From the "Border Mail".

"A FATHER who armed himself with an unloaded rifle during a home invasion has been left wondering what he could have done differently, after having his guns seized.

Police took David Dunstan’s three firearms from his farming property at Bungowannah on Thursday afternoon.

A man armed with a knife and piece of wood had knocked on his back door about 3.30am.

Mr Dunstan, who has a gun licence, went to his nearby gun safe and grabbed a .22 rifle after finding the man outside his home.

He said he didn’t point the weapon at the offender, and essentially used the gun as a “prop”.

The father of three forced the man into his vehicle and drove him towards the Albury police station, and was met by officers nearby.

Police seized his guns, which he uses for pest control at his property, later that day.

“I just don’t know what I should have done, what would have been the right way to do it,” Mr Dunstan said.

“My gun licence is for vermin control.

“I suppose, technically, trying to protect yourself is not classed as that."
http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/4927063/border-farmer-has-guns-taken-after-confronting-man-armed-with-a-knife-at-his-home/

There is probably more to this; but what would you have done?

Quote from the article.
"Police did not want to comment on the development, but had earlier urged people to call Triple-0 during emergencies."

If this is in the countryside interested to know what the police response time is?

Also for them to take the guns they would have to give a reason, that fact is missing from the article.

It's pretty hard to respect police these days, and even harder to believe that it is actually their job to protect innocent people.

Dear Ttbn,

«and even harder to believe that it is actually their job to protect innocent people.»

But indeed that is not their job, because it is not innocent people from which they get their pay-slip!

At an industry dinner some years ago in Albury a Lady on our table said she rang the cops to report a burglary taking place next door. Reply was where is it, it was the main street where the Police Station was but the cop was from Melbourne and did not know the streets. No one could come because the divi van was elsewhere. So short of personel? Hardly I was ticketed for speeding on the outskirts of town earlier that day.
Anyway with the pansy police commissioner going all warm and fuzzy on us what can we expect?
Roll on the new commissioner who will have to be a woman, although a trans "woman" might get in front of her. Frocks on chaps if you want the top job!

Yuyutsu,

If you are saying that Australian police forces, like the Australian defence forces have been politicised, I agree.

"what would you have done"

Well the first thing is to realise and accept the status of lower life and easy dispensability of the law-abiding citizen.

It is different for violent home-invading ferals and organised crime who will always enjoy full protection of their rights.

It is different for politicians. We see a large fence being built to protect federal politicians. Costs $126 million! There will be $add-ons. They have armed police in close proximity and first priority if more are needed, army SAS too!
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/act/2017/09/18/construction-begins-on-parliament-house-fence.html

What the political elite and police expected that farmer, husband and father, to do was to allow the feral to take advantage of the wife and kids, assault and kill at will and force the farmer to allow access to his safe.

Most people reading this sad story in the media will be surprised by the Catch 22, but will never imagine they and their loved ones could very easily be in a similar situation one day soon. Maybe they might not have an empty pea-rifle firearm prop to be scolded later by police for deterring the feral and holding him for police arrest, doing their job for them.

BUT they should know that the very first priority of the police is to interrogate anyone who defends him- herself and that interrogation will involve very long interrogation and holding in a cell and NO, that 'friendly' policewoman or policeman isn't expressing support and kindness to you, s/he is trying to find some evidence to support a charge. Then it is a minimum of $30k to defend yourself again in court and no, you don't get anything back for innocent.

Be aware too, that in most jurisdictions, Qld for instance, there is the foul REVERSED onus of proof where you the victim are concerned. It is YOU who have to prove that you were in fear of your life and that every single action was reasonable. Hard to do before a court where all manner of options magically appear and are held to be ways you might have survived intact or with your life.

Actually, it's not new. Many years ago my neighbour caught a kid pinching the milk money off my doorstep; he chased the thief, apprended her, and called the police, who did turn up only to harangue my neighbour for grabbing the thief - and he was a Customs officer.

Australian politicians slavishly follow the UK for an easy life. What about this?

"Myleene Klass warned by police after waving 'illegal' kitchen knife at intruders in her garden

Myleene Klass was told off by police for waving a knife through her window to scare off two teenagers trying to break into her garden shed.

The musician was alone in her kitchen, with her two-year-old daughter asleep upstairs, when she grabbed the knife and shouted 'I'm calling the police'.

Officers who arrived at her house in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, on Friday warned her that it was illegal to carry an 'offensive weapon' even at home..."

[worth reading in full]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242040/Myleene-Klass-warned-police-waving-illegal-kitchen-knife-intruders-garden.html

Police officers are law enforcement officers.
In other words they are there to enforce the law.
They deal with things like stealing, assault, burglary,
damage, and weapons - according to the law.

If we want them to change their behaviour on any of
these aspects - then we need to change the law
that affect these crimes. Otherwise nothing is going
to change.

A police officer simply goes by the law.And that is what
they did in the case of David Dunstan.

Of course father of three David Dunstan behaved sensibly
and rationally and should be congratulated on the way
he dealt with - what must have been a stressful situation
for him and his family. His gun was not loaded - he used
it as a prop. He could see that the 18 year old teen appeared
to be drug affected (why else would he knock on the front
door) and the gun was used to scare the armed teen into
compliance. Nobody was hurt or killed. Driving the teen to
the police station was a job well handled.

Hopefully Mr Dunstan will get his guns back soon. But for
things to change - the law needs to be reviewed.
Definitely. Otherwise nothing will change.

I think most people who faced an armed person attempting to enter their house would use whatever means available to them to dissuade the intruder from being a risk to their family. I have no problems with that at all. Neither do I have an issue with the police removing the weapons until the case is fully investigated. I think that is appropriate, as is a license review, and if all is in order the man will undoubtedly get his weapons back.

