Being secure at HOME assault

[WazOz]

Hi guys, never imagined I would be here asking this kind of advice, not like my trailer etc. This time I am after advice on Security systems and what you ppl use recommend etc, can you believe it Xmas night daughter and SIL left at 9.30pm, we were settling in and at 10pm a drunk thug came smashing on our screen door, breaking the handle and getting the door open, am a Christian and tried to calm the idiot down instead he went ballistic and I have concussion to boot, needless to say and thankfully I did a lot of Karate a while back, he is now facing court system, with a very sore groin and broken nose:2tsup:. Anyway the dumb cops were miffed we wanted to press charges:oo:, too much paperwork, and treated us badly because we wouldn't let it drop:no:, this guy was drunk, guess what time the breathalysed him? 2.45a.m, plenty of time to sober up. Want an alarm system DIY not monitored, waste of time calling cops, all over by the time anyone got here, we need to be able to live in safety. House has so many blind spots, CCTV? and siren, something that when we hit the sack if anyone prowls around the house we will know they are there. Got a great Gurad dog too, little Jack Russell, she was guarding the carpet under the bed when it all happened.Any advice will be appreciated if anyone has any that is, cheers and all the best for 2009

[Gra]

Sorry to hear the news, the cheapest thing I can suggest is get a bigger dog. Large growling dog scares even the biggest idiot

[masoth]

I once planned on turning my home into "Fort Knox" and researched up-market, state of the art security systems available in my area. Not only the installation costs but the ongoing fees caused a change of mind. I have installed a flood light turned on by movement sensors, but this too is something of a nuisance on windy nights as the garden vegetation movement keeps activating the swiitch. Much the same results are achieved with movement sensor driven video cameras.
Locks and other security devices deter only the honest persons and the criminals tend to think they will get away with whatever they do.
You operating an alarm will attract neighbours but once a false activation occurs the locals will tend to ignore these. How many times have you reacted to a neighbours smoke alarm - I haven't.
I agree with the suggestion of an unfriendly large, well trained, dog faithful to you only.
Not a perfect answer but at least you will feel more secure.

soth

[Batpig]

Dear Waz,

It might not be such a bad thing that they took their time breathalyzing him, because a high reading might have allowed his Free Legal-Aid Piece-of-Garbage Solicitor to plead some mongrel defence for him along the lines of "temporarily not in full control of his faculties due to alcohol consumption" and "he just wanted to make friends in the true Christmas spirit with whoever was inside the house, your Honour." The lower the reading, the less his plausible recourse to such fabrications...

'Twas a good thing that you've insisted on pressing charges, otherwise the Maggot might have a better leg to stand on in turning around and pressing them on you for "assault occasioning bodily harm". You've got nothing to worry about now, but it will still be interesting to see if the Department of Public Prosecutions goes through with it. Fingers crossed for you...

Can't offer much in the way of advice, except to go to the Jaycar website (www.jaycar.com.au (http://www.jaycar.com.au)) for alarm and surveillance gear, and replace the damaged Screen Door with a fully-welded aluminium unit so that the next R'shole wont be able to kick the lock off.

Best Wishes,
Batpig.

[Toolin Around]

Got a great Gurad dog too, little Jack Russell, she was guarding the carpet under the bed when it all happened.

Sorry to here you had a monkey visit you. But that last line was the funniest thing I've heard ina long time. This the sort aussie humour that I have missed on this board.

Security systems will work for those that are trying to break in but not for monkeys like the one you described... Definitely a large german sheppard will go a long way to deter monkeys but they also come at a cost to you in that you are restricted to where you can live. How long you can go away on trips. And the dogs needs to be treated right also in that you have to take it for walks religiously... If I thought I was at a point where I would be sinking deep roots I would get at least one - I think they're the best.

I have a 6 battery mag light with a lanyard for my wrist. So if I'm questioned, all I say is I was using to see where I was going when this idiot attacked me.... It's a good one in that even in day light if you shine it in someones eyes it will blind them enough to give you a good advantage. I hold it so it rests on my shoulder with my arm chocked for a dowward chopping action. I open up a rec center very early in the morning when it's still dark and often take it with me cause we have vandals all the time. If I encounter anyone the first thing I do is take away their night vision by shining it in their eyes. You have to be very agressive yourself in that don't take the beam away from their eyes for any reason otherwise you loose the advantage nomatter how much they protest. If they continue to act like monkeys the next step is to step into it and bring the butt of the flash light down as hard as I can on their right shoulder shattering the collar bone and ultimately collapsing their shoulder. Hopefully if it's hard enough I'll tear most of the ligaments off the shoulder blade also. I don't know if you've ever had a dislocated shoulder but that usually stops anyone in their tracks so a shatterd shoulder should pretty much do the same thing even if they're .

Have had to shine it in a few eyes but haven't had to go to plan B yet. I think the fact that the monkeys can't see at all and have no idea what's coming next makes them think twice about making anything of it. They usually back off with hands out hoping not to get hit. The one thing that deters even a monkey is the realization that this is going to cost them dearly. For some reason it's the only thing they understand.

I've made my wife learn it also just in case something like what's happened to you happens to her. Only diff is I've told her to use two hands and aim straight for the middle of the head.

No mercy for these monkeys.

[dazzler]

Hi Waz

You did good!. Well Done!

I wouldnt let something like this turn your house into a security zone. Put some sensor lights up so the place is lit up if someone comes near and maybe some window locks. Dont forget you are far far far more likely to be injured or killed by someone you know so locks wont save you sadly. :(

Sounds like this clown was drunk and aggro and you were just randomly unlucky. Im surprised the cops breath tested him (unless he was driving) as it gives him the defence of intoxication - that is he was too intoxicated to know what he was doing in which case he cant form intent so he cant be found guilty of the assault. This may have been the reason they didnt want to charge him, if he was so intoxicated that he didnt know what he was doing - or they could just have been lazy slobs :rolleyes:.

Dont forget you can claim damages for repairs. Just get 3 quotes and send them to him with an letter stating you will proceed through the small claims court if he doesnt pay. The cops should also seek damages which should be in the statement of facts they tendered to the court, if not check with them. What will happen is stupid will turn up to court, plead guilty hopefully, magistrate will fine him and then award damages.

Good luck!

[AlexS]

....he is now facing court system, with a very sore groin and broken nose:2tsup:.

:brava :brava :brava :brava :brava

[WazOz]

many thanks ppl for the responses, have got sensor lights coming, just put one in the carport double spotlight that plugs into the existing light socket. Have had large dogs before (sons) Blue Heelers male and female, were both poisoned a cpl of yrs ago, so they could try and grab the pups, guess they didn't want to pay for them:((.
The monkey, thought about it for a while, and monkey describes him well, as I am sure he is desended from a Gorilla, not that I believe in Evolution but this guy, well maybe, he was driving, cope just too damned lazy, if it happens again, won't open the door, let him/them come in, and greet them most kindly with extreme prejudice, son also knows how to defend himself. Why I was thinking of an alrm is, these brain dead morons get most upset when someone actually hurts their pride by defending themselves, what right did I have in hurting the poor diddums:doh:, anyway we are waiting for reprisals:no:, hear about it all the time, you beat a bad guy and they come back with reinforcements, if that does happen, then at least I am prepared, sad at how it affects your faith in humanity, least of all the cops. Will consider a dog, someting like Cujo or the Hound from the Baskervilles, alas large doings everywhere, holes, sheesh, just get my Sister In Law here she would scare the most hardened crim.
Once again thanks
Waz

[Poppa]

Good on you Waz, glad to hear you got the best of it, and I hope they convict him and teach him a lesson. You've already taken a huge step in being able to defend yourself and your property by being capable of defending yourself. The big torch idea is a good one too... Lots of sensor lights and a good strong security door and bars on the windows. In a built up city area these precautions are essential in my opinion...

