If you found home intruder, is it legal to do this? Is there any good alternatives?
(Pointless poll removed — Mod)
Lol you guys are hilarious, making tea? Killing weed? Hopefully I can come up with more lame posts to keep everyone entertained
Is It Legal to Throw Boiling Water to Protect Your Property
SoapyWooder on 27/10/2023 - 12:24
Last edited 28/10/2023 - 20:11 by 1 other user
Last edited 28/10/2023 - 20:11 by 1 other user
Comments
Classic crocodile dundee situation.
“Thats not a pot of boiling water… THIS is a pot of boiling water!”Pro tip: Just make sure to always have the largest pot of water pre boiled so as not to look a fool when your home invaders visit.
And a hole in the backyard dug already just in case.
I just carry around a round, black rag. I can hop into it Looney Tunes style.
Pre boil your water and freeze it so it's always ready to go
Top tip.
Throw cold boiling water crystal lumps at them.
Shape your frozen boiling water into a giant stake and stab them in the heart with it.
The ice melts and the weapon is gone, so no murder weapon to link you to the crime.
You can also use a dehydrator which will save plenty of space
If only this was cast iron it would be perfect https://www.amazon.com/PMU-Halloween-Cauldron-Plastic-Access…
I'm going out to buy one of those 20L urns right now, it's 11:50PM but I don't care, I need to be ready.
If you can’t find an industrial sized cooking urn for your home protection needs at this hour, I suggest opting for the more budget friendly and readily available option of pocket sand.
They never see it coming…
Reference material: https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/pocket-sand
Does it need to be the one that whistles?
Had me at the quote, many ha has, thank you :)
…..mind to wait till my kettle has finished boiling the water …
Couldn’t they also be coming at you with a knife?
"I see you've played knifey-boily water before."
I do live on the Gold Coast, one has to be prepared.
Not in SA.
The qualification of propotionality (not reasonableness) was removed from our law. It gives SA semi Castle laws.
https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s12s09.php
'See however the exception to reasonable proportionality in: Home invasion.'
Note - you must be home. It must be 'aggrevated'.
In otherwords, if you jimmy my window with a screwdriver and come in and I can reach my gun in time….
…. and I can reach my gun in time….
What kind of gun you got?
Oh hai SAPOL 👋
@[Deactivated]: and locked in a gun safe - so perhaps hard to whip out to shoot someone at short notice.
What kind of gun you got?
Hot water pistol.
semi Castle? does this mean you can the intruders head goes staight to the pool room?
LOL
jokes on you
this is australia we aren't allowed to have guns, you can throw your mobile phone at the home invaders tho, maybe hit them with a mop.(or go to your gun safe, unlock it, take out your bolt action rifle, take the trigger lock off, then go to your ammo safe and take some ammo out, load your magazine, put it into your rifle, go to action, take a sight picture and shoot the home invader, OH WAIT you have been stabbed 1E+36 times already.)
The whole law change came about because an 80 something shot a home invader with a shotgun and got arrested.
We got guns. And who says you need trigger locks or unloaded mags?
Jeez you people dont even know the laws in each state.
2 biolock safes. Done.
yeah Nah. them jimmying your window does not fall under aggravated and you shooting them would almost certainly see you go down for murder.
Takes about 3 mins to boil the water
By then the intruder has seen you boiling the water and left the premises.
So in this respect YES YOU CAN (boil the water)
Don’t make me boil it bro!
3 minutes later
Now look what you made me do
This idea of proportionality meaning the same tool or action is utterly wrong - it has never, ever been a thing, just something people come up with on the playground at school.
For jurisdictions that have proportionality, it's the outcome that is important, not the effectiveness of the method. Likelihood of an outcome doesn't come into it. If there is a risk of death, you can basically do what the f you want to prevent that. And since the coward punch precedent setting anyone with the physical characteristics that mean they could kill someone with a punch (i.e. anyone under the age of 92) basically presents a lethal threat if they are confronting you with violence. If someone who could kill you by punching you is attacking you, where they are unarmed and you have a gun, it is still ok to shoot them.
