I'm not entering into the firearms for self defence debate. The point is that in Australia law-abiding citizens can't have anything for self defence. That is illegal. The government doesn't trust you. That is from pollies who have armed men in black to protect them.
There is a succession of unlicensed (they couldn't get a licence!) ferals being reported in the media who get off with a smack on the wrist from the Court for prohibited weapons for 'self defence' (their lawyer's claim). The drug dealer who has a pistol as a tool of his trade to protect himself may get off with a lighter punishment than a reputable, licensed person who makes a technical breach with a legal, registered firearm (or a part thereof!). For example, leaves his unlicensed spouse in the vehicle while he pays for fuel but he has a registered, unloaded, bolt removed, containered firearm in the wagon and is returning from a comp. However it is apparently understandable, even sort-of-ok, if a criminal has a Glock for 'self defence'!
Also, in most Australian jurisdictions the victim who defends her/himself is re-victimised because the onus of proof is reversed(!) and s/he is required to prove that s/he actually was in fear of injury, even death and further, that his/her defence taken was 'reasonable'. But shouldn't the onus be on the police prosecutor to prove that the victim wasn't in fear of injury/death?
Chellbells said
10:15 PM Mar 26, 2018
Mick. You are brilliant - absolutely so.
Chellbells said
10:16 PM Mar 26, 2018
Then, why am I able to name two tags.
Chellbells said
10:18 PM Mar 26, 2018
Good to have these insights.
Chellbells said
10:22 PM Mar 26, 2018
You all see the reality. Glad we are not gun mad like the USofA.
Leo said
09:20 AM Mar 27, 2018
Glad we don't have the entrenched social problems and social alienation that are apparent in some populations of the US.
We have similar types who dabble in social experiments and troublemaking though. Similar irresponsible, ambulance chasing tabloid media that dumb down their audiences, sensationalise, whip up hysteria for ratings and don't give a fig if they encourage copy cat crimes.
Grubbygypsy said
09:41 AM Mar 27, 2018
Ok, I'll answer OP and a few other points in other answers, being I'm a single chick on the road & usually far away from anywhere (currently marooned in a town though lol). I am 6', if this makes a difference. I'm not sure it would ATM being my feet are full of injuries. Anyways, I started off from suburban Perth, so I had this fear that life had disintegrated so far that I was in danger of being attacked often. I did my first free camp at Nerrin Nerrin and I was hooked. In my near on 7 years on the road, I have only twice had incidents and they were both in caravan parks. One doesn't count as an 'on the road incident' as it was a 'work incident' shall we say. I have never had a hassle in a free camp and I am usually alone (I call myself the camp clearer lol). I don't leave any footwear outside, I say let them keep guessing!! I am pedantic about locking/closing up etc. The other attempted thieving incident was only the clown trying to get in my van.....he'd robbed others, they'd all had their vans and cars unlocked. I just heard him scratching around and I jumped up to have a go (I hate thieving mongrels) but my feet hitting the deck scared the POS off. I do have a number of 'methods' on board that wouldn't end up pleasant for any offender, and yes I'd carry a gun if it wasn't such a hassle these days (had one the first time I went around). I wouldn't think twice about using it. Another thing is I'm a snob. I don't engage riffraff if at all possible, and when I see them, I leave the space. You CAN judge a book by its cover and no amount of inclusion and political correctness will ever get me to engage with these people. I'm betting the poor Frenchman at Stuart Wells would still be alive had he ignored that iced up POS that was allowed to be roaming our highways. Do not engage with these people. Road rage or whatever is sparking them off.....don't try to treat them like normal people. Because they're not. I stay away from cities. I have no interest in them or their inhabitants. Country places are still full of lovely genuine people. I know lots of country towns are having problems with this scourge ice, but I rarely see it (like I say, I judge a book, so I'm able to switch off). A few cases come to mind whereby, I'm not victim blaming, but they really needed to think a bit. 1. Woman raped on beach by immigrant - had been talking to him.......I would of been up and out of there before he got sitting down. 2. Girls camping in SA with guy.......hmmmmm, another silly move, why would you go camping with a local in an isolated area? 3. Woman raped in caravan park showers in Meekatharra at 11:30pm.....I'd say that was a silly time to have a shower in a place like Meekatharra.
