Well, that’s reassuring:
“Victoria’s top cop says the youth crime crisis has left some communities gripped with fear but admits that police can’t solve the problem.
Speaking to 3AW’s Neil Mitchell, Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton acknowledged there was a youth crime issue and said police were making more arrests and responding faster than ever but said that “if you’re looking for police to put it to bed, you’re looking in the wrong direction”.
“The social conditions that we’ve got out there are such that young people are out there looking for trouble,” he said . Mr Ashton said he was “saddened” by a walk through the streets of Tarneit, where shuttered windows and deserted streets show a community stricken by fear of crime.”
So there you go, VicPol themselves admit they can’t keep you safe nor put an end to the crime wave in Melbourne.
The message from Victoria Police and Lisa Neville on this whole fiasco in Victoria does however, change daily. At least they’re now being honest, well today anyway. If Victoria Police admit they can’t protect you, yet at the drop of a hat oppose any measures to allow the public to protect themselves, then their opinion is becoming increasingly invalid.
That being said, we’ve also stated numerous times that a weak judiciary, community legal services and mass immigration have their roles in this debacle as well and Police aren’t entirely to blame.
With that out of the way, can we talk about self-defence yet? Or are we just going to get stuck in the cycle of perpetual outrage of whatever the latest shocking violent crime is, and then simply complain online about judges and immigration and why everyone else should do something about it?
On the one hand, Australians need to grow up and start taking responsibility for their own safety and they need to start demanding the tools to do it with. That begins with access to the appropriate tools for self-defence – non-lethal items such as pepper spray and tasers and for those who qualify, licenced concealed carry permits. You have the right to self-defence but that right is essentially meaningless without the means.
On the other hand, it’s time for Police and government to swallow their pride and come to the table about allowing the public to adequately protect themselves because the consistent messaging of “just be a victim” and “just be compliant during a home invasion” doesn’t cut it.
Because those who make self-defence impossible, will make vigilantism inevitable.
New Zealand Crimes Act 1961
1961 No 43
s55 Defence of dwellinghouse
Every one in peaceable possession of a dwellinghouse, and every one lawfully assisting him or her or acting by his or her authority, is justified in using such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering of the dwellinghouse by any person if he or she believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that there is no lawful justification for the breaking and entering.
Compare: 1908 No 32 ss 80, 81; Criminal Code (1954) s 40 (Canada)
s62 Excess of force
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.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 86(2)
Checks and balances ….
IM sorry but i have No confidence in the police or the justices system im going to protect my self and probably be charged but im not going to let my family or myself be terrorised and you are right there will beVigilantism in this state dont you worry about that
Our Australian law criminal crimes act 1995 section 10.2 acting under duress says you can basically do what ever you like as an act of defending your life if you can’t walk away or stop it from happening. Section 10.4 is self defence you can defend your life if you use the two a ts together its the same as claiming temporary insanity. As soon as the police arrive the only two things you need to say first is I was acting under duress defending my life. Then shut up until you call your solicitor.
The one piece of advice I was given by a friend who is a Cop is “don’t ever speak to the cops” – nothing good can come of it, they do not have the abvility to decide to let you go, but speaking to them, particularly if you are under a lot of stress, can bring bad results. Get a lawyer involved right at the start – in this day and age, nobody needs a lawyer more than an innocent man.
Something occurred tome reading your post, Les. If secti9on 10.2 of the Crimes Act 1995 says in your words
:”acting under duress says you can basically do what ever you like as an act of defending your life if you can’t walk away or stop it from happening”.
Section 10.4 ” 4 is self defence you can defend your life”.
I’m no lawyer, I’m just putting this up for discussion, but if these things apply, then it becomes hard to argue against anyone who has a dedicated weapon for self-defence.
Let’s say you’re a licensed gun owner and you use a rifle to scare off a home invader.
The current legal framework followed by the police only allows you to plan from the time
you were able to retrieve the rifle as per the regs, and even then
you risk retaliation by the cops.
However, if sections 10.2 and 10.4 of the Crimes Act 1995 allow you to use whatever you
need to in order to defend yourself, then you must be allowed to justify your actions further back in time than that.
Logically “whatever you need” includes whatever you need, no exceptions. If you decided you were safer to have your rifle at the ready, by your bedside instead of in the safe or whatever, then they have to allow it until they re-write the Crimes Act 1995.
“Whatever you need” by no means excludes anything apart from an improvised approach to defence.
They will hit you with charges under the firearms act rather than the crimes act – storage, ammuntion etc
That is why we need an explicit right to use weapons to defend ourselves.
You appear to have misunderstood some of what I was saying. I wasn’t claiming they’d hit you under the Crimes Act, I was saying the opposite-that one could USE the Crimes Act and the argument outlined in my previous post.
I am sure you are right insofar as they’d use anything to prosecute you.
You referred to the Firearms Act. My argument undercuts this Act as well as any others for reasons that are clear when reading my previous post.
You are probably correct when you say we need an explicit right to defend ourselves. I have encountered an argument that lists of supposedly inviolable rights tend to become meaningless over time as “common good” reasons to restrict these rights rear their ugly heads. Then again, where would we be without the US Second Amendment? A the moment, I’d be much happier with an explicitly-protected R2KIBA and self-defence than not.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves,but only with the equal amount of force as the offender & or whatever force deemed necessary to remove the threat & all actions do have to be justifiable in any court of law,keeping in mind at this stage in society it seems that the judicial system works only for the thugs/criminals and victims are victimised by the courts actions & that of the perpetrators
Wrong, not sure what state you are in but where I live – “A person is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another person, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.”.
That is very different from “you must use only the same amount of force”, a small woman confronted by a 6ft attacker wiht an axe is not required to find no more than an axe to defend herself – reasonable force does not mean equal force.
However, this raises a good point – if you have not yet looked up the legislation relating to self defence in your state, do so now so you know where you stand.
Works well in America. Hardly any violence over there.
HURR AMERICA HURR. Good one edgelord.
It does work well there. Read something once in a while:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
Police services across Australia are no longer operating under the common law of the Commonwealth of Australia established in 1901, but under contract law as subsidiary corporations of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
Under common law, we do not have to obey them-in theory and perhaps eventually in practice if someone who knows the law ever wanted to really pursue it to the High Court and beyond.
Even from the POV of contract law, though, there are problems uncovered by Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton’s admission that police can’t protect you from violent crime.
The police are a corporation and as such have undertaken to perform certain services-but what, and for whom?
If the contract the police are under is with the voters, then they’ve broken the contract and voters are morally and even legally entitled to disregard what the police say as far as guns and weapons are concerned.
If the police have not signed a contract with the votes, then voters are under no obligation to obey the police-and for good measure, are entitled to know with whom or what the police have contracted with.
Similar things can be said about the National Firearms Agreement. It’s not between true Australian States and Territories and the Commonwealth , because these no longer exist.
The NFA is a kind of contract between corporations, with the “States” promising to uphold certain gun laws and the “Commonwealth” promising to provide the “States” with revenue.
No reference is made to the common law right to self-defence; on the contrary, self-defence is explicitly rejected as a valid reason for a private civilian to own a gun. Therefore, the NFA is not an agreement between common law entities such as the States and Commonwealth established in 1901. The incompatibility of the NFA with common law makes the agreement invalid even if the Commonwealth of Australia still existed.