a law enforcement professional (police) or legal practitioner. Security are not law enforcement professionals. There are those who think they are and commonly known as wannabe's but they are not qualified in anything other than to observe and report. They do not have any legislated powers or the authority that is granted under a Royal Warrant.

    Criminal law is a vastly complex subject with many grey areas which have yet to be tested in court.

    No one can ever anticipate or assume what an offender will do or how the victim will react and vice versa.

    You can never predict how little or how much force will be needed if any to protect yourself or your loved ones.

    • alittlelewd on 26/07/2014 - 19:47
      +1

      Everyone can use reasonable force to prevent damage to ones self, another person, their property or other's property and also when making a citizens arrest for the reason of preventing damage to a person or property. See the 1958 Crimes Act of Victoria for instance, for clarification on that.

      There are a few links already in this thread to the document, so I won't copy and paste it here again.

      Now if you could provide a source that a security professional is "only able to observe and report", and not use reasonable force when dealing with a crime or potential crime, then I would gladly eat my next words. You are wrong and you made everyone in this thread a little more stupid for having read your post.

    • Davo1111 on 27/07/2014 - 01:37

      So your recommendation is…?

  • Kempe on 26/07/2014 - 20:18

    Apparently most house invasions are to steal your car keys and your car because they are harder to break into nowadays with immobilisers etc.
    Home invasions have grown alongside better car security.

    If you hear someone prowling around stick the kitchen knife into a piece of fruit like an apple, in the event you plunge the knife into the intruder you will get away with it as it was self defence and not premeditated because your defence will be that you just happened to be peeling a piece of fruit at the time ;)

  • nikey2k27 on 26/07/2014 - 22:09

    If there in my house there far game i have many way to kill them.

    • nickster9999 on 27/07/2014 - 02:17
      +2

      cool… do that and you'll rightly be charged with murder

    • OldBugger on 27/07/2014 - 02:53
      +2

      I would have thought if they were in your house they would be close game.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join