VIC Shooting in Thomastown at a car restoration place

[robbyj]

Might be a different story with 2 other people there to back their side up,

But say it had have been 1 robber V the owner with the .22
Could he not just say i warned him and he tried to attack me so i shot him to defend myself. Is this enough to save yourself in court, who's to prove it wasn't self defense?

I've thought about this sort of situation before.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by TE 220

Pre meditated murder means you set out to kill someone with a plan,murder means you killed someone and not by accident,unfortunately you cant just shoot people in australia and id say the guy will see a long time in jail.
Im not defending the crim but nobody deserves to be shot and killed attempting to rob a premises.
Happened to a car restorer here in perth a while ago,exact same situation.

I must disagree once he decides to invade someone else's property and steal he should have no rights and if he is shot and killed it is just an occupational hazard of being a low life oxygen thief.
he made a decision to embark on a serious criminal activity and knew there were risks if caught he gambled with his life and lost. why do some of you whinge when these people are killed or injured? they raise our insurance premiums and make us feel insecure in our own homes one less low life to steal our property is cause for celebration not cause for sadness

[2011G6E]

Basically, you can't use a firearm for "self defence"..it's a big no-no. You are supposed to keep them locked in a safe bolted to the wall at all times, with the bolt out stored separately, as well as the ammo in a separate lock up box.
The point of this is to make it safe for thieves, as they know a homeowner has no chance of getting quick access to a dangerous firearm and posing a potential workplace health and safety risk to the robber as he goes about his duties for the evening.

Manage to shoot someone who is committing a crime against you or your property, and you will have nearly as much explaining to do as he does...if not more. It's a very serious matter. There's no such thing as "your home being your castle" or some such nonsense...I was told in a security agent course that if someone is kicking your front door in, it's your[ house, and you are supposed to know all the exits, so leave quickly and quietly and phone the police from a neighbours house or something...not sure what you're supposed to do with your family members in other rooms...


Which is why I have my swords on a display rack above the gun safe...

My favourite news story of the last few years is this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...isk-shot-judge

A judge has told two burglars that if they choose to raid a home where the householders legally own a gun they should accept the risk of being shot.

Judge Michael Pert QC made his remarks as he jailed Joshua O'Gorman and Daniel Mansell for four years at Leicester crown court after they were blasted by Andy Ferrie's shotgun while attempting to burgle his farm cottage in Welby, near Melton Mowbray, in the early hours of 2 September.

Rejecting a plea that he take into account the shooting, which injured and allegedly "traumatised" the defendants, the judge said: "That is the chance you take."

O'Gorman, who was shot in the face, and Mansell, who was hit in his right hand, had pleaded guilty to the break-in at an earlier hearing.

Alan Murphy, prosecuting, said they had a string of convictions between them.

The judge said: "I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation. If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

I laughed so hard I nearly shat...

[BHDOGS]

will wait and see what the real story was but so far good on him shame he missed the other two.

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by robbyj

Might be a different story with 2 other people there to back their side up,

But say it had have been 1 robber V the owner with the .22
Could he not just say i warned him and he tried to attack me so i shot him to defend myself. Is this enough to save yourself in court, who's to prove it wasn't self defense?

I've thought about this sort of situation before.

The general consensus in security from what ive heard is if this does happen and you do shoot someone make sure you kill them as only your side and the evidence can speak remember these scum are scum they will lie in court beg steal borrow and plead with the judge there mother didnt love them enough, daddy didnt give them pocket money its everyone else's fault but mine but now there dead so they cant

[STINKY NINJA]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I must disagree once he decides to invade someone else's property and steal he should have no rights and if he is shot and killed it is just an occupational hazard of being a low life oxygen thief.
he made a decision to embark on a serious criminal activity and knew there were risks if caught he gambled with his life and lost. why do some of you whinge when these people are killed or injured? they raise our insurance premiums and make us feel insecure in our own homes one less low life to steal our property is cause for celebration not cause for sadness

The dead guy should have no rights... but he does have rights, so what your saying is a load of rubbish and has no substance whatsoever,its an opinion not fact...
What you think should happen and what will happen are 2 different things
Unless the shop owner was threatened with a gun he will see jailtime.

