Yes, that headline is correct.
A rural homeowner in New South Wales has not been charged, after shooting a burglar who broke into his property. The burglar, Ben Rhodes, “pleaded guilty to aggravated enter dwelling with intent, which carries a maximum of 14 years in jail, and larceny.”
The Herald reports:
BENJAMIN Rhodes went to run, but he could only crawl.
His mate, Ryan Jewell, sprinted across the remote property on The Weir Road at Teralba and jumped into Cockle Creek. The pair had just been confronted by a homeowner, alerted by a security light at his farm shed, who interrupted their bungled burglary attempt.
It was early on May 14, 2016, and the second time in a few hours that the pair had broken into the remote property in search of power tools and firearms. Rhodes was shot in the left leg at close range, with Jewell later telling the police he saw a flash, heard a loud bang and then heard his mate call out for help. Jewell said he then heard more shots ring out over his head as he turned and fled.
So all in all, this begs the question: why not the rest of us? On the basis of the report from the Herald, aside from perhaps allegedly shooting at a fleeing felon (that part is unclear from the report), this home owner did all he could to do the right thing. He complied with firearm storage laws, called the Police and was only forced into action at last resort when outnumbered with multiple assailants on his own property at night time.
Sure, there have been a plethora of cases over the last 20 years where lethal force in self-defence with a firearm or similar has occurred before, some of which have made the news and some have not. The fact remains that there is clearly legal precedent for self-defence with a firearm in defence of life and property.
We’ve pointed this out several times before, and more importantly that the reality of the right to self-defence is completely useless when you don’t have the legal means to self-defence in Australia. This could have ended very badly for the home owner being outnumbered and had he not been armed we may have heard of yet another law-abiding citizen become a victim of crime. And the vapid hashtags and meaningless filters would have been flowing.
So remind me again why self-defence is still “not a genuine reason” for ownership of firearms for law abiding citizens? That’s right, only employees of the state and a few cash-in-transit operators (in defence of their lives only, not the money) during working hours are entitled to that. Us plebs aren’t apparently worthy of preserving our own lives. Bummer.
Fortunately, incidents like this one have led to an increasing number of now red-pilled Australians, particularly in Melbourne in the wake of a violent crime wave, that have seen through the preceding 21-year social engineering onslaught regarding self-defence and firearms and that it’s not morally superior to be a victim of crime.
It is proven that criminals generally commit less crime after they’ve been shot, and in spite of his injuries you would think Ben Rhodes would be wise to continue that trend.
That was a beaut result Serve the thieving bastards right.⚰
A well written account & argument for legal self defense when we all know the police cannot be everywhere , cheers
It isn’t just that the police can’t be everywhere –
a. the chances of having a cop on site when your life is threatened are lower than those of you winning the lottery whilst being struck by lightning – crims are not dumb, if there is a cop around they will wait until he isn’t before acting, and
b. we would not tolerate the level of intrusion it would take to make sure the police could be on hand when we need them, it would literally be a police state of a scale that would dwarf Orwells 1984.
Its about time the courts recognized that people with registered firearms should be allowed to defends ones home and loved ones from theives and or intruders of the night. Police cannot be everywhere at once. Thankyou to the judge for using his/her head in sentencing and it should be made law that any home owner has thr right to defend their property and to defend themselves in anyway.
Yes and this is why we should be able to carry pistals as long as there concealed then these pricks would think twice before taking on easy targets
I feel certain that the intruder will have second thoughts on committing illegal activities – a slap on the wrist would not deter him / them
You said “It is proven that criminals generally commit less crime after …” I’d love to see that proof. Where is your source for that one? It would be a good argument in my armoury.
About time and l think this will stop a lot of burgleries happening cause once they know that if they got shot and nothing is going to be done about they will think twice
Good shoot all junkie theives they are nothing but a waste of space anyway.
Australia is a bit backwards and pretty underevolved in this case…
embarrassing for such a great country to have bureaucracy like the EU. Idiots.
if somebody wants to die, try to invade my home – im gonna kill you with one headshot and hide your body. No questions about that. I dont care what these retards think.