With All These Home Invasions, What Are You Legally Allowed to Do to Protect Yourself?

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?

closed Comments

      • Besides. I'm not saying prevention will 100% protect you if something were to happen. The point is, if you're going to go as far as keeping a weapon on hand. Make sure you take the reasonable steps to try and prevent it first.

      • +3

        Have you compared these with population growth?
        I bet the % of the population involved in a violent crime is lower (correct me if I'm wrong).
        In this case, you're less likely to be robbed now.

        More people die from type-2 diabetes or road accidents than violent crimes. There's really nothing to fear mate :)

        1. He made 4 points you made 2
    • +1 for prevention. Make your house look much more difficult to break in and secure than the guy up the street and you won't have to worry about it.

    • +2

      +1. Completely agree with this, cops say it too. Make it too difficult and they'll try somewhere easier - they're not in it for the challenge.

    • +2

      Prevention is not better than a weapon. The two are equal. I agree with everything you said about increasing the security of your home, but you need a last line of defence, and that is effectively denied to us here due to our laws. You don't know if the criminal has a knife, a sawn off shot gun etc. Are you willing to gamble on that?
      Anyway, we should be allowed to use firearms for home defence is where I wanna go with this.

      With that said, make sure whatever security systems you have have some kind of redundant power supply. The skilled burglars cut your power. So just using some xiaomi dafangs or whatever they're called won't cut it.

  • +1

    CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 277Defence of premises against trespassers—removal of disorderly persons277 Defence of premises against trespassers—removal of disorderly persons

    (1) It is lawful for a person who is in peaceable possession of any land, structure, vessel, or place, or who is entitled to the control or management of any land, structure, vessel, or place, and for any person lawfully assisting him or her or acting by his or her authority, to use such force as is reasonably necessary in order to prevent any person from wrongfully entering upon such land, structure, vessel, or place, or in order to remove therefrom a person who wrongfully remains therein, provided that he or she does not do grievous bodily harm to such person.

    (2) It is lawful for a person who is in peaceable possession of any land, structure, vessel, or place, or who is entitled to the control or management of any land, structure, vessel, or place, and for any person acting by his or her authority, to use the force that is reasonably necessary in order to remove therefrom any person who conducts himself or herself in a disorderly manner therein, provided that he or she does not do the person grievous bodily harm.

    (3) In this section— 

    "place" includes any part of an enclosure or structure, whether separated from the rest of the enclosure or structure by a partition, fence, rope, or any other means, or not.

    • +2

      Could you please translate what you just posted so the rest of us can understand?

      • +2

        That's the criminal code section 277 which I interpret to mean it is lawful to physically remove a person from your property using reasonable force so as not to inflict grievous bodily harm.

      • +2

        TLDR: If someone enters property that you own or control (rent and/or place of work if you're responsible) be it land (my backyard), structure (my house, garage), vessel (my car, boat) - you are allowed to remove them with "reasonable force" as long as you don't cause serious harm.

        Now the 'reasonable force' can get you into trouble here because that can be up to the courts to decide on the situation. As someone posted earlier - if i'm a trained soldier with combat training and someone comes into my house and I beat the shit out of them, I could potentially be charged with assault or a few other charges. Where as if i'm some random civilian with no training and I do that I could potentially get off with no charges as it's was a sporadic, chaotic assault in self defence.

        You also can't do anything once they are off your property. I recall a case a few years ago and this guy was defending his home from being broken into. He tried to apprehend the thief and chased him down the street. He scuffled with the thief and they crashed to the ground. The thief hit his head on the ground hard and ended up in a coma and passed away a short term later. The guy defending his house got charged with manslaughter and convicted because it was off his property. He may have gotten off if it was still within his house.

        • there is a movie based on this story but he ran out and hit him with a baseball bat and died

    • -1

      That's QLD bro…

  • +2

    i ll do anything to protect my family.family comes first.they always a threat when they enter your property.how can you judge they are threat or not.m

  • +2

    A few years back there was a case of a homeowner killing an intruder. Turned out the ‘intruder’ was an elderly man with dementia who had mistaken the house for his own. I expect this would be a case of aggravated manslaughter, and possibly some weapons charges. The law is intended to protect ALL of us.

    • +2

      That is so dam rare, why would/should laws even be changed to cater to that type situation.