[mex351]

Seriously you can't say whats happened really only the 4 people involved know what really went down.

Shame but people let themselves get into bad situations too easily and the outcome is never good.Still bet the 3 other guys didn't expect that!They will be changed forever know and minus 1 friend...No one wins.

[mex351]

Originally Posted by robbyj

Might be a different story with 2 other people there to back their side up,

But say it had have been 1 robber V the owner with the .22
Could he not just say i warned him and he tried to attack me so i shot him to defend myself. Is this enough to save yourself in court, who's to prove it wasn't self defense?

I've thought about this sort of situation before.

The crime scene tells it all.Foot prints,blood splatter,signs of forced entry,witnesses (you would be surprised by what a single noise can do in a case like this,even just the time given) your version cross examined by professionals.You better make sure your new story is perfect in every way and water tight.

[MDS69]

Unfortunately I think it will be a while until we know the full story. In situations like this there is justice and there is the law and they are two very different things.
I don't profess to know the law but there is a thing called 'minimal reasonable force'. If you are confronted by a knife weilding maniac and are backed into a corner then shoot him but if the alleged offender is running away then you are up the proverbial creek. One of the links posted in this thread mentioned something about a second storey window and the dead guy being on the footpath. Doesn't look good.

[Work Horse]

Clearly there is an argument here for rolling back gun control.

Had the owner of the shop had a larger calibre, semi-automatic weapon he could have got all three intruders.

I wonder if that is what the shop owner is thinking of this morning.

I have had cars, property and cash stolen from me at various times. It does make you really mad, especially when it's done by people you trust. The idea of revenge is attractive at the time.

Taking the law into your own hands is not worth it IMHO

[Professor Farnsworth]

looking up that address, it's not far from where i used to live in Thomastown. In fact it's on the same block where i got some dodgy wheels and tyres fitted.

[Franco Cozzo]

*Looks up Worksafe Victoria code of practise for home break ins*

[FGII-XR6]

You obviously failed to read my post before posting your garbage, I clearly stated

once he decides to invade someone else's property and steal he should have no rights

and as such I was offering my opinion not stating a fact but don't let that get in the way of your little rant

Originally Posted by TE 220

The dead guy should have no rights... but he does have rights, so what your saying is a load of rubbish and has no substance whatsoever,its an opinion not fact...
What you think should happen and what will happen are 2 different things
Unless the shop owner was threatened with a gun he will see jailtime.

[Professor Farnsworth]

let's just keep a lid on the emotions everyone - this thread is tentative at best

[Road_Warrior]

We don't know any of the facts of this story apart from what the "media" are telling us, and they are not usually known for being true to factual accuracy. There could be a whole backstory to this that the shop owner has told the Police or whatever. It will all come out in court I'm sure.

As an aside, a couple of years ago in Wait Awhile an elderly gentlement shot two breaker-inners with his shottie and Police declined to charge him. However this was on the basis that 1) he had shouted at the crims "I have a gun if you come in i'll shoot" multiple times 2) he had barricaded himself in his bedroom with his invalid wife and 3) he genuinely feared for his life. So it would seem there are "criteria" that the Police apply to something like this (which is probably informed by case law) before deciding to make a charge. But like I said above, there is most likely a substantial background to this that we don't know, and won't know until all the gory details start being made public courtesy of the court.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Clearly there is an argument here for rolling back gun control.

Had the owner of the shop had a larger calibre, semi-automatic weapon he could have got all three intruders.

I wonder if that is what the shop owner is thinking of this morning.

I have had cars, property and cash stolen from me at various times. It does make you really mad, especially when it's done by people you trust. The idea of revenge is attractive at the time.

