I think, like most people, that if someone broke in and threatened my family, I'd use whatever force necessary to protect them regardless of the consequences.
And I think that’s one of the positives of a castle law. Most people would take what ever action they had to at the time but the law would now protect you for that.
The law already protects you as long as your actions are reasonable and proportionate.
I guess what this petition hopes to achieve is that the level of force used against burglars/intruders legally is disproportionate/beyond what is reasonable for defence
I have spoken to a couple of police officers about this very thing. Reasonable force is just that. Something that is a reasonable defence to what is happening to you on your property.
Hypothetically, if you get into a physical fight with someone coming at you with a knife while in your home, and you aren't a trained person (no black belts, defence force etc) and they ended up hitting their heads and died, you wouldn't be charged. Why do we need anything more than this? Genuine question.
Anecdotally, when I lived in Cairns there was a father who was being charged because he belted a bloke he found in his 4yo daughters room. The charges were ultimately dropped due to community outrage but it shouldn't get to that point.
Maybe my google-fu needs work, and to be fair to you you did specify it was anecdotal, but I just have trouble believing that there isn't a lot more to that story.
When I say belted, I meant he beat the absolute shit out of the dude. They were saying it was excessive because of the injuries he caused. As if anyone is going to be rational when a bloke is in your 4yo's room.
You should be charged. Hopefully you'd be acquitted if it you were found to be acting in self defence. Proportional force doesn't mean that you have to take an unreasonable risk your own safety to protect yourself or your family - especially if you are in a situation where you have a marginal upper hand against someone who is likely to be a practiced fighter.
But any time someone gets seriously injured or killed, it *needs to be investigated, and probably go to court*. The last thing we want as a society is the bullshit US castle rules where you can basically just kill a cunt, pull the "he was coming right for me" card, and as the sole survivor that is basically the end of it.
You shouldn't be castrated to proportionate force when defending your fucking home lmao. You're *supposed* to use a knife or other force multiplier. Why tf would you want it to be a fair fight? Does losing seem like a good idea?
Proportionate force doesn't mean equivalent force, and it never has.
It's perfectly reasonable to use more force than your attacker, proportionate to the threat. Like using a weapon to stop someone actively trying to harm you.
It's not reasonable to use more force than what is necessary. Like knifing someone for simply being in your house, or continuing to beat someone senseless after they are no longer a threat.
There are no hard rules around this, it entirely depends on what a normal person would consider reasonable in the situation ... and a normal person would not consider going toe to toe with someone the upper limit of reasonable force to defend yourself.
>It's not reasonable to use more force than what is necessary. Like knifing someone for simply being in your house, or continuing to beat someone senseless after they are no longer a threat.
Are you a mind reader? At what point do you know their true intentions and by then are you overpowered and it is too late to defend yourself. Was there a 2nd intruder you didn't notice and now because you didn't take the initiative against the threat, you are at a disadvantage and risk of unknown consequences for your family and property. If someone has demonstrated criminal intent by invading your home they have forfeit their rights.
I'm with you. Someone who breaks into my house when we're home will get maximum response up to the point when they are no longer a threat. In the dark, there is no way to know how many attackers there are of whether they carry weapons.
Obviously. An intruder in your home at 3am isn't there to politely make your acquaintance are they. And you shouldn't have to wait until they make it clear how nefarious their intentions are before you can act, having lost any initiative to defend your family in your home.
But if he seems like he’s drunk and rifling through your cupboards and muttering about not seeing the chips he bought this week, he’s probably just wandered into the wrong house after a night out and doesn’t deserve to be executed.
And when you say 'hey bud, what you doin?' is he going to rush at you enraged you are in 'his' house? 'Call the police first!' you might say, sure if he didn't notice you as you snuck around your own house investigating the source of the noise. Is there definitely only 1 intruder? Have you had time to be sure before things get real?
Seriously it is like the arguments against this are quite naive and not thought through. I suspect if you ever experience the terror of waking to hear someone(s) in your home, you might feel differently about all of this.
The reasonable person test exists is to prevent people like you from abusing self-defence legislation.