That means that the boiling water approach is likely to be ok, though not just for 'a home invader', there needs to be a reasonable expectation of violence. Whether that means the break-in at all would be far more grey area in court and be jurisdiction-dependent, but if you confront a home invader and say "get out or I'll throw this on you" and they come at you, you are 100% free and clear to throw it on them anywhere in the country.
What you can't do is set up a boiling water booby trap. Unfortunately.
Legally you can only use reasonable force for self defence.
In AU ? It's strange that the suspect has so much protection when it comes to invasion. As if they are protected species
The law tends to protect people, as the thinking in government is tends to be that all peasants require protection.
Suggesting anything else intimates that the ruling classes are not needed.
Unless our glorious mine of a nation really is run by a mafia cartel
The law tends to protect people, as the thinking in government is tends to be that all peasants require protection.
Yes, even convicted pedophile.
The ruling classes are not needed.
Yes, hence I works har & train [MMA] even harder
Unless our glorious mine of a nation really is run by a mafia cartel
You may be on something there.
Idc about the law, any invaders will be met with lethal force. I rather call the 000 myself than they harm my family & get away with it. Stay away from me & we shall all get along well :)
@frewer: The thinking of many. And I mean no disrespect, but you seem to feel secure that personal force will save you.
IMHO hard responses are no match for the tide of soft power controlling the masses at every level, especially psychologically. Many of the 'self-prepared' have been only too happy to go and fight against what they saw as a clearly defined enemy, mostly because their gov decided to spend our resources on war. And when they get there, many find all reason evaporates, and the enemy (and the fight itself) is not what they thought.
To retain control, members of numerous 'free' govs have decided they need little to no reason to put those standing against their machines in jail. Meanwhile cloud services demand you submit everything to centralised control, in order to do anything.
No matter what we do, we need to use what's left of democracy to win over others and give power only to those who can truly work for the people, locally and globally. Just like they have in the past, only peaceful methods can actually succeed in changing minds to work towards a future and step away from the behaviours used in the past.
Weapons and machismo have perpetuated (this uniquely human) madness, since the beginning of civilisation. Now, at a time when the resources are no longer plentiful enough to support us, we need to see how our friends and family on social media are being weaponised to poison our actions and the thinking driving them.
Legal? I dunno.
But I'd do what I gotta do.
ask for forgiveness instead of permission
.Shoot them, then fire the warning shot, or wait, the other way around…..?
Either way you fired the warning shot first.
Just so you know, if I was on jury duty, I wouldn't convict you
Planning of setting up a Home Alone style home defense system?
Throwing boiling water on the intruder could be legal if it is self defense, but not if it is just to protect your property.
Inflicting bodily harm is never legal. The question should be whether there is a legal defence.
i was just walking with my pot of hot water, and i just happened to drop it on an intruder when i was startled.
Boiling water is a good way to kill weeds. Can't help it if intruders get between me and my night time gardening.
Inflicting bodily harm is never legal.
Seriously? Try attacking the police with a knife and see what happens when they inflict bodily harm on you by shooting you dead. Totally legal.
No. If a police shoot a person dead without cause s/he will be charged with murder. For example, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-11/zachary-rolfe-not-gui… The fact that his defence was successful did not make all police shooting legal. All police shootings are investigated but no charges would be laid against the officers because there were no reasonable prospect that the prosecutions would be successful if the discharges of the firearm were permitted under police operation guidelines. Police officers do not have "licences to kill," at least not in this country. They are allowed to draw and discharge their firearms in circumstances permitted by guidelines, and they are trained "to shoot to kill" with their guns.
Another high profile example of an on-duty police officer who inflicted bodily harm allegedly under circumstances not permitted by guidelines. The deceased was holding a knife. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-24/clare-nowland-dies-ta… Senior Constable Kristian White, 33, was charged earlier on Wednesday evening with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and common assault.
