Self-defence (in your own home) makes you an "aggressor"??

B

Bruce in West Oz

New member
Well, yes, it does, according the our Democrat Party.

In a night sitting, our State parliament is introducing new legislation which will give homeowners greater authority under law to protect their homes. Among other things, it will extend the "safety zone" from the dwelling itself to the property in general. (There will still be a requirement to use "reasonable force", but that concept has never been tested in court yet -- especially not under the proposed legislation.)

But the Democrats intend to block the legislation for the following reasons (according to their "spokeslady" on TV tonight):

1. It will lead to people setting "boobytraps or mantraps" inside their own home. (This despite the fact our Attorney-General says it's perfectly legal to do so inside your own home.)

2. It will lead to people having a "firearm beside the door" for their own protection. (Democrats believe there is NO justification for using a gun to protect yourself.)

3. It will lead to homeowners becoming the aggressor against anyone who breaks into their home.

Reality check time.

I have a wife whom I love and a 14-year-old daughter I love equally. Break into my home and face it. Me an aggressor???? Tough sh*t!

I'll be listening to the news very carefully and let you know any developments.

Bruce
 
Once someone goes to the point of breaking into your home they are the aggressor, you are merely defending yourself.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
I don't know about West Australia, but TFLers in the U.S. should never, never, never set booby traps in their house.

In most states you are only allowed to use deadly force when your own life is in danger, and in states like Texas where you can defend property you have to make some sort of decision about whether it is appropriate.

If you set a booby trap and it hurts someone when you are not there, you are obviously in no danger and have used deadly force illegally.
 
What RHC said, plus booby traps are illegal in most states as they are considered indiscriminate or plain old destructive devices.
 
They have been illegal for hundreds of years under common law. The earliest booby traps were "spring guns" that fired when a door or window was opened. In a bona fide emergency or under other circumstances, a stranger may enter your property legally (put out a fire, rescue a person, read your meter).

Having said that, let me add Good Luck Bruce. Bruce is on the front line here, we're watching our own New World Future.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
Texas, at least, has laws against setting lethal "devices."

As far as redefining the word "aggressor," as I listen to some Democrats here, I think we're headed for the point where if some poor, misguided soul bruises his knuckles on your nose, you'll be in trouble for harming HIM!
 
Another reason I count my blessings for not Immigrating to Oz back in the early 70's like I had planned!

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
true story, a Union Col. once said "Don't worry about those Rebs. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..SPLAT.
 
It seems that a refresher course in Nature is in order for the intellectuals of our societies.
By intellectuals, I of course mean, the faction of our socities that intend upon having the Communist, or Statist control imposed to guarantee their ever-lasting control.

Objective:

Interfere with a Mother Bear's cubs, and describe her reaction, if you live through it.

Attempt to abduct the newborn of a cougar. Again, describe the parents reaction, if you survive.

Attempt to raid the nest of the American Bald Eagle. Describe the feeling as the flesh is torn from your body.

The goal here, is to describe the levels of pain you experience after you're attacked by the protective parent of those young creatures you've attempted to molest.

Lesson:
Avoidance of pain, and death.

I feel that the same crowd who seeks to protect and preserve every living thing out there, is the same crowd for the most part that wants us disarmed.
Yet they completely fail to understand that it's the most natural instinct to protect your immediate family and home from predators.
We aren't born with claws that can kill with one swipe of the paw. Nor are we born with teeth that can tear a major muscle from a man-sized creature with ease. Nor are we equipped with a beak to do the same.

We have our minds, and our abilities to devise other methods to the same end. But that makes us the aggressor? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Any good attorney should be able to obtain criminal records of most of the aggressors who would be under that flavor of scrutiny, and reveal to any Jury, what type creature that person is.
Either a predator, that kills with no provocation, or conscience. Or a creature that in most cases will consider flight over fight, and is left with the latter alternative by the predator. And unfortunately, that also means left with few, if any, alternative for survival, except death to the predator.