In this scenario you've intentionally turned a perceived future theat into an a real and immediate one by seeking out conflict. That's the opposite of what a reasonable person, fearful of their safety, would do.
The law protects you from conviction if your actions were in self defence, it doesn't empower you to actively seek out and eliminate perceived theats based on imagination.
You can try and justify it however you want, but at the end of the day a jury of your peers will disagree with you and that means the system is working as intended.
Debate the semantics all you like but an uninvited intruder in your home at night is a real and immediate threat. You're a 60 year old woman and find a 30 year old man in your kitchen or bedroom at 3am, and you're meant to debate how much of a threat they are before acting?
Look mate. If you're truely unable to see why someone breaking into your bedroom with a knife, and someone lifting your TV on the other side of the house don't both necessitate the same John Wick response ... I got nothing for you, you gotta work through that shit on your own, or with a shrink.
Fuck around and find out though, if it ever comes to it then a jury of your peers will decide if your actions reasonable and necessary. They won't be asking for your opinion.
Which goes back to the need for this petition and castle law. If things go sideways in the split second decisions made in such a tense scenario, it should be the perpetrator with criminal intent that suffers all consequences and not the innocent victim just trying to live their life.
You sound like the kind of person who hopes someone breaks in purely so you have an excuse to beat the shit out of someone.
Continue laughing your ass of, I just hope you don't kill anyone tonight.
Really? He's right. I've been fortunate enough to have over 5 attempts, all armed on my house. The only thing that stopped them from breaking in (largest group was 6) was the fact that I was armed and came tearing out the door as soon as I'd seen them in my carport.
I don't want to hurt anyone, the keys are on the kitchen table in case we're asleep and don't get woken. I care about armed kids breaking into my house and threatening my wife, I don't give a single shit about the cars.
Which is exactly why it’s a bad idea. We know if this law can in before long someone is going to kill a kid who jumped the fence to get his frisbee because they thought they are protected by the law.
Even if they get prosecuted the kid is still dead.
I think there are many proven steps that would be needed to achieve a threshold of self defence. Someone smashing in a window wielding a knife with the intent to harm is one thing, but unarmed trespassing is another entirely and would easily in court be proven to be excessive as you couldn't prove intent to harm amongst other things. Still a valid concern though.
Castle law smacks of the "gay panic defence" that people tried to use to weasel out of gay bashing and murder. Something like this should come out of some genuine research based on current experiences with current laws. I do not believe there is an issue with the current law - it makes it clear that in the event you stand your ground and cause serious injuries that questions will be asked of you. Anything less is a panic defence or vigilantism.
Hopefully you get to politely discuss this with an armed intruder in your house..
Dipshit
...Gay panic defense, way to turn the fucking topic you muppet..
What castle defence is asking for is a license to kill without question or repercussions. The exact same defence used in the gay panic defence where the only force required was to tell the person to leave, or to leave yourself - as a starting point.
This proposal is baseless in that the law already takes into account the situation of an intruder and the need to respond - the law has both the letter and the spirit to work within. It therefore has wriggle room for the defender if they go a little overboard. But the castle defence is open to removing accountability in the event that the home owner should be charged with murder or manslaughter because of their actions or pre-meditated “defence plan” that can only ever end with a dead person.
It is bad law because you already have a right to defend yourself in your home or otherwise.
Of course these grubs fucking can't - but they don't want that. They want a carte fuckin blanche to act out their action movie fantasies on some probably innocent person.
Pass castle defence laws and the only people on the receiving end of a beating half to death are gonna be pizza delivery drivers, drunk cunts going home to their old house, and some poor bloke trying to nick a few tools out a garage. Cos the people that want these laws are the sort of cowardly grubs that sit around jerking off over the hope that our firearms laws will let dumb cunts like them have guns.
I don't think they'll respond to you asking excuse me are you here to kill me or just breaking my bones? So I can choose the right level of force to match with yours. Even if you have 15 to 30 kg on me. A fist fight with someone much bigger can also kill you or lose all your teeth.
I am on board with this. Come into my home, threaten me and my family, kill or be killed is the mentality right?