[WazOz]

Thanks Poppa, yes the Torch will be a purchase ASAP, forgot to acknowledge that response. :no:. Have no delusions of our system, he will get a warning, small fine, and free to get drunk and do it again to someone else, like an old cpl that can't look after themselves, which will be good for his self esteem. How many times do we read where someone gets off lightly because they are social misfits, and are victims of society and we should look after them, after all we forced these types to become drunks and violent, this guy looked like a Biker, big, beard and angry, hang on thats my sister inlaw again, guess by now you know I don't like my SIL:oo:.
Cheers
Waz

[Ashore]

Glad you had a good end with only minimal damage to yourself. :2tsup:
With the torch get some clips with it and keep adjacent to the door but not right at the door, front and rear, if you use a bat its a weapon but a torch ? and lie through your teeth when the cops come cause the bad guys will , :cool:

[bsrlee]

1: Screen Door - get a 'good' one with multiple locking points - they usually have 3 moving tongues on the opening side & 3 fixed on the hinge side that lock into the frame top, middle & bottom - this stops them jemmying out the top or bottom corner. You should also get a metal door frame/surround installed that bolts/screws to the building frame/brickwork. A 'good' security or locksmith should be able to supply & fit these.

2: Maglite or similar. You may find a 'C' cell torch easier to hang onto than a 'D' cell torch, unless you have enormous hands. No good giving the tosser something to clout you with or having it fly off into the dark. When you get it, carefully wrap the batteries into a long cylinder with paper & stickytape so that the assembly will -just- slide into the torch.

Firstly, it makes the torch quieter when carried, and secondly if you clout 'something' the torch won't bend in the middle into a banana shape - yes they do that when you clout someone hard, as several security guards in Sydney have found out over the years. In one case you could count every battery cell by the dents in the case, but the target just ran off without apparent ill effect after being hit over the head. And if fronting the local magistrate after creaming someone you can always point out the pristine condition of the torch - 'I just fended him off, I didn't hit him hard sir' - just ask the cops to produce some damaged torches & aluminium batons as 'exhibits'.

Don't take a head shot; knees, elbows, wrist and lower arm, shins are the preferred areas, hurt heaps & you can generally walk faster than they can hobble after a knee shot.

[masoth]

"Don't take a head shot; knees, elbows, wrist and lower arm, shins are the preferred areas, hurt heaps & you can generally walk faster than they can hobble after a knee shot."

Good advice, and add to the list the shoulder. Collar bones are relatively brittle.

soth

[tea lady]

Dog suggestion. A ducshund. Not a miniature, a full size one. Short but sounds big.:cool:

[Lignin]

If you've got the room, GEESE.They make a hell of a row, and I've yet to meet a timid one.They'll terrorise the Jack Russell ,and,
You could also sool them onto your S-I-L!!!:U:U:U

[Ed Reiss]

WazOz....don't know what the laws are in Australia, but my "alarm system" in Kentucky was made by Smith & Wesson.

[masoth]

Ed, the laws are such in Australia that if a house-breaker comes to harm during his illegal entry to your property he can sue you (through insurance) for compensaion.:?

soth

[Toolin Around]

1: Screen Door - get a 'good' one with multiple locking points - they usually have 3 moving tongues on the opening side & 3 fixed on the hinge side that lock into the frame top, middle & bottom - this stops them jemmying out the top or bottom corner. You should also get a metal door frame/surround installed that bolts/screws to the building frame/brickwork. A 'good' security or locksmith should be able to supply & fit these.

2: Maglite or similar. You may find a 'C' cell torch easier to hang onto than a 'D' cell torch, unless you have enormous hands. No good giving the tosser something to clout you with or having it fly off into the dark. When you get it, carefully wrap the batteries into a long cylinder with paper & stickytape so that the assembly will -just- slide into the torch.

Firstly, it makes the torch quieter when carried, and secondly if you clout 'something' the torch won't bend in the middle into a banana shape - yes they do that when you clout someone hard, as several security guards in Sydney have found out over the years. In one case you could count every battery cell by the dents in the case, but the target just ran off without apparent ill effect after being hit over the head. And if fronting the local magistrate after creaming someone you can always point out the pristine condition of the torch - 'I just fended him off, I didn't hit him hard sir' - just ask the cops to produce some damaged torches & aluminium batons as 'exhibits'.

Don't take a head shot; knees, elbows, wrist and lower arm, shins are the preferred areas, hurt heaps & you can generally walk faster than they can hobble after a knee shot.

I have a wrist strap on mine so if I loose my grip on it it'll only go no mone than 4 inches from me

[artme]

Sorry to hear of your troubles WazOz.

brings back memories of friends who had moved into a new house that had yet to have the back fence erected. Broken into once by a junkie who came back several nights later when the lady was at home with just the two children, one a toddler, one a baby.
Threatened her through the close doors with violence and obsenities. Police were called.
"Is he in side the house madam?"
"No. But he is threatening us with a shovel"
"Soory madam but we can do nothing until he actually enters the house."

:?:?:?:oo::oo::oo:

[AlexS]

Sorry to hear of your troubles WazOz.

brings back memories of friends who had moved into a new house that had yet to have the back fence erected. Broken into once by a junkie who came back several nights later when the lady was at home with just the two children, one a toddler, one a baby.
Threatened her through the close doors with violence and obsenities. Police were called.
"Is he in side the house madam?"
"No. But he is threatening us with a shovel"
"Soory madam but we can do nothing until he actually enters the house."

:?:?:?:oo::oo::oo:
The response to this is "If you're not here in 2 minutes and he is, I will shoot him." See how quick they get there then.

[Gingermick]

Shepards are good but they're not the biggest dog, my German Shepard Malamute X had his guard dog role taken over by a Bull Mastiff X pup cause he was hopeless. (training issue) Now the pup is one y.o. and bigger than the top dog.

[WazOz]

Great advice ppl, got the Torch, nice and heavy:2tsup:, trying to work out how to put barbed wire or broken glass on the end:o.
Sticking the batteries together is a good one thanks. Know all the spots to strike with minimal damage and heaps of pain:D, won't be so kind if it happens again, thought I had it under control, he had settled down then attacked like a coward when I was hands down and wife was telling him to clear off, thought it was over, won't happen again. Lucky to be alive or not in hospital same for the missus.
In Oz it's against the law to even point and unloaded weapon at an intruder, even for a woman alone with girls in the house, has happened and she got charged:no:.
Hmm live near the coast, been a lot of Sharks around here lately, next time, will take the guy/s for a small trip to the Dawesville Cut, been a few sightings of Great Whites:2tsup:. Sad how the Laws protect the crims, they can steal your car smash your property, and only get a minor infraction, if the cops even catch them. Won't be long and vigilatism will take back the safety of our homes and suburbs, enough is enough, Law won't help then the Lord will help those that help themselves. Would sooner have an assault charge than face the chance of my wife or son (29) getting hurt, let alone my Jack Russel:~. Will be strengthening the door surrounds (double doors) with metal, more good advice, Smith and Wesson don't live here unfortunately, you guys in the States, fight like hell to retain the right to bear arms.
Thanks one and all for support and ideas, all has helped. Waz

[Ed Reiss]

Ed, the laws are such in Australia that if a house-breaker comes to harm during his illegal entry to your property he can sue you (through insurance) for compensaion.:?

soth
That's sad that you could get jacked up for defending your own home!:doh:

This nut job was skulking around our home in Kentucky off and on for a couple of weeks. Got in touch with a sherriff deputy down at Mt Vernon ( the county seat) and told him what was goin' on. Abe told me that if I do by chance shoot him, to be sure to drag his ass inside before calling the sherriff department.....that way there would be no repercussions! Yep, I loved living in Rockcastle County, Kentucky.:U

[Gingermick]

cool ed , Waz he's a flamin coward, get a security camera as well, if he comes back with other cowards, you'll have proof (cause he wont be able to get in, he may try and hurt your car/house etc)

[jimbur]

Know someone who set up their place like Fort Knox - cameras, alarms the lot.
They were visited by the cops who thought anyone with that much security must be dealing in drugs.

