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.