Thread: Home invasion

Everyone saying that use of force is justified as self defence under S48 Crimes Act needs to remember that its not a blanket "I can do what I want".

"Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use."

That force needs to be reasonable and proportionate to the threat that the person is defending themselves from IE if the offender is lying on the ground at gunpoint and beaten is it reasonable and proportionate to step forward and cut off his finger to defend myself? That act doesn't seem like something I'd do if I genuinely feared for my safety and isn't exactly a reasonable way of defending myself, particularly if I'm saying things like "it's so people know you're a thief" etc and filming it.

Since we all agree that some force during this incident was authorised by law that naturally leads us to S62 of the Crimes Act

"Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."

Based on the above it seems the appropriate place for this discussion is indeed the Court because it appears on the face of it that there is a case to be heard. What that outcome may be will be the Judge or Jurys call. As an aside I see the offender has already been charged with aggravated burglary and some other bits so is also being held to account under the law.

Remember that in these cases it's not what we may wish to see but what the law is. Like @Thar has mentioned LFAOs we more than most need to understand our obligations under the law and if we don't agree with them to vote accordingly for change, not decide to do as we may wish in the moment less we lose our license or end up in the dock ourselves.

Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

so %50 of the police at the wellington protest should be in court then ....

In my opinion anyone who REPEATEDLY breaks in to a house , armed with a weapon - be it a knife or a wine bottle or both , assaults/beats the owner , threatens to kill them (and openly admits it in court)have VOLUNTARILY removed any rights they might have as a normal human being in a decent society and deserve everything they get ... with bells on .

Originally Posted by Ftx325

Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

so %50 of the police at the wellington protest should be in court then ....

In my opinion anyone who REPEATEDLY breaks in to a house , armed with a weapon - be it a knife or a wine bottle or both , assaults/beats the owner , threatens to kill them (and openly admits it in court)have VOLUNTARILY removed any rights they might have as a normal human being in a decent society and deserve everything they get ... with bells on .

The problem there is that when our opinion differs from the law we end up in Court trying to defend those actions. And if there's no legal basis for our opinion we lose that defence. And rightly so, we all have differing opinions about all kinds of things.

Example - Maybe I disagree with hunting and taking the lives of poor innocent deers. In my opinion I should be able to use force against the nasty hunters to save the lives of those deers. Legally not so much.

If we can't make that distinction between opinion and the law we can't really call ourselves LAFOs..

absolutely opinion and law often go in seperate directions . And yes as law abiding firearm owners we have to be very careful not to mix the two up .
But why does it seem that nowadays the criminals have more 'rights' than the victims ?
that is wrong in so many ways .

But I do wonder if the farmer will be facing firearms charges for threatening with a shotgun ....
Again in my mind that was justified - they had just beaten him and threatened to kill him ....
but does that qualify as reasonable force in the eyes of the police and judge ? And if not , why not , and then what is considered reasonable force in that situation when you have already been beaten and threatened with death ... ?

Originally Posted by Ftx325

But I do wonder if the farmer will be facing firearms charges for threatening with a shotgun .... ?

He has already plead guilty to several firearms charges (including possession of a firearm without a license).

Originally Posted by Cigar

He has already plead guilty to several firearms charges (including possession of a firearm without a license).

Ok , did not realize he was not licensed .
What would the outcome be had he been licensed I still wonder ....

AS to the finger amputation , was he not lying on the knife waiting for a chance to stab the farmers , according to the news report , and as admitted in court ? Is that not why they cut the finger , for not moving his hand out from under him so visible or releasing the knife ?
So not exactly what I would call subdued if that is the case .

Originally Posted by Cigar

He has already plead guilty to several firearms charges (including possession of a firearm without a license).

Unlicensed firearm owner?!? Sweet, so they can't take his FAL off him, and also he'll not do jail time.

Also, gang members wishing to do a revenge invasion can't be quite certain he hasn't rearmed.

I know, it's f*cked up to say this, but isn't it reality?

Originally Posted by Ftx325

have VOLUNTARILY removed any rights they might have as a normal human being in a decent society and deserve everything they get ... with bells on .

I couldn't have said it any better. They do not deserve to be treated as normal human beings because that's exactly what they chose themselves.