Taking the law into your own hands is not worth it IMHO

On the other hand if the crims were aware that it was probable that the property owner was armed and they were risking their lives rather than a fine and a suspended sentence they may have had second thoughts and the one who died would be opening his Easter eggs and reading the newspaper rather than being a story in it.

I suspect that "Taking the law into your own hands is not worth it IMHO" only really applies when it is not your hands that end up cold and dead due to inaction.

And as far as you unsubtle anti gun sledge, is the man who was shot more, less or just as dead as if he had be shot with an AK47?

And a last thought.

Will the death of this thief possibly deter others from committing similar offences..........

[motorcycles4eva]

not knowing the facts can give everyone mixed opinions. the media sells story's weather they are correct or not.. the police are tied up due to no one comming forward at this stage..(so they tell us)
assuming the shop owner isn't dodgy , i feel sorry for him and his family.

for me, agree or disagree, you make the bed you lay in. if the rolls were reversed then there would be some changed opinions i think..
i know of low life scum that have this kind of life, living on other peoples expence. they watch their back because that is the life they chose. . they don't care if they hurt or destroy others, or if their victims are at a total loss.
they are easily replaced and chances are they're on drugs anyway. once in a circle you're never out of it.

that lifestyle.. it will eventually catch up.
i suppose there are so many 'ifs and so on..
just some conversation.. no offence to anyone..

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by flappist

On the other hand if the crims were aware that it was probable that the property owner was armed and they were risking their lives rather than a fine and a suspended sentence they may have had second thoughts and the one who died would be opening his Easter eggs and reading the newspaper rather than being a story in it.

I suspect that "Taking the law into your own hands is not worth it IMHO" only really applies when it is not your hands that end up cold and dead due to inaction.

And as far as you unsubtle anti gun sledge, is the man who was shot more, less or just as dead as if he had be shot with an AK47?

And a last thought.

Will the death of this thief possibly deter others from committing similar offences..........

Sounds like something the NRA would say

[LG17]

He's been charged with murder!

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...n-vic-workshop

[GA_0009]

Originally Posted by TE 220

Pre meditated murder means you set out to kill someone with a plan,murder means you killed someone and not by accident,unfortunately you cant just shoot people in australia and id say the guy will see a long time in jail.
Im not defending the crim but nobody deserves to be shot and killed attempting to rob a premises.
Happened to a car restorer here in perth a while ago,exact same situation.

How did it end for the shooter? Jail?

[robbyj]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Clearly there is an argument here for rolling back gun control.

What would you suggest? Do you even know anything about the current gun control laws?

[mik]

while i have been subject to thieving mongrels before ransacking my house(not while i was home), i think i would prefer to had i been armed shoot them in the balls or the buttocks rather than a head shot, a head shot is very permanent and court might look at that as bad unless life and limb was threatened, this clip of denny in action is a ripper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvO-8IvoCI

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Sounds like something the NRA would say

Interesting and quite revealing comment.

It is rather amusing to note some of the reactions to statements made by members on this forum.

Quite often it is the originator of the statement rather than actual content that inspires the reply.

A number of members positions' juxtapose sometimes violently even contradicting themselves within the same thread in some sort of childish points scoring effort against another member with whom they have a personal grudge.

Playing the ball not the man is one of the most basic rules taught to children.

There is a reason for this.......

[Franco Cozzo]

I have a feeling the magistrate is going to make an example out of the business owner to send a message to other people thinking about self defence with a weapon.

Which I think is wrong, because we've had dealings with the police in the past, and the local police station seems to close at 4pm or something for some reason.

So we've called police and they've come from Bendigo, which is about 50 minutes away, or Kyneton which is around 30 minutes.

As far as I'm concerned, if you think you can come into my house, touch my family members or take my stuff, one of us is leaving in a body bag, because what other option do I have?

I've had to work for my possessions and I'm sure as hell not going to let someone try take them away without a fight.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by flappist

On the other hand if the crims were aware that it was probable that the property owner was armed and they were risking their lives rather than a fine and a suspended sentence they may have had second thoughts and the one who died would be opening his Easter eggs and reading the newspaper rather than being a story in it.