@alvian: You need more work on your reading and comprehension skills.
Inflicting bodily harm is never legal.
NEVER LEGAL. This is wrong. There ARE times that it IS legal and justified.
Nobody said ANYTHING about shooting a person dead without just cause. I gave a specific example showing a "just cause", and the police shooting back in self-defence. Then you go on a tangent about licences to kill and a bunch of cases that have nothing to do with my statement. You are creating a totally different argument, nothing to do with your silly claim that inflicting harm is never legal.
And by the way, police are NOT trained to "shoot to kill". They are trained to stop the threat, and that may mean that multiple shots are fired until the attacker stops making threatening moves towards them (e.g. keeps aiming the weapon at them, advancing on them, reaching for something in their clothing etc.) If they get shot, drop the weapon, throw their hands up, drop to the ground etc, the police will stop shooting. People need to stop getting their legal education by watching TV and movies.
There ARE times that it IS legal and justified.
If the action is legal, then there is no need for an investigation after the incident. Since when do police spend their resources investigating legal activities? Justified does not mean legal, it means there is a legal defence.
And if you like to nitpick, we were discussing inflicting bodily harm, not murder or police shooting in self-defence, so who went off on a tangent?
Another example. https://www.9news.com.au/national/police-officer-ryan-barlow… The police officer was in the process of arresting a teenage boy, and force was used and there was physical contact. The boy was injured during the arrest. Fair enough? Surely "legal" and "justified"? No, the officer was charged and found guilty of common assault and common assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
@alvian: You clearly have no idea of police procedures, or of the constant scrutiny of the actions of police and EVERYTHING they do. The action HAS TO be investigated, EVERY TIME. That is how it is determined if the action is legal or justified.
Justified does not mean legal, it means there is a legal defence.
I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make. If there is a LEGAL defence, then it is LEGAL by definition.
I don't know what you think the definition of inflicting bodily harm is then. Police shooting someone attacking them with a knife is a perfectly appropriate example of inflicting bodily harm. I can't think of many more extreme examples of "inflicting bodily harm". That is hardly going off on a tangent.
You are throwing up examples of matters that have nothing to do with the original premise: "Inflicting bodily harm is never legal".
Try attacking the police with a knife and see what happens when they inflict bodily harm on you by shooting you dead. Totally legal.
That is how it is determined if the action is legal or justified.
You claimed "totally legal", so then by definition there is no need to "determined if the action is legal or justified" as this would be a waste of time. A person walking on a footpath is "totally legal", and no police will waste their time to check if that walk is legal or justified. A person walking on an open footpath during COVID lockdown is illegal, and police will investigate. The lockdown order provided "reasonably excuses" for a person to walk outside, which is a legal defence.
the definition of inflicting bodily harm
This is defined in the Crimes Act of the respective jurisdiction, for example, for NSW http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/
The Act does not give exemption to police officers to inflict bodily harm.
@alvian: Again, not sure what point you are trying to make. You started with the word NEVER, remember? I gave examples why that statement is false. You then proceeded to cite a bunch of cases of police actions which have nothing to do with refuting my initial premise. Then you are getting caught up in circular logic trying to defend some stance which was never in issue.
They are more likely interested in why you are walking on a footpath in an area at some time of day, or there is something else suspicious about you. With your COVID example, they will not know unless they investigate and question you as to your reason. That is how they determine if it is legal, by asking questions and investigating. Still don't get the connection to your statement "Inflicting bodily harm is never legal".
I fully well know the definition of bodily harm. I NEVER said police are exempt, you did, and I don't know why you are arguing it.