[Toolin Around]

i could be wrong but I think anyone comitting a crime can't sue cause something happened to them while committing it.

[dazzler]

Ed, the laws are such in Australia that if a house-breaker comes to harm during his illegal entry to your property he can sue you (through insurance) for compensaion.:?

soth

Thats not quite correct. They can only sue you if you have done something that would endanger a normal person. Say a great hole in the backyard, razors on the fence, electric wires or something. I think it then becomes a case of negligence, the fact they were there illegally is second to the danger.

I think there was a case once where they tripped on something (garden hose?) and sued but it may be an urban myth. If they are injured on your front yard then you may be open to sueing as there is tacit consent to enter the front yard, unless of course its fenced and you have a sign up.

[Harry72]

Should have just kicked his ass and then dumped him down the road... then call the cops.

[bsrlee]

1: A 'shoulder shot' with something hard can kill in a couple of ways - firstly it can break the collar bone & the ends of the break can cut the sub-clavian artery - almost impossible to stop the internal bleeding without operating. Or the shot can ricochet off the collar bone into the cervical vertebrae (para/quad/dead) or lower skull & send bone splinters into the grey matter. Which is why they now tell plods NOT to take shoulder shots.

2: Queensland Police are in another time/space continuum. I used to work on the Police 000 in NSW, I have had Telstra operators begging me to take Queensland calls because the Queensland Police wouldn't answer the phone. I think there was a stink about that, so they now have an answering machine - leave your number & they will get back to you - if you are still alive to answer the phone it probably wasn't important.

I should stop now before I get all nasty about Police administration/management in general.

[Toolin Around]

An excerpt from my law text book:

Criminal Activity
One aspect of negligence law that has attracted widespread media attention and subsequent public criticism is the situation where a person is injured while committing a crime and then sues the victim of the crime for negligence. In response, the civil liability reforms in most jurisdictions provide that no duty of care arises in respect of conduct engaged in self defence against unlawful activities. Furthermore, criminals are unable to recover damages for personal injury suffered during the commission of a serious offence.

[Toolin Around]

1: A 'shoulder shot' with something hard can kill in a couple of ways - firstly it can break the collar bone & the ends of the break can cut the sub-clavian artery - almost impossible to stop the internal bleeding without operating. Or the shot can ricochet off the collar bone into the cervical vertebrae (para/quad/dead) or lower skull & send bone splinters into the grey matter. Which is why they now tell plods NOT to take shoulder shots.

2: Queensland Police are in another time/space continuum. I used to work on the Police 000 in NSW, I have had Telstra operators begging me to take Queensland calls because the Queensland Police wouldn't answer the phone. I think there was a stink about that, so they now have an answering machine - leave your number & they will get back to you - if you are still alive to answer the phone it probably wasn't important.

I should stop now before I get all nasty about Police administration/management in general.

I can appreciate what your saying but...


When I first got here my wife and I were walking one night in what is NOT a bad area of Mooloolaba. We were suddenly surrounded by three guys attempting to do what I don't know as we simultaneously realized we were in trouble and pushed through them and very quickly went into a restaurant that was close by and they quickly took off. If I were on my own I wouldn't have been so worried but as it seems to be a problem with many in this country the monkeys often aren't satisfied with simply taking the money and leaving peacefully. To have my wife terrorized is unforgivable. I thought long and hard about what took place and decided in my heart and resolved in my mind that I would never back down if my wife is with me. If in a situation with a monkey again where my wife is present I strongly doubt I will have any concern for the welfare of the prick I swing at.

By the way monkey isn't used by me as a racist term. It's a term to describe those that havent' the genetics and or inteligence to walk up right - evolutionary dead ends. I meet far more white people that would fall into that catagory than anyone else.

[dazzler]

An excerpt from my law text book:

Criminal Activity
One aspect of negligence law that has attracted widespread media attention and subsequent public criticism is the situation where a person is injured while committing a crime and then sues the victim of the crime for negligence. In response, the civil liability reforms in most jurisdictions provide that no duty of care arises in respect of conduct engaged in self defence against unlawful activities. Furthermore, criminals are unable to recover damages for personal injury suffered during the commission of a serious offence.

There must be more to it than that excert surely....... If a trespasser enters my property I cant swing a piece of pipe without care and take a chunk of skull out can I??

Isnt "reasonableness" still in thier somewhere?

[Toolin Around]

There must be more to it than that excert surely....... If a trespasser enters my property I cant swing a piece of pipe without care and take a chunk of skull out can I??

Isnt "reasonableness" still in thier somewhere?

That was the full in context quote out of the text book.

[dazzler]

Well the author needs to go back to law school IMO. You can only use sufficient force as is necessary to remove a threat and I am sure that is at common law.

[dj_pnevans]

That is about right with the cop's. It happened to friends for my wife's last Christmas not far from where you live, it went to the courts and only finished Christmas last year. Have you had any luck with a system?
David

[AlexS]

Well the author needs to go back to law school IMO. You can only use sufficient force as is necessary to remove a threat and I am sure that is at common law.
That is my understanding too. You may only use sufficient force to remove the threat. If you were outnumbered or threatened with a weapon, you probably wouldn't get into too much trouble for any damage you did protecting yourself, but once the threat as been removed (or removed itself) you can't continue to use force or apply punishment.

[Toolin Around]

You need to read what was written more closely. That statement is refering to negligence not criminal law. If you knock a monkeys head off with a baseball bat as they try to climb through your window they can't sue you but the cops can still charge you if they deem it was excessive force. So don't use a baseball bat use something that's a lot more innocuous.

So why is it anyways... I have never seen a baseball diamond in this country or heard of anyone that knows how to play let alone actually does but the weapn of choice is always a baseball bat! - cricket bats too gay (not that there's anything wrong with being gay...) for tough guys... Tip for all those sporting good stores that sell bats. If a knuckle dragging monkey wants to buy one - don't sell it to them unless it's made of flimsy plastic :doh:.

Also not sure about "sufficient force" but the term in negligence is "what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances" which leaves it wide open to interpretation.

[dazzler]

Hi toolin

There seems to be two different things going on in the text. One is talking about negligence, which to my mind is where there are acts or omissions PRIOR to the incident taking place, such as excavations in the backyard, leaving tripping hazards etc and then the second part referring to no duty of care in respect of conduct engaged in self defence, very much acts conducted at the TIME of the incident.

Are they saying that if I trespass on someones property(a criminal act), AND there is "no duty of care" required, that they can swing the mythical steel pipe without care, and if they do kill me, that they cannot be sued?