There are some questions which need answering though. For instance why did the man feel the need to force the intruder into the car to drive him to the police station at gunpoint if the police were on their way? Hopefully the police will do their job and apply the law.

What we are going to be subjected to as a result of this story are the gun nuts wanting to arm every household. Oh joy.

In fact the police have discretion where firearms licensed members of the public are concerned. Someone up the line ACTED, not reacted, it was a decision, to take that particular course and his property.

It is not clear from what I read if his licence had been seized as well, but that would have been in tune with the harsh treatment.

His licence and his assets are 'under review'. That means it up to him to prove he should have his licence and assets back, to overturn the confiscation.

That will cost him time out of his lawful activities that support him and his family, ie farming PLUS anywhere from $30k up to be represented in Court. Money that will NOT be reimbursed, even if he wins. Police and prosecutors have unlimited funds and everything can be a test case, speculative, to gain interpretations and more powers if they like.

BTW he has had all of his firearms taken and that would include any other property the police could imagine is associated. By comparison, even where a person commits a serious offence with a car for example, his/her other cars and property are not automatically taken as well.

That is enough to suggest gross unfairness for now.

It is most ill-advised to approach an offender with an unloaded firearm. But I guess most would no other alternative where time is critical, because by regulation ammunition is separately stored and also under lock and key. Then there are other considerations. Government makes it impossible for the law-abiding, especially the aged, frail and women, to defend themselves with a firearm. But the offenders have no such problem and they have the initiative too.

I believe this offender is an adult by law and allegedly had already committed a similar offence elsewhere. What other offences is not known at this stage.

The question remains, "what would you have done?".

SteeleRedux - I think an important factor in this is "Time"

It has been established 3 hours prior quote "appeared at a nearby property outside a child’s bedroom window before smashing a kitchen window"
Did police attend the incident if so they should have been in the area looking for him.

Quote "police were on their way" How long, we don't know it could have been hours, especially in the countryside.

Old saying - Better to be tried by 12 people than carried by 6 people.

The bloke has clearly committed an offence, by 'forcing' this fellow into his car for the purpose of conveying him to the police station at Albury. The word 'force' would trouble the Court? Ostensible because this offender may have been under the impression, that if if failed to accompany this farmer with the .22, he might well be shot? Whether the F/A is loaded or not, the offender doesn't know?

What would I do if confronted at home at 0330hrs by some 'Dork', knocking on my door at such an ungodly hour, armed with a knife and bit of wood? The same as the farmer probably. Is there an offence in what he did at that time? No there isn't. Did he menace the 'Dork', with the rifle? No. Is it an offence to carry around a rifle in the privacy of your own home, or the curtilages thereof? Again no. You have the right to protect yourself and your property from such an intrusion.

The offence is disclosed by 'forcing' said 'Dork' into the car, it's the forcing that causes the trouble? I'm with STEELEREDUX on this one I'm afraid.

Quote from the article.
"Police did not want to comment on the development, but had earlier urged people to call Triple-0 during emergencies."

My experience at dialing Triple 0. One for Assault. "6 hours." No witnesses, nothing done.

One for being threatened with a pistol. "Next day." No witnesses nothing done

One for reporting the next door farmer for shooting my puppy that got through a hole in the fence & approached him looking for a pat. "4 hours." No witnesses nothing done.

All three concern the same farmer. Police says the farmer told them he doesn't own a pistol & they take his word over mine because he is old time local family. I was warned by the locals that I'd have trouble with him when I moved in. All seven people on his Boundary have had trouble with him, Telecom & The Electricity Company won't go on the Property.

An acquaintance with a farm near a small Queensland town was having trouble with his wife's ex boyfriend. This yobbo had taken to coming by, drunk & threatening some nights after the pub shut. He asked the head cop at the small police station what he should do about it.

The advice was simple, "don't hurt him under any circumstances. Hurt him & our heads will take his word as gospel. The best you could expect would be bankruptcy from defending yourself in court".

"On the other hand, if he's dead he can't be interviewed, can he".

o sung wu, "The offence is disclosed by 'forcing' said 'Dork' into the car, it's the forcing that causes the trouble? I'm with STEELEREDUX on this one I'm afraid"

An emphatic 'No' to that, I am afraid.

Just a reminder that the feral invaded his home and threatened him and his family with weapons.

Exactly how would a prosecutor hope to prove that the farmer, the victim, 'kidnapped' the assailant by restraining him and taking him to a police station?

He should be putting in a claim for vehicle allowance and cleaning.

OK, LEOJ, whatever you say!

o sung wu,

Where we may be on common ground is that if someone up there wants to be more careful because there are headline-hunting serial nuisances and political wannabes circling, then there is worth in the farmer being inconvenienced a bit. Usually some passage of time is all that it takes for the pests to clear. The commentariat and the pollies chase off after something else going by.

If I was in his situation I would be continually reminding myself to keep my own counsel (while getting some good professional advice in case) and not to appear jaundiced against the police, especially the local force. As for the media, a wide berth is always best. In fact I'd say nothing. And I wouldn't be tempted to comment on comments either which is a dead trap for learners.

Hi there LEOJ...

I'm sorry I didn't mean to be so perfunctory with my remarks towards you, I should learn to shut my mouth and not allow myself to be drawn on the many what 'if's' etc. There is so little in the way of 'fact' presented in the scenario provided, and many variables that one may assume. Therefore it's best if I leave this sort of thing to general discussion.

Coppers by dint of their profession must be very black and white, there's no 'greys' permitted in a court of law, it's only the judiciary itself, that may establish whether these enigmatic 'greys' may exist at all, whenever they weigh-up the evidence?

I apologise for my terse, even brusque response to you LEOJ, it was totally undeserved.

o sung wu,

No problem at all, thanks.