So, basically, I'd say you'll be completely safe with a bit of common sense. I'd carry whatever you want to. I think it's abhorrent our government would be quick to charge innocent people and protect the scum they've enabled to walk among us. You can get pepper spray online easy enough and you can have tools etc that are inoffensive enough - unless they're through you're head. I've never needed to use anything though. Common sense all the way.
-- Edited by Grubbygypsy on Tuesday 27th of March 2018 09:44:56 AM
Leo said
10:36 AM Mar 27, 2018
What has changed in recent years that a law-abiding, practical, independent person like Grubby - who could easily have been one of my female relatives or family friends when we lived on a farm - is now not trusted by government to do what any of my female (and male) forebears have done, which is to own a light gauge shotgun, a .410, or a squirrel rifle, a .22, to add some game to her larder and if necessary, batten herself down in her lodgings with if she is ever called upon to defend herself?
The very fact that a lone woman camper might have ready access to a pea rifle and be prepared to use it, is an effective deterrent.
Howard's bureaucratic paper-shuffling and extra taxes for honest people never stopped types like this (article below) and that is where the problems are coming from in Australia (what is happening in the US is quite irrelevant to us, except for political gamesmanship by the usual suspects),
I pity the bloke that tries to attack me. My weapon of choice will not be able to be gotten away from me that easily. I have never seen anything like it and it forms part of my fossicking tools. If I had, and I mean had to use it, then I would not even bother reporting it. I would leave the attacker to die and leave his body to be eaten by the vultures. That is what a person like that would deserve. So, if you see a dead shady character somewhere in the bush, just leave him there.
Chellbells said
01:41 PM Mar 27, 2018
Very smart.
Ron-D said
04:15 PM Mar 27, 2018
Imagine your a terrified victim pointing a a small, powerfu speargun fully loaded at a potential threats chest ,that would scare the crap out of the deadbeat ..
Kebbin said
02:53 PM Mar 28, 2018
Chellbells wrote:
Very smart.
DMaxer said
04:16 PM Mar 28, 2018
Perhaps after you have hit them with the wasp spray and lectured them with some of Leo's law, you could report the miscreants to the Caravan Council of Australia for good measure!
Kebbin said
04:29 PM Mar 28, 2018
Chellbells said
01:20 PM Mar 29, 2018
Chellbells wrote:
Single female campers. Do you carry a weapon for protection. Have u ever had to use a weapon to protect yourself.
Have decided that the best form of protection is to get a Rottweiler or an Alsatian.
Leo said
10:11 AM Mar 30, 2018
DMaxer wrote:
Perhaps after you have hit them with the wasp spray and lectured them with some of Leo's law, you could report the miscreants to the Caravan Council of Australia for good measure!
DMaxer,
I am a lay person and I would presume that others here are too. Which is why it is useful to remind that it is apparently only in NSW where the the victim who defends him/herself against an intruder has some protection against that reversed standard where it is the victim, not the police prosecutor, who has to prove to the court that s/he was in fear for her/his safety or for that of loved ones.
However, in all Australian jurisdictions, including NSW, where the victim defends him/herself and uses anything that could be construed as a weapon, including the family pooch (a poodle can inflict harm), s/he is very likely to be expending many thousands of dollars defending against police charges. The report below is just one of many in the news over recent years. It is instructive that only advice of the police is to, 'Dial 000'!
Sheesh us good guys better be careful !! Lol . Havachat like myself can get into all sorts of trouble !! Lol . Including my Mrs !! Aha
Leo said
10:46 AM Mar 30, 2018
Aus-Kiwi wrote:
Sheesh us good guys better be careful !! Lol . Havachat like myself can get into all sorts of trouble !! Lol . Including my Mrs !! Aha
If you ever take up fishing..
rockylizard said
10:58 AM Mar 30, 2018
Gday...
Let me state quite clearly upfront, I am very aware of the concern that one has and the need to protect oneself against a threat from an intruder whether that be in attempting to protect oneself, one's family or one's property.
I am also very aware, and understanding, of the natural fear when confronted by a threatening situation, particularly if oneself is alone or isolated - or the fear that such an event may occur.