BUT it is taken that they can be charged criminally?

cheers

[Cruzi]

Reasonable force laws are at issue here, attack with any kind of weapon including a torch against an unarmed assailent will be frowned upon quite heavily under the law.
If you have martial arts training , you are considered a weapon as well.
Any injury received is, under NSW Public Liability Law, allowed to be actioned upon regardless if they were committing a criminal offence at the time or not, there is bill proposals to change this but it is the current law.

You should remember the publican who restrained the 19 yr old who had broken into his pub, he ended up being charged and the 19yr old receiving compensation.

If your dog attacks anyone including tresspassers you will be in trouble as well.

In the US you can do what you like to anyone who enters your home, but keep in mind the US is murder central in the western world, their murder rate is about (Edit) 3 times higher per capita than Australia.
In Australia any force you meet an assialent with will be examined very carefully.

Back when we did pay guard and carried loaded weapons, we were told to co-operate with any would be robbers and weapons were only to be used to save a life, pointedly being told that a pointed weapon is not in itself a threat to life.

[Toolin Around]

Hi toolin

There seems to be two different things going on in the text. One is talking about negligence, which to my mind is where there are acts or omissions PRIOR to the incident taking place, such as excavations in the backyard, leaving tripping hazards etc and then the second part referring to no duty of care in respect of conduct engaged in self defence, very much acts conducted at the TIME of the incident.

Are they saying that if I trespass on someones property(a criminal act), AND there is "no duty of care" required, that they can swing the mythical steel pipe without care, and if they do kill me, that they cannot be sued?

BUT it is taken that they can be charged criminally?

cheers

I think your analogy is a bit extreme don't you think :D.

As I said before it comes down to how well a lawyer can convince the judge of "what a reasonable person would do in a similar situation".

I used to think the law was pretty rigid but the person teaching us law has been a practicing lawyer for 21 years and she says the law is by no means exacting. It's been quite eye opening as to how gray the law really is - at least negligence that is. She says she's seen many cases were it should have been open and shut but ended up with the opposite verdict to what everyone expected based on previous cases. She seemed to be hinting that it's very important to have an extremely good legal team representing you - the lawyer that builds a case for you and the lawyer that argues it in court.

[Toolin Around]

In the US you can do what you like to anyone who enters your home, but keep in mind the US is murder central in the western world, their murder rate is about (Edit) 3 times higher per capita than Australia.
In Australia any force you meet an assialent with will be examined very carefully.


Ya know it's funny how each of us view things... Most woudl say see look at those lunatic americans... To be honest those figures show Australia in a poorer light than the US. US cities are far denser populations with much higher over all populations with a higher corresponding crime rate... They also have increadibly easy access to guns... And only 3 times higher murder rate than here. I can only wonder what the murder rate would be here if monkeys had free access to guns.

[dazzler]

Hi Toolin,

extreme yes, possible yes.

dont forget the text states;

"the civil liability reforms in most jurisdictions provide that no duty of care arises in respect of conduct engaged in self defence against unlawful activities"

"No duty of care"....not limited, not open to discussion, but "No" duty of care......."NO" is like "SHALL" or "MUST", basically beyond debate.

The law can definately be grey, I lost a fail to produce licence once because the magistrate agreed with the arguement that forgetting to carry it is reasonable - I often wondered why speeding isnt included then as you might "forget" the speed limit. :p

So I think I will stick with my original thoughts......back to law school for the auther :)

[Toolin Around]

Well let me see do I think three people that are highly educated and specialized in their particular fields of law don't have a clue about what they are talking about or do I believe an armchair expert (not meant as an insult as we all aspire to be armchair experts in this thread)... No offence buy my money is on the trio of experts.

[dazzler]

Well let me see do I think three people that are highly educated and specialized in their particular fields of law don't have a clue about what they are talking about or do I believe an armchair expert (not meant as an insult as we all aspire to be armchair experts in this thread)... No offence buy my money is on the trio of experts.

Armchair expert..........where do you get that from? :?

Perhaps the text needs to be explained a little further so I can put me pipe away :D as the way it appears in this thread is that, civilly at least, you have no duty of care when defending yourself against serious criminal activity.

Going off the text as quoted, I am sitting at home like wazoz is, stupid breaks down the door and goes ballistic. Perhaps I am about to be the victim of a serious assault. Unlike Wazoz I show no duty of care, run to the drawer and grab a butchers knife and drive it into him. Stupid falls down dead. What if I swing my steel pipe with gay abandon and if it hits him it hits him. And when it does he dies of a fractured skull?

Are they suggesting that after I am charged and convicted of manslaughter that the family of the deceased cannot claim against me?

Its the "no duty of care" bit that is really out there and goes against Common Law which would take precedence I would have thought.

Perhaps Im wrong.

[Toolin Around]

The easiest way to prove or disprove it is to find a relevant case that's gone before the courts in australia. And let us know when you find it.

We've all heard all the rumours of such phantom cases of monkey sues victim... but I've never found one from a credible source. Doesn't mean they don't happen but I'm a little suspect of their validity.

[dazzler]

Deal, and in the meantime I am sure you will present us with a case where a court has denied compensation to a criminal who has been injured where the assailant showed "No duty of care".

cheers :)

[Pheonix]

Free access to guns?
Dont you think they haven't already got that?:oo:

[Blocklayer]

They love criminals here

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22897644-661,00.html

Welcome to the new Australia

You get exactly what you vote for

Sit down, shut up and do as your told!

[Cruzi]

Ya know it's funny how each of us view things... Most woudl say see look at those lunatic americans... To be honest those figures show Australia in a poorer light than the US. US cities are far denser populations with much higher over all populations with a higher corresponding crime rate... They also have increadibly easy access to guns... And only 3 times higher murder rate than here. I can only wonder what the murder rate would be here if monkeys had free access to guns.

Remember the rate was per capita, a better comparison than whole numbers, were there is under 300 a year in Australia compared to around 25,000 a year in the US. Washington alone has more murders than Australia and a population of around 6 million.


Also the rate quoted was country wide, a recent report by the FBI found that crime rates were 2 times higher in the cities than rural areas per capita. For example Washington is more than 10x the US national rate. That makes Washington a staggering 30 times more likely than in Australia.......

Another scary statistic from the same search also showed just over 42% of murders go unsolved in the US compared to less than 10% in Australia.

[watson]

And Americans can't shoot straight.........all those movies......50 bullets per six-gun.

Oh Well!

[Cruzi]

And Americans can't shoot straight.........all those movies......50 bullets per six-gun.

Oh Well!

There was a seige in the US can't remember when, late 1800's IIRC where well over 33,000 rounds were fired and no-one got hit.:doh:

[watson]

I'll bet the barn was buggered though.

Tee Hee.

[Toolin Around]

Deal, and in the meantime I am sure you will present us with a case where a court has denied compensation to a criminal who has been injured where the assailant showed "No duty of care".

cheers :)

Nope! I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything just posting something for food for thought. I'm satisfied that the authors are in a far better position to know what they're talking about then anyone here.

[Toolin Around]

Remember the rate was per capita, a better comparison than whole numbers, were there is under 300 a year in Australia compared to around 25,000 a year in the US. Washington alone has more murders than Australia and a population of around 6 million.


Also the rate quoted was country wide, a recent report by the FBI found that crime rates were 2 times higher in the cities than rural areas per capita. For example Washington is more than 10x the US national rate. That makes Washington a staggering 30 times more likely than in Australia.......

Another scary statistic from the same search also showed just over 42% of murders go unsolved in the US compared to less than 10% in Australia.