I suspect that "Taking the law into your own hands is not worth it IMHO" only really applies when it is not your hands that end up cold and dead due to inaction.

And as far as you unsubtle anti gun sledge, is the man who was shot more, less or just as dead as if he had be shot with an AK47?

And a last thought.

Will the death of this thief possibly deter others from committing similar offences..........

I used a shot gun ten days ago, trying to persuade the birds to stop eating my mate’s grapes we were about to harvest.

My brother-in-law is a hunter and gives us meat when he has spare. I would not describe myself as anti-gun, I am anti-silly.

I think it is silly to murder someone who is trying to steal my property, others may not agree.

None of us know the facts of the case in Thomastown. As a general principle using a gun to defend your property is fraught with problems.
The bad guys take your gun and use it on you.
The bad guys bring their own guns because they know you have one and really want your stuff
The bad guys end up being the meter reader, lost, your girlfriend...

As for defending yourself or your family with deadly force against a genuine threat, I do not consider that taking the law into your own hands. That is self defence as apposed to don't touch my stuff or your dead.

[irish2]

Sometimes you might just be cleaning your gun a test loading it to make sure everything works. Then if it is dark you might see an intruder with what 'appears' to be a firearm, and defend yourself with similar weapon.

[kyro_02]

Originally Posted by irish2

Sometimes you might just be cleaning your gun a test loading it to make sure everything works. Then if it is dark you might see an intruder with what 'appears' to be a firearm, and defend yourself with similar weapon.

that's something you cannot legally do

it doesn't matter if the intruder comes in with an RPG, you still cannot use your firearm to defend you & your family, or your business..

The police are only going to arrive at the scene after the intruder has killed you

Australian law is pathetic when it comes to an owners right to defend himself with reasonable force, because, your force would still always be questioned

Intruder should have no rights, they have no right to be on your property, but yet; it seem's they have more right then you do...

Originally Posted by Work Horse

As for defending yourself or your family with deadly force against a genuine threat, I do not consider that taking the law into your own hands. That is self defence as apposed to don't touch my stuff or your dead.

When do you class a genuine threat? after the intruder has attacked you, or pull him aside and ask him what weapons he is going to harm you with?

at the end of the day, You didn't invite the intruder onto your property, he isn't there for a genuine reason(cup of tea and a bickie), and he shouldn't have any rights... right?

[xisled]

Originally Posted by kyro_02

that's something you cannot legally do

it doesn't matter if the intruder comes in with an RPG, you still cannot use your firearm to defend you & your family, or your business..

The police are only going to arrive at the scene after the intruder has killed you

Australian law is pathetic when it comes to an owners right to defend himself with reasonable force, because, your force would still always be questioned

Intruder should have no rights, they have no right to be on your property, but yet; it seem's they have more right then you do...






When do you class a genuine threat? after the intruder has attacked you, or pull him aside and ask him what weapons he is going to harm you with?

at the end of the day, You didn't invite the intruder onto your property, he isn't there for a genuine reason(cup of tea and a bickie), and he shouldn't have any rights... right?

In Victoria justified homicide is a defence and I can see will be used in this case. You basically have the right to protect yourself.

So in saying that it will be a very interesting what will happen next and when it's at court what the outcome will be.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I think it is silly to murder someone who is trying to steal my property, others may not agree.

so just let them take your property and maybe kill you because you can identify them? Killing someone to defend yourself even if it is an over reaction is not murder ( a premeditated act) it is manslaughter at the most if they determine you used excessive force.
I think this guy, on the face of it will have a good case seeing it was 3 against 1 ( if the news story is right) a murder seems an over reaction by police that will probably backfire as far as PR is concerned

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

[tinman]

have insurance and sleep at home . its what i do. no car(s) are worth going to jail for regardless who owns em. me thinks there is another side to this