I imagine you sense and may share my exasperation at the politics that are being played by political types in areas like law enforcement.

Meanwhile, in our area of the world strutting fools prove that they are incapable of learning from history.

Dear o sung wu,

Indeed.

As a former policeman you would have many thoughts about how this could have gone very wrong.

Can you imagine any scenario where you would have entered a vehicle with a drug affected, potentially violent, individual without restraining him first?

Forcing someone at gunpoint to desist from a break in is one thing but to compel them to enter a car is quite another, especially if you knew the law was on its way. What might have gone through the crim's head? Was he being taken to a place to be disposed of? And how do you keep another person under control while driving? What if the perpetrator had decided to take his chances and the car lost control killing others?

The home owner took matters into his own hands and the warning from the police for people to call 000 was entirely appropriate.

Now a case may well be made that the gentleman was listening to his own instincts rather than those of a trained policeman, however the point is this chap did indeed take the law into his own hand in a manner that put he, the suspect, and the general public in danger and for that he should indeed be made to reflect on his actions.

The standards for firearm use in this country rightly doesn't encompass using them to force another person into a vehicle. In doing so the homeowner over stepped the mark ad the matter deemed worthy of investigation.

What is needed is the Dromi Law: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Dromi-Law-passes-final-reading-in-Knesset-plenum

'no person shall bear criminal responsibility for an act that was immediately necessary in order to repel someone who breaks into or enters a home, business or fenced-off farm belonging to him or another person, with the intent of committing a crime, or someone who attempts to break into or enter the above.'

Personally I think the farmer acted irresponsibly.
If I was living on remote property and a male stranger turned up at the front door at 3:30am armed with a knife, I'd probably load that gun.
And I might just consider deliberately letting the person break in, if I thought they meant to do harm, then shooting them and saying they came at me with the knife.

- Any criticism? Well if you're gonna go around strangers houses on remote properties armed with a knife and breaking in at 3:30am, you can't really expect things to always work out 'happily ever after'.

'If you play stupid games you win stupid prizes'.

AC: Well if you're gonna go around strangers houses on remote properties armed with a knife and breaking in at 3:30am, you can't really expect things to always work out 'happily ever after'.

Agreed. Accepted practise with the Police lately. Justifiable Homicide I think it's called.

SteelRedux,

Your spin has reversed it to cast the armed robber as the victim who could likely have a tort claim for negligence and damages against the farmer. As you have it, the farmer is now the serious offender who should be charged with kidnapping and reckless endangerment, with a lengthy custodial sentence as the penalty.

To top it off, you would have the farmer's possessions, the expensive registered firearms that are used on his property, confiscated forever and crushed, and lose his licence forever as well. Regarding the last mentioned, you already have him losing his assets and licence forever for the unspecified firearms offence that the FAR police should cook up through the Commissioner's wide delegation. BTW, where else in law does a Police Commissioner, the enforcement arm, enjoy such delegation? But he would certainly lose all if convicted of a criminal offence anyhow.

To sum up, under the SteelRedux 'justice', the armed offender may only get a a slap on the wrist and a suspended short sentence. Or, worst scenario, out in a trice from some place better than most, from a prison farm and he gets some free board, education and counselling). Because courts are bound to go easy on a young offender, despite past offences. And if he is indigenous or 'multicultural' that will be a certain 'get-out-of-gaol-card-free-becaise-it-is-somehow-society's-fault'. That is notwithstanding the lives put at risk and changed forever - the families who lived through the ordeal he decided to inflict on them.

Whereas SteelRedux's 'justice' has the farmer suffering the Court's and public opprobrium, his reputation trashed and being gaoled for a lengthy stint for two very serious crimes and very likely losing his farm and family too.

Very well done with that spin (Not!).

Dear SteeleRedux,

I think that most of us
understand the valid points that you have raised.

We're told that the police were on their way therefore
you question the unnecessary risk that the farmer took
to force an armed, drug-affected perpetrator,
into a vehicle at gun-point. The farmer should have
waited for the police - and the police did act appropriately,
again as you pointed out, by taking the weapons away from the
farmer until the matter is fully investigated. Law enforcement
officers have to enforce the law and behave accordingly.
Which is precisely what the police did. We can't criticise
them for that. And as far as the farmer is concerned - nobody
is blaming him for his behaviour - merely explaining the way
the law works. If we want things to change we need to look
at how we can make changes to the law. All the police can do
is their job - which is enforce the law as it currently stands.

It will be interesting to see what punitive measures will be
taken against the perpetrator. Hopefully the farmer will get
his weapons back.

What we the public, who are very exasperated with political game-players will see, Foxy, is whether 12 good men and women will side with you and SteelRedux, or with that brave farmer, father and family man who put his own life on the line to protect his wife, family and other citizens.

There is public ire with how he and his family have been treated thus far.

Instead, he is rightly due an Award. And since the self-serving, lick-spittle politicians are unlikely to do that, their stocks will fall even further in the eyes of the citizens they are supposed to be serving, but are not, serving themselves and most generously, instead.

It is a sad reflection on what has been happening in Australia that this brave, selfless father and husband and his family are being re-victimised. He would likely never get any recognition apart from the public's heart-felt thanks and well wishes, but at least he know that is genuine.

The police merely followed
the letter of the law - by temporarily removing the
farmer's weapons.
We should not leap to any conclusions or make any
assumptions until the results of this case
are fully investigated and made public.

In the meantime, sound reasoning should be the order
of any discussion. Arguing on an emotional level instead
of a mature intelligent one has little chance of
winning anyone points.

It is discretion that is being 'exercised', not law.

Police officers use discretion when deciding to
enforce the law when certain situations arise.
Discretion is a key component of law enforcement,
most discretionary decisions are based on
misdemeanor or traffic enforcement.