Where I was going with what I said is that here the killing is very up close and personal where someone is beat to death with an object and or hands and feet. Killing is hideous no matter what but to beat someone to death is far more deep and disturbing than a similar act with a gun. I would say it takes far more depravity of mind to kill someone with your own hands than to stand back and shoot someone.

When you consider that, one can only be thankful that guns aren't readily available here or I wouldn't be surprised that australia would be vying for the top spot. After all aussies don't like being second in anything :wink:

[Cruzi]

When you consider that, one can only be thankful that guns aren't readily available here or I wouldn't be surprised that australia would be vying for the top spot. After all aussies don't like being second in anything :wink:

This one thing even the Kiwis beat us in, but unfortunately we are pretty high in comparison to the UK, Japan and quite a few other countries.

When we had guns the rate was the same, in fact the only thing that changed was the method, guns down, stabbings up and 23% are with no weapon at all.

[Vernonv]

Where I was going with what I said is that here the killing is very up close and personal where someone is beat to death with an object and or hands and feet. Killing is hideous no matter what but to beat someone to death is far more deep and disturbing than a similar act with a gun. I would say it takes far more depravity of mind to kill someone with your own hands than to stand back and shoot someone.

I think on the surface what you say looks valid, but consider this - if you hit someone, do you expect/intend that to kill them? If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, do you expect/intend that to kill them?

Killing someone with your bare hands certainly would be considered brutal, but I doubt that the perpetrator's initial intention was to kill the victim - cause grievous bodily harm, maybe. I don't think you can say the same for shootings - really the intention of the perpetrator is to kill the victim.

[dazzler]

Nope! I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything just posting something for food for thought. I'm satisfied that the authors are in a far better position to know what they're talking about then anyone here.

Oh, food for thought :rolleyes: :p

[Toolin Around]

Armchair expert..........where do you get that from? :?.


Are you a highly educated expert in law do you even have a law degree... diploma... If not, you may know a bit about law and able to rattle on to people so as to make them think you're knowledgeable; but ultimately you're an arm chair expert that has no comprehensive practical and or working knowledge of the law and ultimately your advice is useless. But it doesn't stop us from having an opinion - and shouldn't. Which means everyone here would be classed as an armchair expert. I know there's the odd lawyer on the forum - ever wonder why they don't respond to this sort thread. Probably don't like being lectured by armchair experts.

[Toolin Around]

Oh, food for thought :rolleyes: :p


I put that as the heading to the quote - remember.

[KevM]

Are you a highly educated expert in law do you even have a law degree... diploma... If not, you may know a bit about law and able to rattle on to people so as to make them think you're knowledgeable; but ultimately you're an arm chair expert that has no comprehensive practical and or working knowledge of the law and ultimately your advice is useless.

Hey Dazzler,
Are you going to give Toolin some insight into your background? :cop:

[Toolin Around]

Hey Dazzler,
Are you going to give Toolin some insight into your background? :cop:

So if he's a copper or was then he can state what law he's an expert in and what his credentials are. Some how I doubt negligence is part of the law enforcement he's done which is what here he's passing himself off as being more learned than the authors the the quote.

[AlexS]

I know there's the odd lawyer on the forum

Is there any other kind?:D

Sorry to all the lawyers, but I couldn't resist a gratuitous shot.

[dazzler]

Are you a highly educated expert in law do you even have a law degree... diploma... If not, you may know a bit about law and able to rattle on to people so as to make them think you're knowledgeable; but ultimately you're an arm chair expert that has no comprehensive practical and or working knowledge of the law and ultimately your advice is useless. But it doesn't stop us from having an opinion - and shouldn't. Which means everyone here would be classed as an armchair expert. I know there's the odd lawyer on the forum - ever wonder why they don't respond to this sort thread. Probably don't like being lectured by armchair experts.

Diploma in Investigations
Diploma in Risk Management
Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety
19 years practical experience in law enforcement in state, commonwealth and international jurisdictions with 6 years of those adjudicating on matters to be referred to court.

I have also completed research and presented opinion and training with respect to application of Commonwealth Law in State Jurisdictions.

No I am no expert. I have obviously struggled with your post because it goes against what I have experienced. Legislation always operates under the assumption that it will be interpreted against pre-existing common law. And in the case we are discussing I cant see how ones duty of care can be legislated away against common law.

Where exactly have I passed myself off as being more learned than the authors of the quote? What I have done is argue against what they have said. Simple. I may do it in a smart a$$ way but that is my style. Like it or not.

But what I have learnt is that the law is about arguement, which is why we have lawyers and why we have courts. So thats what I have been doing, arguing a point of law. At no time have I played you personally, only the statement that you or your teachers have made. If my arguement is flawed then show me where and I will be more than happy to give kudos where its due.

But seriously, if you have such difficulty with my arguements, is law really for you?

I apologise if I have upset you in any way. :)

cheers

[Toolin Around]

Diploma in Investigations
Diploma in Risk Management
Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety
19 years practical experience in law enforcement in state, commonwealth and international jurisdictions with 6 years of those adjudicating on matters to be referred to court.

I have also completed research and presented opinion and training with respect to application of Commonwealth Law in State Jurisdictions.

No I am no expert. I have obviously struggled with your post because it goes against what I have experienced. Legislation always operates under the assumption that it will be interpreted against pre-existing common law. And in the case we are discussing I cant see how ones duty of care can be legislated away against common law.

Where exactly have I passed myself off as being more learned than the authors of the quote? What I have done is argue against what they have said. Simple. I may do it in a smart a$$ way but that is my style. Like it or not.

Didn't you say the authors needed to go back to school - somewhat arrogant don't you think especially if as you say you're no expert.

But what I have learnt is that the law is about arguement, which is why we have lawyers and why we have courts. So thats what I have been doing, arguing a point of law. At no time have I played you personally, only the statement that you or your teachers have made. If my arguement is flawed then show me where and I will be more than happy to give kudos where its due.

I don't know why you were trying to "argue" with me over it though... What is it going to prove? You say one thing I say another. None of which means sh it, especially when it comes to the civil liabilities act. About as futile as pushing water up hill with a rake don't you think. My intension was to bring to the forum so as to add information for people to digest how ever they saw fit - nothing more.

And yes you were trying to "play" me, as you tried to draw me in to an argument you most likely thought you would dominate... When did you plan to let me know your background? It's an age old trick on this board that I have seen time and time again.

But seriously, if you have such difficulty with my arguements, is law really for you?

Difficulty with what you said - nope. I found it laughable but not difficult when you said the authors needs to go back to school. As for the rest of it I knew what you were up to so played it safe. Is the law for me!?!? I'm only taking the course as it's part of my degree - I certainly wouldn't to be a lawyer for any reason.

You may have misunderstood and thought I was ticked off because my style of writing is very inanimated and to the point - boring in other words... If I'm pis sed off I'll tell ya. I think one thing I am on this forum is up front with what I think - maybe to a fault.

I apologise if I have upset you in any way. :)

No need to mate

cheers

So now that we have that off our chests... Did you find any cases to support your position. I suspect you are having trouble finding any.

[watson]

Topic...Topic ....Topic!

Back to it please.

[Gingermick]

So do I have a duty of care to an intruder who is trying to injure me?
"He was in my shed and I confronted him then he attacked and got hit in the head with a stilson for his trouble"
(just in case thread wasn't grey enough :D)

[dazzler]

So do I have a duty of care to an intruder who is trying to injure me?
[COLOR="Black"]"He was in my shed and I confronted him then he attacked and got hit in the head with a stilson for his trouble"
(just in case thread wasn't grey enough :D)

Hi Mick

This may answer your question; From Sydney Morning Herald dated 29/8/02

[COLOR="Blue"]Teen wins $50,000 damages after breaking into home

August 29 2002

A teenager who broke into the home of a Sydney nightclub licensee was today awarded nearly $50,000 damages after being attacked, sparking criticism that the law was standing behind the intruder instead of the householder.

