lucky theives

[caustichumor]

Gun safety is paramount....:shock:

 

[Snake Catcher Victoria]

Hey Gordo, no loss or damage to property,no harm done to anyone,,this is a good result.
Would have been nice to get the id of one of the kids.
You could have levelled the shotty at them, but then you might have gotten an unexpected visit at a later date.

 

[Weezer]

.....so he was planning to come back it seems.

....until he realised the owner was packing a LS weapon. Nice.

I have caught the odd youngster sniffing around the car - I have charged out a couple of times with my favourite tomahawk and chased them away- but have never even considered unlocking the cabinet for the piece- although if they were directly on my property and within earshot of my kid or wife I wouldn't hesitate to reach for the keys. Usuallyn though it is just a junkie or two looking for a car stereo or some cash- so they aren't going to be much of a match for a maniac with a hatchet and some personal space issues.

it is definitely true you don't pack unless you are prepared to use it- but at the end of the day I am more than prepared to use whatever it takes to protect my family. That includes letting a couple of rounds off or taking things to a messy level- I figure that is the risk one assumes if he is going to enter my property uninvited.

You did the right thing Gordo - don't think i would have been as mature

 

[Colin]

yeah I agree with Jessb, That was the mature way, I would yell out to all the street "help,help" so they are aware of them being in the neighbor hood. Also tell them you have already called the cops before going out to them. Put the gun away or you would be the one locked up

all I can add gordo is after the "help help" yell out "thats my purse" :lol:

 

[Rickdejong]

would a round in the foot of a person who is intending to do harm to you lea\/e you in court, or could it go off on personel defense

 

[waruikazi]

Hey Gordo, no loss or damage to property,no harm done to anyone,,this is a good result.
Would have been nice to get the id of one of the kids.
You could have levelled the shotty at them, but then you might have gotten an unexpected visit at a later date.

Yeah that's what i figure. There was no real damage, i was just having a bit of a freak out as to what might have happened if the dog didn't notice them and i went out there and startled them while they were in the car. And they weren't just kids, i would have put them around the 17-20 mark drunk as skunks.

Had they come intot he yard i may have reconsidered putting the shotty away but for now i'm pretty well at peace with my decision. I'm just glad the dog noticed them.

 

[Noongato]

You should have talked in a redneck tone of voice and just sortof wiglled the shotty around at your side. Then tried to keep a straight face while they squirm uncomfortably with urine trickling down their leg.

Anytime ive ever had troubles i yell like a yobbo and say "Oi Darl, theyre back, get the rifle!"

 

[jessb]

would a round in the foot of a person who is intending to do harm to you lea\/e you in court, or could it go off on personel defense

Self defence is only applicable if you are defending yourself (or another person) not defending property. If the boys weren't posing an immediate or imminent threat to his personal safety (and they weren't) then shooting them would be considered assault at the very least.

 

[Jungletrans]

l know of two men in Melb that were killed by car thieves . A business man stabbed to death outside a Restarant he was at with his family when he went to get something from the car . The other just found someone breaking into his car in his driveway , stabbed to death with a screwdriver . Dont confront if you arnt prepared to go the distance . l dont think l could have resisted a warning shot or even calling out " come in here and say that " . Having spent some time in Darwin l know the sort of mentality you would have been up against , just let them drink themselves to death .

 

[jacorin]

i agree u did the rite thing as well waru..... u could even have got into truble if u had used ur knife on them eh

as for fools pionting guns.....sum are fools yes......sum are defence personnel and/or police rb...so i take exception to that comment....being a returned serviceman myself and those that went before and after me

 

[carpetmuncher]

Usually though it is just a junkie or two looking for a car stereo

they still steal car stereos? i thought that went out in the nineties. who could they sell them to?

 

[Mighty_Moose]

There was this guy snooping round my dads car one morning but luckily my relo still in her pjs went out to investigate... That sure as hell was enough to scare him off haha

 

[Weezer]

they still steal car stereos? i thought that went out in the nineties. who could they sell them to?

Other junkies.
Rather self sufficient aren't they .

 

[waruikazi]

Self defence is only applicable if you are defending yourself (or another person) not defending property. If the boys weren't posing an immediate or imminent threat to his personal safety (and they weren't) then shooting them would be considered assault at the very least.

AND the law seems to have the wonderful habit of looking after the bad guys and those who you'd think are in the right somehow get the book thrown at them.

 

[webcol]

Good decision. Imagine i living with yourself knowing youve killed someone.

 

[moosenoose]

Next time though, you're going to have that shotty loaded with salt shot aren't you? :lol: $50 says they'd crap themselves!....literally! :lol:

I think the best case scenario happened for you and those stupid kids. They probably don't realize how bad it could have gone for them.

 

[jessb]

AND the law seems to have the wonderful habit of looking after the bad guys and those who you'd think are in the right somehow get the book thrown at them.

At the same time, it prevents the appalling vigilantism that occurs in the US where homeowners are happy to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner (literally) for cases of mistaken identity, or extreme overreaction as well as genuine cases of protecting one's family. It also has the potential to cast a lot more doubt over domestic firearm homicides ("I thought my ex wife and her new boyfriend were breaking into my house so I shot them, Your Honour")

If we could guarantee that everyone "protecting their home" with a firearm was 100% sober, well trained, acting with solid knowledge of the identity and intention of the intruder and not just "having a bad day", then it might be workable, but until then, there will be needless deaths of innocent people from immature, drunken idiots, gung-ho cowboys or frustrated, violent sociopaths.