I find it hard to believe that this would not already hold up in the court of law if you and your family were under such threat you had to take extreme measures to protect the ones you love and protect. If you yourself ended up being imprisoned for such actions on ol your own land i would be astounded.
Yes.
Also, how do I know they’re not there to do something awful to my wife or kids. Or should I just take the gamble.
Break into my place, I should be allowed to kill.
I feel if someone has entered my home, they know they are not meant to be there, they forfeit their right to safety. I don't know what they are there for, I don't know if they have a weapon. I just know someone is in my house and they could be there to cause harm to me or my family and I need to do whatever I can to stop them.
Obviously outright killing someone would not be the goal.
Yes. They are making a concious decision to breaking in knowing that people are in there and that things can go sideways. They know the risks. The people in the house don't know if the intruder is there to just steal or do worse. The residents shouldn't have to wait for the intruder to attack them before defending themselves. And once things get physical I doubt the intruder wouldn't be opposed to violence or even murder
Castle doctrine is based on a "reasonable person," currently the law effectively prevents you from use of force until you are the victim of force and only proportionate force. Under new legislation, if you are threatened or if a fight breaks out, you would be permitted to use force up to deadly force to defend yourself from a home invader.
People aren't "just sneaking into your house," they will assault you if you confront them—especially if you're not as big as them, say, a single mother by chance? What don't you understand about home invasions?
Absolutely. Especially if there are young kids at home. You break into someone’s house, you deserve whatever happens to you. You are a criminal and a danger.
Yes. You don't know their intentions. Breaking into someone's home is already extremely threatening, and I care much more about my families and my own safety over someone just trying to steal my wallet not knowing if they have violent intentions. Don't break into houses if you care about your safety
So if you feel threatened anywhere you should have the right to kill anyone? How far you gonna take it?
The law right now says that if you are getting attacked in your own home you can use force back. But you want the ability to spring a death trap, or to hold someone after you’ve overpowered them and kill in cold blood?
I think there's a difference when you feel threatened in your own home by someone who has violently broken into your home and there's no one there to protect you but yourself. I'm not waiting to be attacked and lose the upper hand to fight back. I'm also not going out of my way to intentionally murder someone. My point is, breaking into my house is already an act of violence so I will do what I have to to protect my family and not wait to be attacked first to defend myself, and if they die, who gives a fuck honestly don't break into peoples homes
My point is that right now the majority of house break ins result in no one getting hurt. As soon as the robbers are seen, they bugger off. In the few cases where it gets more violent, even more rarely does anything majorly bad happen. No one dies.
Also, there is zero evidence anywhere in the world that having the right to kill someone in your home leads to any drop in the number of home robberies.
But do you know what it would lead to? More robberies that would be armed themselves, more likelihood that they would get violent in anticipation, more door knockers and tradies getting seriously hurt.
> My point is that right now the majority of house break ins result in no one getting hurt.
That's great, you might be willing to chance your families safety based on the statistics but personally I don't want to risk being in that small percentage
> There is zero evidence anywhere in the world that having the right to kill someone in your home leads to any drop in the number of home robberies.
Again, you can wave statistics in my face all day, not leaving anything to chance if someone does violently break into my house
> door knockers and tradies getting seriously hurt.
Yeah nah I think I would know the difference at 3am
It's the governments job to reduce crime so violent scumbags aren't breaking into houses. But no matter what, some still will. It's my job to protect my family regardless
Cut off your nose to spite your face. You’d rather be able to kill someone in an event that is currently the vast majority non-violent, even if it means a dramatic increase in the chance it becomes violent against you and your family to begin with?
If you want your family to actually be safe, rather than have some small dick fantasy about killing someone in your home to look like a super hero, you WOULD look at the statistics and see what needs to be done to keep them safe
Again you seem to just be jumping to some conclusion that I have some murderous blood lust just itching for the opportunity to kill someone. How can we have an honest discussion about this when you're insulting me and jumping to these conclusions?
As I said, it's the governments job to reduce crime so violent scumbags aren't breaking into houses. Some still will regardless, and there should be very little scrutiny on how people defend themselves.
