In the news at the moment but likely to become more than just a news item.
From the ABC:
"The national focus on alcohol-fuelled violence has seen a surge of interest in self-defence, including a controversial program used by the Israeli army called krav maga.

Proponents say krav maga, Hebrew for contact combat, is the perfect weapon for dealing with drunken thugs because it allows women, in particular, to overpower much larger opponents.

But krav maga attacks aim to inflict the maximum physical harm and criminal lawyers are warning those who use it could end up in jail."

more at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-17/warnings-issued-over-popular-form-of-israeli-self-defence/5265412

yep the fear level is palpable
we know there is danger/danger danger will robinson
but thats BY MEDIA PERCEPTION..to keep us in fight..or flight
[compliant/reliant]

all levels of crime are down..[just..LOOK AT THE SPUN/numbers]
yet fear is way up..from..EXPLODING SMOKERS to flying sharks
so much to fear..BUT THE REAL AND PRESENT DANGER..IS OUR MEDIA

FUNNY ENOUGH FROM the same peOPLE[OWNED BY 5....lets sAY..SEMITES]
BUT thus..THE MEDIA WONT SAY NUTHIN ABOUT THE REAL DANGERS [IGNORANCE]

OUG,

"The number of assault victims, including physical assaults, face-to-face and non-face-to-face threats had also lowered in the past year from 5.3 per cent in 2011-2012 to 4.4 per cent the next year, an ABS spokeswoman said."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-crime-rate-significantly-decreases-statistics-show-20140213-32klj.html

Wow! a drop of 0.9%, that's really significant and we can all live without any fear; all but 4.4% of us that is.

YEP..SADLY..THE NUMB-ERS..DONT LIE
but hecK..just for fun..go to a cop shop..today..
AND TRY TO report a crime..THEY WILL HAVE THEIR PROGRAMED RESPONSE.

but the numbers did come down..see

[yet we got po faced LIARS..[PO-LIES]..BEATING UP THE DANGERS[THEY..[LOL]..*PROTECT US FROM..noT THE real ciminals looting our pUblic utilities..compulsory super..banks JOBS..CONDITIONS..etc etc

bah
humbug
if you read it in the news..it was spun
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=media+ownership+and+concentration
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=media+ownership+charts
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=media+ownership+

Maybe someone might like to research recent numbers concerning the clearance rate of theft and burglary.

I would be very surprised if there is anyone who is unaware of a recent home burglary near them, including theft of a motor vehicle from a home driveway. The clearance rate is very poor and going south.

Many burglaries occur in daylight and while the victim is present, maybe tending children or mowing he lawn. Serious violence is likely where the offender is disturbed. That is not helped by the number of offenders who are drug addicts.

THE BIGGEST DUMBFOUNDING DOWN..IS BY POISONING..OUR FOOD/WATER
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cbs-news-give-children-under-age-two-fluoride-toothpaste.html

TRY THIS FLUERIDE mind test
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/4258692721439967974

SEE HOW..we..non yankies think..we got a bill of rights
YET ONLY THE YANkIES DO..but even then..cant name..any..who signed it
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-students-fail-to-name-any-of-the-bill-of-rights.html

BUT..it might be a trick Question..
[it was never ratified]

HOW DO we SELF defense..from that?
SHOULDNT WE JUST LET NATURE DO ITS ..natural selection?
[you know survival of the fattest..[like half of em believe]

the security industry is running rampant
and we want to learn war/FIGHT BITE..instead of knowing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEz30l6jz6E&feature=player_embedded

25/100..think the sun goes AROUND THE EARTH
http://www.prisonplanet.com/1-in-4-americans-thinks-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says.html

50 PERCENT..THINK WE 'EVOLVED'

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/this-is-a-monster-sunspot-now-larger-than-jupiter-continues-to-unleash-solar-flares.html

but
any..'counter culture'..is quickly subverted
its easy..if you own..it all[just 85/eIGHTY FIVE PEOPLE]
OWN..50 PERCENT..OF EVERYTHING.

FIGHT BACK..with..COUNTER CULTURE..?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-truth-about-feminism.html

http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/policy.jpg

Give us back our guns and then see the crims run. Try to outrun a bullet matey.
When I was a copper taking someones car was 'stealing to the value of"
I locked up plenty of car thieves and they got an average of four years in the high jump.
Using the stolen car for a further crime got you seven years.
Today it is a traffic offense call "unlawful use" and the max is 12 months (after repeated appearance for the same charge
But the entering someones house after dark to commit a felony was burglary and carried seven year5s. If someone was home then the sentence was 14 years.
With the rise of the black fella the sentences went down and the crimes became misdemeanors.