Instead, I feel a lot safer living in a society where trained professionals are the only ones who are allowed to shoot to kill - and even then only under extremely tightly controlled conditions - and that criminals are subject to a standardised justice process which ensures a public trial, fair representation and legally recognised punishment.

 

[waruikazi]

At the risk of causing a good ol' APS show down i think the laws in Australia that so far seem to be looking after the criminal is what is causing and encouraging vigilante justice. So long as theives are getting away with property crime and home invasions and the law does nothing about it you will find people taking matters for themselves.

I can give you three examples that have happened within my neighbourhood. My dad and i chased down a violent bag snatcher who punched a 14yo girl in the face to steal her bag. We got the bag back but then he got away. Later that night he was standing across the road from our house so we phoned the police and they flat out refused to come because they couldn't find the job number of the case.

Second again my dad and i chased a home invader out of our neighbours house only for him to turn around and threaten us with a knife. I got on the phone to the police straight away while he was waving a knife at us. We had a stand off for a good 5 minutes before we got back everyhting he had taken and he started running. I chased him for about 4km (which for my runnung is about 20-25minutes worth) on the phone giving directions to the police the whole way before i lost him. The police turned up 2 hours later.

Last one, my friends house was broken into. The house was ransacked, all their teenage kids clothes were stolen along with all the valuable household goods and two motorcross bikes each worth alot more than i could ever afford. After the general broohaha with the law the police even said to them that it was unlikely they could do anything about it. A few weeks later after doing some detective work of their own they caught the two who broke into their house themselves while out riding on the stolen bikes. They apprehended them with cricket bats and iron bars and called the police. Then the police had the gall to charge them with some ridiculous charges along the lines of carrying a dangerous weapon (until they got a lawyers and the charges were dropped).

So why would anyone bother to call the police when it acheives very little? In each of these cases we did on our own what the police couldn't/wouldn't do. The vigilantes work a whole lot better than the police do.

 

[Just_Joshin]

At the same time, it prevents the appalling vigilantism that occurs in the US where homeowners are happy to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner (literally) for cases of mistaken identity, or extreme overreaction as well as genuine cases of protecting one's family. It also has the potential to cast a lot more doubt over domestic firearm homicides ("I thought my ex wife and her new boyfriend were breaking into my house so I shot them, Your Honour")

If we could guarantee that everyone "protecting their home" with a firearm was 100% sober, well trained, acting with solid knowledge of the identity and intention of the intruder and not just "having a bad day", then it might be workable, but until then, there will be needless deaths of innocent people from immature, drunken idiots, gung-ho cowboys or frustrated, violent sociopaths.

Instead, I feel a lot safer living in a society where trained professionals are the only ones who are allowed to shoot to kill - and even then only under extremely tightly controlled conditions - and that criminals are subject to a standardised justice process which ensures a public trial, fair representation and legally recognised punishment.

It's the licensing laws that need changing in America, not the right to defend oneself/property. It is the ease of obtaining a legal firearm that is ridiculous, not their self defense laws. Just like everyone, they cannot shoot someone unecessarily and get away with it. If they cannot prove "reasonable use of force" they will be charged with manslaughter/murder. If someone enters your home armed with a weapon, in the eyes of the law they intend to cause harm with it. As they say, possession is 9/10 of the law. If they then proceed to approve/attack you with the weapon, despite you telling them/asking them to leave, then you are within your rights to defend yourself. A correctly investigated homocide scene will reveal if the perp was shot while approaching, fleeing or going about the burgulary when shot.

For this reason, Waru did the right thing. Had he walked out with the weapon and threatened the them, even if they ran away instantly, he very well could have been brought up on firearms charges had they gone to the police.

Provided you can adequately justify "reasonable use of force", you will not be charged with an offence, be it assault or murder. This exact same ruling applies to armed professionals, be it police, security guards etc. Think back to the case (which occured in Australia) where the security woman shot the offender in the back after he was walking away. She was charged. Had she shot him while he was attacking her, she would not have been charged but given the fact the shot him while he was unarmed (he had dropped his weapon) and was walking away, she was rightly charged. IMO i don't blame her for shooting him, she was nearly bashed to death but she did not use "reasonable force" and technically shot a man out of revenge/anger/fear call it what you will. They bottom line was, the man did not pose a threat to her WHEN she shot and killed him.

That said....if anyone ever approached me or a member of my family with a weapon (Clenched Fists can be seen as weapons) then they better be prepared for me to defend myself with whatever i have to in order to neutralise the threat they are posing to the safety of me or my family. Providing you act in a defensive and not aggressive manner you will not have any problems. Sure knock the bloke to the ground with a few good punches but if you follow through with a few boots once he's down you may find it hard to justify, given the threat was already gone after you dropped him.

Know your legal rights, stick to them and you could adequately defend any charge brought against you. e.g Get up in court and saying "The man started verbally abusing me, swearing and yelling....i got scared so i smashed him across the head with a pool cue" just won't cut it. That's not defence.

 

[Kurto]

Get up in court and saying "The man started verbally abusing me, swearing and yelling....i got scared so i smashed him across the head with a pool cue" just won't cut it. That's not defence.

Still, it gets the message across and works a treat!