However, as stated by others it is a genuine concern is that if one uses a "weapon" to protect oneself against an "intruder" then unless one is very confident, assertive there is considerable chance that "weapon" could be taken by the intruder and added to their threatening stance - exacerbating the situation.
Also as stated by others there is the problem with the law of this land that one must only use "reasonable force" when attempting to protect oneself. A claim of "self defence" in these circumstances can be, and is often, presented by defence lawyers to juries/courts as "unreasonable force" - particularly if the intruder was caused injury.
Unfortunately, it also needs to be realised that should an animal, owned by the victim, attack and injure an intruder, the the victim is held liable for that attack and may have difficulty proving "self defence". It is not unusual for the animal, simply by protecting its owner's property, or the owner, that attacks and causes injury, to be euthanised.
This site gives some background on "self protection" and the difficulty in not attracting charges oneself - including the legal definitions of "self defence" for each of the States of Straya.
Again, I concede the fear of being alone and isolated and threatened is real to many people ... and there have been instances over the time where travellers have been confronted by persons determined to steal or cause harm. However, if one does even a modicum of research, it is clear these attacks/instances are infrequent. Definitely considerably less frequent than such instances within cities and towns.
Statistically, the chance of one being threatened or attacked when travelling is almost negligible compared to being attacked by a shark. Indeed, one is far more likely to be hurt in a motor vehicle accident than being attacked or threatened by an intruder when travelling.
Sensibility suggests that one should use the fear of being threatened to sharpen one's senses - particularly common sense - and be aware of one's surroundings. If a camp spot looks a bit suspicious - eg broken glass around, bins overflowing, 'wheelie' marks, or within 10 Km of a town or city - then it just might not be a good spot to camp - particularly if camping/travelling alone.
-- Edited by rockylizard on Friday 30th of March 2018 12:08:58 PM
Leo said
12:07 PM Mar 30, 2018
Hi John
In that Kane Cook case, the Huffington Post somehow edited out that it was the offender, the burglar/home invader, who came armed with the gun. Excerpt from news.com.au
Mr Cook's lawyer Bill Potts told the Southport Magistrates Court it was staggering that a man who'd simply defended himself against intruders was now facing a criminal charge.
"Under the law a man is allowed to use lethal force against a person who is demonstrably armed with a weapon and prepared to use lethal force against him," Mr Potts told the court.
"Does a man have to be killed or bashed to pieces to justify killing an armed robber in his own home?"
Mr Potts said his client had returned home to find four intruders lying in wait for him inside his house.
Mr Cook struggled with one man, who had a gun and was wearing a balaclava, and managed to grab the weapon and shoot the intruder in the upper leg, Mr Potts told the court.
Police prosecutor Glenn Whittle said the wounded man ran up the street towards a car parked nearby and bled to death before he could reach it.
Inside the car, which was registered to an address at Benowa on the Gold Coast where the dead man had been staying, police found a jewellery box carrying the name of Mr Cook's partner, a black balaclava, a homemade club and amphetamines.
When police later searched the Benowa home they found a hand-drawn "mud map" of Mr Cook's house with his name on it.
-- Edited by Leo on Friday 30th of March 2018 12:24:07 PM
DMaxer said
12:47 PM Mar 30, 2018
It seems like I wasted 5 years studying law and spent the last 40 odd years in practice under some type of delusion as to the elements of self defence.
I should have just come onto this forum and been advised by the experts.
Mike Harding said
01:11 PM Mar 30, 2018
DMaxer wrote:
It seems like I wasted 5 years studying law and spent the last 40 odd years in practice under some type of delusion as to the elements of self defence. I should have just come onto this forum and been advised by the experts.
Many of us on this forum have specialised knowledge which we spent years studying for and far more years putting into practice - most of us are happy to share that knowledge with others and do so regularly and with good grace.
As you sarcastically imply that the information given to date is incorrect perhaps you will be good enough to share your technical knowledge with us?
rockylizard said
01:11 PM Mar 30, 2018
Gday...
Why do you feel that way DMaxer ??
Has there been incorrect information posted ??
I would suggest that if that is so, you should correct the fallacies and elucidate.
To allow misapprehension to continue is unwise - one could perhaps suggest unprofessional.
Cheers - John
DMaxer said
02:40 PM Mar 30, 2018
No, giving gratuitous legal advice is unprofessional.
