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?