By the way, you might be surprised to find that in some jurisdictions, the Riot Act (it's a real thing), once declared, gives police (and others) permission to use ANY FORCE to clear the rioters. An example of the legislation giving immunity to those putting their personal safety on the line to restore safety for the rest of the community. Even so, nobody is going to use it as a "licence to kill", but they are indemnified from inflicting bodily harm or death in the pursuit of the goal of restoring order. Pray it never happens. You can bet that ANY incident will still be investigated, and still viewed negatively for anyone "overdoing it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
By the way "bodily harm" is not included in the definitions of the Act you quoted. See http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/… And Grievous Bodily Harm is something else entirely.
@endotherm: You equated "having a reasonable excuse (as provided under the Acts)" with "totally legal". The two are not the same.
I NEVER said police are exempt, you did
That is some twisted logic.
@alvian: I never said anything about "reasonable excuse". Please show me where?
If you have an excuse defined in a particular Act, and it is reasonable, then it is lawful. Please explain how it is otherwise.
If the driver of an emergency vehicle speeds to get to an urgent job, there are "excuses" contained within the act which indemnifies them from being charged with speeding and other traffic offences. If the circumstances aren't reasonable (speeding from the take-away with a hot dinner back to the station), the indemnity no longer applies, as it wasn't "reasonable". If you were to hit another car while travelling at 200km/h through the city on a legitimate urgent call, it would probably be deemed "unreasonable" even though the Act specifies you would normally be allowed to do it. There are more checks and balances and oversight on these things than most of the public are aware.
Twisted logic? You said "The Act does not give exemption to police officers to inflict bodily harm".
Give it up. You are digging an ever deepening hole trying to argue something that doesn't need it. I merely said your statement "Inflicting bodily harm is never legal" is a falsehood, and gave examples.
I NEVER said police are exempt, you did
I wrote "The Act does not give exemption to police officers to inflict bodily harm". That meant I said "police are exempt?" How does that work?"
Do you actually understand what you wrote? "The Act does not give exemption to police" means "police are exempt"? You twisted what I wrote into something meaning the opposite.
(I) gave examples
Hypothetical examples written by you. I gave real examples where the police officers were charged and some found guilty, contrary to your declaration of "Totally legal". But I guess you will twist these real examples into me writing “see, the police are exempt” too.
I NEVER said police are exempt, you did, and I don't know why you are arguing it.
Let me rephrase that. YOU are the one that started banging on about police not being exempt. When I said "did", replace that with "brought it up". My bad. I'm agreeing with you that they are not always exempt, but there are times when the legislation DOES grant exemptions to police for certain actions. But none of that has anything to do with your original comment.
Hypothetical examples? Your very first one exemplifies mine perfectly. For a little background, that prosecution was more of a political hit-job. It didn't have much chance of succeeding, especially when the prosecution agreed the police were justified in shooting him after he stabbed him. The whole argument was about whether the following shots were necessary — we're talking a matter of seconds here — all while the human being victim (the officer) is injured, amped up on adrenaline and in a fight-or-flight mode. Quite understandable in my opinion. And guess what? The jury agreed. He is now "not a murderer" as alleged. A pretty poor example for you to use trying to prove your point.
The next example of the elderly woman was tragic, but she died as a result of her age-related injuries. Was it poor judgement? Maybe. That is what police are faced with, split-second life-and-death decisions made in an instant whilst under extreme stress. Someone came at them with a knife. You don't stop to see if they are black, a kid, elderly, male, female… All you see is the threat of a knife that could take your life being pushed in your direction. Could have shot her in self-defence and defence of the others in the room, but elected to use a less-lethal option to disable her attack. A bit more time to think might have given her cause to think it isn't a good idea to electrocute someone of her age. But it comes back to instinct and training. They don't have the luxury of time to think about every possible thing that could go wrong, they just revert to their training to taze them to disable the attacker. Was it a bad decision, even though she was probably justified? A trial will see to that. Police aren't infallible, they are human, and humans make mistakes. She might get off, she might be punished.