Police officers are obliged to follow state statute
and agency policy and procedure when making these
decisions.

Rumour has it that the Deputy Premier has been to see the farmer and that the Nationals are getting involved.

Support is growing for him it seems and there are going to be some red faces.

Bye the way, Steele, what would you have done?

has the police arrested that leftist antifa thug who assaulted Andrew Bolt a couple of months ago? Thought not the abc is more interested in Tony Abbott punching clean air 45 years ago.

Let's hope that the Nationals can bring about a common sense solution to police stupidity.

It only takes one careerist bureaucrat, feeling left out and eager to make a name for himself, in the headquarters Firearms Registry (FAR) to wreak mayhem. If that is where it is coming from.

Hoping that the FAR hasn't become the backwater dumping ground for the ones with difficult personalities who cannot get along with their patrol partners and team. So it is off to be flotsam in the Sargasso Sea that is FAR and we'll see you no more.

A pity, because if the FARs could be allowed to direct their efforts at collaring criminals again instead of the endless bureaucracy of keeping dossiers on and monitoring ordinary licensed citizens for no return, there are some there who could still make a contribution.

Very different to be going home feeling you contributed through helping to pull violent drug dealing bikies off the street than to sit there day in day out polishing a seat and looking over the shoulders of ordinary respectable people every day. That's politics, more the pity for men and women who only signed up to nab crims.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I guess every contributor on the Forum would have their own opinion on how such an incident should be managed? And by and large they'd probably be right. I would most likely act in exactly the same circumstances, as most others would, herein.

The bewildering part of course is; The 'forcing' of this fellow into his M/V? Seemingly for the purpose of conveying him to a police station. By what measure or process was this 'force' imposed? Was it at the point of an unloaded .22 Rimfire? Was he manhandled, how exactly? And why take such an unsustainable risk, when police were already en route to take this individual into custody? Answers a Magistrate would indeed be keen to hear?

Dear o sung wu,

Entirely agree. It seems like due process is being followed as any even minded person would expect.

However I now see there is a gofundme page set up to 'get David Dunstan's weapons back'. I'm not sure what it is trying to achieve besides hyping the issue for political ends. Perhaps they might have a case if his weapons end up being confiscated permanently, but for now should just be letting things be dealt with appropriately.

Dear foxy,

Couldn't have summarised my thoughts better if I had done it myself. :) There will be the usual crowd trying very hard to make this about personal gun rights which it isn't, but we shouldn't be surprised, their true colours are as always in pretty plain sight.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thank You for your kind words.

It will be interesting to see what develops as far
as Mr Dunstan is concerned. I suspect that things
will end well. I am familiar
with the Albury region - having studied in that
area. The people out there are very down-to-earth
and it usually takes a great deal to stir them up.

Steele and Foxy,

What would you have done?

Dear Is Mise,

I've been bailed up once before by a young man
who was drug-affected. It was at night and I
was on my way to an evening lecture. He demanded
money from me. All I had on my was not very much.
I asked him to leave me a few coins so that I
could get a cup of coffee during my break in
the evening lecture but that he was welcome to
the rest of my money - which I gave him. He did
let me have a couple of dollars. And he went on his
way. I saw him a couple of days later in the street
with friends. I never reported the incident to
the police.

So in the case of the farmer? - I would probably
have called the police - and tried talking to the
young bloke to calm him down until the police
arrived. Again I probably would have offered him
money as well

Burglary is on the increase and unlike some other crimes, relatively few cases are closed. Home invasion is considered to be a possible, very frightening event by the public.

In Foxy's case by her own documented admission, available to police investigators from review of her posting on forums, her internet records, which are looked at in the authorised home search where a serious incident is thought to have occurred, she likely voids her right of self defence, declaring that she has not felt the need before in similar circumstances and she details alternative steps she considers most relevant, suitable and adequate.

If she ever does self defend or does not act to prevent some Samaritan doing it on her behalf, her lawyer will be facing a difficult time, in a situation (with forward-looking SA differing, I believe) where it is required to meet the reversed standard of proof, in Vic,

"A person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

A person carries out conduct in self-defence if:

(a) the person believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence; and

(b) the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.

(3) This section only applies in the case of murder if the person believes that the conduct is necessary to defend the person or another person from the infliction of death or really serious injury."

So Foxy's response puts her in the the very small number, rare, public who do not fear serious harm is a very high likelihood, a distinct and imminent possibility where confronted by an armed thug.

contd..
As a most serious duty, not mentioned, overlooked in the media, but also placed on the courageous farmer, is that he being firearms licensed has responsibility for his firearms, and even a fired, empty case falls into the hands of an unlicensed person he himself will face serious firearms charges.

Of course the farmer and family and the unfortunate neighbours whose home safety and privacy were similarly violated, would be exactly the opposite to Foxy, they believing that their lives and those of their loved ones and the public were at risk. Bleeding out from a knife wound is highly likely and all that matters is very fast transport to a hospital and an operating team waiting.

Dear Is Mise,

We do not know the full circumstances faced by Mr Dunstan but I have certainly faced a drug affected individual.

My guess is the teenager was probably searching for an easy score and was looking for an empty house to burgle. I'm assuming he was compliant enough once confronted that Mr Dunstan felt he could safely drive him toward the police station. There is no indication the knife was used to threaten Mr Dunstan but it may have been evident.

My brother is an ex-copper and I have seen him talk someone into sitting quietly for the police to arrive, a skill I recognise I have not got.

Mr Dunstan's actions resulted in no deaths or injuries and as pilots have want to say any landing you walk away from is a good landing.

This could have had a very different outcome judging by the gung-ho, trigger happy, chest beating attitudes by some of the posters here. How very American of them.