The only comment I will make is that excepting insanity, all defences being raised by an accused must be negated by the prosecution, not proven by an accused.
The issue of lawful excuse is a statutory defence in itself.
People are legally permitted to defend themselves, others and property. The force to be used and the need to apply it is a subjective test.
Hysterical accounts from newspapers and like commentary is not a statement of the law just a deluded, uninformed view.
Mike Harding said
02:55 PM Mar 30, 2018
DMaxer wrote:
No, giving gratuitous legal advice is unprofessional. The only comment I will make is that excepting insanity, all defences being raised by an accused must be negated by the prosecution, not proven by an accused. The issue of lawful excuse is a statutory defence in itself. People are legally permitted to defend themselves, others and property. The force to be used and the need to apply it is a subjective test. Hysterical accounts from newspapers and like commentary is not a statement of the law just a deluded, uninformed view.
No one is asking for advice for that would involve the specifics of an individual case but we are discussing the law of self defence in general terms.
DMaxer: you made a sarcastic and superior statement that suggested all previous comments pertaining to the legalities of self defence in this thread were incorrect - now either put up or shut up. Just saying "I'm a lawyer so know everything but I'm not going to tell you" is not sufficient.
rockylizard said
02:58 PM Mar 30, 2018
Gday...
I therefore assume from your response that there is no misrepresentation of misinformation contained within this thread but, rather, that the sources quoted in some way provide "a deluded, uninformed view" of the "subjective test" that is applied within the court/legal system of a "lawful excuse" in "statutory defence".
I also assume that to correct any fallacies within this thread would be wrong as it would be seen as "gratuitous legal advice" ... and ... "unprofessional."
Thank heaven we have lawyers.
Cheers - John
DMaxer said
08:13 AM Mar 31, 2018
I already answered it. Accused do not have to prove anything, the onus always rests with the prosecution.
Surely you all have better things to think about at Easter or any other time for that matter, than hypertheticals about belting imaginary intruders.
Happy Easter.
rockylizard said
08:49 AM Mar 31, 2018
Gday...
Praps ya coulda jest sed it that simply first ... rather than stating that posters had "a deluded, uninformed view".
I'm not entering into the firearms for self defence debate. The point is that in Australia law-abiding citizens can't have anything for self defence. That is illegal. The government doesn't trust you. That is from pollies who have armed men in black to protect them.
There is a succession of unlicensed (they couldn't get a licence!) ferals being reported in the media who get off with a smack on the wrist from the Court for prohibited weapons for 'self defence' (their lawyer's claim). The drug dealer who has a pistol as a tool of his trade to protect himself may get off with a lighter punishment than a reputable, licensed person who makes a technical breach with a legal, registered firearm (or a part thereof!). For example, leaves his unlicensed spouse in the vehicle while he pays for fuel but he has a registered, unloaded, bolt removed, containered firearm in the wagon and is returning from a comp. However it is apparently understandable, even sort-of-ok, if a criminal has a Glock for 'self defence'!
Also, in most Australian jurisdictions the victim who defends her/himself is re-victimised because the onus of proof is reversed(!) and s/he is required to prove that s/he actually was in fear of injury, even death and further, that his/her defence taken was 'reasonable'. But shouldn't the onus be on the police prosecutor to prove that the victim wasn't in fear of injury/death?
Mick. You are brilliant - absolutely so.
Then, why am I able to name two tags.
Good to have these insights.
You all see the reality. Glad we are not gun mad like the USofA.
We have similar types who dabble in social experiments and troublemaking though. Similar irresponsible, ambulance chasing tabloid media that dumb down their audiences, sensationalise, whip up hysteria for ratings and don't give a fig if they encourage copy cat crimes.
Ok, I'll answer OP and a few other points in other answers, being I'm a single chick on the road & usually far away from anywhere (currently marooned in a town though lol). I am 6', if this makes a difference. I'm not sure it would ATM being my feet are full of injuries.