Joshua Fox climbed onto the roof of the Peakhurst Inn after he had been denied access to the downstairs nightclub on April 23, 1999.

He entered the on-site residence of the hotel licensee, Honeheke Gerald Newton, who lived there with his wife and two children.

When Newton found the then 16-year-old intruder he struck him repeatedly with a baton-like object.

Mr Fox, now 19, received injuries to his head and face, requiring surgery.

The NSW District Court today awarded Mr Fox $49,049 in damages.

His mother Michelle Lee Kilby, who sued for nervous shock after seeing her son's injuries on the night, also received $18,578 in damages.

Mrs Kilby claimed she suffered from sweating, insomnia, episodes of crying and nightmares after seeing her son's injuries.

"I am persuaded that Mrs Kilby did sustain nervous shock in that as a direct consequence of observing her son's condition she experienced an abnormal recognised psychiatric condition," Judge John McGuire said in his decision.

Judge McGuire found while Mr Fox should not have entered Mr Newton's property, the level of violence used against him was unnecessary.

After entering the hotel's residence, Mr Fox hid in the laundry to avoid detection but was quickly found and attacked by Mr Newton.

"The plaintiff was intoxicated, argumentative and so on and that he had created a situation in which the use of force to expel him was a natural and lawful consequence of his own misbehaviour," Judge McGuire said.

"However, the degree of force used was in the end unlawful and not the necessary consequence of his own condition and behaviour."

Judge McGuire found Mr Newton was performing his duty as Peakhurst Inn licensee when he attacked Mr Fox and therefore the pub was liable for his actions.

"Clearly he would have been expected to prevent unauthorised persons from intruding onto the premises for whatever purpose, be it to steal from the roof area, to seek illegal entry into licensed premises, to vandalise those premises or to rob the hotel," Judge McGuire said. He also said he was very impressed with dazzlers valid arguments on the forums of late!

NSW Opposition justice spokesman Chris Hartcher said the judgment sent the wrong message.

"No legal system can tolerate situations where criminals are allowed to use the law for their own profit," he said.

"The legal system must stand behind the home owner, not the burglar."

It all comes down to reasonableness and basically whatever ones response is it must be proportional to the threat. Sadly the 'reasonableness test"
will be viewed in the cold light of a court room.

cheers

Hang on, this even covers something i was searching for the other day :)

[Cruzi]

"clearly he would have been expected to prevent unauthorised persons from intruding onto the premises for whatever purpose, be it to steal from the roof area, to seek illegal entry into licensed premises, to vandalise those premises or to rob the hotel," judge mcguire said. He also said he was very impressed with dazzlers valid arguments on the forums of late!


:U heh

[grovegirl]

I recently had the misfortune of also being the victim of a home invasion - my 16 year old son's 'friend' opened the door because he knew one of them, they said they needed help but they threatened to smash the windows if they didn't let them in. They came in and took alcohol and mobile phones and other valuables.

This is the third incident - the first was a stolen car from my garage, they came into the house while I was alone and sleeping and stole the keys among other things. Next my new car was 'stomped on' while parked on the street.

Luckily nobody was hurt, but all I wanted to do was move, imediately, I didn't feel safe in my home. Sadly I don't know anywhere that is truly safe anymore, and I can't afford to move to a 'better suburb' anyway, I made the decision to install Roller Shutters, while I don't particularly like the look of them and they are quite pricey. I had to come up with 25% deposit and the remainder on interest free terms for two years through certigy. All up $6,500 for 7 windows - I know I'll sleep much better when they go on in a few days.

I also put extra locks on the sheds, gates, doors etc, I also put inexpensive door sensors on the doors, sensor lights all around the property and I will probably alarm the garage and shed too when I have some more money.

The mag lite sounds like a good idea - but I don't intend to open the doors to anyone anymore.

good luck in your

[Toolin Around]

Hi Mick

This may answer your question; From Sydney Morning Herald dated 29/8/02

[COLOR=blue]Teen wins $50,000 damages after breaking into home

August 29 2002

A teenager who broke into the home of a Sydney nightclub licensee was today awarded nearly $50,000 damages after being attacked, sparking criticism that the law was standing behind the intruder instead of the householder.

Joshua Fox climbed onto the roof of the Peakhurst Inn after he had been denied access to the downstairs nightclub on April 23, 1999.

He entered the on-site residence of the hotel licensee, Honeheke Gerald Newton, who lived there with his wife and two children.

When Newton found the then 16-year-old intruder he struck him repeatedly with a baton-like object.

Mr Fox, now 19, received injuries to his head and face, requiring surgery.

The NSW District Court today awarded Mr Fox $49,049 in damages.

His mother Michelle Lee Kilby, who sued for nervous shock after seeing her son's injuries on the night, also received $18,578 in damages.

Mrs Kilby claimed she suffered from sweating, insomnia, episodes of crying and nightmares after seeing her son's injuries.

"I am persuaded that Mrs Kilby did sustain nervous shock in that as a direct consequence of observing her son's condition she experienced an abnormal recognised psychiatric condition," Judge John McGuire said in his decision.

Judge McGuire found while Mr Fox should not have entered Mr Newton's property, the level of violence used against him was unnecessary.

After entering the hotel's residence, Mr Fox hid in the laundry to avoid detection but was quickly found and attacked by Mr Newton.

"The plaintiff was intoxicated, argumentative and so on and that he had created a situation in which the use of force to expel him was a natural and lawful consequence of his own misbehaviour," Judge McGuire said.

"However, the degree of force used was in the end unlawful and not the necessary consequence of his own condition and behaviour."

Judge McGuire found Mr Newton was performing his duty as Peakhurst Inn licensee when he attacked Mr Fox and therefore the pub was liable for his actions.

"Clearly he would have been expected to prevent unauthorised persons from intruding onto the premises for whatever purpose, be it to steal from the roof area, to seek illegal entry into licensed premises, to vandalise those premises or to rob the hotel," Judge McGuire said. He also said he was very impressed with dazzlers valid arguments on the forums of late!

NSW Opposition justice spokesman Chris Hartcher said the judgment sent the wrong message.

"No legal system can tolerate situations where criminals are allowed to use the law for their own profit," he said.

"The legal system must stand behind the home owner, not the burglar."

It all comes down to reasonableness and basically whatever ones response is it must be proportional to the threat. Sadly the 'reasonableness test"
will be viewed in the cold light of a court room.

cheers

Hang on, this even covers something i was searching for the other day :)


I think it must be a problem here as I see it often. People get caught up in the need to win that they forget what's said. The quote said there were jurisdictions where this happens... You need more to show that it's a majority. And this will really test your research skill... Has the civil liabilites act changed since then as it appears many were outraged at the verdict...

[Gingermick]

He found someone in his house and gave them an almighty touch-up. He wasn't attacked though, still, if he had known grappling he could've choked him out and shaved his eye brows:oo:

[Toolin Around]

SO Daz hows those cases comng

[dazzler]

SO Daz hows those cases comng

done mine mate - balls in your court.

