What to Do to Defend Your Home?

• 

  miarn on 01/04/2016 - 13:57

  +3

  Is Australian law really protecting bad guys and putting all liabilities on good guys?

  No. In most states you can use reasonable force to protect your house. In fact in SA you can use any amount of force.

  This is a typical bullshit beatup story. Nothing to see here. He will only be convicted of anything if the prosecution can establish he used an unreasonable amount of force (or was straight up trying to murder the guy).

  If the guy didn't trespass the home in the first place, the home owner won't do any of these stuff.

  Which is why the law protects homeowners, so long as they act reasonably.

  If the trespasser injure or kill home owner or family members, no amount of jail time will bring them back. Most probably they will be released after few years in jail, but the victim will suffer the consequences for the rest of their life.

  Same for the "trespasser" if the homeowner kills them.

  Homeowner need to fight the trespasser half arsed (to abide with stupid law), but trespasser don't have to abide any law to fight as they can just ran away. If no murder happening, police won't pursue him as much.

  This is plain wrong. See above - you are perfectly entitled to defend your own home, so long as you use reasonable force. And I'm pretty sure police would take a violent home invasion quite seriously…

  • 

    zzap on 02/04/2016 - 16:14

    Can you please expand on the SA provision? Source for claim would be good.

    • 

      miarn on 02/04/2016 - 16:25

      Essentially, the law says that you can use a certain amount of force to defend property (not necessarily your own). The amount of force used must be what you believe to be "reasonably proportionate" to the threat (e.g. you can't beat someone to death because they may have been about to graffiti your garage door). If the other person dies you also have to show that you didn't intend to kill them, and weren't reckless. This is (I believe) roughly similar to the position in other Australian states.

      However, if you believe the person has entered your house with intention to commit certain types of offences (including theft, assault, property damage) there is no requirement that you use reasonable force.

      See sections 15A and 15C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).

• 

  Henryneko on 01/04/2016 - 14:08

  +1

  Keyword ….REASONABLE

• 

  nocure on 01/04/2016 - 14:12

  +4

  /gif reasonable force

  • 

    OzBestDeal on 01/04/2016 - 15:47

    Wish I'm able to do this "Reasonable" force

• 

  QuickToThePointless on 01/04/2016 - 14:19

  /gif stupid robber

• 

  [Deactivated] on 01/04/2016 - 14:37

  /gif burglar

• 

  Settero on 01/04/2016 - 15:10

  -5

  murder over property ? thats just stupid.
  the only reason you should take a life is if its to prevent yours or someone else's from being taken, not to defend your property…

  • 

    OzBestDeal on 01/04/2016 - 16:14

    -1

    What if someone break into a house with a big knife. The home owner can't defend his life (or whoever live in that house) with foam sword

    If he defend it with real sword, after he take a life to defend your own life, he will be charged with murder by the stupid law.

    • 

      Settero on 01/04/2016 - 16:20

      -3

      do you read ? "the only reason you should take a life is if its to prevent yours or someone else's from being taken" you are arguing about defending PROPERTY not life.

      • 

        OzBestDeal on 01/04/2016 - 16:22

        So you're implying that killing someone for defending someone's life is legal.

      • 

        Settero on 01/04/2016 - 16:24

        @cimot:
        yes, it is a very viable defense.
        but it is criminal court , so they can argue Excessive force.

        you do not just get off because you argue self defense/ defense of another , you need to be able to convince a judge/jury.

        often self defense is not accepted because , someone finds someone stealing their stuff and trys to stop them with force, that is not self defense , the person was STEALING YOUR STUFF not trying to kill you, you are meant to let them go and call the cops, or stop them with REASONABLE force , if you try to stop them and they die, self defense argument goes bye bye

  • 

    Gershom on 02/04/2016 - 08:32

    +2

    the only reason you should take a life is if its to prevent yours or someone else's from being taken, not to defend your property…

    Great, where do you live? I'll be right around to relieve you of all your property.

    If anyone invades my home they will die, no ifs, buts, or maybes.

    • 

      Euphemistic on 02/04/2016 - 08:51

      As much as you say this, and many would, I suspect most wouldn't go that far. Sure, give them a good hiding and prevent them from leaving until the law arrives but murder? I think probably not.

• 

  MercSal on 01/04/2016 - 15:19

  +2

  There is almost certainly more to this. There was at least one claim that the guy had been invited to that house and was jumped.
  But even if it was straight forward, it does look excessive. No one should die for a break and enter.

  • 

    Euphemistic on 01/04/2016 - 19:48

    +1

    This. The police have enough to charge him with murder. It would be manslaugter if it wasn't excessive.

    BUT… I wasn't there, no one other than those present can say what happened for sure.

    • 

      TheOtherLeft on 02/04/2016 - 09:52

      +2

      If it wasn't excessive then it would be Self Defence not manslaughter.

      I'm not sure how Police could change him with murder, unless there's more to the story then being reported.

