wa shooting

[belvo]

Relief at no charges for shooting 23rd February 2009, 13:00 WST The 77-year-old man who shot an alleged intruder in Herne Hill last week has expressed relief that police have found he acted lawfully in shooting the man and will not be charged. Speaking through his granddaughter Belinda Coniglio, Eugenio Valenti said his peace had been disrupted and he was deeply traumatised by the events. “He is obviously very relieved at the news… it shows the police have looked at the facts of what happened and he acted in self defence so he is very relieved at that,” Ms Coniglio said. “I think it sends a strong message that we need to be safe in our own homes.” Ms Coniglio said there were no words to describe what her grandfather was feeling. She said the family had received “phenomenal support from the public” and they wanted to thank everyone for their messages. “As you can understand it has been a very difficult and very traumatic time on the family and in particular my grandfather and we just want to thank everyone for their support of him and the family,” Ms Coniglio said. This morning police said Mr Valenti's actions were not unlawful when his firearm was discharged during a struggle. East Metro inspector Bill Munnee said Mr Valenti was "entirely justified" in defending himself and his bedridden wife at their home in Herne Hill. "He will not be charged," Inspector Munnee said. Inspector Munnee said the two alleged offenders confirmed Mr Valenti's version of events. Mr Valenti shot the man after he allegedly forced his way into a locked bedroom, where Mr Valenti had taken refuge with his incapacitated wife, Maria. The elderly couple were asleep when the men broke into their winery, Vino Italia, in Campersic Road, through a back door about 9.40pm on Wednesday. Police have charged two men, aged 18 and 35, over the break-in.

what do u guys recon about people using there fire arms for self protection i recon the guy did the right thing and goods the cops dident charge him

[Bucknaked]

A good result. Home owner vindicated by the law, and scum bag crim gets shot in the process. No-one died, and the crook gets dealt with by the law and the home owner. A win win

[flappist]

Well that is good news. Lets hope the "John Howard" era is finally over....

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well that is good news. Lets hope the "John Howard" era is finally over....

+ 1 there!

[Green X]

Originally Posted by belvo

what do u guys recon about people using there fire arms for self protection i recon the guy did the right thing and goods the cops did"nt charge him

Bloody oath he did, what else could a 77Yo do, confront them himself unarmed and wind up in hospital or worse, He told them not to come in and he would shoot and they proceeded anyway.

Obviously as the 2 intruders are still alive the old fella had not loaded up with heavy rounds cause if they got hit with Buckshot at that range they would be dead!! So he hasn't tried too kill them.

[tex]

In this instance - I believe the right outcome has been achieved.

A similar scenario happened in Tassie several years ago, an very old lady awoke to the sound of some intruders bashing on her bedroom door (which she locked when she slept.) They threatened her with violence and death if she didn't open the door - they new that she had money in there..... these crooks were from the mainland and were mid way through a crime spree as it turned out. They had committed several crimes in Tassie leading up to this one.

She refused their demands, and told them to leave, they began bashing in the door, and nearly succeeded - she discharged her 12 gauge shotgun through the broken bedroom door. One of the intruders dropped, the other fled, and was later caught.

Several months later the Police decided not to proceed with any charges against her at all.......

Again the right outcome in relation to the specific circumstances.

However, where things get out of hand, is when people start dropping others when there is no clear and present threat to LIFE, and other measures to control the situation are not followed - ie ring the Police.

Stories of people shooting at others - in the next door neighbours yard - to stop an 'intruder' breaking into thir neighbours house are becoming pretty common in the good ol USA, and god help us should the same thing start to happen here.

The use of firearms is a real can o worms when it comes to home protection, but I genuinely believe, that for older folk, and other defenseless citizens, subjected to invasion, and in genuine fear of their own lives, mow the bastards down!

In Tassie, there is a real problem developing with home invasions of old people - more often than not they are bashed, tortured, and sometimes sexually assaulted. The parasites that carry out such behaviour, are the ones that deserve to feel the wrath of extreme self defense measures, with the legal reprisals for the victim being commensorate with ALL the circumstances at hand, on a case by case basis.

My guess, this thread will deteriate to name calling and personal attacks from either side of the fence, and will live a short life.

I remain opposed to lethal protection of property by able bodied owners, when other protection alternatives exist, but I do support those defenseless members of our society when their lives are genuinely endangered, to use whatever means at their disposal. If that is a firearm, so be it.

Police should be commended for exercising discretion, and for considering all the circumstances. Parasitic criminals should take note of this outcome. I know of several older folk that are now armed - know how to handle their weapon, and I trust they will exercise their knowledge of it's use should their lives be in genuine danger.

tex

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by tex

In this instance - I believe the right outcome has been achieved.

