A week after David Dunstan obtained his firearms back from NSW Police with a stern warning not to use them to protect his loved ones against criminals, another incident has occurred in Victoria.
From Channel 7:
“A man has been charged after allegedly shooting and critically wounding an intruder who broke into his home in Melbourne’s west.
Four people forced their way into a Hackett Court home and confronted three people inside on October 18, about 3.20am. One of the occupants was assaulted and in retaliation fought back.
“The occupant or the homeowner has then, we allege, fired a shot back at these people and as a result a male received a serious injury,” Detective Acting Sergeant Paul Jones said.
The alleged shooter, 37, has been charged and remanded in custody and will appear in Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on January 17.
A 34-year-old man from Sunshine West and a 31-year-old female from Kings Park have been charged with intentionally cause serious injury, home invasion, armed robbery and false imprisonment. The 34-year old man is due to appear at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on January 18.
One of the four intruders is still on the run. The man who suffered a gunshot wound is in a life-threatening condition in hospital while two of his alleged accomplices are in custody.Police have issued a warrant for the arrest of Matthew Thomas, 35, who is known to be around the Deer Park and Sunshine areas.”
There is no further information available about this case at this time.
Of course, the usual questions present themselves. Was it a legally owned firearm? Were the parties known to each other and/or involved in criminal activity? Did the home owner get control of the home invaders gun?
Further, why did Victoria Police sit on this case for over two weeks before being announced to the media? Given the recent attention to David Dunstan and the ongoing violent crime bonanza in Melbourne, I think it’s fair to say that there are political motives present here.
The facts of this case will come out in the wash. If this was indeed a LAFO who was home invaded and defending himself then we will fight for this guy. If the firearm was illegally owned and/or they are criminal parties known to each other, then he’s on his own.
That being said, the principle still applies – why are Australians legally enforced victims in their own home? Australia has become a country that has been indoctrinated to fear firearms but is outraged at the drop of a hat over people unable to protect themselves in their own homes against violent crime. Why some members of the public cannot reconcile these two points is really a thing to behold in the social engineering sense.
Seriously, your choices in this country right now when confronted with a home invasion are:
(a) get hurt or worse
(b) defend yourself and get charged and have your property confiscated
Choose one, plebs.
We will be continuing to follow this case with interest.
As someone who has been in law enforcement for twenty years it dismays me to see what is happening in this country.
We regularly have US Police message us horrified at the lack of respect for civilian self-defence rights.
That’s saying something.
Someone breaks into your home, while your home, they intend to hurt you, and your family, and our government is happy for them to do that, its about time we have the right to bury em in the veggie patch.
Its a shame that the intruder wasn’t killed!
Oi mate you don’t have a license for that life, into jail you go!
our legal system is systematically getting beyond a joke with every passing year. It is a sorry state of affairs when the invaders are protected by the law even though they are breaking the law at the time, while the victims of the crime are not allowed by law to defend themselves…….. absolutely pathetic. The laws passed down by the rightous do gooders who would never be in the situation in the first place
doesn’t really matter whether or not the fire-arm(s) were “legally owned” or not b’cs most, if not all, of Australia’s current gun laws and invalid, illegal and un-Constitutional (apropos Bill of Rights 1689) any-way……
this looks like a golden opportunity for the case to be pursued all the way to the High Court of Australia and have most if not all of our current, crazy gun laws struck down;
the self-defence issue is covered under Zecevic vrs DPP 1987;
the illegality of the gun laws under: Common Law, Magna Charta, Bill of Rights 1689 and Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914;
☞Seriously, your choices in this country right now when confronted with a home invasion are:
(a) get hurt or worse
(b) defend yourself and get charged and have your property confiscated☜
you left out (c) and (d)
(c)the Mick Gatto defence ;
(d)the ‘re-cycling’ alternative….
you need to ‘free up’ the comments section here….unless you want to plummet in the Google rankings…..
Who gives a shit..legal or illegal firearm….4 people broke into his home….they werent there for a cup of tea…you do what you need to do to defend yourself in your own home…the laws in this country are a joke
I dont have guns but i have swords, come in my house and your gunna get chopped up, cant rely on pussy police to protect you, they will turn up long after its all over
An interesting thing I like to point out to anti-gunners is that despite all the shootings committed against police officers in the United States, American police officers overwhelmingly support the 2nd amendment. It seems like they understand that they cannot be everywhere at all times or respond to the scene of a crime quickly enough. I totally agree. You can’t pick up the phone and dial 911 if the intruder is pointing a weapon at you or in the process of physically trying to fight you.
I am Chinese and I live in America. It’s outrageous that in Australia, you are not allowed to use a firearm to protect yourself and your family. Intruders can still cause severe bodily injury or death with knives and blunt objects. The scars never heal and the lives never return whether or not a gun was used.
In most states in America, there is no duty to retreat, and you are allowed to shoot intruders who you reasonably believe the intruder is going to cause harm or death to you.
Part of being in a free society is being allowed to protect your body and property. No one should have to be hiding defenseless and scared in their home because they are trapped in by intruders.
In countries like China, a woman will be charged with murder if she kills someone trying to rape her. In America, if you end up killing someone who is trying to rape you, you have done nothing wrong. Being arrested for using a gun to protect your life, body, and property should not be something that happens in a democratic country like Australia.
Great post, Peter.
I didn’t know that a person in China can be charged with murder for killing a rapist or attempted rapist.
I knew there was strict gun control in China but I didn’t know China had the kind of sheer lunacy we have here.
Or maybe I should say we have the same crazy laws as China. When communists come to power, they evidently don’t just outlaw weapons, they also change the philosophical basis of self-defence laws.
It’s scary to me that we’re now far closer to the PRC than to the USA or how we were before 1996.