“1 May 2024

The right to defend yourself or others during a home or property invasion without fear of legal consequences may soon be a reality for Queenslanders after Hinchinbrook MP Nick Dametto introduced a Castle Law Bill into the Queensland Parliament today.

The Private Members Bill, titled the Criminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill 2024, aims to bolster the legal defence available to victims of home invasions who act to defend themselves even if that act results in the serious harm, or death of an intruder.

The Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) Deputy Leader said he had listened to Queenslanders who had been calling for more rights for self-defence when faced with the prospect of having to defend themselves against an intruder in their own home.

“Currently a person can only defend themselves with force that is reasonably necessary in all of the circumstances. What is deemed ‘reasonable’ is open to very broad interpretation,” Mr Dametto said.

“We strongly believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves in their own home or premises. This is why on . . . “
https://nickdametto.com/legislation-moved-to-adopt-castle-law-in-queensland#:~:text=Legislation%20Moved%20to%20Adopt%20Castle%20Law%20in%20Queensland%20%2D%20Nick%20Dametto%20MP&text=The%20right%20to%20defend%20yourself,into%20the%20Queensland%20Parliament%20today

Finally people might get to defend themselves without going broke i the process.

WWW search....
stand your ground law, usa




Quote:

Stand-your-ground law A stand-your-ground law, sometimes called a "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law, provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present.[1] The exact details vary by jurisdiction. The alternative to stand your ground is "duty to retreat". In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating. Even areas that impose a duty to retreat generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which people have no duty to retreat when they are attacked in their homes, or (in some places) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and "stand-your-ground" laws provide legal defenses to persons who have been charged with various use-of-force crimes against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal discharge or brandishing of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes.[2] Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is just one element of its self-defense laws. Different jurisdictions allow deadly force against different crimes. All American states allow it against prior deadly force, great bodily injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some also allow it against threat of robbery and burglary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law


It can often be difficult to prove [later, in a court of law], that someone that you have 'consequently' harmed, had an immediate intent to first harm you or yours.

The evidence would not always be apparent [demonstrable], after the incident.

All of these circumstances [of determining a 'proper' right of self-defence] are made so much more problematic, imo, in jurisdictions [such as Australia],
where/because we find, that many violent criminals live 'in society',
alongside peaceable, law abiding citizens
[principally it would seem, because the judiciary and our political class, seem reluctant, to permanently remove such persons [violent criminals] from our society].


.


Appropriate Justice, it isn't rocket science.

Deuteronomy 25:1
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.


Why should, we not do Deuteronomy 25:1,
in Australia ?

Is there any good reason, why criminals [particularly violent criminals],
should not be made to account [be made personally responsible], for their criminal behaviour ?

Do you know what you are trying to say? Are judges the ones to judge or are householders the judge?

chimera wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 9:41am:

Do you know what you are trying to say? Are judges the ones to judge or are householders the judge?

In home invasions etc., the householder, or anyone else lawfully in the house is the judge as the intruder[s] intend to murder you.

chimera wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 9:41am:

Do you know what you are trying to say? Are judges the ones to judge or are householders the judge?

Yes, i know what i am trying to say.....



Q.
Does a violent criminal have a right not to be harmed,
while he is assaulting/murdering someone ?

Who makes that decision ?

The householder, now ?

Or a judge, later ?


What if the housebreaker is only a thief ?

Q.
How can a householder know what another persons INTENT is,
ESPECIALLY, IF AN INTENT IS NOT DECLARED ?


.


Exodus 22:2
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.


Exodus 21:12
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13  And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14  But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

It's not gunna make it into law:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-11/castle-law-petition-home-intruders-tabled-in-qld-parliament/103958648

"A homeowner could feel threatened when in fact there is no threat and then you have a situation where an innocent person has been killed and there's no recourse."

Ms Fogerty said existing laws allowing for reasonable force to be used to defend a person or property had served the community well.

Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said the government acknowledged those who signed the petition, but it had no plans to review the self-defence provisions in the Criminal Code.

And so the murders by home invaders will continue to exceed the number of home invaders killed whilst breaking the law.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 11:16am:

It's not gunna make it into law: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-11/castle-law-petition-home-intruders-tabled-in-qld-parliament/103958648 "A homeowner could feel threatened when in fact there is no threat and then you have a situation where an innocent person has been killed and there's no recourse." Ms Fogerty said existing laws allowing for reasonable force to be used to defend a person or property had served the community well. Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said the government acknowledged those who signed the petition, but it had no plans to review the self-defence provisions in the Criminal Code.

Ive successfully defended people who have used lethal force to protect their home, but there are conditions.  I've even successfully defended a crabber who actually shot at fishery inspectors who were 'raiding' his pots.  The existing law is sufficient.  If you have to use lethal force to protect your self in your home, you can.

