Again I am going to claim, incorrect.

Using "In Aust" is a blanket comment that does not recognise differences in different state laws. The differences can be considerable.

What you refer to is a principle of British law, or common law, the right to self defence.

Common law is over ridden by legislation. And is also modified by court cases.

Some Aust states restrict the right to self defence far more than others. In some the test is what the "common man in the street might find necessary". Some people refer to BS, like, "if the offender picks up a stick, you can use a stick, a knife, you can use a knife, a gun, you can use a gun etc". Possibly just internet experts sprouting shit again ... However some states do seem to allow a hell of a lot less self defence than others.

What the law changed to in SA, was not the "common man" but the individual. If the direct individual believed they were in danger, what that person felt they had to do to defend themself was necessary is legal. As said quickly test by police and prosecutors who tried to convict three men who shot people in self defence. All were acquitted. One was an old man in a inner city house who was repeatedly broken into. He shot dead an intruder with a shotgun. The second I forget. The last was one I was sure the guy would get convicted for. A security guard or a target pistol shooter on the way home. In a petrol station. Has his handgun with him. Fuel station is robbed. He shoots the robber as he passes by him. Per media reports that was the scenario. Why did he have his handgun on him? Was he personally endangered? Now the emdia reports often paint the shooter in a bad light. He was acquitted. The Police were very upset about all three acquittals. Burglars and armed robbers had been killed. Innocent victims survived. The law was not happy. I do hope they never got the law changed to victimise victims again, and give false rights to criminals.

There is a right to self defence of course anywhere under British law. How can be very different.

As for the guy in Victoria. Probably the same man. He was guarding his investment property. It had been broken into repeatedly. He was sick of it. So went there to protect it. Yes he probably took his rifle with him to protect it. Under the bed, no idea? But why not. There was no safe requirement laws then. Under his bed, he is in control of it as well. Should be a problem. But no doubt the "law" saw it as pre-meditation. He took GUNS to protect his prperty. And had them ready at hand. But why not? For self defence weapons have to be close at hand.

The drug addict house breaker claimed he was shot through the front door. The defender claimed the arsehole was in the hallwall threatening to kill him. Not hard to work out which one is correct per the evidence. Holes in the door? Blood on the hall floor?

The drug addict serial house breaker claimed "it was the first time he had ever broken into a house, I'm being honest about that!" Yeah right. I always believe criminal drug addict house breaker liars ....

The most stupid thing was the defender said, from memory word for word "If you ever break into my house, you will leave in a body bag!"

One can hear the gaol door clanging shut with that statement .... but with media stirring a person up, a person with adrenalin pumping, with post trauma of having your life threatened, of shooting some murderous aggressive arsehole, well their brain is not working correctly, and if stirred by media, stupoid things can be said. And used later against you.

Yes the best is SAY NOTHING. Ask for a lawyer. As pointed out earlier.

Saying nothing can also be from shock, from a traumatised event. Until the lawyer arrives.