Police prosecutors and judges look very closely at any personal defence that results in harm to the attacker. The lunatic Left have managed to load the dice against hapless male citizen who ever defends himself or loved ones, and that includes in the home against a known criminal with a tyre lever in hand and no wish to be identified to police later.

It is one thing for some mongrel to run up behind to king-hit your young son who is out on the town with his girlfriend and overstayed at a night venue, making him a mark and quite another for your son upon being luck enough to sense something is amiss, to turn and luckily floor his assailant.

It doesn't matter that the would-be assailant is one of the usual Houso thugs with a record of serious crime and your son has an impeccable record. If his would-be assailant is hurt the police will be carting your boy off for hours of interrogation and using all of their skills and trickery to coach and goad your son into an admission that could give him a criminal record forever and likely gaol him. Even more probable where your son had done even the mildest, silliest martial art in school.

That is where you may wish that your son had been born a girl and had the women's gender shield that would very likely prevent her being charged, or even interrogated (a woman would get a counsellor and legal brief) in the first place.

the best defense..is knowing..how things work
and trying a different way..ITS TIME YOU kNEW FRIEND FROM FOOD
GOVT ISNT THERE TO Protect you..BUT IS CREATED to defend their pals..*from you...why..i hear you ask?
http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Rivero/2014/02/Rivero_2_021714_140000.mp3

the system..KNOWS HOW TO DEAL WITH THUGS..KNOWING HOW TO KILL SOMeone..isnt self defense..one punch can kill/but usually its not the punch..as much as your punch/force caused them to bust their head on the ground.

so say you learn..THE MOSSAD TRICKS
WHERE WILL YOU HIDE YOUR SHAME?
GIVE A BAD DOG A BAD NAME.

The law should withdraw its protection for 5 minutes from anyone who initiates unprovoked physical violence, in which period anyone may injure or kill them in return with no legal consequence.

Those who initiate violence should know that as they don't respect the life of others, their own life isn't sacred!

Also, give us the Dromi Law! - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3559940,00.html

Yuyitsu , what sort of unprovoked physical violence should result in their death do you think.....a slap of the face?
A punch to the body?
A poke of the finger into the chest?
A good sound boxing of the ears?
How about a kick to the leg?

Should all these forms of assault result in allowable killing of the perpetrator by the 'victim'?

If not, what form of 'physical violence' should result in the immediate death of the perpetrator?

If there are no witnesses, how will anyone know who was the original victim of assault if one of them is dead?

Vigilantism is another form of mob violence....

Suseonline,

Trust you to give frivolous examples and as per usual side with the offender.

What about a real case, of the sort that the many victims of burglaries are confronted with every day? Tough and determined offenders with weapons in your home while you are asleep.

Do you believe that this old gent should be interrogated and required to prove against the reversed standard of proof that is applied in self defence cases that he really was in fear of his life and that his actions in defence were no more than were exactly required to cause the attackers to cease and desist? See below,

<Elderly resident fights off armed intruders: police

An 84-year-old man has fought off two brawny, armed intruders and chased them from his home at Port Macquarie, police say.

The man was alone and asleep in his bedroom when two hooded men broke in with a hammer and metal pole about 2am on Sunday, police said. One of the men also armed himself with a kitchen knife on his way to the bedroom.

The intruders demanded money and the elderly man pointed them towards his wallet on a chest of drawers, police said, adding that he tried to get out of his bed but was struck on the arms with the pole.

Police said he then fought the other intruder, who was armed with a knife and hammer. While struggling with the man on the floor, the 84-year-old broke the blade off the knife. The intruder tried to hit him with the hammer and the elderly man stabbed him in the stomach.

He then disarmed the other man with the pole and chased both men from his house.

They left only with his wallet, police said.

The man was taken to Port Macquarie Hospital where he was treated for cuts to his head and leg.>
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/elderly-resident-fights-off-armed-intruders-police-20121111-2962u.html

You are forever defending and scoffing at the reversed standard of proof that applies in all Australian jurisdictions except NSW where the Shooters and Fishers Party had the disgusting reversed standard of proof removed from the Statute books.

Suseonline,
" what sort of unprovoked physical violence should result in their death do you think.....a slap of the face?
A punch to the body?
A poke of the finger into the chest?
A good sound boxing of the ears?
How about a kick to the leg?"
A definite yes to all these.
Assault is assault and retaliation is necessary to stop it. Killing the assailant is the best way to stop them from doing it again.
Don't be so squeamish.

Dear Suse,

The chances are quite slim that a poke of a finger or a kick to the leg would be responded to lethally within the next 5 minutes, so while it would be rare, the fact that such a chance exists will deter potential offenders and result in less injuries overall.

