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

  • nickster9999 on 27/07/2014 - 01:10
    +1

    You're allowed to use reasonable force.

    What is "reasonable force"? That's hard to define, but using a shotgun on an intruder climbing through a window would be unreasonable force.

    Hitting an intruder repeatedly with a golf club as punishment would also be unreasonable force.

    How does a court determine what is "reasonable" - usually a jury or the judge would be asked to put themselves in the same position and evaluate what they would have done. So an intruder entering your house in the middle of the night would be very different to an intruder stealing your lawn mower and you shooting him through an open window.

    Thankfully we do not have USA style laws here that effectively allow a home owner to shoot dead an intruder, even if that intruder be a kid, a pregnant woman or an old man.

    • LSGH on 27/07/2014 - 08:00

      Well said…. I am surprised at how many people here seem to think the "stand your ground" law is a good thing…

      • lplau on 27/07/2014 - 10:40

        There is 2 ways of thinking about it.
        Do you want to be robbed when you can do something about it?

        So technically speaking in Australia you can be robbed and cannot be hurt unless you pose a risk. Therefore a robber can wear nothing but pants and a shirt with the following message stuck to his shirt saying "I have no weapons, I only want your money and jewelry you will not be harmed."

        So they can simply push their way through your door, take their time to rob you without you laying a finger on them since they aren't doing anything to harm you, until the police arrives and catches them, by then they are already long gone since they have a few scouts around the block, notifying them how long till the cops arrive.

        Remember, if you don't see the thief's face (e.g. wearing balaclava), then the chances of the police catching the thieves is extremely low. There is no sense of punishment with using such a law which has a loop hole.

        This is where the "Stand your ground" law is a good thing, They have unlawfully entered your house which is private property, you should be allowed to do anything in your house, e.g. get rid of the person.

        Also about hitting them with the golf clubs, hitting them once won't do anything they can still hurt you, need to hit them until they can no longer hurt you or pose a threat, which means they need to be unconscious!

        Maybe pull out your 2000lm Cree torch and shine it into their eyes!
        Either that or tie them up and log onto Ozbargain for advice on what to do.

        • bargaino on 28/07/2014 - 11:59

          his shirt saying "I have no weapons, I only want your money and jewelry you will not be harmed."

          Don't be silly. That is an obvious threat, ie an assault. The "not be harmed" is conditional.
          And anyway, the homeowner is entitled to use reasonable force to defend their property. Shooting an unarmed intruder who is ignoring you would not be reasonable.

        • Baysew on 28/07/2014 - 18:22

          This is where the "Stand your ground" law is a good thing, They have unlawfully entered your house which is private property, you should be allowed to do anything in your house, e.g. get rid of the person.

          "I'm not really convinced that this is such a good idea." - Oscar Pistorius (not actually quoted of saying that)

        • error619 on 30/07/2014 - 11:02

          @manic:
          He is only unarmed till you put a knife in has hand before the police turn up.. I will defeat my house by any means possible. i don't care about the Conveniences. I will let a Jury Decide. And I will be alive.

        • bargaino on 30/07/2014 - 11:57

          @megod:
          Well, I did not say you cannot get away with murder. But best to plan it ahead. With an on-the-spot decision like that, a dozen things might go wrong, and you end up doing five years for manslaughter. Not sure thats a win.

    • shaybisc on 09/08/2014 - 15:30

      US laws are way dumber than that. I'll give you an example. 3 teenagers break into a home at night, unarmed, to rob it. The owner confronts them with a shotgun. While running away from the homeowner, one of the teenagers is shot dead by the homeowner. The homeowner faces no charges. The two surviving teenagers are now in prison convicted of the murder of their slain accomplice.

  • bunnybash on 27/07/2014 - 18:20
    +7

    Best idea is to stop watching ACA - nothing but FUD and fear mongering.

  • T1OOO on 28/07/2014 - 12:54

    woudlnt be surprised if a few oz bargainers were doing the break and entering to be honest, just a few great bargainst to be had.

  • mranderson978 on 28/07/2014 - 14:04
    -2

    Australian law is quite clear. weapons of any sort, including weapons typically used for self-defence like pepper spreay are prohibited. (If you don't believe me check out the police website)

    This basically has the effect of disarming law abiding citizens - after all, the criminal who breaks into your house doesn't care about the law - they're happy to carry around a gun, knife or whatever.

    Sadly we don't have laws permitting law abiding citizens to carry firearms in Australia, which is why home invasions have skyrocketed. Crooks are bold because they know they won't be resisted.

    • dtc on 28/07/2014 - 14:53
      +1

      Statistics say….. NO

      http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/robbery.htm…

    • This Guy on 28/07/2014 - 16:47
      +1

      What does carrying a gun have to do with home invasions?

      You can carry a gun in the USA. They still have home invasions. They also have mall and school shootings.

      Of the 50 most violent cities in the world (2013):

      17) New Orleans, United States had 56.13 homicides per 100,000 residents.
      21) Detroit, United States had 54.63 homicides per 100,000 residents.
      40) St. Louis, United States had 35.39 homicides per 100,000 residents.
      41) Baltimore, United States had 35.03 homicides per 100,000 residents.
      43) Oakland, United States had 33.10 homicides per 100,000 residents.

      Australia had 1.1 homicides per 100,000 residents in 2007.

      And law abiding citizens can get firearms in Australia, they just need a 'genuine reason.’

  • nephilim on 29/07/2014 - 14:25

    My friend about 3 years ago caught someone stealing his car at 3am outside his house (Holden hill SA), he bashed him with a metal pole and put him in hospital with serious soft tissue damage. He was not charged at all and made the local newspaper with mentioned he kicked his ass.
    He still proudly shows people the newspaper clipping.

    • bargaino on 29/07/2014 - 17:48
      +1

      Good on him. I expect if he bashed the scum in the head it might not have ended so well for your friend. Soft tissue - reasonable force for a car thief.

      • alittlelewd on 31/07/2014 - 00:41

        Given the choice, I would rather brake a bone than tear a ligament (if that's what you mean by soft tissue damage).

        Anyone that has done the two would agree with me. The pain of the injury, pain of the surgery and rehab needed are chalk and cheese. I didn't need pain meds for a broken finger (was a clean break that didn't need surgery) , but I sure as hell needed them when I did my 'Skier's thumb' that required tendon staples.

        I can't imagine 'serious soft injuries' being just bruised muscles and that it implies that some ligaments and/or tendons have been torn.

  • abh_gup on 19/06/2018 - 09:55

    Is Melbourne still the most livable city?
    With hundreds of these crims doing their dirty act each day. FOUR years since this thread was posted, the Melbourne news is all about topics such as 'intrusion, theft, assault, burglary, inept police, soft judges…'
    I say thieves should be shot dead in the act. 'Then they no more say, and they no more play'

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join