      Considering the size of intruder, it would take a lot of "force" to subdue him. Also considering the intruder has history - B&E, gaol time etc, he probably wasn't going around for a chat and cup of tea…

      • 

        robertbruce on 02/04/2016 - 13:22

        there is no such thing as "self-defence justifys a killing".. Instead it is "reasonable force" which in this case is excessive. If you kill someone, you will be jailed!

• 

  akyeeeahdude on 01/04/2016 - 15:21

  +1

  I've heard a bit about this case but haven't fully looked into it.
  It reminds me of a similar case years and years ago where the same thing happened but the home owner chased the guy out of the house, down the street and killed the offender while they were retreating. I think a similar thing may have occurred.

• 

  cDNA on 01/04/2016 - 18:03

  +1

  I have a 9 mm pistol, but it's getting more and more annoying with the increased fees for my licence, permits and ammunition.

  • 

    robertbruce on 02/04/2016 - 13:27

    there is an old but true saying about wielding a firearm - you should have the prowess not to use one before you pick one up…

    I would be a bit worried by your character in you posting such a post in open forum.

    • 

      cDNA on 02/04/2016 - 13:40

      +1

      I would be a bit worried by your character in you posting such a post in open forum.

      A lot of Australians in the countryside and wealthy Australians own guns. It's not a big deal. You've been living under a rock these past decades. When I go to America, talking about guns is so normal, sO I guess I don't necessarily change my attitude when i come back to aus. There are lots of firing ranges around my area too.

      I don't care what you think about my character. Gun ownership and gun talk is not unheard of.

      If an intruder was to come into my house, I would have no trouble ending their life with my weapon. My family is far more important to me than the life of a criminal. I would actually like to see our gun laws ease. More people should be able to defend themselves at a cheaper cost.

• 

  eatwell365 on 01/04/2016 - 22:50

  +1

  Watched this video - how to beat mortgage eviction.
  Very interesting re trespassing and what you can do. Learnt a lot from this.
  It happens in UK not Australia, but may draw similarities on common law.

  warning: strong coarse language used in the video.

  • 

    miarn on 02/04/2016 - 08:29

    +1

    I didn't watch the video but is this a sovereign citizen thing? Because that's what it smells like

    • 

      eatwell365 on 02/04/2016 - 10:54

      Good thinking but no.
      could be wrong but in memory -

      This video shows a prevailing phenomenon in UK that banks hire professionals to evict homeowners who are behind mortgages from the property. Seems like big money to be made in the industry,

      The bailiff used dirty tactics in an attempt to trick owner that he had obtained legal document from court for eviction. A knowledgable person and the bailiff had heated argument on the legality, including trespassing.. Police were called in but initially confused which side to back,…let you guys watch the end.

      Thinking worth watching to learn how to deal with trespassers especially people who live on a property, not for the potential robberies entry though,

• 

  robertbruce on 02/04/2016 - 12:13

  -1

  This homeowner has no defence. He entered into the "scuffle", is guilty of a killing and will get time.

• 

  Slippery Fish on 02/04/2016 - 12:21

  Reasonable force should be any means to evict them. I have no reason to worry if they kill intruders as I dont b&e

• 

  minniethemoocher on 02/04/2016 - 12:28

  There are several claims on Facebook that there is a lot more to this story. The so called intruder is dead so he can't tell his side of the story. The media reporting is very one sided in regards to this story.

• 

  robertbruce on 02/04/2016 - 13:16

  +1

  .
  In the unit block next to me, the junkie-thieves often claim they are "invaded" to mitigate justification for the supposed perpetrator to be violently bashed…

  What is really happening is the unit dweller invites other junkies in to facilitate a drug deal giving them the unit key to guarantee they won't be ripped-off and allowing them to stay overnight for their high.

  Not long after the money and key exchanges' hands the 'heavy' rolls up. He is a convicted murderer. He bashes them and violently ejects them without their overnight bags. The unit lessee and heavy then ransack the ejected junkies property stealing from them their phone, wallets, cars and any other cashies worthy property.

  The evicted junkies return a day or two later, all hell breaks loose and the place is smashed up.

  Houso visit to asses the damage and the lessee tells Houso the junkies 'invaded" the place and stole his key. The unit gets repainted, repaired and new keys cut. Meanwhile the lessee's 'done dose gets doubled so he can get over the bogus invasion and he gets put up in an nice motel while he is waiting for repairs.

  This was happening until I presented police and houso with statements, video and other corroborating evidence about what was really happening. It's been relatively quiet there since.

  In much the same way this is possible and probable about what really happened in this OP.
  Citizen Arrest my arse!
  All the press can do is use reverse psychology.

  The courts will jail this bloke! They have to, he is guilty of a killing!

  So be warned, the courts will defend the sanctuary of life before the misguided perception of liberty to kill!
  .
  .

  • 

    simmos on 02/04/2016 - 14:40

    -3

    Treating violence with more violence is not a solution no matter what.

