Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

To defend yourself & home or let the thieving scumbags win?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by chicken78, Sep 23, 2011.

  1. Came across this last night.

    HE confronted and stabbed a stun gun-wielding intruder inside his Sydney home - now Donald Brooke faces an agonising wait to see whether he will face charges over the thief's death.
    Friends and neighbours yesterday rallied around Mr Brooke as details emerged of his lethal struggle with a 31-year-old intruder in his home yesterday, The Daily Telegraph reported.

    Detectives questioned 54-year-old Mr Brooke yesterday but he is yet to make a formal statement.

    He has told police that he was in his backyard shed when he heard noises in the house and went to investigate at about 3.15pm.

    He was then confronted by the burglar, who threatened him with an electronic stun gun. There was a short altercation and Mr Brooke stabbed his attacker twice - in the arm and chest.

    "Detectives spoke to the resident soon after the event," Detective Chief Superintendent Peter Gillam said. "It is too early to talk about charges. It's a complicated matter and all aspects of the law have to be considered, including self-defence."

    Neighbours yesterday told of the immediate aftermath of the incident, in which Mr Brooke pleaded with the offender to "come back, you're injured" as the wounded man fled.

    Ignoring Mr Brooke's request to return to the Glassop St house, the 31-year-old career criminal ran to a nearby car, where another man was waiting behind the wheel, and drove off.

    The wounded intruder got out of the vehicle at Fairfield and was then taken in a critical condition to Liverpool Hospital. He died at 9.30pm.

    Yesterday, a shaken Mr Brookes declined to comment on the advice of his lawyer.

    But neighbour Janet revealed that Mr Brooke had followed the offender into the backyard and had expressed concern for his welfare after stabbing him.

    She said Mr Brooke came to her house and was "shaking" and "very upset".

    "He said 'I found a man in my house. He robbed three rings and money'," Janet said.

    The dead man was well known to police and had previously been investigated for a number of crimes involving robbery. He was due to appear in Burwood court next week on a number of charges.

    Detectives yesterday visited Mr Brooke at his house but are yet to decide whether he will be charged.

    Supt Gillam said police had not recovered the stun gun but were confident the deceased had the weapon.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/thi...it/story-e6frfkvr-1226143138399#ixzz1YiuY9NyM
  2. I really doubt he'll be charged.

    Sad story for everyone involved.
  3. Already acquitted by the court of public opinion, it would be a waste of the court's time...
  4. Exactly,
  5. These cases worry me. Many years ago a young thug broke into the Peakhurst Hotel (google it, and read all about it) the owner took appropriate action and ended up (as I recollect) having to pay the thug's MOTHER compensation for HER pain and suffering !!!!!

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/30/1030508124005.html for the legal justification for this rubbish :LOL:
  6. The judge didn't think it was appropriate. I'll side with the courts who have all the evidence.

    "Judge McGuire said Mr Fox should not have entered Newton's property but the violence used against him was unnecessary.

    After entering the hotel's residence, Mr Fox hid in the laundry to avoid detection but was quickly found and attacked by Newton.

    "The plaintiff was intoxicated, argumentative and so on and he had created a situation in which the use of force to expel him was a natural and lawful consequence of his own misbehaviour," Judge McGuire said.

    "However, the degree of force used was in the end unlawful and not the necessary consequence of his own condition and behaviour."
  7. I followed the (Matthew?) Fox story at the time.
    Now, if he was beaten to death and unable to deny attacking Mr Newton and threatening the kids...
  8. This is for the courts to decide (particularly given we only have the info that the media has given us).

    Weather stabbing the intruder, who had a stun gun, twice is fair and reasonable (or whatever they call it) a hard call IMO.
  9. My opinion isn't going to be popular, but I'm not going to lie about how I feel to make myself more accepted:

    If you break into someone's home, your life is forfeit as far as I'm concerned. End of story. Yes, my TV is worth more to me than some asshole's life. If my TV disappears, I can't watch movies and I have to spend a nontrivial amount of money to get a new one. If some thieving asshole dies, my life continues as normal.