The teenage boy after making threats of violence and with priors for violence known to the officer, was arrested and injured in the process. More of a case of being heavy-handed in the execution of the arrest, but how they handle an arrestee that has just threatened them with violence and has priors for it is more in their state of mind at the time. It is up to the Judge to determine whether she believed what was told and whether it was excessive.
These are all judgement calls in a messy situation where everything isn't always black and white. It's the nature of policing. I don't know why you are quoting these cases in defence of your position. The first one proves you wrong, essentially the court said what he did was legal. The other one could go either way. Just being charged isn't proof of anything. The third, the police were found to have overdone it and charged and convicted accordingly. Just the way the system is supposed to work.
In any case, I still fail to see what any of these examples has to do with proving your initial statement that it is NEVER legal.
@endotherm: Mate I don't think you understand how the law works.
When an act is illegal, it's illegal. Then, for doing something that is illegal, one is prosecuted.
The alleged offender may be able to pull out a defence, and they may be found not guilty by virtue of that defence, but the act itself was still unlawful.
Prime example is a mentally impaired person who in an episode maybe, by way of insane paranoia hurts someone they wrongfully think is about to hurt them. They've still committed a crime but they'll possibly be found not guilty, but the court will acknowledge they have done something unlawful and direct them to require treatment/go straight to the loony bin.
@Assburg: Plenty of defences can make actions that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful. The vast, vast majority of 'unlawful acts' in the Australian legal system are actually 'unlawful states of mind while committing certain acts' - that is mens rea. There are a few acts that carry absolute liability, where your intentions and beliefs aren't relevant, but there really aren't that many of those. Most things you do on a day to day basis would actually be illegal if they were done with certain intentions and with the appropriate context, you would be stunned what sorts of individual acts can count as e.g. criminal conspiracy. Buying some milk? Jail. Posting a funny meme on the internet? Right to jail. Holding the door open for someone? Believe it or not, jail.
Some defences are 'the act was lawful because of these reasons'. That's not something that 'excuses an illegal act', that is a fact that makes the act legal, period. Some defences are 'the defendant did something unlawful but shouldn't be punished because of these reasons'.
The whole reason we have an investigative police force and a court system is to determine a) what happened, b) whether it was illegal or not, and c) whether the person should be punished or not. There isn't some magical source of truth to determine this through some sort of logic, it needs to be proven with evidence to whatever standard applies to that issue (e.g. beyond a reasonable doubt). All three of those a/b/c things remain a question to be answered right up until a court makes a determination.
@Parentheses: Curious what the fault element that lines up with buying milk or posting a meme is, conspiracy to commit x?
@Assburg: If the action (almost any action, really) was taken in furtherance of a conspiracy, i.e. it was a step in a plan where the plan involved a crime, then it's criminal. For example, if you had a plan to damage some signage by pouring milk over it so the owner would come out to replace it and that's where you and your fellow goons could ambush them, then the act of buying the milk is sufficient to meet criminal conspiracy - because you haven't just made a plan, now you've made a plan and taken some overt act towards realising that plan. The actions themselves are utterly open, anything could be criminal in the right mindset and context (and evidence to prove it).
@Assburg: I have a lifetime of experience in a law career. I know exactly how it works. Want me to go into a more nuanced reply? Haven't I written way too much above just trying to explain this situation? You want me to make it longer to include all the vagaries and defences to the law? This isn't a law lesson!
"Illegal" would mean that the written law is pretty much black and white — it applies or it doesn't. Extenuating circumstances don't usually get specified in the Act, but that may be argued later to reduce or exonerate the charge. There may be factual defences or some immunity cited. Then there is the whole pesky innocent-until-proven-guilty thing, and proven-beyond-reasonable-doubt.
…but the act itself was still unlawful.
Just because you are charged does not make you guilty, nor can you be accused of having committed that crime once the case is dismissed. In the example above, the NT officer cannot be called a murderer, even though he was charged with murder, because he was found not guilty. Same as people still referring to Rittenhouse in the USA as a murderer is incorrect.
