| Rule303 |
| (.450 member) |
| 24/11/17 06:34 PM |
Re: Is the 40 S&W DEAD???
|
Quote:Quote:
In Aust. if you believe you or another is about to die or suffer serious injury (Use to be called Grievous Bodily Harm) you can take the offenders life. Yes, in most cases you will be charged and face trial unless your legal people can show you were in the right. Most that are charged say the wrong thing to start with and over zealous police do not help.
"In Aust" - blanket comments like that are often incorrect as this one is. Australia is made up of State and Territory jurisdictions. Each has different, common or varying laws and also case law may differ. Case law between states can be advisory but there is no mandatory precedent.
SA for example, used to , and may still do, have both legislative law and also common law, that "if an individual feels endangered, they may act to defend themselves." Case law early on after the legislative change, had three cases where a person shot and killed an offender and was acquitted in all three cases.
Not being a lawyer, not offering legal advice. Also as things change, this may have changed, but not to my knowledge.Quote:
Most that are charged say the wrong thing to start with and over zealous police do not help.
Aint that the truth.
I saw one iunvestment house owner shoot his mouth off big time when a serial drug addict and house breaker broke into his renovation house and was shot and wounded by the defender.
Only wounded so a big sob story of desparation was invented, how it was the first time, etc etc etc.
The houseowner also said, on TV camera "If you break into my house, you leave in a body bag!!!"
Really really stupid.
The TV crews probably were sympathetic and riled him up to get "quality footage".
The guy ended up in court, cost him well over $100,000 in legal fees. I put a $100 to his fighting fund, which raised some $40,000 or so. Stupid comments like that can cost at best, a year or two of great inconvenience, a lot of legal bills, or bankruptcy, even if aquitted.
Far better to keep to the TRUE simple statement.
"I felt endangered for my life. I felt my family were endangered. I got a gun. The man inside my house threatened to kill me. I fired it in self defence. I rang the police. I know what legal representation. "
John that statement is not incorrect, all jurisdictions in Aust have it in one form or another. If you believe there is an imminent threat to your life or that of another or suffering serious injury then you can defend yourself or them, even to the extent of killing the offender if in your mind that is what is required to stop them and there is no other realistic option. This is the justification that police use to shoot. It is not allowable to say protect property. It might be worded differently but it comes back to that. The term imminent has a wide range of immediacy. The example you have given of SA law is basically saying the same thing.
Hence you may or may not legally have had time to get your gun to use in defence. Yes there are many "What if's" and covering even a small percentage is not possible. The one thing I would encourage all to do is read your State Law in regards to this, then speak with a competent solicitor in this area to explain and clarify things. Why I know this to be the case. Legal advice this is not as it is second hand from my source.
Re the case you mention. There was one in Vic that involved a person in the Vic SSAA organization from memory. One of the sticking points for him was his guns were under his bed and deemed to be too accessible. As in placed there for easy access in case this bloke broke in again. His claim was that he had nowhere in the house where he could store them safely so keep them where anybody after them had to come through him. Very Hazzy memory on my part. Was this the same case?