Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Burglar killed in NSW break-in/homeowner charged

  1. #1
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267

    Burglar killed in NSW break-in/homeowner charged

    This is the third home-invader to be killed in the past couple of weeks (that I've heard of) alone. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

    A man suspected of breaking into a Newcastle property has died after allegedly being attacked by an occupant of the house.

    Police said they found two men, a 33-year-old and a 32-year-old, detaining the man on a street in the Hamilton area after responding to reports of a fight early on Saturday.

    Initial investigations suggested the 34-year-old had broken into the home of one of the men and attempted to steal from him.

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...eak-in/7278166

  2. #2
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    Charges have now been upgraded to murder. News is reporting the homeowner found the intruder standing over his infant daughters bed and broke his neck in the subsequent fight. Unless there's something more behind it, good job, I say.

  3. #3
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by DW98 View Post
    Charges have now been upgraded to murder. News is reporting the homeowner found the intruder standing over his infant daughters bed and broke his neck in the subsequent fight. Unless there's something more behind it, good job, I say.
    i'm in awe the bloke broke his neck...wow...

    ipdr
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    So in Australia do you get a jury trial? If so, w 'facts' as stated, is there a big chance of prison?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    My viewpoint makes these things very easy to decide :

    1) person not authorized or invited to be on private property
    2) unauthorized person is killed by landowner or someone authorized to be on his private property

    #1 should not be allowed

    #2 should be allowed


    Don't want to be killed?

    Stay off people's private property unless you gain their permission to be there. No exceptions.

    This is what we should work for to be codified.

    Its a very simple rule, easy for people to understand, That's how statues should be.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    So in Australia do you get a jury trial? If so, w 'facts' as stated, is there a big chance of prison?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yeah, trial by jury.

    As for the outcome, hard to say. The homeowner has been refused bail, which is odd. There's been no suggestion they were known to each other. And the burglar had recently been released from prison. In general, people killing intruders here isn't particularly common, but when it does occur, more often than not the charges will be dropped on the grounds of justifiable homicide, but they could very well be in for years of legal issues. By the sounds of it, it's likely this guy will be sentenced for manslaughter.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DW98 View Post
    Charges have now been upgraded to murder. News is reporting the homeowner found the intruder standing over his infant daughters bed and broke his neck in the subsequent fight. Unless there's something more behind it, good job, I say.
    Hi DW98 Do you know if justifiable homicide is either a:

    1) raiseable defense (where one has to let the prosecutor know it will be part of your defense but once raised the gov't has the burden of proving wrong)

    2) raiseable defense, like 1, only that one does not have to tell the gov't prior to trial

    3) an assumed defense where the gov't needs to show it was not justified

    4) an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defendant and raised before trial


    If 1,2, or 3 he has a better shot of being found not guilty. I don't think its murder...but they won't let him out and will leverage this against him (sweat him out).

    Again, never talk to the police .... change your story one little bit after being asked to tell it 20 times and they'll bring that up and say he has changed his story....
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-28-2016 at 01:33 PM.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by DW98 View Post
    Yeah, trial by jury.

    As for the outcome, hard to say. The homeowner has been refused bail, which is odd. There's been no suggestion they were known to each other. And the burglar had recently been released from prison. In general, people killing intruders here isn't particularly common, but when it does occur, more often than not the charges will be dropped on the grounds of justifiable homicide, but they could very well be in for years of legal issues. By the sounds of it, it's likely this guy will be sentenced for manslaughter.
    I'm guessing it all depends on the facts. Did the homeowner fight the crook because a fight was necessary to protect himself or daughter? Was the crook trying to leave, and an enraged father meted out "justice"? Was the broken neck deliberate? Accidental?

    Did the father, not knowing to keep his mouth shut, say something incriminating to investigators?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Hi DW98 Do you know if justifiable homicide is either a:

    1) raiseable defense (where one has to let the prosecutor know it will be part of your defense but once raised the gov't has the burden of proving wrong)

    2) raiseable defense, like 1, only that one does not have to tell the gov't prior to trial

    3) an assumed defense where the gov't needs to show it was not justified

    4) an affirmative defense which must be proven by the defendant and raised before trial


    If 1,2, or 3 he has a better shot of being found not guilty. I don't think its murder...but they won't let him out and will leverage this against him (sweat him out).

    Again, never talk to the police .... change your story one little bit after being asked to tell it 20 times and they'll bring that up and say he has changed his story....
    Good question. I'm not too sure as to the answer (though I should be). I've got a feeling it's No. 2, but I'm not positive. I'll have to find out.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DW98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm guessing it all depends on the facts. Did the homeowner fight the crook because a fight was necessary to protect himself or daughter? Was the crook trying to leave, and an enraged father meted out "justice"? Was the broken neck deliberate? Accidental?

    Did the father, not knowing to keep his mouth shut, say something incriminating to investigators?
    There's mixed accounts of what happened, but the popular version of events seems to be that he was tackled by the homeowner while trying to leave. Apparently there was a fight afterwards wherein the intruders neck was broken.

    There's a lot of support for the homeowner, though. And it's kicked off a pretty big debate around the right to defend yourself.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The shovel manufacturer should step in and pay for his defense for an endorsement contract !

    Make a new model and have the homeowner endorse it. The "Wack a Wanker" model.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by DW98 View Post
    There's mixed accounts of what happened, but the popular version of events seems to be that he was tackled by the homeowner while trying to leave. Apparently there was a fight afterwards wherein the intruders neck was broken.

    There's a lot of support for the homeowner, though. And it's kicked off a pretty big debate around the right to defend yourself.
    Well.....OK.

    Then I guess the correct prescription is to educate the Aussies that tackling someone trying to leave is not self-defense.