    • +4

      stupid example. Most people wouldn't go killing an old man who looks disorientated. A gang of 4 or more young guys with their faces covered on the other hand, well then it's obvious what their intentions are

    • The gangs of elderly demented men have merged with the African youth gangs.

  • +3

    CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 271

    Self-defence against unprovoked assault


    (1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

    (2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for the person to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous bodily harm.

    • -1

      You're still in QLD bro…

  • +3

    Asked the same from a police (super) friend of mine, his reply: Do what you need to defend yourself but leave something for us to take away.

    • +3

      A dead body?

    • +5

      Does your friend own an restaurant?

    • Mine,ex Drug Squad,reckoned I could blame PTSD from watching Zulu on acid.

  • I have posted above what the law says (QLD Criminal Code note other states will be similar but check) but It really is all a horrible grey area. I know what I would do and I am sure many others know what they would do. Important factors would be make sure any use of force is proportionate or equivalent to the threat and can be justified.

    When explaining what happened key words are "I feared for my life or I feared for the life of another"

    • +2

      Yep, I had no reason to believe the person breaking into my property when I was home was peacefully attempting to take belongings. I thought the timing was deliberate, so they could assault my person, and render me incapacitated. They had not concealed their identity, so appeared unafraid of me recognising them in the event of their arrest. Therefore, I reasonably concluded they they intended to end my life.

    • I remember the 'one punch can kill' campaign. Therefore if anybody was to attack me or a companion at all armed or not, I would be justified in fearing for our lives. Also, agree with what some others have said, better off not attacking them first in the case of a break-in, more likely than not you can scare them off and not risk injury to yourself.

  • +7

    From my understanding the following is generally accepted to be the way of navigating this very grey and murky area. I've adapted it from my old Criminal Law notes. Apologies for the very long post, but some people might find it interesting.

    The accused retains an evidentiary burden to raise a defence of self-defence. If successfully raised, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused did not act in self-defence (s 418 of the NSW Crimes Act).

    1. Did the accused believe that the conduct was necessary to (this is taken from s 418 of the NSW Crimes Act):
    a. Defend himself or another?
    b. Prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his liberty or that or another?
    c. Protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference?
    d. Prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing such?

    • However infliction of death in self-defence is excluded (but not the infliction of grievous bodily harm) (s 420 of the Crimes Act) for cases involving the protection of property or trespass to property (i.e. points c and d above)

    2. Was the conduct an objectively reasonable response in the circumstances as perceived by him or her?

    • The jury must, in every case, evaluate the violence of the accused’s act in self-defence by reference to the nature of the danger with which he believed that he was threatened (R v Honeysett (1987) 10 NSWLR 638, 644).
    • The test is NOT that of the hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused, but rather it is the belief of the accused, based upon the circumstances as the accused perceived them to be, which must be reasonable (R v Hawes (1994) 35 NSWLR 294, 306).

    Some specific things to consider when examining reasonableness:

    • Personal Knowledge: A physically abused spouse/lover may be able to predict a violent outcome not readily apparent to a casual observer (R v Lavallee [1990] 1 SCR 852): ‘a battered woman may be uniquely sensitised to danger from her batterer’.
    • Proportionality: A person acting in defence of a threatened attack and who has to react instantly to imminent danger, cannot be expected to weigh precisely the exact measure of the self-defensive action required (R v Conlon (1993) 69 A Crim R 92, 98). Importantly, proportionality is but one factor to be considered – it is not determinative.
    • Aggression: Self-defence cannot be used as a cover for aggression – if a person provokes an assault upon him or her, and then uses that assault as a pretext to attack the person provoked, that is not self-defence. However, the mere fact that the accused was the original aggressor will does not negative self-defence in and of itself. It will be for the jury to consider whether the original aggression had ceased so as to have enabled the accused to form a belief, upon reasonable grounds, that his actions were necessary in self-defence. It will be relevant to consider the extent to which the accused declined further conflict and quit the use of force or retreated from it (Zecevic v DPP (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645, 663). There is no right to revenge oneself, and, if, when all danger is past, a person strikes a blow not necessary in self-defence, he or she commits an assault (R v Driscoll (1841) Car & M 214).
    • Imminence: ‘The imminence and seriousness of the threat to which the accused was supposedly responding are important, and often critical, factual considerations’ (R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542, 543).
    • Retreat: Retreat is not necessarily required before a person may strike in self-defence (Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88, 116). However, the person’s failure to retreat may raise questions as to the reasonableness of his or her response (R v Howe (1958) 100 CLR 448, 462-4).
    • Combat: To engage willingly in combat is not to act in self-defence (Morgan v Colman (1981) 27 SASR 334, 336-7 per Wells J). However, if, in a fight taking place according to conventions intended to prevent serious harm, one participant suddenly breaks conventions by producing a weapon, then issues of self-defence will apply (R v Nguyen (1995) 36 NSWLR 397 (CCA)).
    • Distress: The degree of distress or alarm engendered in the accused by the actions of the victim must be considered (R v Dziduch (1990) 47 A Crim R 378).
    • Mistake: A defence of an honest but mistaken belief that the accused is about to be attacked, if there are reasonable grounds for such a belief, is available.
    • Intoxication: s 428F (of the NSW Crimes Act - other states have similar provisions) provides where it is necessary for the state of mind of the accused to be compared with that of a reasonable person, the comparison is to be made to that of a reasonable person who is not intoxicated.
    • And if you are thinking of loopholes, just think to yourself if you really want to put yourself and your family through a Jury trial just to get some blood, not to mention that you could lose