The mentally impaired example you gave isn't a good one. If they were to injure or kill someone, they would probably still be found guilty as a matter of fact, then sentenced to be held in an institution. Either that, or they would be found incapable to stand trial on the basis of diminished responsibility and be ordered into the custody of the appropriate health professionals. Not likely to be found "not guilty".
@endotherm: I understand your perspective, but there are a few issues with your logic, I think.
If it's not an unlawful act, you wouldn't need a defence. You can do an illegal thing without being found guilty of a full fault offence. The illegal act isn't retrospectively made legal, but it is excused.
I realise for a truly nuanced discussion, sure, the element of fault might not be made out in a murder case, for example, so your offender hasn't committed murder, but that's why there's a spectrum of offences - assault, causing harm, serious harm, manslaughter up to murder. In the case of Zach Rolfe, he isn't guilty of murder, but he didn't "legally" shoot Walker, it was still an illegal act somewhere on that spectrum, and could've satisfied the full set of elements for a charge like serious harm/GBH, making it a fully illegal act, but one that would also be fully excused by virtue of a defence.
Regarding mental impairment, i think it's very, very uncommon for people to be found incompetent to stand trial, the logic is that most sane people don't even understand criminal procedure. We also have extensive case law where people unsound of mind/mentally impaired have been found not guilty of murder by way of mental impairment, though whether they are institutionalised is usually a question of whether internal or external stimuli triggered their action. Maybe this diminished responsibility notion is an Eastern seaboard thing but logically it's a fail because.. You're either not guilty and have no responsibility, or you're guilty. Diminished responsibility is a question for sentencing.
just remember to bury the body vertically rather than horizontally
what?
what?(in case my CCP case officer is watching, ITS A JOKE MATE.)
more space efficient, lah
And lay an animal carcas on top so the sniffer dogs smell that and the handler thinks it’s a false positive
Police already know this technique
gotta put the animal carcas at the bottom of the whole, throw them all off
How much time do you spend learning about how to hurt intruders and dispose of bodies?
They know all the techniques. Criminals think police are dumb.
Then use 2 animal carcass
If you have time to boil water you have time to run away and call 000.
Maybe OP has that amazing induction stovetop that cooks a pot of boiling water in 1 second!
5l pot lifted from 20c to boiling would take 0.4kWh, about 12c at my rates.
A reusable knife would be more cost effective.
That's right, let your wife and kids sort the criminal out while you run away and wait for the cops?
I can't speak for your family, but mine can definitely run faster than I can.
Fair enough then. :)
I was imagining OP standing in front of the stove while an intruder points a gun at him and OP is like: hang on mate, just give us a couple minutes. Yeah nah, settle down it's almost done.
A watched kettle never boils …
I have a Zip instantaneous hot water tap, check mate
yea i can see th conversation with burglar.
'can you hold on while i boil th kettle'…
burgler with knife: ANY LAST REQUESTTSSS?
me: WELL, I was wondering if you could sing the entire score of the "H.M.S. Pinafore
burglar with teacup: milk, two sugars, thanks
Bake him away, toys!
Enter the instant hot water dispenser. About 7 beeps and 30 seconds for a 300ml cup 😂
Is there some kind of contest for "dumbest thread on OzBargain" going on at the moment?
There have been some real gems this week.
Where have you been? Contest has been ongoing for a while now - tends to spike with the moon phases.
shut up or i'll boil my kettle
Nah, OzB'er would be too cheap for a kettle if resorting to hot water for property protection. Home intruder would need to wait a bit longer for their scalding until the saucepan of water boiled on the stove.
…until the saucepan of water boiled on the
stovepublic BBQ in the park next door.
Legally you can only use reasonable force for self defence.
So if they're also holding a pot of boiling water and threaten to throw it at you, then you may also use your pot of boiling water. Maybe.
You should always start with instructing them to leave and/or calling the police.