    This is Australia remember. While its civilised here, there are theives intruders and burglars and there are worse of course. But what kind of society is it we build when we think to measure the amount of violence we need to tackle a crim.

    I have personal experiences in confrontations with bad guys and every time I talked them down and in one case was commended by the police for my patience and restraint. Each case was solved without violence or anyone laying hands on anyone.

    I'm not for lying down and TIUTA but you don't stoop to the level of the lowest common denominator. It's not smart and its not going to end pretty.

    I know the kind of Australia I want and it's not built around an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Move to China, Saudi or Pakistan to live if that's the way of life you want to have.

• 

  Findo on 02/04/2016 - 15:02

  +1

  My left fist is manslaughter, and my right fist is grevious bodily harm.

• 

  goosegog on 02/04/2016 - 17:43

  +1

  Any scum bag who intrudes onto a persons home with the intent to rob, maim or cause break-ins to carry out these offences deserves everything they get in the way of the homeowners ( no way to blame ) & very large dogs who will protect both the property & their owners. The drug ridden ( in most cases) dregs of the earth who are no good to anyone but Centrelink, low life good for nothing's deserve everything they get - should it be their demise then that saves the rest of us much money as we won't have to pay their future benefits or jail term payments. As for feeling sorry for them - get real - the idiotic parents who spawned them should have been given either condoms or steralized before the useless piece of nothing was ever conceived. Leave the law abiding citizens who only try to protect their family & property alone.

• 

  bluesky on 05/04/2016 - 15:02

  There is a petition in support of homeowner which has currently garnered over 109K signatures.

  If you feel the same way, you may want to sign above petition.

  The offender has a string of past offences including rape of teenage girl.

  On a related story, a teen organiser planning a peaceful rally in support of homeowner, canceled event and became "too frightened to leave house" after approach from offender's relative.

  • 

    miarn on 05/04/2016 - 16:04

    "Your Honour, I tender this petition signed by 100 thousand anonymous people on the internet with almost no idea of the facts of this case"

    "well then, of course! He mustn't be guilty!"

    …

    or not

• 

  BertieBrown on 06/04/2016 - 12:22

  I think, a lot of this stuff just comes down to common sense.

  It's easy to generalise these issues, but you'd imagine most of the time an unarmed burglar who has broken into someone's house is realistically looking for small items to flog and then escape without being confronted and so lose their opportunity to steal. Particularly if they're aware that the occupant is within the home.

  But, obviously the exact circumstances are so complex and varied one cannot simply generalise and suggest the would be burglar would always act so.

  Given the above situation, a reasonable person might consider it appropriate under those circumstances, to allow the unarmed intruder to escape, considering they (the homeowner) are specifically not authorised to administer 'justice', which is to say punish the intruder for invading their property and allowing the intruder to leave without confrontation is the scenario most likely to result in no injury.

  Given the example provided, a reasonable person might also consider that, for example, beating given intruder to the point where they are both incapacitated or seriously injured was unnecessary and possibly unwarranted, given the intruder could have been allowed to leave without confrontation.

  But, again, a reasonable person might consider that all of this is dependant on any number of other factors, perhaps most notably whether or not the intruder is armed or possibly intent on causing harm.

  My own opinion is this; if an intruder invades my home, my first and foremost concern is for the safety of my family and myself. Material possessions are otherwise not relevant. My obligation is to ensure that my family are safe, and in the course of ensuring that is so, I would take any steps that were reasonable to enable this. The first and most logical thought that comes to mind is that most reasonable people would consider the best way of ensuring personal safety is to not intentionally engage with the intruder. The police are there for that. If the intruder became violent, it would be reasonable to defend yourself, to the point where you're safe.

  Perhaps the 'smoking gun' so to speak, is where it can be proven that the homeowner acted with purpose and or intent to unnecessarily harm the intruder, beyond what was reasonable at the time. I.E; intruder comes across you in the night, there is a short scuffle and intruder turns and runs away, but homeowner takes object, follows intruder and beats them severely.

  I think the other important consideration is that whilst you can have a certain amount of online bravado and tough talk, as an person, you don't want someone's death on your conscience. I think no matter how much you felt that you were defending your home, taking someone's life is such an unimaginably horrific thing to have to cope with.

  I think that's why so much of the information from police is about prevention of crime and not dealing with an unarmed intruder. The police don't want people attacking, hurting and possibly killing intruders or vice versa. They want people to avoid confrontation and ring them so they can do their job.

• 

  goosegog on 06/04/2016 - 13:04

  By the time the police arrive the offences have been dealt with through the homeowner & the intruder. Are homeowners supposed to ask the intruder if they would like a coffee while everyone waits for the police ? PPFFF! Not a hope.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 13/04/2016 - 15:18

  Remember, after you have smashed someone's body into a thousand pieces with a sledge hammer, put a knife in their hand…..
  self Defense your honor, he wouldn't stay down !