      • I'd see these more as contingencies, pondered in the context of a certain perspective I can appreciate - "I'd rather accidentally kill an intruder than allow them to injure me".

  • +3

    You have to choose an equivalent weapon and use equivalent force as the person attacking you ay that moment, otherwise you'll be locked up for using unreasonable force.

    Kinda difficult when you've got 20 Sudanese beating up you and your family.

    • It’s OzBargain… 20 Sudanese in my house? Equivalent weapon? Time to call in the bikies… :D

  • +4

    "yet more articles" the media loves a good home invasion story

  • As an aside: if you are surrounded by 10 armed police officers and you pull out a bottle opener and threaten them with it, you WILL die. They had just cause to defend themselves with lethal force as their personal safety was at risk.

    • The best way with the cops is hold your hands in the air and keep yelling you will do exactly what they tell you to do. In Australia they don't want to shoot people but they also don't want to risk injury themselves.

  • +1

    I believe you are allowed to defend yourself and your property against intruders, but only using 'reasonable force'. If there's an intruder in the house and it's highly likely they have a weapon and will use it? I would suggest a quick meeting between their head and a cricket bat is perfectly reasonable. However, once they are subdued and no longer posing a threat you are not allowed to extract your own 'quick justice' by continuing to beat them. That would be unreasonable.

  • +4

    Drive a crap car and the chance of a violent home invasion probably drops to zero. Drive a nice new Audi and prepare yourself to defend the "knock" at the door.

    Eventually Melbourne will be like South Africa with barred windows and safe rooms.

  • +6

    You're supposed to find somewhere to hide, call the police, and in the 30 minutes it takes them to respond, curl into a ball and remind yourself that there's no justice in the world, the perpetrates will never get caught, and if you even think about fighting back you become the criminal.

    And in the very rare event that they do get caught they'll be quickly bailed out, have their wrists slapped later and move onto the next house in the street and the cycle continues.

    • +7

      A 30min response time? Not in my experience.

      Back in my Uni days I saw a kid was robbing my neighbours house. I called the local police station (5 mins away) and I told the Officer on the phone that I was going to grab the kid and hold him until they arrived. She told me not to touch him, that a car was on route and that I had done the right thing.

      The kid started to leave and I called the station again. The Officer told me again DO NOT touch him and that officers were moments away. Unfortunately the Police showed up 4hrs later and I felt like a total dick for watching the kid rob my neighbours and the letting the kid get away.

  • All these people that are claiming they'll baseball bat the person to the head, what about when the lawyers get him off on a good behavior and he comes looking for revenge?

    • +5

      Baseball bat to the lawyer… XD

    • +1

      Hit him harder.

    • +1

      My house doesn't have a ramp so I won't need to worry about him coming back.

  • 12ga center of mass?

  • +2

    Im a Christian first and family second, if someone broke into our dwelling. I shall be cool first, but if they have malicious/evil intention, then they are up for a beating, and I will take care of their wound later.

    • Who said the crusades were over?

      • +1

        Oh COME ON, Im not even WHITE. How far do you really want to go back ?!? We all F*** up yes ALL of our parent, grandparent. Why on Earth you put someone else failure on me !? Sure I choose to belief in the most outfashion belief in 2018, so ? Im welcoming your criticism so that I can improve myself. But WHY cant these people whom has very REAL concern for their safety ASKING a real question.

