After reading yet more articles on brutal home invasions today in Melbourne, what are you legally allowed to do to protect you and your family if they try to enter your home?
For example, are you allowed to take to them with a baseball bat or similar?
If you hurt one of these youths (sometimes under 18), do you become legally liable for their injuries?
Being non-compliant is a being a bit silly. How would you explain to your DFO on a random check that your firearms are not properly secured?
Even if you come up with some sort of reasoning that the DFO is willing to listen to everyone in your house at that time would need to be an adult (no juniors as you would literally need to be standing next to them) licensed for that particular category of firearm.
IF the DFO is not convinced then no more firearms and no more license for you.
Also, you can't even show a gun to an intruder in Australia…
http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/4927063/border-farmer-has…
Please consider your compliance going forward. It's people like you that make it more difficult for others to obtain firearm licenses. Anti-gun lobbies love this sort of stuff
My recomendation is for people to atleast have practiced hunting and field dressing a large mammal (deer/pig) a couple of times. Putting something down and cleaning it, should take the edge off. You can practice how to use a firearm, but I'd say 8/10 people would shit their pants when faced at a person.
You're actually more likely to be shot with your own gun.
Nice work there making your house even less safe.
You're actually more likely to be shot with your own gun.
Good work there.
Don't drive a car. You're more likely to die if you drive.
There's no moral high ground for people like you. Guns are a way of life for some people. Deal with it
A less relevant statistic, but true.
Moral high ground? WTF? I'm describing a well known statistic, of which you and your babies may well become one, dummy.
Guns can be a way of death, dummy. Deal with it.
We have. That's why we continue to own one
f which you and your babies may well become one, dummy.
Don't put your babies in the car.
@smuggler: Poor bugger, you really don't get it do you? There's only one step involved here but it's all too hard for you…
I get it, little lamb. You're scared out of our mind to know people in your streets own guns. We will always be here.
@smuggler: No, you don't get it. Study after study shows that having a gun in the household is much more likely to end up with someone in the house getting killed or injured than ever confronting someone with a gun. I hope you never have to come home to find one of your kids has got depressed and killed himself with a gun. My other half was pulled out of school one day because his father had shot himself; he was a farmer with ready access to a weapon.
http://ruralhealth.org.au/sites/default/files/fact-sheets/fa…
Sweet Jesus, you're still here.
OK, i guess i'll spell it out for you.
The vacuous car analogy.
Folk drive cars to get around, to live their life etc. They can take reasonable safety precautions. It's difficult to live a productive life without one, so many drive cars. Big deal. Totally irrelevant to what we're talking about.
The power delusion.
Folk like you make one sweeping assumption, one only dummies can make. And that is they will be in control of their own gun, and that having a gun will not influence the conduct of others. Both are delusions.
Firstly, a child of yours may end up controlling the gun, and shooting either themselves or someone else dear to you. This happens all the time - no burglar required.
Secondly, any burglar may end up controlling your gun, and shooting you or someone close to you. What started as a non-violent break & enter ends up a homicide. Your gun was a critical link in that path.
Thirdly, you may well have the gun, but end up shooting the wrong person. This also happens all the time.
Fourthly, the burglar may be armed - with a gun or knife - but with no intention of using it. They realise you have a gun, and the circumstances change in their mind. A gun doesn't always win in such contests as you assume.
Does that work for you, or are you immunised against straight logic?
Only one step involved in each of these…
The fact is anyone who keeps a gun in the house is taking a risk, a risk considerably higher than not having a gun. Now you don't understand that, but then there's no test before people like you can have children either. The fact you're substandard in the father department doesn't really impact me directly. Go keep your gun little man…
Of course if you're a farmer or professional shooter, then you need to keep the gun somewhere. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about dummies.
"Don't drive a car. You're more likely to die if you drive."
Nice comparison
@try2bhelpful: And if he didn't have that gun - he would shoved a garden hose in a tractor exhaust, poured bug spray down his throat, drenched himself in petrol and lit up, jumped into a loaded grain silo to suffocate, or one of a hundred other methods available.