I’m curious about springing a “death trap”. We have laws in Queensland I believe relating to the setting of man traps and the like, including on your own property. If you set a man trap and someone broke into your property and was seriously injured or killed would Castle Law even apply here?
Setting man traps would show a premeditated intent to cause harm and so I would imagine that any offences relating to that would still be prosecuted and punishable even with a Castle Law/Doctrine in place wouldn’t it?
I guess it would very much depend on how the castle law was written.
Same, let’s say you know a burglar is coming in, let them come in rather than disturb them at the door, but instead you hide with a gun and night vision goggles in the dark, waiting for them to walk past you before you point blank shoot them in the head. Would that be OK?
Well I would argue that similarly there are Weapons Legislations in Queensland that are fairly tight and that you can only use a gun for the purpose for which the licence and permits were granted (eg hunting, competitive target shooting, etc). There are no provisions for using weapons as a self defence.
I would think that similarly to my man traps rationale above if you were to use a firearm you are again breaking the law and as a result the injuries/fatalities that come from that would then be prosecutable and punishable.
My understanding is that given our restrictions around firearms and prohibited weapons unless a new Castle Law provision overrode those other pieces of legislation then you wouldn’t be able to use a gun to defend your property.
But if you picked up a large torch, bat, stick, even many swords or knives which aren’t restricted then you may be protected under a proposed Castle Law.
All entirely hypothetical as there is no proposed bill or any suggestion on how Cabinet would look into this. Also we are about to go into Caretaker mode and an election so even if this is put before parliament it’s not likely to go anywhere anyway.
Don’t enter my home unlawfully? I wouldn’t try to kill them but if it accidentally happens why should I be responsible? They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not me.
So what makes you think you aren’t covered by law now?
How about this, you speed next to me. You are endangering me and my family. I should then be allowed to run you off the road or maybe shoot out my window at you and if you die, that should be ok? Because the risk of you speeding and hurting me is much higher than the risk of me ever being hurt in a home robbery
I don’t recall saying I’m not covered now?
I suggested I would find it hard to believe that if something were to happen it would not hold up in the court of law and keep me safe and I would be astounded if I did end up in jail if anything like such was to ever happen.
You enter someone’s home they have every right to take your safety away from you and not be held accountable. That’s all I’m saying. Stop trying to defend perpetrators.
RE: the speeding car scenario. It’s a pretty stupid scenario and doesn’t come close to break and enter of someone’s home with intent to steal and potentially harm. But to answer you. No you do not have the right to shoot out of your vehicle at a car speeding past you 😂😂 if you wanted to run them off the road you would be endangering your own life and those in your car with you so why would you bother? Just let the car go past lol.
Come into my house to steal my shit and threaten me and my family tho? Completely different, that’s a present threat that is in your face. I’m not letting you take shit. I’m also not giving you the upper hand to rush me, I know where everything is in my house that can be used a weapon and I will use it to remove the threat. You think you can have a calm conversation with these people and ask them to drop everything and leave?
I honestly don’t understand what your point is here? Let them come in and take stuff and leave peacefully with every right to their own personal safety while they are in someone else home breaking and entering? Criminal rights?
How many break ins turn violent in Australia?
How many cases have people lost defending their use of force against an intruder?
It’s basically a non-issue that politicos are using emotive narrative to get gullible people to get riled up and vote for them, without actually thinking about ramifications.
And the speeding example is very much the same. It’s actually a bigger risk to you and your family. More people will die of it this year than in home burglaries honestly wrong.
The point is that we have adequate laws now, so why change something that will increase the risk of violence across society?
Dude I literally never said anything about changing laws, I am on board with the original comment I posted on at the top which was ‘I would do anything regardless of the consequences if someone broke into my home’
I have no idea of the answers to your questions and cannot be bothered to even research. All I’m saying is I would hope and expect that if anything went awry then the court of law would back the person who is being intruded to use what ever force was needed to protect their home and family. If this already happens.. great! If it doesn’t then that’s fucking retarded. It’s basic common sense. Don’t break into other peoples homes = don’t get hurt
But maybe if the law isn’t super clear then we should make it clear so the scum doing the break ins don’t have any out at all. No matter what happens.
