Home Defense in AU

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Stop procrastinating and playing word games... in my scenario the shooter claims the deceased forced his way in... their are no witnesses to claim any different.

So there will be signs of forced entry? Broken door jambs? Smashed windows and the like? And the forensic team will be conned by someone not familiar with how those things typically work? Sounds believable.

Of course their wasn't any signs of forced entry... since he rang the door bell and I opened the door.

He was a mate afterall, how was I supposed to know he was going to go loco, once I let him in?

.....

I'd be going to court under this scenario, correct? Even in a US state that has the 'stand your ground' legislation enacted.

Whether I walk away a free man or get prison time, all depends on the quality of my representation, correct?

In other words, whether shooting him is classed as cold blooded murder, or a justified self defence shooting... all depends on the funds I have at my disposal, right?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Of course their wasn't any signs of forced entry... since he rang the door bell and I opened the door.

Then that isn't a home invasion and castle doctrine would not apply.

Any other strawman you want to toss out?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Of course their wasn't any signs of forced entry... since he rang the door bell and I opened the door.

Then that isn't a home invasion and castle doctrine would not apply.

Any other strawman you want to toss out?

So your claiming under the "castle doctrine", if someone knocks on your door and you answer it, you've now forfeited your right to protecting yourself, family and home from harm?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
So your claiming under the "castle doctrine", if someone knocks on your door and you answer it, you've now forfeited your right to protecting yourself, family and home from harm?

Here, read about it: Castle Doctrine.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

...and most of 'em are bad.

Where the safety and security of my family and I are concerned, I'll call the cops to come clean up the mess.

Did that sound sufficiently Rambo-like??

The reality is, I'll give 'em every chance to walk away, then I'll do my best to bury them.

originally posted by: seagull
Did that sound sufficiently Rambo-like??

Works for me. My home is my castle and the law says I'm right.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
So your claiming under the "castle doctrine", if someone knocks on your door and you answer it, you've now forfeited your right to protecting yourself, family and home from harm?

Here, read about it: Castle Doctrine.

Ok, skimmed though that... "The Outside of the US" section was particularly interesting, it named 7 other countries including Australia (by the way) that have similar laws... so it turns out the US isn't as special as you originally tried to claim, when it comes to having the legal right to protecting ourselves.

Never the less... your link, from what I can see, still clearly states you'll need to prove your actions were 'justified' in a court of law, in all the countries where similar rights are recognized, including the in the US...

Which brings me back to my whole original point... "proving" your innocence (or justification) in a court of law, generally all comes down to the funds you have at your disposal.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes it does.

I see nothing wrong in a policy that allows me to make my home dangerous to someone trying to gain entry against my wishes.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
...so it turns out the US isn't as special as you originally tried to claim, when it comes to having the legal right to protecting ourselves.

Where did I say we were special? I said it was completely different as all but one state has some sort of castle doctrine. The only state in Australia listed as having something similar is South Australia.

Which brings me back to my whole original point... "proving" your innocence (or justification) in a court of law, generally all comes down to the funds you have at your disposal.

Or the evidence the crime scene investigators collect, or that witnesses testify to. If the evidence backs up your claim (broken jambs/windows) and witnesses support your stance why would you even be charged where you'd need to prove anything? Do you not know how this works?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do you not know how this works?

More importantly do you know how this works?

Have you ever had to face a magistrate (a judge in the US) on your own with nothing to your name, with the potential of prison time? Then go though the exact same ordeal again, with a lawyer who's charging 2 and a half grand for 30 minutes of his time... let me tell you, its a whole different experience.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Have you ever had to face a magistrate (a judge in the US) on your own with nothing to your name, with the potential of prison time?

Not sure where you're going with this Captain Strawman, you don't face a judge after blasting a home invader if the police don't arrest you and charge you with manslaughter or homicide due to the evidence.