A similar scenario happened in Tassie several years ago, an very old lady awoke to the sound of some intruders bashing on her bedroom door (which she locked when she slept.) They threatened her with violence and death if she didn't open the door - they new that she had money in there..... these crooks were from the mainland and were mid way through a crime spree as it turned out. They had committed several crimes in Tassie leading up to this one.

She refused their demands, and told them to leave, they began bashing in the door, and nearly succeeded - she discharged her 12 gauge shotgun through the broken bedroom door. One of the intruders dropped, the other fled, and was later caught.

Several months later the Police decided not to proceed with any charges against her at all.......

Again the right outcome in relation to the specific circumstances.

However, where things get out of hand, is when people start dropping others when there is no clear and present threat to LIFE, and other measures to control the situation are not followed - ie ring the Police.

Stories of people shooting at others - in the next door neighbours yard - to stop an 'intruder' breaking into thir neighbours house are becoming pretty common in the good ol USA, and god help us should the same thing start to happen here.

The use of firearms is a real can o worms when it comes to home protection, but I genuinely believe, that for older folk, and other defenseless citizens, subjected to invasion, and in genuine fear of their own lives, mow the bastards down!

In Tassie, there is a real problem developing with home invasions of old people - more often than not they are bashed, tortured, and sometimes sexually assaulted. The parasites that carry out such behaviour, are the ones that deserve to feel the wrath of extreme self defense measures, with the legal reprisals for the victim being commensorate with ALL the circumstances at hand, on a case by case basis.

My guess, this thread will deteriate to name calling and personal attacks from either side of the fence, and will live a short life.

I remain opposed to lethal protection of property by able bodied owners, when other protection alternatives exist, but I do support those defenseless members of our society when their lives are genuinely endangered, to use whatever means at their disposal. If that is a firearm, so be it.

Police should be commended for exercising discretion, and for considering all the circumstances. Parasitic criminals should take note of this outcome. I know of several older folk that are now armed - know how to handle their weapon, and I trust they will exercise their knowledge of it's use should their lives be in genuine danger.

tex

I'm all for it, why should the scumbag that breaks into my house to steal my hard earned things deserve to get off scot free? You can call the cops, doesn't mean they'll show up in time. That scumbag should lose his "rights" as a human being the moment he tries to take your belongings.

Of course, I wouldn't drop him dead the moment I saw him on my property, a warning to gtfo and never come back.

The law was right for once here, I'm happy for the couple.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well that is good news. Lets hope the "John Howard" era is finally over....

However if he threatened to throw the intruder overboard.....

[schnoods]

I am against people owning guns for self defence, but like stated, a couple in their 70's or more would have had a far worse outcome if it werent the use of a fire arm in self defence .

+1 for the law getting it right.

[tex]

Originally Posted by Daymoe

I'm all for it, why should the scumbag that breaks into my house to steal my hard earned things deserve to get off scot free? You can call the cops, doesn't mean they'll show up in time.

Of course, I wouldn't drop him dead the moment I saw him on my property, a warning to gtfo and never come back.

I never said they(a thiefe) should get off free did I.

I never said that they should be allowed to steal your stuff without potential for owner intervention.

What I did say, was that in my opinion, blowing a thiefe away for stealing PROPERTY is not comensorate with the crime.

[kyro_02]

good to hear, also agree to thieves who steal peoples stuff should be shot too

[rusty 351]

its good to hear the justice system getting it right

if its the last resort for self defense like in these cases, i believe its totally within anyones rights

[Rob's 76 Effy]

So now we will have a spat of thief related shootings, just what we need

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Explorer_Me

So now we will have a spat of thief related shootings, just what we need

Don't break into anyones home and you won't get shot?

[rusty 351]

Originally Posted by Explorer_Me

So now we will have a spat of thief related shootings, just what we need

i dont believe thieves should be shot.

but say you and your loved ones are locked in a room in your home.
with some fool on ice thatl happily stab someone for $10 to get his next fix trying to knock that door down.

would you open it up and try to reason with them??

id only open that door if i could close the bolt. out:

[Gabbs]

Good on the guy I say. They shouldn't have been in there in the first place. What are you meant to do if someone breaks in go out and give your stuff to them on a golden platter stuff that.

[Yellow_Festiva]

A good result.

He was right to protect himself. Look at the situation they were in... a couple of old people, one bedridden probably on a substantial acreage with no close neighbors.

Good possibly of some quick easy cash one would think?? In situations like this they charged the right people this time for a change.

[Bent8]

Good on him, job well done.

Unfortunately, the current economic crisis means this sort of thing will become more of a common occurrence.

For those that don't have a police approved pistol safe at home, make sure you have some form of self defense close by should you find yourself in a similar situation.