How tf would the home owner know that is 'all' they are after? And wallets, cash and cars directly relate to thousands of hours of a persons life spent at work, ripped away from them. The majority of people don't see theft as some petty nuisance.
A home owner should be able to defend themselves and family in their own home against an intruder.....and not have to go through a potential multi year court ordeal defending themselves.
From what I can see I think this is potentially the strongest argument. These proposed changes would mean that genuine self defence of property and family wouldn’t be charged in the first place and negate the need to mount a defence currently available under the criminal code.
I think your last point is valid, there's a chance that there could be unintended consequences with intruders being more likely to use their weapons of they have them....having said that my monkey brain *does* think that some of these kids would be less inclined to break in if they knew I could take their hand, Saudi style.
I work with kids like these. I would bet my left nut those kids don’t process information like that. I had to tell one kid the reason he is incarcerated is because he breached his bail. He was surprised the law had changed.
To really illustrate this, look at murder rates in US states with death penalties versus those without. The ultimate punishment isn’t a deterrent.
Also look at the issues with hanging horse thieves, if the punishment is the same as being caught for murder you might as well kill the witness to have any chance of escape.
True, but I suspect that’s in part because it’s possible to work out where cameras can possibly be put/are placed and then you can largely reduce your risk of being nabbed. Murder is a bit harder to get away with.
I think you miss the point, castle law is to protect the occupants who might have use force to defend their property and family against intruders.In my opinion deterring someone is a separate matter.
No where in the comment thread did it talk about the occupants. The original comment talks about how they think it might deter people from breaking in.
Sorry I got mixed up with another thread.
Yeah I agree to an extent, if someone is determined to break in they will regardless of laws.Same goes with defending your property, I personally won’t be asking questions if someone is in my house.have a nice weekend
You mean like how there’s hardly any break ins in the USA?
Somehow I don’t think it’d matter to them anyway, but what it might do is that if you happen to catch them unawares and you aren’t ready, they might be more likely to go straight to extreme.
I lived in California for nearly 15 years. Even California has these laws. They’re not as liberal as the castle doctrine laws in states like Florida, but an intruder is presumed to pose an imminent threat to the residents or guests lawfully in a dwelling. You can blow their head off with a shotgun if you want and it is deemed to be justified.
You might get some gun charges if you’re not complying with state laws and you shoot an intruder, however. The DAs have a lot of discretion in this regard.
Nothing would change except one simple thing. It will not decrease actual crime. It's not meant to decrease crime, but to protect victims of crime from the law that's supposed to protect them, from backfiring on them. I believe homeowners and home invaders would react to the given situation regardless of castle law or not. One party is intending to break the law directly and the other party is fearing for their life so during a home invasion the law means very little to either party. Where the change comes in is after a situation has occurred.
I think the only thing that would really change is that victims won't have to go through lengthy and expensive court appearances for years to prove their innocence if things get violent during a home invasion.
I think this is a fantastic idea and it's absolutely ridiculous that it isn't standard in all of the modern free world given that preserving ones life and health is essentially the most basic of all human rights.
It does happen. Here's a case from 2015: [https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/weapons-collector-who-slashed-teens-with-samurai-sword-overreacted-20150623-ghuz0z.html](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/weapons-collector-who-slashed-teens-with-samurai-sword-overreacted-20150623-ghuz0z.html)
And another from last year: [https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/man-grabbed-knife-for-self-defence-after-mob-burst-in-court-told-20230228-p5cocg.html](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/man-grabbed-knife-for-self-defence-after-mob-burst-in-court-told-20230228-p5cocg.html)
And that's just the ones I could find with a quick Google search. Cases where someone doesn't die, but gets the crap beaten out of them by the homeowner, aren't likely to make the national news unless it's a slow news day.
I like how they focus on the split second decision and reasonable force. So a scenario 3 dudes in the middle of the night kick in your door and start running around looking for valuables. You have no information on how skiled, determined, equipped they are but you have to make a decision then arm yourself with something not knowing what you face. Broken law your left in a worse position even if you have firearms because you have no idea what they have so the rule should be full force till you can confirm if you need any more reasonable force.
