‘’ Cops praise 75yo homeowner who shot alleged stabber during home invasion’’
https://www.smh.com.au/ 

Chances are that if he hadn’t had a firearm both he and his wife would have been murdered.
Why would the intruder be trying to get back into the house if not to make sure that they would not be able to identify him?

Sorry, can’t get a link posted, but there are plenty on Google.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jun 5^th, 2026 at 2:32pm:

‘’ Cops praise 75yo homeowner who shot alleged stabber during home invasion’’ https://www.smh.com.au/  Chances are that if he hadn’t had a firearm both he and his wife would have been murdered. Why would the intruder be trying to get back into the house if not to make sure that they would not be able to identify him? Sorry, can’t get a link posted, but there are plenty on Google.

Praise from police.....

But that is 'after the fact'.



If he'd asked police [before hand] if he could defend himself [being armed] against a home invader,
what advice would police have given him ?

Probably; "I think that you had better surrender your firearms sir !"



That is the same reason, why the ADF should be disbanded [and disarmed].

Correct ?

Because everyone knows that firearms [in the hands of law abiding citizens] are dangerous.



Quote:

Cops praise 75yo homeowner who shot alleged stabber during home invasion Jack Nivison June 4, 2026 ......Superintendent McKenna did not comment on whether charges would be pursued in relation to Mr Blessing’s actions, but said people were “entitled to use reasonable force to defend themselves”.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/man-75-shoots-home-invader-after-brutal-stabbing-in-torrington-nsw/news-story/dce88e67467b8526a63b37cd64ad831c

https://cairnsnews.org/2026/06/04/defending-himself-intruder-shot-by-home-owner-after-violent-stabbing/

Defending himself – intruder shot by home owner after violent stabbing

By cairns news

Jun 4, 2026


This incident where a home owner shot an armed intruder will test the mettle of the NSW Police and Labor State Government.

Will the 75 year old home occupant be charged for shooting the intruder, 34 year old Joshua Dylan Trethewey, allegedly for forcing entry into the home, stabbing the woman in the chest and slashing the man across the abdomen while both are fighting for life after being airlifted to the Gold Coast University Hospital?

The Ben Fordham radio show is syndicated across Australia hence NSW Police will have to behave with some honour in this case and as Queensland MP Robbie Katter said: “Why should a person have to be conscious of being charged by police when defending his life, his wife’s life and his home?”

This is the conundrum on which Katters Australian Party’s proposed Castle Law hinges. The Queensland Liberal National Party Government so far has ignored a home owner’s right of self-defence which has been made entirely clear by centuries of Common Law.

A man’s home is his Castle.

Update from NSW Police:

Police have been told 75-year-old Keith Blessing and his 72-year-old wife Di were home at the time when a 34-year-old man entered the premises and allegedly stabbed both with a knife.

The woman collapsed with a chest wound while her husband was slashed across his abdomen, before the man went outside onto the verandah.

The homeowner called Triple Zero (000) seeking urgent assistance and police from Tenterfield and Glen Innes and NSW Ambulance paramedics were immediately despatched.

Before police arrived; however, the younger man attempted to get back into the house and was allegedly shot by the resident.

The couple were treated at the scene by NSW Ambulance paramedics for serious injuries, before being airlifted to Gold Coast Hospital in a critical condition.

Should be charged with "being awesome "

Yadda wrote on Jun 5^th, 2026 at 4:22pm:

.......If he'd asked police [before hand] if he could defend himself [being armed] against a home invader, what advice would police have given him ? Probably; "I think that you had better surrender your firearms sir !" That is the same reason, why the ADF should be disbanded [and disarmed]. Correct ? Because everyone knows that firearms [in the hands of law abiding citizens] are dangerous.

redo......
Because everyone knows that firearms [in the hands of law abiding citizens]......are a threat to law and order in the community.

[...and that is an absurd argument, imo.]


.


Yadda said somewhere on OzPol....

Quote:

[quote] I come back to my argument about the wisdom, of assuming, in this PC world, that it is ok for 'sheep' and 'wolves' to share the same 'meadow'. The opinion of many, is that it is OK. I disagree. I say that 'sheep' and 'wolves' need to be separated.

Consequences [regarding criminal behaviour]......should be about the things which people do.

It should not be about a skin colour, nor about [excusing the behaviour of members of a 'protected'] culture or societal group.

Criminal sanctions, imposed by the state,
should be based upon the criminal behaviour, of individuals.

Not so ?


Why can't it be achieved ?

[/quote]


It must be clear by now, that those with their hands on the 'levers' of power.....do not want it to be so.

[i.e.  that it ought to be so........
that those persons who have a want, to commit violent criminal acts,
ought to be removed from our society.]

The greater concern of governments here - after Eureka and Vinegar Hill and Ned Kelly etc - is a popular uprising that will hurl them from office.  This has lurked in their dark little minds since Civilisation Day in 1788, when the number of convicts outnumbered the guards ... and that fear has grown lately due to the rise of the 'sovereign citizens' and a very large group of people frankly disgusted with their 'government' ...

That's a far greater concern to governments than the relatively minor number of crimes (to them) that occur because people do not have the means or the right to defend home and hearth, self and family etc.

The pundits said that when you take the guns from the people - only the criminals will have guns ...and criminals include governments intent on imposing their ideology over the people without consent via the chicanery of preferential voting and the myth that a 'government' gerry-mandered in that way holds some 'mandate' (including to man date, you dig?).

I've compared that approach to that of the US in the past - even during the War of Independence, one city refused to allow Blacks to be armed to defend it..... and during the Civil war Vicksburg would not arm its Blacks to defend it and fell .... and Confederate President Jefferson Davis had a motion to arm Blacks to fight for the South rejected out of the same concerns.

Just accept it people - you are no better to these 'governments' than Neggrahs in the Old Southe... and your Rights are considered optional at their whim.... and thereby hangs a tale...

Such governance is essentially Fascist....

@Reply #5,

Yep.



'Representative government'. ??

Its a joke.

And we all know it.



An old observational quip.....

If you suspect that the intent of someone you are in dialogue with, is to mislead you....

Simply pay more attention to [i.e. investigate and observe] the RW consequences of what they are [actually] doing,
and give less credence to their proffered arguments [i.e. their words].

[rw = = real world]


.


If one wishes to enslave people, constrain their capacity for independent thought - not their hands;
for the chain of dependence is incomparably stronger than the chain of iron.
- Law v Freedom



'Bread and circuses'.

I certainly hope the guy isn’t charged with anything since he was already stabbed and the intruder came back in … so defending oneself after being stabbed is a crime to he charged with?
He also saved his wife.

Better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six... it's a good thing he had a firearm in the house.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 12^th, 2026 at 11:44pm:

Better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six... it's a good thing he had a firearm in the house.

Oh yes, that’s a good way of looking at it!