When there are no witnesses and a suspicion of murder arises, then there is an array of forensic tools to try to discover the truth. The only difference is that currently a murderer will run away and cover their tracks while with this law-reform, the killer will report to a police station shortly after, claiming that they were attacked first - so the evidence will be fresher and the killer may well be asked to produce their fresh injury as evidence.

Of course I haven't detailed all the fine print - that will be debated and produced by a competent committee of legislators, with due checks and balances, as in the Dromi Law. That fine print could for example have a clause that excludes people with criminal record from benefiting from this exemption.

Yuyitsu and ChrisGaffe, you must surely be having us on?

You are living in the wrong country if you want to be able to shoot someone dead if they slap your face, and expect to get away with that lawfully.

Try North Korea or Afghanistan...

Dear Suse,

I don't want to shoot anyone dead - only to have them think that I could.

Suse,

Should the 84 year old have had to wait until his attackers actually harmed him before defending himself or should he have been able to assume that because they illegally entered his home that they intended him harm and to act accordingly in his own defence?

Is Mise. I hate to think of the elderly being frightened and hurt as much as you do.

Do I think someone should be lawfully shot dead for breaking into someone else's home?
No, I don't.

Obviously I am closer to the truth than all the rednecks on this thread, because the law, as it stands now, agrees with me.

Dear Suse,

<<Obviously I am closer to the truth than all the rednecks on this thread, because the law, as it stands now, agrees with me.>>

What a concept!

So if one day parliament will legislate that people must lay eggs, then you would feel guilty and miserable for not complying with the law?

There was a time when the law executed Galileo for claiming that the earth revolves around the sun - but of course the law is the law, so Galileo was wrong!

Suse,

As is usual you didn't answer the question.

If the person breaking into one's home is armed and fires at one do you really think that it should be unlawful to fire back and with the intention of stopping the intruder from firing again?

Kindly answer this question and remember dialing "000" is not a viable option in the circumstances.

and the truth..shall set you free
http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Rivero/2014/02/Rivero_3_021914_150000.mp3

knowing is the best OFFENSE

http://rss.infowars.com/20140219_Wed_Alex.mp3

we can wIN..WITH WORDS ALONE
let thyne tongue be thyne sword
thy pen is mightier than the sword

all word is sacred
sacred/words..=..s/words
LET THY TONGUE..CUT both ways
THUS I PRESENTED MY TONUGE CUTTERS

I RECALL..many that talked their way out
[like her majesty..talken down to the intruder.

UNLIKE HER HUSH BAND..the wanna be/but she loves him..what cAN WE DO BUT ..turn the other cheek/recall who's realm THIS IS..and know its nbot us that will be standing before our father [trying to explain why we took AN OTHERS LIFE/A LIFE ONLY THE FATHER can give]

than god we know we are eternal spirits
merely living out one mortal LIFE IN SEntanence.

the flesh is weak
yea thou i shall WALK THROUGH
the valley of FEAR..i shalt not fear no evil.

SDONT WORRY..BE HAPPY8
wherE IS THE LOVE..[?]

{..IM WITH SUZE*]

Of course where injuring an assailant who might attack her is concerned Suseonline benefits greatly from her gender shield as a woman. A woman who injures an offender who is attacking her is unlikely to be taken straight to an interrogation room, charged and required to meet a reversed standard of proof in court to defend her actions.

But then women can kill their partners and get away with it too. Strange that Suseonline has never asked if alleged or real domestic abuse is a defence for hiding in the bushes with a rifle and shooting the offending partner dead. The alternative was calling the cops and she did have the opportunity.

Nonetheless, as far as most Australians are concerned, a person should be able to defend him/herself from an attacker, be it domestic abuse or whatever and they should not be re-victimised by being required to satisfy the unfair reversed standard of proof.

Of course if anything like a reversed standard of proof applied to criminals Suseonline would be up in arms against it. As if challenging the REVERSED standard of proof that re-victimises the victims of shocking crimes is being 'red-neck'. Suseonline talks the talk and walks the walk of a Greens Watermelon, but she says she once used to vote 'Liberal'. LOL, pig's derriere she ever did.

thought i would search..the pope
SEEING AS THE CURRENT POPE..IS A LOVER

anyhow
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=POPE

seems the spirit realm..is buzzing with this
/sharp tongue form..of self-defense...