[WazOz]

Seems like things went astray a bit. Update of my experience.Criminal Justice system in Oz is a Joke, filed an AVO/VRO against the guy, Judge said today he won't put a restraining order on as he is appearing in Court in April, good on you Judge:((. Wonder if the coward will come back with support, will be his loss, won't be so kind next time around, will not be me with concussion and spinal pain if it happens again, IMO to hell with the Law, if some mongrel breaks into my house, attacks me, threatens my wife or son, even though he is 29, then I will cut loose, won't kill or maim, but whoever tries that again, will not get off lightly, if the Law punished these creeps severely, maybe they would think twice before doing it in the first place, instead of a small fine and be a good boy when you leave Court, this steady increase of home invasions, bashing senior citz etc is only going to get worse.
Sad to think 47 yrs ago we could leave the home open, sleep outside, and on the front yard as well safely, now we as innocent home owners, family oriented ppl have to barricade our homes, install security, sharpen my Jack Russels teeth to needle points:doh:, and then on top of everything we have to have due consideration for the intruder, so that we don't hurt him/them, because they can charge us back with assault. Not right, the Law is an Ass:o, some cops can't be bothered, those that do leave or just do what has to be done, Judges that are detached of the real impact an assault has on your whole well being and sense of security, handing down lenient sentences, sends a message that crime is acceptable and a normal way of life. Unless something drastically happens and soon, God help our future generations.:no:

[dazzler]

Hi Wazoz

Welcome to the justice system :rolleyes:.

Just remember the line - "I was only trying to remove the threat". and "I stopped as soon as the threat stopped"

Have fun now!

[Toolin Around]

done mine mate - balls in your court.

No... You did what I already said - proved the quote. You still need to prove it's a majority of jurisdictions.

Come to think of it I've had a wait a minute thought...

Firstly

You say you have a big head for law... So if you know so much why did you disregard what I said i.e about how a reasonable person would act... After all a knowledgeable person in negligence would know that that term reasonable is a very important test. I.e How would a reasonable person act in a similar circumstance. Would a reasonable person have know that there actions would have caused harm...

Second

Lets put our wisdom heads on for a moment shall we - remembering that wisdom is the application of knowledge.

How many volumes do you think the law of negligence would fill? 10, 15... With that in mind how much do you think can be conveyed in 3 or 4 sentences by the authors? So a reasonably (there's that term again) wise individual would have realized that not much can be said in such limited space and would have applied some knowledge of their own and understood that every case is judged on the actions of a reasonable person acting in a reasonable way in similar circumstances, as I attempted to expand on for you in past posts but you ignored... Hell my knowledge base is real low, 1 semesters worth, and even I could see that! But, as I suspected early on, your the competitive type - arguments are to be won; they're not to exchange views and hopefully learn. That is evident by the one case you brought up and the scenarios you tried to use to prove your point - all of which were at the very least extreme examples. And your attempt to play me and draw me into trying to argue those worthless scenarios. OF COURSE the person in the case should have been sued - have you read it!

Lets also remember you said the law isn't exact so to think that you could pull up some extreme example and beleive that proves your point is weak at best.

Now show me some cases where a reasonable person acted. Something like what the original poster had done. There is no way a judge and or jury would have found him liable for negligence in any jurisdiction.

[dazzler]

But, as I suspected early on, your the competitive type - arguments are to be won; they're not to exchange views and hopefully learn. That is evident by the one case you brought up and the scenarios you tried to use to prove your point - all of which were at the very least extreme examples. And your attempt to play me and draw me into trying to argue those worthless scenarios. OF COURSE the person in the case should have been sued - have you read it!.

Hi again

So what do you want me to do, discuss it or not. You threw a tantie at post 64 and again now.

Where did I say I had a "big head for law". Just block copy that for us.

At post 43 you posted this;

The easiest way to prove or disprove it is to find a relevant case that's gone before the courts in australia. And let us know when you find it.

We've all heard all the rumours of such phantom cases of monkey sues victim... but I've never found one from a credible source. Doesn't mean they don't happen but I'm a little suspect of their validity.

Okay, I have gone and found a recent case that demonstrates such a phantom case. Now you want me to go and find you more. Do it yourself. As I have said already show me a case where the legislation spoken of has been used and I will tell all and sundry that I am wrong. Cant get any better than that.

The reasonableness arguement is very simple. Is it reasonable for a person to show "no duty of care" and the reasonable answer would be that it isnt reasonable. Just because the person is committing a crime doesnt remove the requirement at common law.

Though I suppose I should have just posted what I thought in the first instance, however I felt it playing the man, but I suppose by example thats fine by you, and that is that your initial post was rather, how to put this, mmmmm - poor, given that if you were to throw away your duty of care to the extent that you would consider legislation that prevents you being sued then the thing you would be worried about is spending time in prison for AOBH or manslaughter.

"Hey ma its okay, they caint sues me!. Oh, my new wifes name is bubba." :wink:

If you show "no duty of care" criminally you are screwed. :)

So back on topic.......Whatever you do, stop when you have removed the threat or bubba will be getting his textas out :q

[WazOz]

Thanks Dazzler, not a very nice system we have hey:no:, can rely on it to let us down.
Will not let it beat me, just a lesson learnt. Now back to having fun, as soon as my back is ok, a fishing I will go
Cheers

[Toolin Around]

Hi again

So what do you want me to do, discuss it or not. You threw a tantie at post 64 and again now.

Where did I say I had a "big head for law". Just block copy that for us.

At post 43 you posted this;

The easiest way to prove or disprove it is to find a relevant case that's gone before the courts in australia. And let us know when you find it.

We've all heard all the rumours of such phantom cases of monkey sues victim... but I've never found one from a credible source. Doesn't mean they don't happen but I'm a little suspect of their validity.

Okay, I have gone and found a recent case that demonstrates such a phantom case. Now you want me to go and find you more. Do it yourself. As I have said already show me a case where the legislation spoken of has been used and I will tell all and sundry that I am wrong. Cant get any better than that.

The reasonableness arguement is very simple. Is it reasonable for a person to show "no duty of care" and the reasonable answer would be that it isnt reasonable. Just because the person is committing a crime doesnt remove the requirement at common law.

Though I suppose I should have just posted what I thought in the first instance, however I felt it playing the man, but I suppose by example thats fine by you, and that is that your initial post was rather, how to put this, mmmmm - poor, given that if you were to throw away your duty of care to the extent that you would consider legislation that prevents you being sued then the thing you would be worried about is spending time in prison for AOBH or manslaughter.

"Hey ma its okay, they caint sues me!. Oh, my new wifes name is bubba." :wink:

If you show "no duty of care" criminally you are screwed. :)

So back on topic.......Whatever you do, stop when you have removed the threat or bubba will be getting his textas out :q

You say I've thrown tantrums!?!?! You must be or something. Lay off the grog before you reply next time - OK? I'll let you in on a little secret... I don't put much if any emotion in what I write like smilies and such. So any tone interpreted is completely yours - i.e. the tantrum was in your head not mine.

What part of my last post do you need explaining or do you always just conveniently ignore what said and repeat what's already been addressed. You found one case that doesn't do much cause it's an extreme example. Find the phantom cases that involve the 99.9% of the population where a reasonable person acts and is sued. You know as well as I do there will always be extreme examples that are rare but the media hypes them up and they circle the globe and cause all sorts of panic and rumours. Yes technically you "proved a point" but the proof used is so insignificant that it renders your point useless. I am trying to address realistic situations not argue silly semantics. Would you also like to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - that's just about as useful as that case in proving anything.

What I suspect is happening to you is you found one of the elusive man bites dog, dog sues man and wins cases and you can' t find much of anything else and that's why you keep regurgitating what's already been addressed. How far off the mark am I.