All very well, Steele, but what would you have done?

Remember it's 18 ks to town, and the character at your door has a knife and a hunk of wood.

Add that the offender had youth, flexibility and initiative on his side and easy hostages to take and threaten/molest.

High probability too and it was proved to be, that the offender had experience and mental preparation - because it is known he had already committed a serious offence and could have a record of offending. Intending offenders do go to 'school', they talk through tactics with experienced thugs.

It is very different for the victims, whose innocence and vulnerability should be obvious. The biggest problem being that ordinary citizens are in a state of shock and fear as they should be, that is perfectly normal. The offender capitalises on that and the control of the victims is already on his mind, first priority and guess how that might be done.

However in this case one of the intended victims had a deterrent that instantly flipped the balance of power. If only Jill Maegher had something or someone to defend her. Foxy might say how her vaunted expertise in dealing with offenders (and not reporting them!) could have helped that dear lost soul,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/jill-meagher-killer-adrian-bayley-stabbed-in-jail/news-story/70fd9af38fdfea3aebbdc1addb21d9a4

this guy seems more worthy of Australian of the Year than some of the other activist.

Dear Is Mise,

I'm not sure what you mean but if I found a teenager at my back door at 3 in the morning and I was able to ascertain nefarious intent then I would certainly demand an explanation, block entry to the house and attempt to call the police. Hopefully i would have enough control to only escalate if really necessary. I don't imagine a scenario where I would be driving the intruder in my car but I accept that Mr Dunstan may well have felt this to be an appropriate act.

News just in my friend yet another child has been shot in the face in NSW incidentally with the same caliber weapon employed by Mr Dunstan. How many aussie kids have to die or be injured before you support toughening gun handling laws rather than loosening them?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/12-year-old-boy-accidenatlly-shot/8995242

Steele,

What I mean is; what would you do?

The shooting in the face has nothing to do with the topic and you don't know if I favour loosening the laws.
There was a recent topic on that subject where I challenged anyone to shew there had been any such loosening, I don't remember your input.

Meanwhile in the Vic Parliament, a petition:

"The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the ongoing increase of violent crime in Victoria and the inability of law-abiding citizens to adequately protect themselves against violent crime.
Repeated incidents of violent home invasions, armed robberies, carjackings and now armed gangs attacking Victorians and their businesses have highlighted the need for self-defence reform. We point also to the recent example of Victoria Police Senior Constable Daniel Yeoman, who was nearly killed by a criminal in a violent home invasion. He was not able to defend himself adequately because Victorian law trusts him to carry non-lethal self-defence tools while employed as a Police Officer, but also prohibits him from carrying them off-duty and out of uniform.
Furthermore, the recent example of Albury, NSW farmer David Dunstan having his firearms removed by police because he used them in defence of his family on his rural property against an armed criminal, further highlights the inadequacy and unfortunate regressive nature of self-defence laws in Australia.
While citizens in Victoria are currently afforded the right to self-defence under section 462a of the Crimes Act 1958, this right to self-defence is essentially meaningless when the same citizens are denied access to the practical means to self-defence. The fact that non-lethal self-defence items remain illegal in Victoria is irrational, particularly given the fact that criminals perpetrating violent home invasions and armed robberies in Victoria are already armed in spite of the law.
The right to preserve one’s life is the most basic human right of all. Victoria prides itself on being a “progressive” state; however, its policy towards self-defence and the right to preserve life is unfortunately severely regressive."

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/index.php?option=com_rsform&view=rsform&formId=74&Itemid=1054&petition_id=48

It's gettin' bigger!

What would I do?

Well, assuming I had a gun, which I don't and wouldn't, first I would have that gun loaded, just in case.

Second, if I felt that it was safe to drive that criminal in my car (it couldn't be an ordinary car, right?), then I would get him in, drive him 100 Km away, halfway I would tell him to throw out the knife, then I would tell him to get out, then drive back home.

No, I would not call the police - that would be excessive violence beyond what is required in self-defence.

leoj,

The incident that happened to me occurred not in my home
but in the street outside a tertiary institution and the
young bloke was not threatening in that -he did not frighten me
or assault me in any way. He was on drugs and wanted money
which I gave him. End of story.

I wish that you would stop putting your spin other people's
experiences, posts, et cetera - because you actually don't have a clue. You were not there.
Neither are you a lawyer - so you're in no position to give any
legal advice or tell any of us what the law would do.
Again - because you don't have a clue. your interpretations are
simply that - your interpretations - and according to your
post record on this forum they don't amount to much.

I also wish that you'd pick on somebody else for a change instead
of consistently singling me out. I know that you're a fan -
but really it's getting beyond a joke. Don't you care what
others have to say and what they post. Why choose me all the time.
I can't help but wonder why your obsession with me. It's
getting a bit embarrassing.

"I've been bailed up once before by a young man
who was drug-affected. It was at night and I
was on my way to an evening lecture. He demanded
money from me"

"The incident that happened to me occurred not in my home
but in the street outside a tertiary institution and the
young bloke was not threatening in that -he did not frighten me
or assault me in any way. He was on drugs and wanted money
which I gave him"

There is a slight difference between those two accounts.

Dear Is Mise,

No there isn't.

I simply did not elaborate in my first post.
The fact remains also that he did not take
all of my money - but left me enough to buy
coffee as I had requested - which to me showed
that there wasn't a serious threat in him.

//What would you have done?//

Release the hounds.

Foxy,

"I've been bailed up [indicates robbery with menaces] once before by a young man who was drug-affected. It was at night and I
was on my way to an evening lecture. He demanded [not asked nicely but demanded; demand indicates threat] money from me"

2nd version:
". He was on drugs and wanted [did not 'demand'?] money which I gave him"

There is a world of difference.