        Im not sure whether you fail to read in its context or being a silly troll

        Im not sorry for having of your h******** double-stand-highly-unappropriated-hypocrisy-belief/behavior-social-justice worries. Either get off your high horse or offers a real solution. Instead of banging on the keyboard with your nonsense. "Don't use your freedom as a cloak of maliciousness"

        Now please excuse my outbust, the heat must get to me.

        • …best not feed the troll.

    • By the time you figure out their intention, you might be dead or "coming too" in hospital. There's no accidents. Intent is already clear.

  • I think that you are paying too much attention to the media bias.

    Home Invasions/Burglaries are down and if you are in the unlucky minority to be a victim, it more likely that you will be hit by a White methhead than an African youth (not to say that the proportion of South Sudanese criminals isn't higher compared to other groups, or that isn't a problem).

    The best thing you can do to protect yourself and your family is keep irreplaceable items extra safe, keep inventory of your items and have contents insurance. They want your stuff not your life.

    If you are in an exceedingly unlikely situation to have reasonable fear of life, run away or fight at the time if it actualy happens

  • +1

    so much salt here i feel like some fish and chips

  • +5

    The issue isn't even African gang crime. The issue is white denialism. These angry Leftists would have me believe I can't call a criminal a criminal on account of the colour of their skin. Who's the racist then?

    • Sad is where this wonderful country is heading …

    • -1

      Using ‘Leftist’ or ‘Lefty’ as an insult is so 2017

      • +1

        And yet… becoming more effective daily, LOL.

  • +1

    It's not about the ethnicity. It's about the fact this particular gang is doing home invasions on random innocent members of the public, car jacking random innocent members of the public and destroying public assets such as parks. Yes there have been ethnic gangs before who did bad stuff, but they generally kept it between their own members and rival gangs.This though is about the style of violence they are committing which is basically against anyone and everyone.

  • http://www.extac.com.au/?rf=kw&kw=bat Just get yourself one of these and you'll be crackin' skulls in no time.

  • +3

    I went out last night, in a rush & after a few drinks. I got home around 3am & noticed I didn't have keys on me! but luckily I left them in the front door. Glad I don't live in western suburbs!

  • Was actually interested in this question, went through the top rated comments. Still don’t have an answer. Have to read the whole thing now 🙁

  • Anyone tried breaking into my house I would gladly shoot them & bury them

  • +1

    I think it's amazing you cannot purchase and use capsicum / pepper spray (as in hold on your person in public) if you are ever attacked or Confronted in person…as rape whistles aren't all that effective, are they? Make the offender suffer from with some burning eyes if he catches some in the face. Glad we are nothing like the US who will never get their gun control right.

    However, I wouldn't want to be the chick or bloke breaking into my property, as you'll have a golf club waiting for your head and shins if you do…

  • SHOOT TO KILL first then ask questions.
    Actually not much you can do.
    Just hand over anything they want and say GOODBYE

    • I agree with the last part… my life is worth more than a phone, a tv or my wallet. I would just tell them to take what they want and leave.

      Now, as soon as they threatened my family or wanted to take a life or a hostage, then all bets are off and I would happily do gaol time over caving someone’s head in who was trying to hurt my family. I could imagine that story in gaol.

      “What you in for?”
      “A man invaded my house and tried to steal my 6yo daughter, so I caved his head in…”