@GregMonarch: That is absolute bullshit and you are a complete arse. The reason rural people are more likely to kill themselves is because they have access to the guns. I haven't heard of anyone who has used that your method of killing themselves, compared to using a gun. You want to give me the URL on that vs people using a gun?
@AngryChicken: Funny how many people spend so much time ignoring the truth. You are making valid points and they are downvoting; not really surprised here. Too many people who've watched Dirty Harry. People are all "gung ho" but they would be more likely to piss themselves, however, if they did shoot someone, and they didn't have the guns secured properly, they would be up for some serious prison time and would never be allowed to keep a gun ever again.
A gun in a household would be much more likely to be used in a Domestic Violence situation than to see off a bunch of home invaders.
These people talk big, but that is all they are doing to make themselves feel important. I think they should be very careful about disseminating their views in a community that can actually identify them as a quick call to the police could result in a raid that shows if the guns are not secured properly and they can have a chat to the cops about their attitude.
@try2bhelpful: no, they're more likely to kill themselves. And because they have ready access to guns, that is the method they use. You should be asking, why is it that they're killing themselves at a higher rate in the first place? I'm not sure how it makes sense to blame an inanimate object for their suicidal tendencies.
@try2bhelpful: LOL. No I'm not actually. I'm just unbiased without any agenda. Would no guns in the world stop all suicides and cause it to be removed from our vocabulary? Of course not. Sorry, I don't normally call people out, but you're the one that resembles a full posterior if you think he ONLY committed suicide because a gun was available. Unless of course you were sitting across the table from him at the time, or his suicide note specially said: "I was feeling a bit down, saw the gun cabinet, and thought… heck - why not - if I didn't see that cabinet I wouldn't be writing this note - cya."
People kill themselves in cars, by jumping off bridges, taking bottles of pills… ALL of these 'cause' suicide just as much as those big bad guns. By your reasoning we should ban cars, dynamite all bridges and use barges to cross rivers instead, and dispense medication two pills per day and require they swallow before leaving the chemist so we know they're not stockpiling.
You're being silly because you believe no one should have guns. Probably except cops, and the criminals who will never hand them in, or will just steal them from the cops.
If you were to say ban EVERY gun - cops and all - THEN it might have some rational thought behind it.
is this stat taken in Australia?
Your best option is to say nothing to the police when they arrive to cart off the body.
Actually, you're best to not speak a word to police period. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you etc. They can not use a single thing you say to defend you, only a fool would speak to the police directly and not through a lawyer, even if you're innocent.
In NSW, the right to remain silent is treated in a negative light…
The state of New South Wales passed the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 which allows the judiciary to direct the jury to draw unfavourable inferences against a defendant who failed or refused to mention a fact during police questioning that they later rely on in court in a bid to be found not guilty.
Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013
So, remaining silent can most certainly work AGAISNT you as well… So instead, I would say “I reserve my right to withhold comments until such time as I have spoken to a lawyer…”
@pegaxs: Ah, well. I mostly meant don't say anything about the case. You shouldn't refuse to answer something like "What is your name?" Best thing is to only answer questions pertaining to the case in the presence of a lawyer.
Burglaries are down 10% in the past 2 years. https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/media-centre/news/key…
Don't let the media control your reality.
Pffft, facts! You wouldn't last a day in the Trump administration.
you're fired
While you pretend rates going down means things don't happen.
OK.
They are happening less.
Simple burglary's is one thing, but home invasions by a violent gang of youths are another (I understand they 'might' be placed in the same bucket). It would be nice to see a breakdown.
Yes this is true, we are just exposed to it more as media outlets struggle to find content or use cheap content like XYZ race gangs instead of finding real stories.
Might be the case that there is a spree atm with a certain group but they'll soon be arrested and tit'll return back to its prior lower rate.
Crime over all in Victoria in 2016 is down 4% from 2015, the only state/territory in Australia with a decrease in crime.
Right. Burglaries are down 10%
But robberies are up 12.6%, and dangerous and negligent acts endangering people are up 13.7%.
Burglary involves the entrance in to a structure when an individual is not permitted to be with the intent to commit a crime. Robbery is characterized by the utilization of fear or force in order to take personal property belonging to another.