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/19/the-pope-francis-little-book-of-insults/comment-page-2/

NOT SURe how that TIES IN..WITH THIS
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvuVrjgnGDz1aomp-qpf3vrHiRBAEYCpr82XwdvFw732zux100NUrG2dWLxWeGTvqQ0hhQwXU

BUT CLEARLY THERE IS A MESSage
re using the sharp tongue massage..TO REVEAL THE MESS-AGE*..

self defense..is but one word from self offense..[self fence/self DEFERENCE..self sufferance..self deliverance..self transference]
http://rss.infowars.com/20140219_Wed_Alex.mp3

Is Mise, the law says we can use reasonable force against those breaking into our homes. I would certainly ring 000, wouldn't you?

Obviously, if some mad cowboy breaks into someone's home madly shooting at anyone within, then the occupants should be lawfully allowed to shoot back to save themselves.
In most of those situations I have read about in the papers, it usually turns out to be drug dealers looking for their money from the drug takers with

However, if the perpetrators don't have weapons, and are just there to steal, then I don't think death by firing squad, without a jury, should be attempted.
You would rightly go to jail...

That's not my 'idea', that's the law.
And here in Australia, we have far less murders by gunshots than in trigger happy US, where all and sundry carry guns.
So how do you figure we would be better off arming the citizens here with guns 'just in case', when it doesn't work elsewhere?

Suse,

Why did you bring up guns, do you have some fixation with them?

Just how do you tell that someone who illegally breaks into your home isn't armed with a gun and that they don't intend to kill you?

Open a dialogue?

I would suggest a little reading of the law as well.

Well Is Mise, if you are looking to kill anyone who breaks into your home, how were you planning to do it?

If you do decide to beat an intruder to death with a frying pan, then it will depend on which state of Australia you live in as to how the courts will deal with you.

I looked up Wikipedia and found the following quote, amongst a minefield of different laws:
"Unlike South Australian law, s420 of the NSW Crimes Act explicitly states that self-defence is not available as a defence to murder if death is inflicted to prevent criminal trespass.
In November 2005, pursuant to recommendations from the Law Reform Commission for Victoria, the Victorian legislature introduced new laws regarding self defence. Among them, a new offence of defensive homicide was created: where the accused's belief in the need for the force applied in self-defence was unreasonable, s/he may be convicted of an offence less serious than murder."

To me, it appeared that most states say you won't be charged with murder if you kill an intruder or a trespasser with 'unreasonable force', but you will probably get manslaughter.
If, however, you were really fighting for your life, then you probably wouldn't be charged.

Dear Suse,

<<However, if the perpetrators don't have weapons, and are just there to steal, then I don't think death by firing squad, without a jury, should be attempted.>>

Indeed, if the intent is to punish the perpetrator, then NO, it would be wrong for the house-owner to penalise them, neither by death nor in any other way.

If however, the intent is to save your precious belongings - especially such belongings of sentimental value, or health value, or information value, that could not be replaced with money, and it is in fact possible to save them at the cost of the life or limb of the perpetrator, then it is most legitimate to do what is necessary (yet only the minimum) to preserve them.

I can't see why not: this is not a matter of punishment - but of common sense!

Israel's "Dromi Law" allows just that.

Suseonline, "the law says we can use reasonable force against those breaking into our homes. I would certainly ring 000, wouldn't you?"

Taking the last sentence first, are you sure you ever worked as a nurse in a hospital? Ever asked why the victims why 000 didn't prevent the attack? To SOB with the breaking bar who is already in your home, "Please pass my mobile to dial 000 and would you kindly wait for the next available police patrol?".

Taking your first sentence, do you have any idea of what 'reasonable' means? Do scroll down the text in this link because that word is there. Now define 'authorised' for me.

http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/cscp/personalSafety/adults/Dealing+with+confrontation.htm

What might those terms mean to the police, Prosecutor and judge in a peaceful, comfy, air-conditioned court where an ordinary citizen in in the dock trying to defend himself against the unfair reversed standard of proof for defending himself and his loved ones in his own home and the assailant was injured in some way, maybe even by the homeowner's defensive German Shepherd bitch?

Now I realise that this has all been put to you on numerous previous occasions and you have always come back later as on this thread as though the salient facts have never been put to you before. However other readers must understand that home burglaries and drug crimes are now commonplace and many ordinary people do get hurt. Look here for your street and house,

http://www.crimemap.info/

Do police believe that 000 will save them or their own families in their own homes? Maybe not, see here,

http://tinyurl.com/Police-fears

All I am asking though is for the foul reversed onus of proof be removed as in NSW at the initiative of the Shooters and Fishers Party who are not subject to the deals with the dreadful Greens and equally ratbag Left who were responsible in the first place for that disgusting reversed onus of proof that acts to re-victimise victims and protect vicious criminals.

Removing the reversed onus/standard of proof does not allow the ordinary citizen any more leeway/options for self defence.