  • +12

    I’ve read through half of the comments and I had to stop…. for all you bleeding hearts out there who keep screaming racial vilification, I’d love to know how many of you actually live in the area that this happened in 2 nights ago?
    Well I do…. my house is a block away from where the first assault took place. It is a neighbourhood filled with young families and heaps of facilities for teens to amuse themselves with- great parks and bbq areas, a new skate park and youth centre, access to public transport, local takeaway and coffee shops and basketball and tennis courts. A 17yo should not feel unsafe walking home at a time where it had only just gotten dark. This poor kid was injured and traumatised badly. The 59yo woman who’s home was invaded shortly after? Was assaulted by a group of 8-10 cowardly men who just happened to be African.
    It is right to call them gangs… because that is what they are. And yes we do have a problem with African gangs here in the west. It would be no different if it were a group of 10 Aussies, Italians, Lebanese or whatever. Truth be told, around here, these kids that commit these crimes do hang out in groups of 10 or more, act menacingly and criminally without fear of punishment and actually go around calling themselves names like MTS etc. So why are some in here up in arms about the media calling it gang violence? Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Describing an offender as African/Middle Easter/Caucasian is not being racist, it is simply a description so that innocent members of the public can be vigilant of those who are offending.
    We have African community leaders out here that agree that there is a problem with African youth over representation in crime stats and who are also quite vocal about the shame it is bringing on their community. I truly feel for them.
    But at the same time, I no longer feel safe walking down to the local Coles with my toddlers for fear of being jumped for my phone and handbag. I have installed roller shutters, Crim safe doors and Security Cameras to make my home less desirable to home invaders. We sleep with an iron bar next to our bed and have had to tell our eldest child what to do and where to hide if someone ever invaded our home. We leave the car keys on the kitchen bench ready incase anyone does come in so we can tell them to take the cars and leave. I sleep with the house alarm RC next to my bed so I can press it if we do hear someone breaking in. And if I had to smash someone’s skull in with that iron bar because I felt that my kids lives were being threatened? I would do it with NO hesitation- and I wouldn’t care if I were charged with manslaughter later either.
    This is our normal now due to the shitty judges that allow these kids out on bail repeatedly, and the bleeding hearts that defend their crimes by using every excuse in the book. This is not a good normal, and not one that I want for my kids. I love my home and the area I live in. But enough is enough- things have to change and the next Victorian election cannot come quick enough!

    • +5

      I think your last paragraph nails it though. Everyone is banging on about 'the Africans' and yes they are Sudanese and yes there is a group of Sudanese teenagers who are running riot in a couple of areas - but the focus on their ethnicity as a headline-grabber and an opportunity for political-point scoring completely detracts from the point that Victoria is just too damn soft on violent crime (and neither party seems to want to tackle that). I'd rather all the non-violent criminals be getting the bail and the absolute book thrown at anyone who commits violent crime, whether it's teenagers, crime lords, family violence offenders…but it just seems like you can rape or bash someone and get bailed to uphold your 'rights' but if you commit tax fraud or do drugs, in the clink you go. It makes no sense. Too much focus on the rehabilitation potential - when the victims will never be rehabilitated from their grief and fear.

      • +1

        Hold on. You actually think people go to jail for using drugs? HAHAHAHA!

        • +1

          Hahaha, she also thinks people go to gaol for “tax fraud”… :D

        • +1

          Try to focus, I know it's hard.

        • @pegaxs: See my comment above.

        • @MissG: I did, hence the lol’s

          but if you commit tax fraud or do drugs, in the clink you go…


      • +2

        It will actually be really interesting when one of these kids ends up dead after a botched home invasion. I don’t wish it on anyone, but notice I say when and not if- because it is bound to happen sooner or later.
        I will find it very interesting how the courts handle such a case and the punishment involved.
        The public will be up in arms if a person defending their family and home is dealt with more harshly than coward punchers/hit and run drivers, basically any other manslaughter case. Has the potential to cause riots as Aussies are just completely at breaking point with their frustrations towards a very broken justice system.

    • +1

      What does the election have to do with it?

      I'm curious to know why people think any other government would be any different? They make big promises come election time, this one is effective in magically shifting the blame to Labor. But last time I checked, the judges and courts are seperate from government control. On purpose.

      The problem is real. No denial from anyone on here.

      The issue is dog whistling by the opposition which doesn't help anyone but themselves during an election year.

      • +1

        I live in a safe Labor seat. In fact it is probably one of the safest Labor seats in the country.
        Due to this we are often overlooked by both parties. I’m not that stupid to think that either of the parties are better than the other. I have friends in politics and one thing you learn very quickly is that they only say what the people want to hear. And behind closed doors MPs are quite often very close friends with their opposition parliamentarians.
        However the people here are starting to get fed up. Where people would once scoff at the idea of voting for the LNP, on our local community forums and pages people are making it quite clear they are fed up with being ignored by Dan Andrews. Clearly the LNP have clicked to this as Matthew Guy has made a few visits down this way recently- where as our local MP hasn’t bothered to speak up very much at all recently.
        A significant swing in our area might see some more police resources as well as other much needed infrastructure come our way. So while the LNP may be just as bad as the other mob, those of us who sit in a safe Labor seat with high crime may just end up better off!