    I would argue it was a citizen's legitimate right seize a felon whose right-now felony that citizen personally witnessed. If the felon resists and falls or is pushed away in an ensuing fight, breaking his neck, no blame attaches to the citizen. Or, if the felon counter-attacks the arresting citizen and offers the citizen some sort of lethal force or grave bodily injury, then I would argue the arresting citizen has the right to deliberately apply lethal force.

    But, killing a departing felon cannot be justified unless that felon presents an imminent and deadly threat to the community.

    Now, I am no fan of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), but every once in a while they accidentally get something right, or get it right for the wrong reason. In the 1970's, in a case called Tennessee vs Garner, SCOTUS pointed out that burglary was not a capital offense. The case was brought by the parents of young Garner. Garner didn't get any older--he died of a cop's gunshot. Short story: neighbor hears breaking glass after dark and calls cops. Cop shows up, walks around house to back yard. Cop hears door slam. Sees figure running across yard. Cop yells. Figure doesn't stop. Cop shoots young man in the back "to prevent his escape." In its analysis explaining why it reached the decision, SCOTUS points out that burglary is not a capital offense.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The Tennessee vs Garner decision involved a cop shooting a 15 yr kid trying to jump a fence while escaping.

    Here, we have the owner of the land wacking an intruder.

    A difference that I see as significant.

    Kill an uninvited person on your property and go on trial, I will always let the owner go...regardless of circumstances.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Why is US law even brought into the discussion totally ill relevant.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Why is US law even brought into the discussion totally ill relevant.
    Because rationality is relevant to the discussion?

    I mention it to give credit to the source. Meaning, I didn't thunk that one up on my own. Some one else made the observation and argument--not me. Its not like I'm wrong for citing my source or giving credit to another.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Because rationality is relevant to the discussion?

    I mention it to give credit to the source. Meaning, I didn't thunk that one up on my own. Some one else made the observation and argument--not me. Its not like I'm wrong for citing my source or giving credit to another.
    I see significant differences between a professional trained agent of the state responding to a call where there is no imminent threat to life or limb and his duty is merely to investigate and possibly secure an arrest, vs a homeowner in the heat of the moment immediately following a home invasion.

    In principle, I agree with you that once the home invader turns to flee, the homeowner is not acting in self defense.

    In practice, somewhere between the burglar turning his back and the homeowner seeing him on the street the next day and deciding to exact revenge, I see a lot of gray area. I'm sure you are well acquainted with the old English concept of hot pursuit (or "hot trod") and how that differed from investigating a crime after the criminals had made a clean get away.

    I'm not suggesting homeowners have some right to chase down burglars for as long as they can keep their trail hot. I'm not even sure how to codify what I'm advocating, or whether I'd want it codified. I don't want to see homeowners exacting revenge, or imposing capital penalties for simple trespass the way our resident agent provocateur would encourage. But neither do I want to see law abiding citizens ruined because some criminal victimized them and the homeowner failed to know the exact moment when he was no longer entitled to defend himself.

    Fully informed juries, issuing verdicts in harmony with their individual and collective consciences, and then prosecutors considering what charges if any to bring in future, similar cases, is probably the best bet of justice.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 03-30-2016 at 10:39 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    In principle, I agree with you that once the home invader turns to flee, the homeowner is not acting in self defense.


    <SNIP>


    Charles
    Maybe the guy turned away to get the opportunity to pull out a gun? Maybe to get out of range of the other person's weapon ?

    If you have a knife and I have a gun , I may very well run away, turn around, and shoot. Then the widow would later lament "Johnny should have stabbed him in the back when he had the chance..."

    Why does a landowner in an invader/intruder situation be required to assume the best behavior out of an intruder?

    This always befuddled logic IMO.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Because rationality is relevant to the discussion?

    I.
    Different country, different laws, different philosophes.

    It is only relevant to the US and it laws and philosophes.

    Who said it is not rational to shoot fleeing criminals that idea has only come about very recently in human history.

    Before Gardner it was a very common practice and thought of being very reasonable.

    Only a shift to the progressive side of things changed that, the poor innocent criminal, it isn't his fault, one can't be judge jury and executioner.

    Sorry the codling of criminals has lead us down he path to where we are today.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The 2nd and 4th amendments flow from our natural rights, which go beyond our country's boundaries....so somewhat relevant

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Different country, different laws, different philosophes.

    It is only relevant to the US and it laws and philosophes.

    Who said it is not rational to shoot fleeing criminals that idea has only come about very recently in human history.

    Before Gardner it was a very common practice and thought of being very reasonable.

    Only a shift to the progressive side of things changed that, the poor innocent criminal, it isn't his fault, one can't be judge jury and executioner.

    Sorry the codling of criminals has lead us down he path to where we are today.
    I disagree. In fact, Garner points out something I've come across in other historical sources--namely that once upon a time all felonies were capital offenses. Almost as though the word felony was synonymous with capital offense. In Garner's case, he was killed on mere suspicion (I'll even concede probable cause for the sake of discussion). But, the ultimate power of the state was applied prior to proof beyond a reasonable doubt against a suspected felon who was not in that moment an imminent threat to the community.

    Imminent threat is a long-overdue refinement in the rationale for applying lethal force to an escaping suspect.

    Recognizing the inconsistency between allowing police to kill a burglary suspect for a crime the state cannot kill him for upon conviction is a good thing.

    I can see a difference between not allowing a cop to kill any but a certain class of suspects, and still coming down hard on the suspect upon conviction. Not allowing the cop to kill the suspect is not coddling a criminal; letting the criminal loose on society early after conviction is coddling a criminal.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •