It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elderly shooter had right to defend home

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Elderly shooter had right to defend home


www.thewest.com.au

Police have not decided whether charges will be pressed against an elderly man who shot one of two intruders who broke into his home last night, as right to defence applies.

Seventy seven-year-old man Eugenio Valenti was recuperating at home today after the incident in which disturbed two men breaking into his Campersic Road home at Vino Italia winery about 9.40pm.

“Everyone's got a right to defend themselves and their property from a home invader...as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances,” Detective Andy Southall said this afternoon.

Police say two intruders forced their way into Mr Valenti’s home, broke down his bedroom door and backed him into a corner last night.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This sort of thing isn't too common here in Australia, obviously due to our gun laws.

I doubt the old fella will get charged, they forced their way into his bedroom after he warned them he was armed.

Article continues:

Police say two intruders forced their way into Mr Valenti’s home, broke down his bedroom door and backed him into a corner last night.

It is alleged Mr Valenti fired one shot from his shotgun, hitting one intruder, before having the weapon wrestled off him and being hit with it at least twice.

Sgt Greg Lambert said the burglars fled the scene and the injured man later checked himself into Swan Districts Hospital. Paramedics transferred the 34-year-old to Royal Perth Hospital where he underwent surgery on a wound to his abdomen. He remains in hospital under police guard.

Mr Valenti was treated for a broken hand and concussion last night but returned home with his family this morning.


www.thewest.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


The fact that he retreated to his bedroom to defend his invalid wife and allowed the intruders the run of the house for theft says he is innocent of any crime but defending himself.
If charges are filed against him, that would be a crime. As to the losers who attacked him, it's too bad he couldn't have planted them both.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
To paraphrase so many rabid gun-grabbers:

There are other ways to defend yourself. This elderly man could have used king-fu or krav-maga or any of the other methods those who pose this absurd foundation for the banning of firearms would suggest.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
It is too bad the elderly man didn't have a pump action mossy 500 with a knoxx anti-recoil stock. He could have gotten three rounds into each of the intruders, and would have prevented the beating he got. It is also too bad he didn't aim at the face.

The old man should sue both the intruders and the government for causing 'emotional distress'. like those illegals did to that farmer. How dare the government even consider pressing charges against this old man defending his home?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


The fact that he retreated to his bedroom to defend his invalid wife and allowed the intruders the run of the house for theft says he is innocent of any crime but defending himself.
If charges are filed against him, that would be a crime. As to the losers who attacked him, it's too bad he couldn't have planted them both.


My thoughts as well.

I'm all for defending my home when someone is intruding like this story.

What I'm not all for is vigilantes like that bloke a few months ago who shot 2 would be thieves in the back when they were running away from robbing his neighbours house.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Some follow up news.

www.thewest.com.au...

The 77-year-old man who shot an alleged intruder in Herne Hill last week has expressed relief that police have found he acted lawfully in shooting the man and will not be charged.
Speaking through his granddaughter Belinda Coniglio, Eugenio Valenti said his peace had been disrupted and he was deeply traumatised by the events. “He is obviously very relieved at the news… it shows the police have looked at the facts of what happened and he acted in self defence so he is very relieved at that,” Ms Coniglio said.
“I think it sends a strong message that we need to be safe in our own homes.”



Good to hear I say!

It seems the police have a bit of common sense after all, despite what most on here believe.




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   


“Everyone's got a right to defend themselves and their property from a home invader...as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances,” Detective Andy Southall said this afternoon.


The way I see it, anytime someone has broken into your home, the lives of you and your family ARE at risk!!!

...Therefor, so should be the life of the criminal.

NEVER does someone CHOOSE to be invaded. While the criminal had the CHOICE to break into someone else's home unwarranted.
Death should naturally be the consequence for breaking and entering, knowingly. Just to put it into perspective, survivors are proven to sue the person they are commiting the crimes against.

Come on what is force that is "reasonable for the circumstances"?
Seriously. I am willing to bet the intent of the attacker is not their victim's well-being. What are you supposed to do, ask if they've come in good intent BEFORE shooting??

I will never understand the anti-gun people.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join