Is it a crime?

[malakadang]

i dont think so but i have heard cases of someone breaking into someone elses house and the home owner shot and killed the robber and the home owner got 3rd degree manslaughter so i think that if someone is trying to take whats yours you should fight for it even though the might not be on your side

That's because he didn't you proportional or reasonable force. As I said, self-defense law is incredibly tricky.

 

[Deathsnova]

as long as you can prove it was self defence then yes, beat the shit out of him.

 

[BoxWood]

What do you determine to be yours?

 

[stuffs]

He means if your waiting at an airport and you see a guy stealing your wallet, will you get in trouble for beating the shit out of the guy who's stealing it. I'm not too sure...

Yeah, you'll get in trouble for beating the shit out of him. Once he's been subdued and isn't a threat anymore, there's no reason to continue beating him.

 

[orang3d]

You fight, but if you go over using "reasonable force" you will get fucked over, even though its stupid for a person defending what is his to get charged for it

 

[plethix]

I doubt it, If you beat up a thief I doubt they would report it anyways, because they would get done for robbing, no win :L

 

[pu3r neon2]

No, self-defense law; defense of property.

So long as you use proportionate force (for example, if the thief has a gun, you may shoot him, if he has a knife you may stab him; conversely, if he has nothing, you may still kick, punch, perhaps stab him.), and use such force during the felony.

You may not however use force afterwards. You may not hunt the robber down to his home, then beat him for your property back.


Though, you must exercise discretion on proportionate force. If a kid for example is robbing you, stabbing is not proportional. Perhaps kicking the kid and bringing him down, perhaps using a baseball bat may suffice, something reasonable. If the kid has a gun however, you are allowed to shoot him.

Self-defense law is very tricky, the bountiful amount of mitigating circumstances make it impossible to give an objective answer to such a general question.

I think in New South Wales in Australia you can use unlimited force in the protection of your property.

 

[malakadang]

I think in New South Wales in Australia you can use unlimited force in the protection of your property.

It isn't; excessive defense may not be used.

If a 12 year old kid came and took my basket ball, I'm not allowed to shotgun his face off. Even if an 18 year old did that, I wouldn't be allowed to shoot him in the back.

 

[pu3r neon2]

In NSW you can use unlimited force. It was a discussion point in the last election.

 

[malakadang]

In NSW you can use unlimited force. It was a discussion point in the last election.

I don't care what the politicians say. In a court of law, excessive force is not permissible, and a violation.

 

[pu3r neon2]

>.<

In NSW you can vitually use unlimited force in defence of your own property. It was debated by politicians for reform before the last election is what a meant.

 

[malakadang]

>.<

In NSW you can vitually use unlimited force in defence of your own property. It was debated by politicians for reform before the last election is what a meant.

Section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900

No, unlimited force is not permissible, and virtually is not unlimited, that implies a cap.

 

[pu3r neon2]

I wasn't debating the law rather I was giving my opinion as to the possible outcome of the question posed by OP . If you are peacefully inside your dwelling and a stranger attempts to unlawfully enter your premises (whether or not they intend to commit another indictable offence) then you may justifiably reasonably believe that the use of force is necessary. Yes it 'should' be proportionate but in NSW the case law pertaining to this point is quite old with varying interpretation. Thus, it has been hard in the past to gain a conviction and easy to (if you wanted) use the defence to suit your own needs.

I don't live in NSW and haven't looked at the common law etc and am just repeating what my crim law professor said 2 or so weeks ago. Maybe he's wrong idk.

 

[malakadang]

I wasn't debating the law rather I was giving my opinion as to the possible outcome of the question posed by OP .

Crime is a legal word. So, you were debating the law, as indirectly as it may of seemed.

If you are peacefully inside your dwelling and a stranger attempts to unlawfully enter your premises (whether or not they intend to commit another indictable offence) then you may justifiably reasonably believe that the use of force is necessary.

Correct, however, reasonable necessitates proportion, perhaps it's not very explicit in NSW law, though, in other states, the law incorporates proportion. Also, I've consulted a lawyer about this, and he confirmed.

Yes it 'should' be proportionate but in NSW the case law pertaining to this point is quite old with varying interpretation. Thus, it has been hard in the past to gain a conviction and easy to (if you wanted) use the defence to suit your own needs.

This is why we have a case, for both parties to present their argument. Reasonable and proportional sometimes have mishaps. If a disabled man had their house robbed, then, they may be entitled to shoot the person. Perhaps not, however, the force would be reasonable yet not proportionate. This is why I prefaced in previous posts, the question is to general to give a concise answer.

I don't live in NSW and haven't looked at the common law etc and am just repeating what my crim law professor said 2 or so weeks ago. Maybe he's wrong idk.

I don't live in NSW, either. If your law professor said unlimited force, then he's wrong.

 

[pu3r neon2]

As long as you understand what I mean I don't think there is any need to be picky about my expression. Especially on a forum.

I'll talk to someone during the week and get back to you.

 

[malakadang]

But, if you thought the kid that was robbing you brought your life in danger you can use as much force as you like - though you would have to prove it in court that at your current mental state you thought your life was in danger. This also goes for the guy attacking you with a knife example - you are allowed to shoot him as long you can prove you thought your life was in danger.

This would be the defense called necessity. The onus is then on the accused to prove his claim, and the prosecution must prove otherwise.

It's amazing how many forms of defense their are.

 

[simikjean]

If you fight for your rights. It's not a crime. But depends on what rights.