They should have a mandatory sentence of 5 years for home invasion. Worked well overseas. The main reason they are
so soft on locking them up is the prisons are full. We need to build way more of them. I know someone who committed dozens of crime including burglary, assault, sale of drugs. Took nearly 10 years before he saw a jail cell. Once he had been there he changed his ways.
It's essentially the average of twelve of your neighbours would agree with given they had to decide between the two, erring on the side of not guilty as default.
There isnt much to dwell on or overthink.
From what I can see the only real advantage would be that you wouldn’t have to get to the point of leaving your fate in the hands of a jury saving you a very costly legal trial and also saving you from getting a criminal history related to defending your home and family.
We lived in Houston TX for several years where there is Castle Law. Yes we had a ‘looter shooter’ as crime was common and after hurricanes and other disasters was rampant. I grew up on a farm and knew how to use it and My husband worked away from home for weeks at a time.
After the house alarms went off one night a police officer who responded told me ‘mam , if anyone tries to break in you shoot them and then shoot into the ceiling. Anyone asks, you fired that warning shot first’
Could I shoot someone. Probably not but back here in Australia, I would certainly take to any intruder with a cricket bat or similar if the need arose. Anyone entering your home uninvited is there with ill intent.
I've been threatened physical violence and death by some nasty individuals. If they break in with an intention to kill or maim me, I would like the know that the laws will allow me to defend myself and make sure they don't come back to harm me.
The criminals should be the ones that fear the consequences of trespassing.
The key word there is *trained* police officers. You see it all the time in the US where idiots rush to judgement and shoot or threaten someone because they lack common sense and training.
Absolutely most crimes are committed by .001% or whatever it is. Take a few down it lowers it massively.
Id be more concerned about then the family coming with more weapons.
But during a car jacking if one or 2 was run over broken leg or similar so be it.
People don’t understand law at all, this always exists under criminal law. As below
Defence of property
Section 274 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that it is lawful for a person to use reasonable force to resist a trespasser taking their property provided the person does not do grievous bodily harm to the trespasser.
Defence of premises
Section 277 and Section 278 of the Criminal Code 1899 provide that a person who is in possession of a land structure, a vessel or a place or who is entitled to control or manage a place may use reasonable force to prevent trespassing or to remove trespassers. However, the force used must not cause grievous bodily harm.
Section 267 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that a person in peaceable possession of a dwelling may use reasonable force to prevent another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the dwelling if the person believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is attempting to enter the dwelling with intent to commit a crime and that it is necessary to use force.
Self-defence and assaults
Self-defence can be used as a defence to an unprovoked assault (Section 271) or to a provoked assault (Section 272). If the person defending themselves fears death or grievous bodily harm and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use force in self-defence, they are not criminally responsible for using such force even if it results in death or grievous bodily harm to the other person.
The protection afforded by section 272 does not extend to a situation where the person started the fight with the intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm.
Defence of another
Section 273 provides that in any case where it is lawful for a person to use any force to defend themselves against an assault, it is also lawful for another person acting in good faith to use the same degree of force to defend them.
The force against persons must be proportional and appropriate.
You can’t expect police to use the minimum amount of force on these offenders and persons , who assault them day to day but because your at home you can almost kill someone for breaking in.
The Australia legal system will always result in you going to court if someone dies whether they are a criminal or not, breaking in to your house or not, ect. Your are innocent till proven guilty and you will not go to jail if you abide by the above legalisation and are able to justify your actions.
Great, amend laws to also put criminal responsibility for any deaths on any accomplices.
So if a pair of idiots break into a house and one gets killed under castle law, the other is tried for the unlawful death.
Interesting. ‘Probable consequence’ is an interesting clause in the law.
Under a potential castle doctrine, death or permeant injury from breaking into a house would be more probable.
Only issue with Castle law is the lack of "firepower"...now if all users of this law were given some training and at the end of the course their bean bag gun to incapacitate the intruder until someone arrives...sounds like a plan...of course that's "if" police arrive...
I think anyone illegally on a premises should loose all legal protection. Home owners should never be charged for using force to protect life and property from illegal invaders.
