If any people want to go out and play shoot-ups like the old movies of cowboys and Indians, take up playing violent war video games, or move to the US...

This ignorant comment by the previous poster is just so typical of the silliness that's out there.
The last part of that post should state take up the fight against the new invaders once there have been enough boats.

Suseonline,

I said before, kindly disregard the tool used for defence, which could be anything. The issue at stake here is whether a law-abiding citizen is penalised by the State for defending herself in her own home.

Yes, you do imply you support restrictions and you now mention 'reasonable force', while assuring yourself that a woman is unlikely to be charged anyhow. You are thinking of the favoured position of women in society no doubt. You do believe in protections for the offender.

You may not have seen some of my posts. This one for example,
Wednesday, 17 July 2013 7:08:48 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5915&page=7

The first problem with the law of States outside of NSW is that anyone who defends herself or her loved ones in her own property from a home invader is that if the criminal is harmed, charges will be coprogressed against her and she be required to prove that she had reasonable grounds for believing that she and her loved ones were in imminent danger that couldn't be avoided somehow, some way, and she will also be required to prove the force she applied was reasonable.

All I am arguing is that the onus to prove either of those should be on the police and prosecution. It should be the police who have to prove that the woman who defended herself was not in fear of harm. What do you say to that? Because you once had that right but over time the State has withdrawn that right from you. Now the onus of proof has been reversed and it is you the victim who must defend yourself against the police as well. You are a victim twice over. This has parallels with previous rape law, where the onus of proof was on the victim to prove she was not at fault herself.

Suseonline,
Reasonable Force has a vastly different definition for police forces as it does for the public and its use is sanctioned by the "force" of the day.
The old adage was "don't leave the subject in a state where they can give evidence against you" remember Suseonline "When there are two or more police gathered together there IS TRUTH" and the truth will set you free.

Commissioners of police are appointed by governments and generally speaking reflect their views.

I don't know that police agreed with the policies of the previous Victorian Commissioner of Police, Christine Nixon, for example, but they were obliged to follow her direction.

There is a lot to be said for the NSW laws regarding home invasion.

onthebeach

Christine Nixon was "tarnished goods" right from the day she got the job. Anybody who worked under or with he in Woolongong NSW where she was a acting sub Inspector was glad to see the end of her. She should have been locked up for her failings in Victoria and whoever appointed he as well.

chrisgaff1000,

Big Blue was a disaster. Just as Big Red in Canberra was one too. They both have the same excuses and nothing to do with them of course.