"Examples like a truck-driver who'd gone through a very bad
divorce, and needed to keep his licence in order
to keep his job. He was just a little over the limit
(the low end of the scale), and the officer was not
lenient at all."

Lexi,
I do not think it is the roll of police to hand out sentences at the road side. In this case that is what the police officer would be doing; we have a court system where this truck driver can argue his case. If found guilty and there are extenuating circumstances a magistrate does have the flexibility to consider the circumstances before imposing a penalty.

o sung wu, "OK, what are the 'rights' of society"

You ask a very good question and one that should go with discovering our civic responsibilities too.

The first right is that we can defend ourselves and our property, and for those we are reponsible for. That extends to protecting others in the community.

So often the very interests who have diminished that right of ordinary law-abiding citizens are staunch advocates of rights for offenders, including the most vicious and violent grubs imaginable.

There are signs that the Left leaning UK is slowly seeing the light after public condemnation of police who have been more interested in charging citizens who have tried to defend themselves from criminal thugs, than in chasing and apprehending the offenders.

In Australia, it is only NSW that recognises the right of citizens to defend themselves against home invasion. NSW's Home Invasion (Occupants' Protection) Act 1998, which states that it is public policy that NSW citizens "have a right to enjoy absolute safety from attack within dwelling houses from intruders".

Dear Paul,

The truck driver lost his licence there and then.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about. He rang
a friend to come and get him as he wasn't allowed to
drive home. And as for going to court and contesting
anything. The poor bloke probably wouldn't be able
to afford to do that. Courts and lawyers are expensive
and this guy had already lost just about everything in
his divorce.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

The defence of ourselves and our property ? You've entered upon one of the most controversial legal arguements in this country ?

There's never been a situation where an individual cannot defend themselves, or another, against a violent attack. However, that attack must be real and impending, not doubtful or remote. Furthermore, the violence must be of a kind that can cause serious injury, or death.

The notion that an individual who breaks into your dwelling house, for the purpose or robbery, and as a consequence, you can shoot him, is false - I again refer you to my second paragraph. Nor is it lawful, after your presence is made known to the offender, and he then decamps from your house, you can shoot him in order to prevent him from making good his escape, is another erroneous proposition.

The High Court, some years ago brought down several judgements pursuant to, employing lawful force ('Viro', was one that comes to mind)

The defence of your property is also clear. Of course you may defend that which is yours, or under your care, custody or control. However, the force used in order to defend that property, MUST be kept to a minimum - should you, in the course of defending your property, meet physical resistance, your physical response MUST be no more than reasonably necessary, and proportional to the force offered.

I'm sincerely sorry if you peceive me to be somewhat arrogant, with my responses to you, I don't mean to be, I'm simply quoting law on this occasion, is all.

o sung wu, "I'm sincerely sorry if you peceive me to be somewhat arrogant, with my responses to you"

Why say that? I don't think that at all.

However you may have some strawman arguments going that have no bearing on what I wrote.

There is a clear distinction between NSW and the other States and Territories in the provisions relating to home invasion. What about taking this recent case that occurred in NSW and compare it with another jurisdiction, say Queensland? What is the obvious difference in legislation that impacts very negatively on this elderly gent if he was in Qld instead? [Although the NSW police put him through the wringer and had him dangling on possible charges until public protest saw the available legislation applied correctly.]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/no_charges_for_brave_home_defender

And the next day, that driver, while drunk killed kids in a school bus.
Belly,
firstly it is so grand to see there's a gradual backing for some form of national service.
re the drunk driver above. Well, I can only go by what I feel & what those I speak with say they feel about a national service. If this driver had the privilege & benefit of a national service he'd more than likely think twice about getting drunk into the car again in a hurry. I would think that if the Police officer took his details & made him a promise that this first time was a warning & there won't be any warnings after that the driver would take heed. It's all about mentality & a national service can deliver a healthy, less selfish mentality.
We can never guarantee absolute safety & drivers not getting into cars drunk but it sure as hell does improve mentality having experienced what a sense of responsibility is all about. The reason why so many young are out of control because no-one told them to cut it out when they misbehaved. I think a police officer's duty is to uphold the law via judgement on the spot but to just go & entrap people is just not on. isn't providing sound advise part of a police officer's job ?