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.