So an increase in robberies is pretty much in line with what people are saying - an increase in 'youth gangs' violently terrorizing random people
Depends how on the suburb and also type of burglary eg. Aggravated vs. non aggravated. Blanket statements are rarely insightful.
Crime statistics only show reported crime that is officially recorded.
I know first hand that not all burglaries are recorded. I know through police that they are not as vigilant at recording all incidents due to the increase in workload, implying an increase in activity, but a decrease in office workforce.
I'd say that the statistics are a guideline at best. When common sense dictates that the statistics are unlikely true, at least a measure of doubt should be exercised.
I noticed the astronomical increase in security products appearing OzBargain and in stores so the stats on burglaries are, at least in my opinion, inaccurate.
This question is obviously about if your household here caught up in a mob home invasion; it means diddly squat what the stats are when it's happening then and there.
It is common knowledge that you are legally allowed to defend yourself. If someone were to brake into my property, then I would take that act alone as a threat. Whether the person tries to hurt me or not is irrelevant to me. They started it by breaking into my home, so I will finish it by inflicting as much pain as I possibly can. I have weapons strategically placed all over my house. When questioned by the police, I will say that they attacked me. It will be my word against the criminal. The only evidence the police will have is that the criminal broke into my home, therefore I will most likely be the one who will be believed.
If you are not physically strong enough, then fine, comply with the criminal and do as they say. But if you are strong enough, then you should do something about it. If you let these criminals get away with what they are doing, then they will continue to do it because they know they can.
"When questioned by the police…"
The police shouldn't even be questioning it since it will be effing obvious…
when the bad guy is lying in a pool of blood inside my house, I'm pretty sure the police will ask how it happened.
To which I will reply, "He attacked me first"
To which I will reply, "He attacked me first"
Just make sure you have some defence wounds to prove it…
@resubaehtgnolhcs: Yep, will def punch myself in the face a few times before calling the cops. Maybe even slash myself with a knife, then place the knife in the bad guy's hand.
@PleasureMe: and then the cops realise the knife was yours since it matches the rest of your knife block, but the guy never made it to the kitchen.
Then what? :)
@resubaehtgnolhcs That is why you say nothing. If you say something that is later disproven, you're in more trouble.
"I have weapons strategically placed all over my house." What is this, COD: Zombies?
PUBG by the sounds of all these weapons just laying around…
so you say that civilians in Pochinki is subject to frequent home invasion?
I have weapons strategically placed all over my house.
lol.
Eg knives in the kitchen, chainsaw in the shed, bats in the belfry?
I have weapons strategically placed all over my house.
How many enemies do you have?
I just like to be cautious. You never know.
Jason Bourne also has weapons stashed around the house…
He's Kevin, and he's Home Alone.
TIL John Wick is an ozbargainer.
little old ladies need to start bodybuilding then… ?
Totally agreed. We should not let criminals get away with what they are doing. We should be allowed to feel safe in our own home.
You don’t need to be strong
Just stab them with a perry knife, in the neck or eyes
You're also liable for civil action if you harm somebody on your property in most states, even if they are trespassing. Go ahead, defend yourself, you might just wind up with $70K in damages to be paid to the individual(s) trespassing.
I'm ok with that. I've got bitcoin.
In what sense? That you have enough disposable income that you’re not afraid to give it away or that you will not declare it?
Physically strong enough? Are we Orcs living a fantasy world who fight only with arm wrestles or something? I don't know if you're a meat head but that's a stupid thing to say. All adults are strong enough to injure or kill another human even bare-handed unless disabled or elderly. Then add a makeshift or proper hand-held weapon to that equation and the capability goes up even more. No, what matters is mental, unless you've been in a similar situation you can't know how difficult it is to think and act rationally in such a case, it's why everybody who's expected to experience such things must go through training and conditioning.
A 5'1" petite lady will have very little chance against a 6'4" male that has spent half his life at the gym. I know for sure that I would struggle in a fight against larger people and I'm 5'9 70kg male… so not sure about all adults.