I see it as that simple. Predators must understand that many of us will turn to the last alternative to protect ourselves.

It's been said (don't know who) that violence is the last act of a limited mind.
That may be true when talking of the predator in our midst.

I don't exactly believe it fits the mold however, when the distinction arises between survival and death, and you have zero alternatives.

So, am I a predator, inviting a challenge, when I post a sign on the property that states, "Criminals Beware"?

How about if I give no indication at all that I'm armed, and intend to protect mine with that intent?

Apparently by the post Bruce gave, anyone who challenges the State sanctioned terror in the streets, gives cause to be prosecuted for being an aggressor.
Simply by virtue of wanting to preserve what you've worked for, against someone intent upon taking from you without working for it.

I suppose they(the criminal) believe they're working for it, when stealing it from you. I think they've been studying the government ploys for too long.

[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 16, 2000).]
 
Judas - You can bet money I will be the damned AGRESSOR in my own home.
I say "Get Out."
If they dont...
It's Hammer Time.
 
Its curious that an Australian Attorney-General would still defend bobby traps in one's own home.
This is in fact an old difference between American and English Law.
In England, landowners and aristocrats often set bobby traps to catch poachers of the game that resided on their estates. In England, the title holder of the land owned the game upon it and poaching was seen as a very serious property crime by those who owned land.
In an aristocartic country, masses of people resided on the lord's estate and were, of course, the source of the poachers.
This was one of the things that was really hated in revolutionary America and American law has made game the property of the state, theoretically available to the whole people, though you must have a place to hunt. Poaching is seen as a minor offense, even on another's property (its not the owner's game) and booby traps are, I think, universally illegal, both in the home and on the property in general.
I find it ironic that in Australia, one might stil kill a burgler in a trap, but not shoot him for invading a home, while in America, the opposite would pertain, for home invasion is widely seen as one of the most loathsome crimes
 
OK -- I received some more info -- the "booby trap" must be (a) inside the domicile; (b) non-lethal, and (c) only deployed AT NIGHT.

Apparently it's an old law that has never been changed and/or updated.

The legislation I spoke of is still before parliament, but appears now to have the support of the Opposition party, so fingers crossed.
 
No wonder Quigley came back to the States!

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
true story, a Union Gen. once said "Don't worry about those Rebs. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..SPLAT.
 
3. It will lead to homeowners becoming the aggressor against anyone who breaks into their home.

A perp breaks into my house and instead of reaching for my Glock I run to the kitchen to grab a tea set and come into the living room to ask if he would like to sip some tea whilst looting my bigscreen and 200DVD collection!

@#$(!*%#$^!@#$%

Yea like I am just gonna lay back and say help yourself! Man I nearly puked when I read this! Heaven forbid I protect my homestead!!!!!!!!

------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me

FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!
 
Mike

What happened? The results of the "great Socialist experiment" of the 1970s came home to roost!

By the way, a large number of the Americans who came here to live did so to get away from "gun violence". Some (and I emphasise "some") felt their previous life gave them a special insight into the situation, and their solution was simple -- ensure we lost our guns so we couldn't "go down the American path". The government listened avidly. At least two of those Americans became leading figures in the forced removal of our guns.

Please don't get me wrong -- I'm not being derogatory (those who know me on TFL know I'm not like that). I'm simply pointing out a hard fact. I feel sorry for Americans like those in my gun club who came here expecting to be able to enjoy guns as they had "back home". They possibly feel the loss of freedom even more acutely than we "native borns" do.

B
 
The Blair government in the UK is pushing similar doctrines, They are trying to establish a doctrine of "proportional force " in self defense. You are not allowed to use more force in self defense than the attackers are using against you. An examle being two men broke into a man's house and threatened him with tire irons. He grabbed a shotgun and shot them both. One died. The defender was tried for murder and convicted for using "disproportional force" in self fefense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top