Anyways, I started off from suburban Perth, so I had this fear that life had disintegrated so far that I was in danger of being attacked often. I did my first free camp at Nerrin Nerrin and I was hooked. In my near on 7 years on the road, I have only twice had incidents and they were both in caravan parks. One doesn't count as an 'on the road incident' as it was a 'work incident' shall we say. I have never had a hassle in a free camp and I am usually alone (I call myself the camp clearer lol). I don't leave any footwear outside, I say let them keep guessing!! I am pedantic about locking/closing up etc. The other attempted thieving incident was only the clown trying to get in my van.....he'd robbed others, they'd all had their vans and cars unlocked. I just heard him scratching around and I jumped up to have a go (I hate thieving mongrels) but my feet hitting the deck scared the POS off. I do have a number of 'methods' on board that wouldn't end up pleasant for any offender, and yes I'd carry a gun if it wasn't such a hassle these days (had one the first time I went around). I wouldn't think twice about using it.
Another thing is I'm a snob. I don't engage riffraff if at all possible, and when I see them, I leave the space. You CAN judge a book by its cover and no amount of inclusion and political correctness will ever get me to engage with these people. I'm betting the poor Frenchman at Stuart Wells would still be alive had he ignored that iced up POS that was allowed to be roaming our highways. Do not engage with these people. Road rage or whatever is sparking them off.....don't try to treat them like normal people. Because they're not.
I stay away from cities. I have no interest in them or their inhabitants. Country places are still full of lovely genuine people. I know lots of country towns are having problems with this scourge ice, but I rarely see it (like I say, I judge a book, so I'm able to switch off).
A few cases come to mind whereby, I'm not victim blaming, but they really needed to think a bit.
1. Woman raped on beach by immigrant - had been talking to him.......I would of been up and out of there before he got sitting down.
2. Girls camping in SA with guy.......hmmmmm, another silly move, why would you go camping with a local in an isolated area?
3. Woman raped in caravan park showers in Meekatharra at 11:30pm.....I'd say that was a silly time to have a shower in a place like Meekatharra.
So, basically, I'd say you'll be completely safe with a bit of common sense. I'd carry whatever you want to. I think it's abhorrent our government would be quick to charge innocent people and protect the scum they've enabled to walk among us. You can get pepper spray online easy enough and you can have tools etc that are inoffensive enough - unless they're through you're head. I've never needed to use anything though. Common sense all the way.
-- Edited by Grubbygypsy on Tuesday 27th of March 2018 09:44:56 AM
What has changed in recent years that a law-abiding, practical, independent person like Grubby - who could easily have been one of my female relatives or family friends when we lived on a farm - is now not trusted by government to do what any of my female (and male) forebears have done, which is to own a light gauge shotgun, a .410, or a squirrel rifle, a .22, to add some game to her larder and if necessary, batten herself down in her lodgings with if she is ever called upon to defend herself?
The very fact that a lone woman camper might have ready access to a pea rifle and be prepared to use it, is an effective deterrent.
Howard's bureaucratic paper-shuffling and extra taxes for honest people never stopped types like this (article below) and that is where the problems are coming from in Australia (what is happening in the US is quite irrelevant to us, except for political gamesmanship by the usual suspects),
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5536599/Police-propose-extreme-orders-restrict-five-Nomads.html
Got to add too that the hand wringing human rights lot would be concerned about the rights of those bikies.
I like that.
I pity the bloke that tries to attack me. My weapon of choice will not be able to be gotten away from me that easily. I have never seen anything like it and it forms part of my fossicking tools. If I had, and I mean had to use it, then I would not even bother reporting it. I would leave the attacker to die and leave his body to be eaten by the vultures. That is what a person like that would deserve. So, if you see a dead shady character somewhere in the bush, just leave him there.
Very smart.
Imagine your a terrified victim pointing a a small, powerfu speargun fully loaded at a potential threats chest ,that would scare the crap out of the deadbeat
..
Have decided that the best form of protection is to get a Rottweiler or an Alsatian.
DMaxer,
I am a lay person and I would presume that others here are too. Which is why it is useful to remind that it is apparently only in NSW where the the victim who defends him/herself against an intruder has some protection against that reversed standard where it is the victim, not the police prosecutor, who has to prove to the court that s/he was in fear for her/his safety or for that of loved ones.