Remember, it is your duty to protect your family at all costs...regardless of what the current laws might say.

[OLDFORDNUT]

great news for the old guy,good on him.
anyone who enters a property knowing the owners are home is not a normal personality full stop,they are prepared for resistance and yet still go in, they are capable of anything.

[asusdragon]

i glad he (the house owner) got off, there a simple way for the thief to not get shot or hurt, dont break it in the first place, actions and consequences, i say. If someone tries to break in here and steal my stuff i not going to just hand it over i will use some force (to a point not going to kill the guy) but i think that is my damn right. why should these scum bags get everything for free.
Maybe they will think twice before breaking into another house later on

[XR6_190]

Good work by the system over in WA, it doesn't always necessarily get it right, but most of the time it does, things are the way they are for a reason.

It is called Necessary Force, this is what the police will look for in a case like this, could the homeowner just have scared them off buy alerting the intruder to their presence? Was the Intruder themselves armed? Were the homeowner themselves physically challenged? Was the Intruder intending harm? All of these questions plus others need to be asked, While you might think you have the right to blow away somebody for being on your property, This isn't a right people need nor a right people should want.

If this was the case, all that wouold mean is that more thieves/ home invaders will carry guns to protect themselves. Their is also the chance that somebodies own firearm will be used against them, think about it, little old lady on her own, doesn't have the reflexes to discharge the weapon fast enough, the thief takes it from her, and shoots her with her own gun, not a winning scenario, and yes this does happen in the good ol' USA where lax gun laws let it happen.

There is no easy answer here, and I personally reckon we have the best system to deal with this situation, so if you do shoot a home invader/ thief, it should be because you had no other means of defense, guns are a last line of defense, not a first.

[wodahs]

+1 recon the right out come
they tried hitting a soft target so no one should cry for them

[Rob's 76 Effy]

Wonder if the out come would be the same if had killed him

[Streetvision]

Originally Posted by Explorer_Me

Wonder if the out come would be the same if had killed him

I was wondering that myself.

Still from what i read from the news. it seemed he gave sufficient warning that he was armed and there wasn't really much else he could of done.

[Green X]

Originally Posted by Explorer_Me

Wonder if the out come would be the same if had killed him

i doubt the legal system or cops would win any friends with a headline reading

"70 year old pensioner charged with murder for protecting his disabled wife"

That would go down well with the public.

As i firearm owner, using any of my Guns for self defense is the very last option and if it comes to loosing a TV or a set of car keys to a intruder so be it, but if any of my Family or grandparents were in danger with a violent intrusion i wouldn't think twice about it.

personally i feel once you brake into someone property and threaten them you have forfeited your rites.

[IDT]

Originally Posted by tex

I remain opposed to lethal protection of property by able bodied owners, when other protection alternatives exist,

tex

While I respect your opinion. How the hell does the victim being robbed know they are there to steal only? Have you ever heard of a thief that yelled out "I am only here to steal your property!" How does any victim know what the crims intent is?

And what other protection do you refer to? Making our homes prisons?

[_CRUZ_]

I recon if you shoot someone that is an intruder on your property for intrusion or in self defense you should be with in the law in doing so. I wouldn't say go shooting the intruder call the police first at least.

Having said that i do not own a gun but i have some pretty sharp kitchen knives, big dog does that count?

A mans home is his castle in my opinion. gtfo

[platinumXR]

Gun laws in Australia don't allow the use of a firearm for self defence because people would be getting shot every other minute and it would escalate into Wild West proportions. Don't get me wrong...I wish I could carry a USP for just such an emergency out:

Good on him, eat lead mangy scum. :the_finge

[flappist]

Originally Posted by platinumXR

Gun laws in Australia don't allow the use of a firearm for self defence because people would be getting shot every other minute and it would escalate into Wild West proportions. Don't get me wrong...I wish I could carry a USP for just such an emergency out:

Good on him, eat lead mangy scum. :the_finge

Up until 1996 it WAS legal to own a gun for self defence. I don't remember the "wild west" you speak about. There were not a huge number of armed robberies or home invasions and gang related shootings were fairly rare with anything at all getting front page nation wide.

Then a short little solicitor with delusions of granduer got his way and ever since then gun related crime has gone through the roof to the extent that the constant spate of gun related events in western Sydney are hardly even reported at all.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by WAForce8

While I respect your opinion. How the hell does the victim being robbed know they are there to steal only? Have you ever heard of a thief that yelled out "I am only here to steal your property!" How does any victim know what the crims intent is?

And what other protection do you refer to? Making our homes prisons?

Thats an easy one, if challenged and the bloke runs, there is no threat, if he comes at you, let fly with the sg's :P