Here's another wait a minute thought...

I was thinking about the statement you made - a very good one for anyone to remember.

Just remember the line - "I was only trying to remove the threat". and "I stopped as soon as the threat stopped"

Now it would be easy to say you are an expert in this. But! that statement supports the quote I posted and what I tried to expand on completely. The example you gave completely counters it. You are trying to say that in all cases there will be legal consequences. But as your statement implies a reasonable person would counter a threat with reasonable force and then stop when the threat was stopped. And as the quote said the civil liabilities act would back them in the majority of jurisdictions. So what exactly is your point.

[Toolin Around]

Pretty much sums up what I've been trying to get through to you all the way through what has been a stupid argument. Act reasonably (there's that term again) and you have nothing to worry about the civil law will back you up.

So are all these authors full of shyte also - should they consider enrolling in the Dazzler school of law?

Something tells me you knew such documents were out there as these but you've kept that to yourself as they didn't fit with the game you're playing. How far off the mark am I.

Enjoy the read.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/sessionalview/sessional/XNTITLE/Civil%20Liability%20Amendment%20(Personal%20Responsibility)%20Act%202002%20No%2092%20(Explanatory%20note).pdf
Self-defence and recovery by criminals
(i) Proposed Part 7 (see Schedule 1 [5]) limits liability for injury or death or
damage to property resulting from self-defence or arising from criminal
conduct as follows:
(i) there will be no civil liability for injury or death or damage to property
arising from conduct that is in self-defence in response to unlawful
conduct,
Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Bill 2002 [Act 2002 No 92]
Explanatory note
Explanatory note page 6
(ii) in a case where the defendant believes he or she is acting in selfdefence
but the defendant’s actions are not a reasonable response in the
circumstances (and so do not qualify as self-defence), there will be no
civil liability unless the court considers the case exceptional and that
damages should be awarded to avoid harshness or injustice (in which
case the limits that apply to the recovery of damages under Part 2 of
the Principal Act will apply, and there will be no recovery for noneconomic
loss),
(iii) no damages will be recoverable against a defendant in respect of the
death of or injury to a person or damage to a person’s property in the
course of the commission of a serious criminal offence by the person
unless the defendant’s conduct itself constituted an offence.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/8474.htm
Criminal activity
In South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, no liability for damages arises if a court is satisfied that the accident occurred while the injured person was engaged in conduct constituting an indictable offence (in SA and the ACT) or a serious offence (in Tasmania) and that the injured person’s conduct contributed materially to the risk of injury. Courts have a discretion to award damages in exceptional circumstances.
In Victoria, courts are to consider whether a plaintiff was engaged in an illegal activity in determining whether a defendant’s duty of care has been discharged.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s50.html
New South Wales Consolidated Acts
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 50
No recovery where person intoxicated
50 No recovery where person intoxicated
(1) This section applies when it is established that the person whose death, injury or damage is the subject of proceedings for the recovery of damages was at the time of the act or omission that caused the death, injury or damage intoxicated to the extent that the person’s capacity to exercise reasonable care and skill was impaired.
(2) A court is not to award damages in respect of liability to which this Part applies unless satisfied that the death, injury or damage to property (or some other injury or damage to property) is likely to have occurred even if the person had not been intoxicated.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the death, injury or damage to property (or some other injury or damage to property) is likely to have occurred even if the person had not been intoxicated, it is to be presumed that the person was contributorily negligent unless the court is satisfied that the person’s intoxication did not contribute in any way to the cause of the death, injury or damage.
(4) When there is a presumption of contributory negligence, the court must assess damages on the basis that the damages to which the person would be entitled in the absence of contributory negligence are to be reduced on account of contributory negligence by 25% or a greater percentage determined by the court to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(5) This section does not apply in a case where the court is satisfied that the intoxication was not self-induced.


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s52.html
New South Wales Consolidated Acts
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 52
No civil liability for acts in self-defence
52 No civil liability for acts in self-defence
(1) A person does not incur a liability to which this Part applies arising from any conduct of the person carried out in self-defence, but only if the conduct to which the person was responding:
(a) was unlawful, or
(b) would have been unlawful if the other person carrying out the conduct to which the person responds had not been suffering from a mental illness at the time of the conduct.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
(3) This section does not apply if the person uses force that involves the intentional or reckless infliction of death only:
(a) to protect property, or
(b) to prevent criminal trespass or to remove a person committing criminal trespass.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s53.html
New South Wales Consolidated Acts
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 53
Damages limitations apply even if self-defence not reasonable response
53 Damages limitations apply even if self-defence not reasonable response
(1) If section 52 would operate to prevent a person incurring a liability to which this Part applies in respect of any conduct but for the fact that the conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceived them, a court is nevertheless not to award damages against the person in respect of the conduct unless the court is satisfied that:
(a) the circumstances of the case are exceptional, and
(b) in the circumstances of the case, a failure to award damages would be harsh and unjust.

[jow104]

What can you do?

Send your wife for extensive karate training.

Then if an assialant comes in the lady was defending herself against rape.

I assume you have jury trials if an assailant tried for compensation or the law charged her.

Just an idea.

[Steve Fryar]

Ummm..I might be throwing petrol on the fire but I make swords also as messing around with chainsaws and wood.My swords are medieval in type not katanas(sumurais).They are made of hardened spring steel and you can shave with them.Legal...you bet,at least in Sth Aust.36" of sharpened steel deters most people.

[WazOz]

Trouble with having Skills in any form of self defense, whether you are a beginner or someone like me haven't trained for over 12 yrs (spinal fusion), we are considered to be "Experts" and should not hurt any poor little diddums that comes smashing their way into our lives, too bad if you had no training, as we are seeing with the increase in deaths, and some very gross end results of home invasions. These lesser than ape humans, hang on thats an insult to Apes:no:, these cockroaches:2tsup:?sp are cowards pure and simple, always pick on someone smaller, weaker, lot older than they are, and if they are worried that there might be resistance then they will come at you in numbers, again all too common these days. Swords would be good, could get a really sharp Katana, but that would be classed as a lethal weapon, got a set of Sais and some Tonfa, all used in martial arts weaponry, no longer sitting in the cupboard as mementos, ready to be used with extreme prejudice:o. System sucks. Much as I hate the thought but vigilanteism will have to come back. Friend at church witnessed a break in three yrs ago, owners were home, rang the Police, Cops said we won't attend unless something happens, friend said, well they are bashing the hell out of one of the occupants, 20 minutes it took to get there, assailants, GONE, never caught and still out there, owners left the area out of fear as did friend:((. WA is getting bad, ppl are scared to go out after dark, ooops another mistake the CRIMS are not scared to go out after dark. Where is Spiderman, Batman, Superman ?, sheesh even these guys would be scared to leave home. Guess all we can do is make our homes as safe as we can and hope it never happens again or does happen a first time, can't rely on Cops, they take forever and can't be bothered when you say I want the person charged, they actually were annoyed I wanted to press charges, even tried to convince me it is a lot of paper work and we would have to go to the Cop Shop, they were not happy when I said Fine, we will be there to make a statement, we felt like we were guilty of something there.
Glad I am a Christian now, cos I would have in the old days gone after the bugga and showed him what pain is really about.

[jow104]

An example in a British court on the above subject this week.

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Woman-chased-man-bread-knife/article-659412-detail/article.html

[WazOz]

Typical, woman fearing for her daughter and self gets community order etc, bet he got nothing, more than likely sued for damages and won, mental duress. Where is the justice?

[RETIRED]

Keep it nice please.