I assume there’s a reason you can not just shoot somebody for walking into your home unless self defence can be proven. Consider this scenario: Joe Bloggs offends you in some way perhaps flirts with your better half or does not pay back the 10 grand they owe you. You invite the unsuspecting Joe around to your house for dinner. You tell him to just enter your home when they arrive, don’t bother knocking and as they enter the house you shoot them. Officer arrives “ sorry I heard my front door open, it was dark, I was scared for my family so shot the figure coming through my door”. Perhaps the possibility of scenarios like this is why you can only use neccassary force, including self defence to protect your home. I recall a case where a man beat a home invader to death as he fled the home. He was charged with manslaughter.
In Australia you are only allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself.
Shooting someone for breaking into your house would be illegal, likewise you can't stab someone for punching you.
Sounds like we're defenceless against an intruder who's weapon of choice is a slap :\
Slap vs Spank
Unfortunately, that's true. Not even the police can save us. Lock your doors!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHZvUeAdzeI
I cant remember where I read this from but there was once a court deliberation that take into the account the martial art skill of the defender.
Put it simply if the offender was unskilled and the victim was a black belt, crushing the offenders to the point of incapped would be illegal.
However if the victim was just as unskilled as the offender, crushing the offenders to the point of incapped (or even killed) would be considered incidental or legitimate self defense.
Thats because of the concept of reasonable force for a martial artist is looked unfavourably as it tilted the balance of power significantly into the victim but if the victim was unskilled then its fair dinkum fight.
And this is in Australia I kid you not.
incapped
did you just make up a word?
Gamers language sorry. Incapacitated (like breaking the intruders' arm or something).
@burningrage: Ah I see! I thought you may have meant incapacitated, but wasn't sure! Anyway, I have learnt something new!
@resubaehtgnolhcs:
It's not a story, it has happened.
If you are a trained combatant in the Armed Forces, you have to (sort of) legally, let the other person know before you engage in combat. Even if the other guy is bigger than you. So that you have plausible deniability that the altercation happened due to the victim, and that they engaged knowing they might encounter a higher force (or something along those lines) during the tussle. It's one of the things your Sergeant tells you before letting you guys go back to a civilian weekend.
I guess if things got to this stage, offender would have paid a serious amount in legal fees already. I don't think the thugs could even afford it. Even with pro bono service, they wouldn't stand much chance to win as pro bono lawyers are crap.
If they have just walked through the unlocked door, then it's not a break-in. A break-in is where they actually break down the door or break the windows to force their way in. You'd be silly to shoot someone if they didn't actually break in first.
Seriously, if you don't know the law, stop commenting pretending like you do. A "break" includes opening an unlocked door.
The law says you could defend yourself with "reasonable" force, but the very definition of being "reasonable" is very vague and I always try to avoid using any "force" against a person to avoid any legal liability issue unless the situation is seriously life-threatening. Honestly, I don't think it will ever happen in my suburb.
If you kill an intruder in your home, you may or may not go to gaol. But at least your family would be safe!!
Until the next time someone breaks in and you're locked up and can't defend them anymore.
This reminds me of a classic movie scence where an intruder got killed and bagged in a crappy cars' trunk. The car and intruder then went to metal scrap and leave no trace for police.
I would defend my family with our Eneloop powered xiaomi Bikies.
Dont do drugs or trade in them so your not holding or cashed up and 99.99% of all this goes aways but druggies are not known for being wise and they do often slam the wrong address and in this case
DO ANYTHING YOU BLOODY WELL WANT TO THE PRICKS as NO JURY WILL CONVICT YOU. But alas the police will probably charge you and it will suck but you will be alive.
'
'The Police are designed to clean up messes afterward. If your life or the lives of your family are threatened then you can DO ANY BLOODY THING YOU LIKE up until the following;
Torchering after restraint or removing the threat (they flee from your property and you follow) but again its not the LAW but the JURY you will have a problem with.
Im reminded of the crime lord in a restaurant in Melb with an illegal handgun was targeted for assassination and he defended himself killing his attacker. Like I said he was charged but the jury found him NOT GUILTY. The Jury is the executioner of the law, not the law itself.
Great story bro.
