Paul1405,
To the extent of getting the upper hand & if the intruder/aggressor is still not inclined to stop & leave then it should be to the extent of physically disabling the culprit !
I had my life plans ruined by several break-ins & thefts & was not able to recover either financially nor psychologically by the time I retired

There will be more of this as the law, police and the political class get weaker and more cowardly in Australia. The law, as in engaging a lawyer to obtain a fair go in courts, has always been something for the rich. So will it be in matters of personal safety: if you can't afford protection, you will not be safe.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

In my opinion, irrespective of whatever picture you see, there's a group of young people gathered outside this individual's home, motivated by, who knows what? Whatever the circumstances, or their motives, if they're told to leave and don't, it's a definite 'breach of the peace.' It's immaterial who the occupant is, or the skin colour of those gathered outside. I would suggest you wouldn't wish to have an unknown group of young people loitering about your home, particularly when the only persons (apparently) therein, are the complainant and his wife.

It's also utter rubbish whether the complainant has body art all over him, and I'm surprised you decided to go for that. You would know, many Veterans have multiple tattoos? Nor does the age or attractiveness of his wife/partner, have any bearing either. The law is quite clear, and as usual, in Victoria, the Chief Commissioner Police Mr. ASHTON is 'missing in action.'

I would urge you Steele for just a moment; please think about it? Would you wish to have a group of noisy teens loitering outside your dwelling during 'silent hours' (night)? Given their easy access to all manner of drugs and alcohol? Even if they're all clean, I wouldn't wish for them to be outside my home, given my and my Wife's age.

If this fellow is prepared to spend a grand a night for private security, apparently he has no faith in VICPOL, and that's a terrible indictment on them.

Finally, I'm inclined to agree with Toni LAVIS - perhaps we don't have the entire story, there may be much long term enmity existing between the two?

Hey SteeleRedux,
It seems reasonable that I don't have enough background info to make a really good judgement on it.

I don't like rich people who think they also own the foreshore where they live.
That belongs to everybody, but homeowners do have a right to hold issue if youths are hanging around doing crime.
Homeowners have a right to live in peace free from youth crime as well.

Looking at the bigger picture it's about respect, which is a two way street.
If the kids aren't showing respect to the homeowners who live there, then they don't deserve any respect either.
If they have a 'Don't give a crap' attitude towards others then that's the way they should be treated themselves.

At some level I support the homeowners having a right to protect themselves and their property and they shouldn't have to pay $7000 a week to do it. They should be allowed to protect themselves and their property themselves.

That means 'Step on my lawn or touch my stuff and I will shoot you dead where you stand without hesitation or remorse', but you must understand that I don't want the streets flooded with firearms either, that will only end up in more criminals hands and things will spiral further out of control. More people would get killed over pointless preventable things; but people would be able to protect their loved ones, home and property.

In the article I read they smashed his car.
Did he have CCTV and was anyone charged?
Anyone charged for threats of rape and murder, if that's what was said?

[Cont.]
If the politicians and cops aren't making the right decisions that keep our streets safe, I say homeowners should be able shoot the perpetrators of crime and destruction of property DEAD before they bring harm to anyone else.

It'll become the Wild West, but I can't stand by and say that people should be forced to live in fear and become targets in their own homes because the system allows it.

I don't care what the law says in this regard, People have a right to defend themselves in their own home with whatever means are necessary.
They don't have a right to have their lives forfeited by someone else who wanted to break the rules first.

If someone else wants to play the stupid games they deserve to win the stupid prizes, not you.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL & CANEM MALUM...

'An individual is allowed to protect his property and those in it, against unlawful acts.' Just common sense really, hence the 'Common Law,' much of it re-introduced into Statute Law these days. If we were in the United States and were confronted with precisely the same set of circumstances, if it were not handled very carefully and sensitively, it could well result in a 'blood bath.'

I cannot understand why VICPOL aren't taking more significant action in these isolated cases of street criminality occasioned by some African Youth Gangs (mainly Sudanese youth according to my info.) and nip their existence in the bud, before they get right out of hand, and resort to F/A'S as their weapons of choice.

There's nothing inherently wrong with VICPOL members. I served with them during CHOGM in 1983. They needed additional support from other States, and I found they're as good as any copper in the Country in my view.

Today I think its Leadership they're lacking, commencing with Christine NIXON (daughter of Ross NIXON ex NSWPOL and a top copper), followed by Simon OVERLAND and now Graham ASHTON. All three were and are; weak, divisive, and in Mr. ASHTON'S case under too much stress.