However, in all Australian jurisdictions, including NSW, where the victim defends him/herself and uses anything that could be construed as a weapon, including the family pooch (a poodle can inflict harm), s/he is very likely to be expending many thousands of dollars defending against police charges. The report below is just one of many in the news over recent years. It is instructive that only advice of the police is to, 'Dial 000'!
https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/37221845/bungowannah-man-has-guns-confiscated-trying-to-protect-home/
Your advice is?
If you ever take up fishing..
Gday...
Let me state quite clearly upfront, I am very aware of the concern that one has and the need to protect oneself against a threat from an intruder whether that be in attempting to protect oneself, one's family or one's property.
I am also very aware, and understanding, of the natural fear when confronted by a threatening situation, particularly if oneself is alone or isolated - or the fear that such an event may occur.
However, as stated by others it is a genuine concern is that if one uses a "weapon" to protect oneself against an "intruder" then unless one is very confident, assertive there is considerable chance that "weapon" could be taken by the intruder and added to their threatening stance - exacerbating the situation.
Also as stated by others there is the problem with the law of this land that one must only use "reasonable force" when attempting to protect oneself. A claim of "self defence" in these circumstances can be, and is often, presented by defence lawyers to juries/courts as "unreasonable force" - particularly if the intruder was caused injury.
Unfortunately, it also needs to be realised that should an animal, owned by the victim, attack and injure an intruder, the the victim is held liable for that attack and may have difficulty proving "self defence". It is not unusual for the animal, simply by protecting its owner's property, or the owner, that attacks and causes injury, to be euthanised.
This site gives some background on "self protection" and the difficulty in not attracting charges oneself - including the legal definitions of "self defence" for each of the States of Straya.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/03/28/defend-home-intruder-australia_n_9559346.html
Again, I concede the fear of being alone and isolated and threatened is real to many people ... and there have been instances over the time where travellers have been confronted by persons determined to steal or cause harm. However, if one does even a modicum of research, it is clear these attacks/instances are infrequent. Definitely considerably less frequent than such instances within cities and towns.
Statistically, the chance of one being threatened or attacked when travelling is almost negligible compared to being attacked by a shark. Indeed, one is far more likely to be hurt in a motor vehicle accident than being attacked or threatened by an intruder when travelling.
Sensibility suggests that one should use the fear of being threatened to sharpen one's senses - particularly common sense - and be aware of one's surroundings. If a camp spot looks a bit suspicious - eg broken glass around, bins overflowing, 'wheelie' marks, or within 10 Km of a town or city - then it just might not be a good spot to camp - particularly if camping/travelling alone.
Cheers - and happy and safe travelling - John
PS: https://www.fearof.net/fear-of-crime-phobia-scelerophobia/
-- Edited by rockylizard on Friday 30th of March 2018 12:08:58 PM
Hi John
In that Kane Cook case, the Huffington Post somehow edited out that it was the offender, the burglar/home invader, who came armed with the gun. Excerpt from news.com.au
-- Edited by Leo on Friday 30th of March 2018 12:24:07 PM
Many of us on this forum have specialised knowledge which we spent years studying for and far more years putting into practice - most of us are happy to share that knowledge with others and do so regularly and with good grace.
As you sarcastically imply that the information given to date is incorrect perhaps you will be good enough to share your technical knowledge with us?
Gday...
Has there been incorrect information posted ??
I would suggest that if that is so, you should correct the fallacies and elucidate.
To allow misapprehension to continue is unwise - one could perhaps suggest unprofessional.
Cheers - John
No one is asking for advice for that would involve the specifics of an individual case but we are discussing the law of self defence in general terms.
DMaxer: you made a sarcastic and superior statement that suggested all previous comments pertaining to the legalities of self defence in this thread were incorrect - now either put up or shut up. Just saying "I'm a lawyer so know everything but I'm not going to tell you" is not sufficient.
Gday...
I therefore assume from your response that there is no misrepresentation of misinformation contained within this thread but, rather, that the sources quoted in some way provide "a deluded, uninformed view" of the "subjective test" that is applied within the court/legal system of a "lawful excuse" in "statutory defence".
I also assume that to correct any fallacies within this thread would be wrong as it would be seen as "gratuitous legal advice" ... and ... "unprofessional."
Thank heaven we have lawyers.
Cheers - John
Gday...
Praps ya coulda jest sed it that simply first
... rather than stating that posters had "a deluded, uninformed view".
Cheers - John