What was a 12 years old boy doing with a loaded .22 rimfire rifle? I really don't know, perhaps I'm now wondering whether we should re-examine and where necessary, modify the F/A Laws, or at the very least, reassess the penalties for any breach of the Act. or Regulations.

And the most recent 'post' from IS MISE is remarkable, in so much that he's teased out, a real conundrum, created entirely by our utterly preposterous politicians, ostensibly for the benefit of all law abiding citizens of the State of Victoria?

They have proclaimed that you (a citizen) has the right to defend yourselves, provding you don't use anything that may prove capable of hurting or frightening someone. Or is construed as being an offensive weapon? Yet these courageous, unlicensed 'Home Invaders' have given government an undertaking they'll only deploy, semi-automatic weapons to their preferred targets. Instead of resorting hitherto, weapons of a type, that have a select-fire capacity, capable of engaging full 'Rock 'n Roll'. Now that's the spirit of fairness and a true egalitarian outcome I should think? Bravo, ANDREWS Government Bravo. Another clear victory for the Labour Government.

F/A's should always be kept safely locked away from both children; and politicians!

Dear Is Mise,

You're going to have to accept how I saw the
situation at that time. And your interpretation
of the words that I used is not something that
I can control. You seem to have forgotten that
I have worked in public, university, and special
libraries for many years and am quite used to
dealing with all sorts of people and situations.
From rowdy teens, to flashers, to drunk and
disorderly men, to screaming mothers, and elderly
problems. So I can identify potential
trouble when I see it. Yes, this guy did bail me up
yes it was at night (early evening), and yes he was
on drugs, but as I said - I was able to talk to him
and calm him down. As for reporting him to the police?
Over a few dollars? I did not think it was worth it.
As no real harm was done.

You have got that a bit wrong o sung wu.

Rather than locking up the guns to keep the politicians away from them, it would be a much better idea to lock up the politicians, to keep them away from both guns, & passing more than enough stupid laws.

Perhaps today's kids are more immature than when I was a boy. Before Myxomatosis many of us 12 year olds, & early teen boys provided a couple of meals a week for our families, courtesy of our 22s, & plentiful rabbits. The money I earned from rabbit skins paid for a new push bike, that the family could not afford so soon after the war.

Mine was an old single shot with a broken extractor, given to me by a local farmer, who had bought a new Browning repeater to replace it. He wasn't interested in extracting spent cartridges with a pen knife.

I guess the penknife would be illegal today too

Foxy,

I would have thought that you would be familiar with the term "bailed up"; for a representation of the term see Tom Roberts's famous painting "Bailed Up".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailed_Up

I don't think that the meaning of the words has changed.

//see Tom Roberts's famous painting "Bailed Up".//

I did, and it was beautiful :)

Thanks, Is Mise.

Hasbeen, "I guess the penknife would be illegal today"

Depends on whose fat head the cap is sitting on, unfortunately. Because the discretion is there to confiscate that penknife. Then, in view of the likelihood of a charge and expensive court proceedings, most will capitulate and walk away.

A week ago I was in an ordinary kitchen cutlery shop in Qld to buy another knife for the centre console of my fourby. It is obvious to a country person why it is there, but for others, one purpose is to escape the seatbelt in a rollover.

I lose a few to camp sites and needy borrowers. I prefer Gerber 'Hinderer', but this Swiss Army knife was available, OK and would have to do for the job,
http://www.victorinox.com/global/en/Products/Swiss-Army-Knives/Large-Pocket-Knives/RescueTool/p/0.8623.MWN

As I was about to pay, a gent near, a highway patrol officer with the NSW police holidaying interstate with his wife, sternly advised that if that knife or any of the lesser ones displayed were carried in a car into NSW it would be confiscated and the driver and owner would be lucky to escape a weapons charge. It would have to be locked in a tool kit box or maybe in a fishing kit, but only taken out for that use.

I asked what should be purchased instead. This apparently,
Seat belt cutter,
http://www.spservices.ie/item/EMI_PelicanPlasticSeatBeltCutterLigatureKnife-Orange_0_57_23_1.html

I asked, but what about breaking a side glass, cutting holding rubber for a front or rear glass and general utility?

Answer, buy a glass breaker and for the rest, tough luck.

Got be be careful, the bureaucratic idiocy peaks in some jurisdictions.

Yep, this ratbag government is determined to take any form of useful self defence tool from us, meanwhile filling the country with the worst kind of people, who hate us for what we give them.

God help our grand kids.

I reckon you're right HASBEEN? I wonder when they'll declare an 'open season' on politicians? Bring your extractor'less' .22 Rimfire, and secret a penknife deeply into your pocket. And I'll bring an old water cooled, Vickers, Belt feed .303 MG. and we'll have a collaborative Navy/Army season on our beloved P.C. politicians eh?

Hi there LEOJ...

When I first joined the job they used to hammer relentlessly into you, the benefit of using 'common sense'. Or a more colourful phase 'common dog f..k'. All of which will often alleviate a lot of drama. You may possess 'a power' to require an individual to 'do something' or alternatively 'Not to do something' or further 'desist from attempting to do something. Often by just appealing to a blokes common sense, you'll often get a far better result than being the big overbearing and pompous copper.

Whenever you compel, or order, or demand, something from an individual, particular when that individual is on company, most blokes don't like to back down, or loose face, especially in the presence of their friends or girl friends. Even more so if they're affected by alcohol.

If in NSW you were caught in a M/V with a knife in plain view, depending on many things, usually it's just an innocent incident and commonsense is by far the best way to remedy such a matter. Most coppers can tell, if and when that knife may be intended for more sinister purposes. If they don't, they clearly shouldn't be in the friggin' job anyway.

Dear Is Mise,

Well that is pretty disgusting mate.