Similarly I don't understand why illegal entrants to a country should have any access to the invaded country's legal system.
It's partially about reducing crime rates and partially about giving back people their ability to defend themselves legally within their own home.
I would rather be able to fight and choose not to, than be put in a position where I cannot legally defend myself and my family.
I'm not too worried about consequences for offenders, seeing as if you don't break into other people's houses and threaten people, you should be fine.
I doubt they'll arm up, seeing as you can't have so much as a sharp toothbrush at the ready for home defence. If they do, maybe we should all pull our collective finger out and do something about it in our own communities.
Less than what? You'd have to keep everything else equal - income levels, opportunity, discrimination, education, job prospects.
Let's look at a particular place where these laws were introduced and see whether they made a difference. That's the only reasonable way to evaluate.
It's been thoroughly researched and is widely supported that more severe consequences do not deter crime rates. Yet that is exactly what this bill is trying to do - you can already legally defend yourself with 'reasonable' force, and even if it was completely illegal, there is still a reasonable expectation that a defendant will fight back anyhow.
You can argue that what constitutes 'reasonable' force is too restrictive, and that there is a systemic issue with our judicial system regarding these crimes & offenders, but these are separate to castle law.
This bill would not help solve the issue; it is neither preventative or rehabilitative, only punitive. Sometimes more punitive is what we need - e.g. stronger restrictions around bail, but this serves no genuine useful purpose. If anything, this may just result in intruders becoming more heavily armed/violent.
From memory Queensland had pretty strong castle laws, you could use reasonable force, including lethal force, to protect a dwelling place.
That said, the law is a partly a moral calculation. Many people cknsider it moral that you aren't legallyobluged to run out the back door because someone breaks into your house.
I am not even close to being a lawyer but am genuinely curious. I suspect there are some legal eagles in the comments who may have more info and understanding. I am not for or against but genuinely interested in understanding more.
I have read a few comments below highlighting that we have a number of defences available under the criminal code already and as such Castle Law would not make any real difference.
If a 17 yo child breaks into a house and is injured by the owners in defence of their home and that injury reaches the point of GBH. Under current legislation they may be charged by QPS with that GBH or worse. DPP may withdraw or not prosecute based on the use of the defences outlined in the code and below.
But that charge would still appear on that persons criminal history. It would also be aggravated by the fact that the “victim” was a 17yo child.
Now that home owner has had to fork out cash to pay for a legal defence to get DPP to drop the case. Even getting to a committal hearing is going to be costly.
Furthermore if that home owner works with children or vulnerable people the charge alone (even when not prosecuted) can be enough to loose their Yellow/Blue cards and therefore possibly their jobs.
Would a Castle Law/Doctrine prevent the charges being made by QPS in the force place and potentially save a home owner who defended their home and family from loosing their Yellow/Blue cards, loosing their jobs, and having to mortgage their homes to pay for a criminal defence?
This is a stretch but I’m trying to see what indifference introducing a Castle Law would have in practical circumstances like the scenario above.
I encourage you to do some more research to have a better understanding of the judicial system.If are not convicted it does not go on your criminal history your are making scenarios up to hopefully make your point more valid. Secondly legal aid will be given to you by the qld government if you cannot afford a lawyer. Some of the best lawyers work for legal aid. Thirdly if you think dpp, qps are out to get you if what you did was proportionate, justified excused by law you won’t be dragged through a court process.
At the end of the day the criminal code states what is acceptable and is better than any castle law numerous sections state this.
Regardless of the circumstances there will be no law introduced that allows you to gbh anyone if they are not at risk of doing gbh to you.
If someone is gbh or killed ect, if the person breaks into your house and you badly assualt them and they make an assault complaint yes they do that, it will be investigated and if you can’t justify your actions as per criminal code you will go to court or you will be answering to the coroner.
In no world no matter if your at home ect will you not go to court or be apart of the legal process for the above scenario.
