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.