Yadda wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 10:27am:

Yes, i know what i am trying to say..... Does a violent criminal have a right not to be harmed, while he is assaulting/murdering someone ? Who makes that decision ? The householder, now ? Or a judge, later ?

Do you know  what you are trying to say?

Aussie wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 2:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 11:16am: It's not gunna make it into law: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-11/castle-law-petition-home-intruders-tabled-in-qld-parliament/103958648 "A homeowner could feel threatened when in fact there is no threat and then you have a situation where an innocent person has been killed and there's no recourse." Ms Fogerty said existing laws allowing for reasonable force to be used to defend a person or property had served the community well. Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said the government acknowledged those who signed the petition, but it had no plans to review the self-defence provisions in the Criminal Code. Ive successfully defended people who have used lethal force to protect their home, but there are conditions.  I've even successfully defended a crabber who actually shot at fishery inspectors who were 'raiding' his pots.  The existing law is sufficient.  If you have to use lethal force to protect your self in your home, you can.

But the court case would have cost that defendant an arm and a leg.    ::)

Aussie wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 2:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 11:16am: It's not gunna make it into law: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-11/castle-law-petition-home-intruders-tabled-in-qld-parliament/103958648 "A homeowner could feel threatened when in fact there is no threat and then you have a situation where an innocent person has been killed and there's no recourse." Ms Fogerty said existing laws allowing for reasonable force to be used to defend a person or property had served the community well. Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said the government acknowledged those who signed the petition, but it had no plans to review the self-defence provisions in the Criminal Code. Ive successfully defended people who have used lethal force to protect their home, but there are conditions.  I've even successfully defended a crabber who actually shot at fishery inspectors who were 'raiding' his pots.  The existing law is sufficient.  If you have to use lethal force to protect your self in your home, you can.

The existing laws are not sufficient for the home defender can still face trial and if the deceased attacker turns out to be a drunk who came to the wrong house but thought his wife had locked him out so he was kicking the door in.
How will it go for the bloke who pulled the trigger?
It would be an unfortunate occurrence but the defender should not-have to face trial because it is reasonable to assume that someone trying to break into your home means you harm.
The evidence is there, home invaders have murdered people in their own home.
So no home invader should enjoy any protection as it can reasonably be presumed that home invaders intend to kill.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 7:08pm:

it can reasonably be presumed that home invaders intend to kill.

.. particularly if they know the owner has a cocked and loaded shotgun.

chimera wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 8:52pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 7:08pm: it can reasonably be presumed that home invaders intend to kill. .. particularly if they know the owner has a cocked and loaded shotgun.

None of the householders recently murdered in home invasion incidents had weapons of any kind.
I doubt that home invasions would take place if the people were encouraged to defend themselves,  but our Governments prefer a bit of collateral damage in the form of dead citizens.

'On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day.
72% of reported burglaries happened when nobody was at home'.
So about 1/4 are where the trenches are defended by Barrett, Glock, Remington and Taurus.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 8:59am:

'On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day. 72% of reported burglaries happened when nobody was at home'. So about 1/4 are where the trenches are defended by Barrett, Glock, Remington and Taurus.

You are presuming that the people who were at home were gun owners. and there is a difference between home invasion and burglary.

home invasion
the act or crime of entering a private home without the permission of the person who lives there, especially when the person is present, usually with the intention of stealing something or of committing an attack.
burglary
illegal entry of a building with intent to commit a crime, especially theft.

About a third of US households (32%) say they own a gun. That's 250 invasions / burglaries a day on gun owners. Then in the US a crim would assume the owner (home or business) very likely has a cannon, 750 a day.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 8:59am:

'On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day. 72% of reported burglaries happened when nobody was at home'. So about 1/4 are where the trenches are defended by Barrett, Glock, Remington and Taurus.

There are no plans to allow people to arm themselves with firearms.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 2:34pm:

home invasion the act or crime of entering a private home without the permission of the person who lives there, especially when the person is present, usually with the intention of stealing something or of committing an attack. burglary illegal entry of a building with intent to commit a crime, especially theft. About a third of US households (32%) say they own a gun. That's 250 invasions / burglaries a day on gun owners. Then in the US a crim would assume the owner (home or business) very likely has a cannon, 750 a day.

You are assuming that the crims don’t know who has firearms.
In Australia it’s easy any crim with half a brain knows who has and who hasn’t got  a gun and I don’t think it’s any harder in the US, in fact probably easier.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 4:14pm:

chimera wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 8:59am: 'On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day. 72% of reported burglaries happened when nobody was at home'. So about 1/4 are where the trenches are defended by Barrett, Glock, Remington and Taurus. There are no plans to allow people to arm themselves with firearms.

There are no plans to allow people to arm themselves with anything.

In fact possessing anything for the purpose of self defence is a crime.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 4:14pm:

There are no plans to allow people to arm themselves with firearms.