If it goes to trial it all depends if the jury believes your version of events or the dead criminal on the floor. Just ask Mick Gatto about his murder trial
"People" I know own multiple firearms amd did a bit of research on various hunting forums, and If I am correct, "please correct if wrong" - if you can legitimately prove that your firearms were accessible such as being cleaned/maintained at the time of home invasion so you already had everything out, you can use them. The only ambiguous part in a court to prove would be reasonable force, so what I was told is it would always be best to kill the home invader as then there will only be one side to the story being presented which is in your favour and you can then dictate the amount of reasonable force. I would assume the same situation would apply with a knife/bat - unfortunately the laws are not trustworthy enough for a person protecting their family to defend themselves, its almost as though the only safe thing to do is kill the home invader or ensure they never get in in the first place.
A home invader will have done their best to cover their movements and direction to get to your house. Better to just quietly bury them, as no one will be looking for them anyway. A quiet, dignified favour to society.
This isn't America, I hope you're sarcastic. I think the right to defend yourself is fine, but you should be thinking of killing a home invader off the bat. If they're coming at you with an axe, different story. But if someone enters your house through your back door, if you shoot them, you'll be charged with manslaughter, civil homicide or murder and serve 8+ years.
No charges if they never find the body. And when junky criminals start disappearing on jobs, word would begin to spread.
And also, why on earth should I wait to see my home invaders intentions? "Oh, what a relief. He only wants to rob me. Guess I'll just let it happen."
What if he enjoys hurting people like a lot of them do? What if he wants to rape my wife? Why should I wait and see?
@freakatronic: You're legally required to try to determine intentions before attacking them. Seriously, both sides of this debate pose the dumbest reasoning. Anyone saying you shouldn't be able to defend yourself is stupid, as are people who say that you should just abandon your house.
Australia has good laws on this matter. Victoria may be the most lacking, having abolished defensive homicide. The only real complaint I have with our laws on this matter is the civil liability which you can be opened to in defending oneself in one's home.
But if you're dumb enough to be talking about killing someone and dumping a body, I guess you have no regard for the law anyway. For what its worth, Australia's laws are about as good as most of the western world. America is the outlier in this case, but America is also one of the only first world countries to have incarceration and homicide rates that rival developing countries.
@no not me: while I disagree with you, I appreciate your civility and the time you took to explain your thoughts.
https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/late…
“Crimes against a person” has been trending up over the last 5 years; By about 50% since 2013. All crime is up over 20% over the last 5 years.
1/4 of these person crimes go unsolved…. but that hasn’t changed.
But when the police can't arrest one single person out of a large group on a 3 hour crime rampage, it's getting a little rediculous.
The chances of getting burgled is very low. Your feeling of insecurity due to media built hysyerity is much higher. Many of the shootings, attacks, stabbings you see on the news are gang or drug related.
Burglars are quiet, quick and non invasive. If all they want is money or goods, risking jail time for assault is not worth it
If you provoke a robber with a weapon of your choice, you'll force him to "defend himself". Ironic, huh? But I've always believed that they generally don't want to do anything other than steal your shit. So let them.
This isn't the wild west where you don't have insurance and you have to defend your property and family. Let the police chase it up after. You'd be surprised how effective they are at catching people.
If you feel the need to protect yourself. Prevention is better than a legal "weapon".
- lock all doors and windows
- use security lights and cameras as detterants
- security alarms stop burglars taking their time rummaging through your house when you're out
- don't leave garage door remotes in cars parked on the road
- get to know your neighbours, another set of eyes watching your property for suspicious activity is good
People should take real steps towards good security. Not ones that lead to a false sense of it.
My feelings have nothing to do with the stats. Stats are up when taken over 5 years.
I am talking about crime against persons being up (not property). This is more concerning.
From your link
Burglary/Break and enter - down 9.6%
The only one relevant to this thread
If the OP wants to carry around his baseball bat to protect himself from street attacks. Then that's a different question and discussion.
The stats relevant to this thread are “robbery/home invasion”, not B&E or burgs. These are non-violent. What OP was talking about was people doing home invasions which can be quite violent…
So no, those figures are not relevant to this thread…
UP, over 5 years… by heaps.
Check the column graphs.
@pais: I'm sure on the night the intruder was shot, he was "fully compliant" with relevant regulations relating to firearm safety. Or at least that's what he'll tell the cops.