        • Thanks for the response.

          It's obvious people frustrated and understandingly. My only problem with it all is that it's convenient that the opposition brings this up as election time rolls around and it is extremely easy to make claims about doing things differently all while throwing fuel on the fire.

          Let's not forget that Labor allocated $600M just last year dedicated to tackle "gang related crime". And even the police have stated several times that this issue is being politicised and isolating members of the community doeost help.

          I hope things get better for you and that you are in touch with you MP and have voiced your concerns. We all should be if you feel yoh are not being represented, and not just waiting for election time to show your anger.

    • Well said. All the bleeding hearts would have something very different to say if they were actually directly impacted by what is going on.

  • +5

    When did Ozbargain merge with News Ltd?

    • +1

      So many heroes in this thread

    • Half of Ozbargain. The rest merged with the soy boys at buzzfeed. ;-p

  • +1

    I remember drinking in West Texas with a fella who was of "mexican" appearance who entered a ranch. Lets say the guy was dead as the owner of the ranch had a license to carry. Personally, I own a firearm and live on a large property very secluded, my neighbors have been attacked by these "africans" - and i will have no hesitation in defending my home and my family - in saying that I have home surveillance and would be curious if the police possess these

  • There are also laws regarding defensive homicide. Mostly used in domestic violence but has been used in home invasion. It is the likely charge to be made in the event that self defence was not applicable (excessive force was used).

    Self defence IS a very grey area. Reasonable force for a 6'6 islander defending his house against an unarmed teenager will be different from e.g a 65 yo man defending home and family against an armed intruder who is physically more able.

  • +1

    I'm beginning to think that these gangs and journalists are all part of a plot hatched by Xiaomi to sell house and personal security devices in the coming months.

    As ozbargainers, I propose we play our part and come up with product suggestions. One product could be a safety suit that inflates when a cord is pulled. Call it the Xiaomi Dontstrike Mi.

    • +1

      The all new Xiaomi Dingbat… it’s an air purifier, 1080p webcam, home automation and light bulb all contained in a handy to use baseball bat configuration…

      It will connect to your new Xiaomi phone, but you have to set it all to Chinese and it will be flakey at best. And new firmware will break everything and you have to start from scratch…

  • What the hell does race even have to do with defending yourself and your loved ones?? "Oh you're the same race as me so I might just go easy on you hehe"

    I don't give a shit if you're the same race/ethnicity as I am, as long as you're trespassing with the intention to cause harm or trouble, you're going to get your head kicked in.

  • +1

    If your home gets invaded in melbourne just start cranking this over the speakers as loud as possible.

    1. You will attract attention.
    2. You will likely form acquaintances due to music selection.
    3. Will no longer need OZB bikies due to the formation of new acquantences.


  • +2

    We've allowed a situation to evolve over the past 20 years where free speech is being removed by design by those who want to re-engineer and control the world.

    Third world immigration and gradually opening borders is destroying the existing middle classes of the West gradually via lower wage rates and displacement. This means higher profits and more control for the elites of the world. Forget unionisation in future, you'll be competing with Chinese and Indian labor rates sooner or later.

    Those telling the simple truth must be attacked rather than be allowed to have simple honest and truthful discussions on many topics. This is leading to crazy and illogical outcomes that are not in the interests of the people. These decisions like all important decisions are never allowed to be voted on. Instead, media and govt focus on mainly irrelevant issues like gay marriage. They will never let you vote on third world immigration, or big ticket items like crazy defence equipment like the hopeless F35s and subs that are the real source of the country's deficit.

    Notice how there is zero immigration allowed in Israel or Japan. Saudi Arabia won't take the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees despite being right there with empty tent cities. Instead they send them to Europe.

  • +2

    For anyone who is seriously thinking about this for their own household rather than a hypothetical/out-of-curiosity discussion, just buy that baseball bat, cricket bat, golf club, whatever, cable ties if need be for quick restraints to stow under your bed and forget about the rest of the legal mumbo jumbo.

    Because if you really do get caught up in a home invasion of the likes in the news recently and they confront you, then you won't be giving a shit about what the laws may mean for you after the fact. If it's really multiple intruders you won't have time to deliberately beat one to death anyway.

    • +1

      If it's multiple intruders, unless you've got a semi automatic pistol, you're screwed anyway.

