http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-...ho-shot-intruder-gets-8-years-in-jail/5818210 It is not acceptable everywhere in the world to shoot intruders - even if they are going to steal something
must be more to this, why after being found not guilty did he plead guilty to a lower crime? from what little I know of the case, sounds like they were breaking in and he shot them, case closed, too bad for them what the defendant drank\smoked is irrelevant to me, he was not planning on someone breaking into his house .
Must be a whole lot more to this that is hidden. Thugs break in and homeowner shoots to defend life and property and gets 8 years? WTF kind of Aussie rules are these? Sounds like something that a Kiwi would come up with. By the way, it IS totally acceptable to blow someones brains out who is busting into your abode. What are you going to do, cower? Maybe over there but certainly not here in the US.
And get this, in Texas, we can shoot you in the back if you are making off with our stuff into the night. Great, isn't it?
And what kind of 'judge' would say this: "In sentencing Justice Lex Lasry told D'Angelo it was a tragedy he had not reached for his phone instead of a loaded gun". But then again, I have never read anything so idiotic in my life: "D'Angelo earlier told the court he did not realise his gun had a live round in the chamber when he lined up Mr Vandenberg's head and shot him". Hold the phone! The owner drew a bead on intruders and what??? Scare them away with an unloaded weapon? Now THAT is the most stupidest thing I have read . . . now if the judge had said, "8 years for NOT having a loaded weapon on an intruder". I could see that [<sarcasm]
I can see the Australian motto along the lines of Texas', Don't Mess With Texas. "Don't Mess With Aussies Cause we Will Point an Unloaded Weapon at You"! LOL
He wouldn't have even been arrested in Texas, unless they found the pot during the investigation. The shooting wouldn't have been an issue. In Texas, the dead guy's accomplices would be tried for murder and not the shooter. Are you saying he should have called the police and let 3 men overpower him and leave his life in their hands? No thanks.
Freaking kingdom law, baby. The way I look at it, if you are of reasonable age and of sane mind and come into my home without my permission (especially in the middle of the night), your life is meaningless to me. The safety of my family and myself is paramount over your pathetic desire to rob innocent people in the middle of the night. What has happened to the West where criminals' lives are valued over the people they are threatening ?!
I assume you mean "castle doctrine"? FWIW I agree. I find you in my house uninvited in the dark I'm probably going to serve you a few ounces of lead at the appropriate velocity.
what has happened to America when someone's life is worth less than a second hand possession? There was no threat the intruders were unarmed
did they announce their intentions when they broke in? Did they have some sort of arrangement with the home owner prior to the break in? How is you can come to terms with a burglar who doesn't announce his intentions... You handle them your way, and the citizens will ease the burden on the criminal system over here - - - Updated - - - and if the law says you must have sex with a burglar, is that reasonable? Do the women in Oz submit to rape or fight back?
how do you know ? how is a person supposed to know what the intentions are of the person who has broken into his home in the middle of the night ?
Don't be silly. Australian law dictates that before one breaks into a home, he must notify the occupant in writing 24 hours in advance and indicate how many of his mates will be helping him and how he will be armed.
Wow, Australian law is (*)(*)(*)(*)ED up. I don't know what a "stubbie" of beer is or how they use the term "bong", but if it's anything like how I would use the term, there is no possible way for a human to be conscious after such over-consumption. Regardless, had this offense occurred where I live (Florida, USA), and assuming they were actually IN his residence, which the article isn't 100% clear about, he never would have been charged, much less convicted. Our law ASSUMES a resident is in "reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury" (the standard making the use of lethal force legal) simply by an intruder being in your dwelling, whether or not they're armed, and though it IS illegal to discharge a firearm while under the influence, there is an exception for a legitimate self-defense shoot. Also seems like they don't provide protection for double jeopardy, after being found not guilty here, the case is over, even if irrefutable proof surfaces after the fact that you were in fact guilty, regardless of the crime.
It's the middle of the night. Three intruders break in. How do you know their intentions and whether or not they are armed?
Some thug is crawling in my bedroom window after he shatters the glass. According to your "laws" you are supposed to hide under the covers or what? How do I know for sure that the thug did not take a large shard of broken glass and plans to slit my throat? Oscar Pretorious and shooting "an unknown" through the bathroom door is one thing but a thug crawling through the window with the intent of doing bodily harm, rape, murder or assault before he steals all my valuables to support his drug crazed habit will certainly be dead if he crawled through Texan or St James' place . . .here in Central Florida as well. Say hello to my little friend . . . (said in my best Al Pacino voice)