Firstly of course you applaud the loosening of our gun laws. Please don't try and be cute on this.

Secondly look at what that petition is attempting to do, get our citizenry so fearful they flood our gun shops and dismantle our gun laws, laws that took the massacre of over 30 people in Tasmania to enact.

And what about Police Senior Constable Daniel Yeoman? Has anyone asked him what he wants? Do you think that might include a doubling of the number of households with weapons inside?

My brother had to face down some heavily armed crims while in the Federal Police. But the most fearful he had been is when he was acting on a Family Court matters involving the removal of children knowing the father had weapons in the house.

In your selfishness you are demanding that police officers like Daniel Yeoman face heightened risks in an already dangerous job.

Shame my friend shame.

o sung wu,

It is the games being played by certain political fringe groups and the police are frustrated too. The 4X4 club don't invite any problems and compliance is paramount.

Steele,

"Firstly of course you applaud the loosening of our gun laws"

Where have I done that?

I have criticized the Greens for opposing tougher gun laws.
and I have long advocated tougher gun laws, laws aimed at criminals particularly.

Dear Is Mise,

I'm glad to see that you have an interest
in Australian artists. I studied Art for quite
a few years and I had a great collection of material
on Tom Roberts - which I donated to our
regional library. If you like Tom Roberts, you
may also like - Frederick McCubbin. His painting
"The Pioneer," is considered to be a masterpiece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pioneer_(painting)

Steele,

"And what about Police Senior Constable Daniel Yeoman? Has anyone asked him what he wants? Do you think that might include a doubling of the number of households with weapons inside? .... In your selfishness you are demanding that police officers like Daniel Yeoman face heightened risks in an already dangerous job."

Not so, in my "selfishness' I would demand that police officers be allowed to carry a pistol, of their choice, at all times; then perhaps the number of police attacked when off duty might decrease and the general community would be safer.

Or do you think that a policeman being stabbed in front of his family is not much of a price to pay for for the political correctness of not allowing people the wherewithal with which to defend themselves?

Foxy,

I still remember and with some awe, the first time that I saw "Bailed Up".
Tom Roberts remains my favourite Australian painter.

SteelRedux, "..yet another child has been shot in the face in NSW incidentally with the same caliber weapon employed by Mr Dunstan"

The deceitful pin of propagandists takes the findings of social psychologists and turns the known error-ridden short-cuts of thinking and in particular the brain's use of patterning, back on humanity.

SteelRedux's posts teem with examples, betraying the extreme prejudice of its sources, advised by propagandists. In the few words quoted, there are two tricky heuristics, the 'Availability Bias' and the 'Salience Bias'. The first, Availability, is used to create a false belief of many incidences, simply by sensationalising every single incident, regardless where it comes from. You get the same effect when you buy an uncommon item, eg a red Saab, and suddenly 'see' red Saabs everywhere. But Saabs are uncommon and the company went into receivership in Australia. The 'Salience Error' makes it way easier for the propagandist to manipulate the public where the event could have a very serious, catastrophic consequence. It is catastrophising and sensationalising to bend minds, grubby tricks.

Taken logically, SR's boy example proves the exact opposite of what SR's handlers/source would want you to believe. The fact is that in Australia, which has always enjoyed a high firearms ownership and enviable safety, firearms accidents are exceptionally rare and serious harm, while it can happen in all recreational activities and sports, is even rarer still. Much rarer than (say) cyclist injuries and death. Rarer too than injury from junior AFL or basketball.

contd..

Where 'dissing' legal, licensed ownership of firearms is concerned, Foreign currency dealing billionaire Soros' 'Open Society', starting with the name being an example of Marxist manipulation of language, is the usual source of sloppy 'research' and bent and twisted reports overflowing with examples of manipulation of human biases. No surprise there where academics, faux academics too, are always on the look-out for funding and some may be encouraged to flex their ethics, or others allow their own biassed view, their idealism, to compromise their science and ethics.

Soros is hell-bent on interfering in the domestic politics of democracies like Australia where political disruption and deals behind the scenes might allow him to side-step those pesky stock market and other regulations that deter and punish manipulation of markets and other nasties.

Returning to the 'boy shot in face' example that was intended to trip up the discussion and did, even the statement of the accident appears false, misleading, because allegedly it was a fragment, metallic, stone, wood or whatever from a ricochet, not a direct shot as implied by SR. The pea- or mouse rifle .22 as it is know overseas, is slow-moving and users need to ensure that the ground is not stoney where the slow, soft lead can break up to fly for a short distance.

That is without discussing the deliberate, misleading false comparison, the deliberate false analogy, employed to fox readers.

Australians are fed up with nasty brain manipulators and thought police. Note too, that Aussies deeply resent foreign billionaires and their mates interfering in their domestic politics.

Shame, SteelRedux, shame.

Dear Is Mise,

I can understand your emotions regarding the works of
Tom Roberts. We certainly have been blessed in this
country with some great talent and our art galleries have
increased interest so that more and more people are now
able to get experience of art than perhaps ever before.
Our artists, writers, musicians, performers in the arts,
have earned Australia a place amongst the world's best.

"Elderly Perth woman tries to stave off car thief with umbrella

Kensington Detectives are seeking information from the public in relation to an armed robbery that occurred in St James just before midday yesterday, 28 September 2017.
The robbery occurred when a woman aged in her 60’s was exiting a supermarket on Chapman Road. As she walked to her silver Holden Calais parked on Pitt Street, she noticed a man near the pay phone on Pitt Street. As she reached her vehicle he approached the woman at the driver’s side door, produced and knife and demanded the keys.
A struggle ensued, with the woman striking the offender a number of times with an umbrella. During this time the woman received a cut to the hand from the knife.
The man eventually took the keys and started the vehicle. The woman attempted to get the man out of her vehicle, but he drove away at speed, knocking her to the ground. She received bruising and grazes to her hands and knees."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/elderly-woman-with-umbrella-ries-to-fight-off-perth-car-thief/9000520

Dear Is Mise,

What on earth does this incident have to do with anything firearm related unless you want elderly women in our supermarket car parks blazing away? Or perhaps you do.