Eoin has plans for everyone to carry guns as their undying old right.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 5:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 4:14pm: chimera wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 8:59am: 'On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day. 72% of reported burglaries happened when nobody was at home'. So about 1/4 are where the trenches are defended by Barrett, Glock, Remington and Taurus. There are no plans to allow people to arm themselves with firearms. There are no plans to allow people to arm themselves with anything. In fact possessing anything for the purpose of self defence is a crime.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:

In Australia it’s easy any crim with half a brain knows who has and who hasn’t got  a gun and I don’t think it’s any harder in the US, in fact probably easier.

Teenage house-invaders have half a brain and why do you say anyone knows the general population's guns?  There are news reports from OZ and US of owner's shooting a home invader.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 5:18pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 4:59pm: In Australia it’s easy any crim with half a brain knows who has and who hasn’t got  a gun and I don’t think it’s any harder in the US, in fact probably easier. Teenage house-invaders have half a brain and why do you say anyone knows the general population's guns?  There are news reports from OZ and US of owner's shooting a home invader.

Well, eg.there are firearm ranges, people drive there, cars have license plates, take it from there
The Greens, through FOI, published how many gun owners there are in each town and the number of guns that they own, probably helpful.
The police do routine inspections, they park outside the premises for about half an hour then leave, all peaceful and smiles, guess why they were there.
Various magazines are devoted to firearms, hunting etc., people buying them probably own firearms. The SSAA has 230,000 members, 99% own guns, nearly all the members receive the SSAA magazine via post, so thousands of post deliverers know who on their routes have guns.
Then there are the customers of gun shops +cars, plates and so on.
And there is pub talk,  “Got a nice couple of. hares….”
Probably owns a gun.

Edit. Almost forgot the gun shows and Firearms Auctions, again most of those attending are interested in firearms and many, if not most, own one and the auctions arei attended by over 90% gun owners or about to be.
In country towns it’s a simple matter to follow s shooter home from the range, thus the address with no hassles

Some years back the police in one New England town arrested a local burglar and found a list of all the dog owner’s addresses.

'Atlanta Police Department reports were screened to identify every case of unwanted entry into an occupied, single-family dwelling. A total of 198 cases were identified. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance. Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot. Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose.'

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 8:11pm:

'Atlanta Police Department reports were screened to identify every case of unwanted entry into an occupied, single-family dwelling. A total of 198 cases were identified. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance. Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot. Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose.'

So the use of a firearm was 100% effective.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 8:44am:

Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property. .' So the use of a firearm was 100% effective.

Except for losing property.
'In Australia it’s easy any crim with half a brain knows who has and who hasn’t got  a gun and I don’t think it’s any harder in the US, in fact probably easier.'
The half brains didn't know and guns are 'rarely used in the home'.

I can understand how many people would like to be able to use deadly force on the increasingly prevalent home invasion perpetrators.

However, in a country where the death penalty does not exist, it seems odd that someone would be free to execute a person for a crime like home invasion.

On the other hand, I would have no issue if someone beat such a criminal invader with a golf club for example, causing serious injury.

Russians have all sorts of weapons in their cars ready to deal with bad drivers. Or with good drivers who object to bad driving.

chimera wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 9:39am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 14th, 2024 at 8:44am: Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property. .' So the use of a firearm was 100% effective. Except for losing property. 'In Australia it’s easy any crim with half a brain knows who has and who hasn’t got  a gun and I don’t think it’s any harder in the US, in fact probably easier.' The half brains didn't know and guns are 'rarely used in the home'.

How much property?
Could have been anything when fleeing, camera for example.

The property was his house. He hit a power point, shorted the wiring and the place burnt down, guns, ammo and Shooters Catalogue, the lot.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 11:33am:

I can understand how many people would like to be able to use deadly force on the increasingly prevalent home invasion perpetrators. However, in a country where the death penalty does not exist, it seems odd that someone would be free to execute a person for a crime like home invasion. On the other hand, I would have no issue if someone beat such a criminal invader with a golf club for example, causing serious injury.

Home Invaders intend to murder their victims.
So deadly force should be allowed and with no legal consequences.

There would be no execution for home invasion but killing in self defence against an intending attacker.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 8:11pm:

Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot.'

3% attempted murders

chimera wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 5:46pm:

chimera wrote on Jun 13th, 2024 at 8:11pm: Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot.' 3% attempted murders

But all home invasions are potential murders.

Eoin goes to the newsagent. Loosens coat for quick draw, ducks behind car and checks the footpath for assassins. No message on group radio, moves into position next to power pole. Scan pub roof for movement, quick run into shop, grabs paper, back to base.

chimera wrote on Jun 14^th, 2024 at 6:26pm:

Eoin goes to the newsagent. Loosens coat for quick draw, ducks behind car and checks the footpath for assassins. No message on group radio, moves into position next to power pole. Scan pub roof for movement, quick run into shop, grabs paper, back to base.

Thanks, one can always count on you for an intelligent response.