      Our laws effectively deny us the right to mount a realistic defence. You've got no idea in the dark of night how many people have invaded your home, what weapons they're carrying, etc. The odds are stacked against you. And if you want to even those odds by equipping yourself with a semi automatic pistol, you're breaking the law. How can a government deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves? Why are criminals allowed to have the upper hand? It just seems so wrong to me.

      Yeah, people will say oh the likelihood of that happening to you is low. Regardless, remaining hopeful that I won't be unlucky won't help me one bit if it does happen.

  • +2

    Best advice is get a reliable guard dog.

    Unfortunately, my German Shepherd is more likely to show the robber where the good silverware is instead of you know… actually doing his dam job.

  • +9

    I am sick of treehuggers pulling a racist card every two minutes. I am a wog with thick accent and have been living in this country for the last 15 years as law obiding citizen where i have only broken a law in 2006 where i have overstayed my parking permit for about 10 minutes and copped it on the chin. I love it here and Aus is my home now…I feel sorry for people living in Melbourne due to the massive spike in crime rate thanks to Amanda Vandstone mission to bring the most uncivilised tribes on earth to Australia. Having lived in quite a few counties where the problem is even bigger, deportation of criminals is the only solution.

    • -3

      Upvote for the best "I'm not a racist but …" remark

  • +2

    Reasonable force is the biggest joke ever. Excuse me dear criminal based on the fact you are carrying a bat I will now request that I also be armed with a bat so this duel can continue. America has it right with their home protection laws.

  • Criminal Code Act 1899 - Queensland Legislation - https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/...

    Under s 246: (1) 'An assault is unlawful and constitutes an offence unless it is authorised or justified or excused by law. (2) The application of force by one person to the person of another may be unlawful, although it is done with the consent of that other person'.

    Criminal Code Act 1995 - Commonwealth Consolidated Acts - http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/cons...

    10.4 Self-defence

         (1)  A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if he or she carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
         (2)  A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if he or she believes the conduct is necessary:
                 (a)  to defend himself or herself or another person; or
                 (b)  to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person; or
                 (c)  to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or
                 (d)  to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises; or
                 (e)  to remove from any land or premises a person who is committing criminal trespass;
                 and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
         (3)  This section does not apply if the person uses force that involves the intentional infliction of death or really serious injury:
                 (a)  to protect property; or
                 (b)  to prevent criminal trespass; or
                 (c)  to remove a person who is committing criminal trespass.
         (4)  This section does not apply if:
                 (a)  the person is responding to lawful conduct; and
                 (b)  he or she knew that the conduct was lawful.

    However, conduct is not lawful merely because the person carrying it out is not criminally responsible for it.

    10.5 Lawful authority

               A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the conduct constituting the offence is justified or excused by or under a law.

    The three (3) key words here are "authorised or justified or excused by law".

  • I have multiple improvised weapons at key points around the house, damn our feminine laws someones in my house ill keep swinging until they stop moving

    • -1

      That's fkn badass bro, but i think in reality you'd just turn into a little bitch and they'd take your car

  • Lord there is some tripe being put about here. But it's only following the tripe the media puts out.

    1) armed home invasions in Australia are almost always drug business related. Unless you're in that business you do NOT need to worry about it. Violent crimes of all types, BTW are running at about half the rate in Victoria that they were 30 years ago.
    2) having a lethal weapon to hand in your house is far, far likelier to kill or hurt someone in the house than anyone else - the last figure I saw for the US was that a legal gun is 28 times more likely to kill a family member than a stranger. Those lives are lost through accidents, suicide and domestic violence and are the biggest saving in life you get from gun control.
    3) Apart from that, if households start tooling up we risk getting to the stage they already have in some US cities and in Sth Africa where, because intruders know the household is armed, they just preemptively shoot people in their sleep..

    • +1

      Yep import the 3rd world, become the third world

  • Australia is a good place to scam home owners etc.

    Break into house.
    Steal shit, If caught continue as they watch you pack their stuff as you can't get in trouble. (slap on wrist non violent entry)
    If homeowner arms himself, before he hits you turn around so you are hit from behind.

  • What if you have warning signs of dangerous hazards in the house. And they decide to break in and get impaled. Are you still liable?

  • Nothing.

    You hurt an intruder… you get charged with assault.

    The police actually recommend running away and leaving them to loot your house.

    Australia does not tolerate home defenders or vigilantes.

Login or Join to leave a comment