    If the person isn't armed and you can subdue them for the police? Great. No real point in killing someone just for the sake of killing them. But if the person is armed? **** them.
  10. Somebody died so of course there's going to be an investigation. Walking away without having to provide a damn good account of your actions only ever happens in the movies.

    I suspect that whether charges are laid will come down to what the homeowner stabbed the intruder with (weapon of opportunity looks better, legally, than, eg, a 10" bowie that the defendant habitually carries) and whether he was stabbed from the front or back (kinda hard to argue self-defence if the wound position show the deceased to have been running away at the time).

    When you actually read some details of cases like this beyond tabloid headlines, it often transpires that, where charges are laid, there is rather more to it than someone simply defending their family and property.
  11. If someone broke into my house, I will defend it and its contents. To me, the thief would have lost all their rights as soon as they broke into my house. So pretty much what grue said, however without the life = TV thing :p.

    Also, putting a sign saying "Enter at own Risk" might actually help in court if the thief comes out with injuries.
  12. Not necessarily. It doesn't take much in the way of imagination to find lots of situations wherein your only course of action was to put a knife into the person's back. They've tackled you and you're pinned down, they've lunged at you with the stun gun and you side stepped them, they were about to hurt your child/wife/goat and you were behind him, etc.
  13. This.
  14. Sure, it's not definitive, but it becomes less clear cut and the case for the defence then would depend to a greater extent on independent witnesses and physical evidence from the scene for corroboration.

    A case that springs to mind is a (non-fatal) one here in WA where the defendant was prosecuted having shot the intruder in the arse as he was running away. Had he shot the guy in the chest from the front, he'd have probably got away with it in spite of the much greater likelihood of fatal consequences.

    Ultimately, do you want to live in a society where deaths are not fully investigated by a competent (hopefully) authority? I've no problem with the use of force to defend myself, my family and my property, but the corollary to that is the responsibility, having used said force, to justify it. In a just society, the intruder's actions have consequences. So do yours.
  15. I'm with you grue,

    If an individual enters my home a) uninvited b) without reasonable cause and their intent is to harm, endanger, or obtain property then i will certainly take a course of action to defend my family and property. Your rights are left at the door. As a kid, myself and younger sister were at home, we actually had someone try to break in, long story short, the guy had the luck of meeting my dad then the back of a cop car. It was a valuable lesson at young age, and sure fire way to see another side of dad ;) it's not fun lol
  16. John Tingle had two Bills passed and then subsequently the Government later incorporated both bills into their review whilst retaining the important parts.

    In NSW the law specifically gives you the right to defend yourself or anyone else against attack, using any implement available to you.

    Tingle's Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Act 1998, and the Workplace (Occupants Protection) Act 2000, both later incorporated in the Crimes Amendment (Self Defence) Act 2002, is an Act of Parliament that guarantees this right of self defence anywhere, and at any time.

    Further, these laws give immunity against civil and criminal liability for a person acting in defence of one self or another person. They also reverse the onus of proof, meaning that if the defendant is charged in some way, they have to prove nothing. The Prosecution, on the other hand, has to prove that the defender, in taking whatever action they did, they did not believe, in their own mind, that the action was really necessary.

    This is an impossibility.

    How do you prove, beyond any doubt, what is in anyone's mind at any time in their life?

    Thanks to the Shooters and Fishers Party, the law in NSW makes big time sense and yes YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF AT HOME, without fear or favour, as long as you BELIEVE that you or your family are in danger.

    This is how it should be, not the BS system that operated previously.
  17. *bang* *bang* *bang* "STOP OR I WILL SHOOT.....WHOOPS"
  18. I thought Vicpol had the monopoly on that one :D.
  19. ...just add "sh*t...wrong address"