And look at your response to the threat to policemen like Daniel Yeoman by wanting guns in virtually every house hold in Australia, 'oh we will allow him to have an off duty firearm'.

I was specifically asking you about the increased risk to his life while doing his job and having no answer you threw up that red herring.

You will need to do far better than that piss-weak effort my friend.

As to weakening our laws you fully supported dropping the requirement for those who are lackadaisical with the storage requirements to face court. No matter how much you try and twist it this is a loosening of laws around the safe use of firearms.

We don't need old ladies with firearms and certainly not EVERY household: For one, I would be refusing, so will they put me in jail, like in Switzerland, for NOT having a gun?

However, we do need criminals to BELIEVE that the old lady in the car park COULD have more than an umbrella and that home owners COULD have a gun as well as the permission to shoot them.

(this is one good reason for remaining anonymous here, so that criminals cannot identify me as someone who is unwilling to touch a gun)

Steele,

"And look at your response to the threat to policemen like Daniel Yeoman by wanting guns in virtually every house hold in Australia, 'oh we will allow him to have an off duty firearm'."

The increased risk to his life was off the job and because he was not trusted to have a firearm for self-defence whilst off duty.
What is wrong with allowing appropriately trained people to have a gun for defence of themselves or others?

The lady in Perth was put up just as a reminder of what happens to citizens who are unable to protect themselves.
Age makes very little difference, a distant relative of mine killed dozens of men when in her late twenties, early thirties and at least one of those that she killed then, she did with her bare hands, and in her eighties was capable of defending herself and still very handy with a knife or pistol.

What the public needs to know is that YOU OFFEND, are seen as committing an offence, BY the act of DEFENDING yourself.

That is the way the law has been framed and changed over time by left-leaning criminal defence lawyers.

So, whenever you are caused to defend yourself, loved ones or property, police investigators are obliged by the law to do their very best, their utmost, be their sneakiest, to prove you committed an offence.

Where YOU the victim are concerned, it is YOU who will be required against a REVERSED standard of proof, to prove that you were in real fear for your life, that there wasn't any even unlikely way you could have avoided YOUR offence against the feral (now cast as the victim) and that you used the minimum possible and 'right' force in the process.

The prosecutor can have some very optimistic opinion on your alternatives that could have saved the feral (now cast as your victim) from your offence, ie your attack.

If you are the victim or your loved ones are the victims of a home invasion, you must know that you should be mentally prepared and briefed in advance and legally represented through all stages of the investigation.

That is the way the law has been framed over time by criminal-favouring leftist lawyers lobbying politicians. The squeaky wheels won.

What is needed is a review of the right to defend. Especially where home invasion is concerned. This time with the victims and public involved. There is a growing number of single households and frail old.

I can tell you what I would have done

I would have told him to piss off and shut the door in his face. Seeing that he was a threat to my family and me, I would have armed myself with the largest and most powerful rifle or gun I had. Loaded it with full magazine and then called the police. If he had attempted to enter the house I would have shot him. Oh, and I would have aimed for the largest part of him I could see.

Do grow up a bit steely. I don't give a damn what constable plod might like, he is of absolutely no use or interest to me or anyone else around here. I would also bet a million that you have no interest in his wellbeing. Like all ratbag lefties, this worry about our cops is a total sham, being used to further your fool ideas on society.

In this area we have 2 cops, with one car covering 5000 square miles after hours. The chance of getting one of them to attend a home invasion is about one in a million, & that is after the one in a million chance of contacting them if needed.

Yes o sung wu our cops used to use a bit od common sense. I was once stopped near Richmond, by a local cop. A bunch of us had been up reducing the feral pig population on a mates property. My Singer 4A did not have a boot, so my mates rifle & mine were on the back seat. We had not shaved in a week, & baths were a dip in the Clarence river.

We had broken no laws, of that more enlightened time, & after checking us out, sent us on our way. I guess today we would be locked up.

Hey steely when did you last kiss a feral pig? Bet you love them, as they harm graziers returns.

Hasbeen,

I had a Singer 4A back in 1958, the body by that time was decidedly tired and I replaced it with an angle iron and aluminium sheet one, very square and with staggered front seats because of the reduced width; no doors, cycle guards.
The lessened weight gave it a boost in performance and I had it for three years till a bit too much enthusiasm put a rod through the side.

Thanks for the memory!

Hi there HASBEEN...

The English Singer motor cars, now that's a marque from the past, they were certainly not a BMC product? Aren't they part of the 'Rootes' Group, the same crowd who mfg. the Hillman's? Sorry my memory is fading somewhat with specifics etc?

My first Car was a 1948 Wolseley, 18/85 model. It was a six cyl. beast, equiped with twin SU Carby's, to assist in limiting it's enormous thirst, and to propel this heavyweight M/V, along at a reasonable amount of knots if required. In the early sixties, the only real choice we seemed to have, were from English makers.

Now if it was a matter of choosing an English made Shotgun; well you had the choice of a nice Purdy & Son, or a well made H&H. If you wished for something altogether cheaper, then a decent BSA, Webleys, or a Cogswell and Harrison, to name but a few. The British can make reasonably good stuff, when they want too I reckon?

One of the problems with allowing everyone to have a firearm is that the mohamedeans would all have one. Then where would we be? Especially now the Government wants to bring the Wolf Cubs of the ISIS to Australia. I guess you'd be in favour of that Steelie, eh.