Keep coming up with more irrelevant scenarios.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh, how cute... you've lost the argument but can't admit it... but instead just procrastinate and play silly little word games, without even attempting to answer the actual question...

I don't know brother... but I'm fairly sure that's what they refer to as abona fide so called "strawman"!

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Oh, how cute... you've lost the argument but can't admit it...

My argument was that the United States, with the exception of Vermont, has castle doctrine as opposed to Australia which only has one state with a similar doctrine. Show me how I lost that?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Anyway, to be completely honest, I really couldn't care less that we're not allowed to own firearms for the purpose of self defence... Don't get me wrong, I'm not inherently against guns. Its more like I got 99 problems and not being able own a gun for self defence ain't one.

The thing is this report had nothing to do with guns, they were having a hissy fit because some people were protecting themselves with weapons such as compound cross-bows and nunchucks. It was absolutely ridiculous and laughable.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Anyway, to be completely honest, I really couldn't care less that we're not allowed to own firearms for the purpose of self defence... Don't get me wrong, I'm not inherently against guns. Its more like I got 99 problems and not being able own a gun for self defence ain't one.

The thing is this report had nothing to do with guns, they were having a hissy fit because some people were protecting themselves with weapons such as compound cross-bows and nunchucks. It was absolutely ridiculous and laughable.

Where in oz did this happen?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Anyway, to be completely honest, I really couldn't care less that we're not allowed to own firearms for the purpose of self defence... Don't get me wrong, I'm not inherently against guns. Its more like I got 99 problems and not being able own a gun for self defence ain't one.

The thing is this report had nothing to do with guns, they were having a hissy fit because some people were protecting themselves with weapons such as compound cross-bows and nunchucks. It was absolutely ridiculous and laughable.

Well, why'd you even bother posting then?

I don't even know how i got dragged into this BS debate... I feel all used and dirty, like a cheap escort now... you watched this crap on a current affair, yeah?

You need to seriously invest into cable... seriously, it doesn't cost that much.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I have Foxtel as well as Netflix. I made a thread on this issue because they need to be told how dumb it is.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I made a thread on this issue because they need to be told how dumb it is.

How dumb what is?

Do you actually believe us Aussies should live our lives in a constant state of paranoia, just like our American counter parts... To afraid to even go to sleep, without a locked and loaded glock under our pillow?

I teach self defense. I think you should be able to arm yourself. Hiding and calling the police only helps in certain situations. Many times you are going to have to fight your way free from an attacker or fight for your life if they are intent on killing you. Many assaults unfold and happen quickly...even if hiding were the best option, you can't always do it. You have to be able to defend yourself.

I don't necessarily think it's a case of more of, or a higher percentage of the population is more criminal than in the past, just that there are more of us in closer spaces.

If you're in OZ you should take some self defense classes. Kempo/Kenpo or Krav Maga, or train in MMA/Grappling that has some focus on actual self defense and not all sport or in the cage, Filipino Martial arts is one of the best as well.

My favorite home defense tip is get a dog. mid size(lab, shepard) there are many options.

If you can't carry a weapon (Force Multiplyer) then make one. Carrying a 3-6 inch stick on your key chain or in your pocket is incredibly effective if you have nothing else (Look up Kubaton). Stickes next. Collapsible Baton if you are allowed to or just a nice 3-4 foot stick in your car or house and learn to use it (Again look up filipino martial arts online).

For the record I train in Kenpo/Filipino Martial arts/JiuJitsu/Grappling/Russian Sambo and others.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Do you actually believe us Aussies should live our lives in a constant state of paranoia, just like our American counter parts... To afraid to even go to sleep, without a locked and loaded glock under our pillow?

Owning a weapon to defend ones self in a high crime area is not paranoia, it's being smart. I think it was best summed up by AugustusMasonicus:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The average police response time here in the United States is roughly 10 minutes. Quite a few things can happen in that amount of time and I have no intention of playing hide and seek for 10 minutes if someone breaks into my home.