Onthebeach, why do you keep going on about a woman protecting her child from invaders? Shouldn't it be one rule for all?
Or are you just trying to get me to agree with your stance of 'shoot first and ask questions later' with regards to criminals who break into homes, by putting a woman as your victim? Surely not?

Are you advocating that the penalty for attempting to or actually breaking into someone else's home should be death by shotgun?
What if it was a child breaking into your home? Death by shotgun as well?

Why don't you ask yourself why those sorts of laws were put in place in the first instance? And don't go on about so-called 'do-gooders', because no one has ever actually put any names to these fictitious people...

I do believe that if someone is threatening your life then you should be able to defend yourself with equal force if possible, but we can't have people taking the law into their own hands just because they have a big shiny gun.

In any case, I think this thread has run its course for me.
We are never going to agree on this (and most other) subjects Onthebeach.

Suseonline, "why choose the woman?"

Wouldn't matter either way, however it was a woman Myleene Klassin the Press report that I gave as an example.
See my post onthebeach, Sunday, 21 July 2013 1:19:30 PM

However, women are more likely to be carers and regretably, probably more likely to be targets where alone, or with dependents (as applied to Myleene Klassin).

Suseonline, "Or are you just trying to get me to agree with your stance of 'shoot first and ask questions later'"

No. Can you show me where I have suggested any of that? You are again misrepresenting what I am saying and the reasons I have given.

Suseonline, "I do believe that if someone is threatening your life then you should be able to defend yourself with equal force if possible"

You miss my point.

What I am saying is that it is manifestly unfair in a case of self defence, for example where a person is the victim of a home invasion, to reverse the standard of proof (as discussed in my previous posts). The onus should not be on the victim to defend her/his defence of self or loved ones.

All Australians should have a right of defence as in NSW, where a person has the right of self-defence or defence of others if they felt threatened or had a reasonable apprehension of fear of a threat, not just in the home but anywhere at all.

NSW also has the safeguard built in in that a defence must be broken off where the assailant gives up his attack, or runs off.

Where do you have a problem with that?

Sorry to post twice in a row, however I chanced upon this simple description of the self defence law in NSW,

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/web/page/criminal_defences-self_defense

It is a pity that all Australians do not appear to have a similar right to defence.

This relates to the Original Poster's question,

"When helping a victim or defending what's yours becomes an offence then there are no winners, only losers"

In NSW, people have recently been given the right by amendment to the Crimes Act. Well done, NSW!

The UK is pursuing a similar law change.