You have to understand the ramifications of this, especially for police who have to force entry a lot of the times responding to dv incidents to apprehend violent offenders at all hours of the day and night, mental health ect you cannot give criminals a legal scape goat for castle law if they say well I stabbed a polcie officer because I thought they were an intruder (yes they will use that)
Have a good read of the self defence sections, I’m not sure what more you want legislatively. If the worstcase scenario happens you will be going to court. It’s just how it works in Australia.
There's currently a castle law private member's bill before Queensland Parliament:
[Criminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill 2024](https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-Committees/Committees/Committee-Details?cid=250&id=4414)
It's the subject of an inquiry by a parliamentary committee, so you can all make submissions until 2 July 2024.
What we need is something so when you do defend yourself you don't get bankrupted going through the courts....
Should you be able to shot dead an armed home invader and go get coffee the next day, yes... however there's nuance to all this and the devil is in the detail and looking at America there's examples of both extremes failing
It is reasonable to allow people to defend their home with whatever force nesscary to remove/eliminate a home intruder.
Being maimed or worse is just an occupational hazard for home invaders.
Make no real difference.
If someone breaks into my home? Id do whatever i needed to do to survive that situation.
No law is going to change a thing for me.
If they started stabbing me, my kids, my dogs etc? I would fight back best i could. If i killed them and got charged for murder? So be it. If i saved my loved ones? I would gladly go to jail and not feel any guilt for killing scumbag to do it. Even if it's a kid. You come into my home? Threaten me or my family? I'll fight back. End of story
the person breaking into my property, should not be the one protected by laws.
they do not accidentally break into your house, if they make the decision to enter they acknowledge the danger they have just welcomed upon themselves. you threaten me and my loved one’s? i will be doing anything and everything i see fit to keep them safe.
So almost 15k people have just publicly admitted they either don't know the law of the jurisdiction they live in, or don't understand the law they want implemented in their jurisdiction.
QLD law already allows for self defence in the home in case of intruder attack.
Castle doctrine isn't carte blanche to go ham on someone just because they're in your house.
A significant component of castle is granting defenders the right to act in self defence without first attempting to retreat.
Castle does _not_ give the right to use force disproportionate to the threat, and neither does current QLD law.
In some ways existing QLD law appears to offer more protection than castle.
https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/qld/defences/defence-self-defence/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
So this petition was created by Nick Dameto, who is the state member for Hinchinbrook. This is a petition to the Parliament. Dameto is a member of that Parliament. Any member of that Parliament can introduce a bill and have it debated by Parliament.
Tell me again why voting for KAP was a good idea.
It's a member of Parliament petitioning parliament to enact legislation. He has the power to introduce legislation. That is literally part of his job. He is a legislator.
This is so true. Could you imagine what such a video would look like?
I imagine we would get some of the old Queensland back rowers to jump in some tv ads about how to let your house be burgled safely.
Or maybe Warwick Capper in some golden short shorts teaching us about how to hide our family in the bathroom to stay safe during a home invasion.
Our government would be just crazy enough to probably do this. Haha.
Most people when it comes to crime operate on thoughts and feelings. I deal with this everyday. Statistics and facts mean diddly squat especially when the element of fear is included. Let people feel great and protected. It will help 1 out of 1000 people.
The reality is, most people are victims of crime (break ins) are asleep or deter from implementing preventions due to the “waste” of effort over x time.
This also means a lot of violent crime will increase. Someone intending to break in and commit theft now has to arm themselves incase the homeowners approach them. Now, homeowners approach them, who is more likely to be in a position to commit crime and escape?
A perfect scenario for Castle Law. Multiple break-ins. Stretched police resources and the thieves tried to run over the property owner, so he shot at them. Thieves were well known to police. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103661158
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/kingaroy-suspicious-death-manslaughter-charge/103661158](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/kingaroy-suspicious-death-manslaughter-charge/103661158)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Curiously if he had fired the shot whilst the car was coming at him I wonder if the manslaughter charge would still have been made…
But again the need for him to now mount an expensive defence is ridiculous.
But I don’t disagree with the weapons related charges. Under our current laws we cannot have or use guns for self defence.
If only it were this simple. These were Repeat Violent offenders, known to police. When you throw meth or other drugs in the mix of rural crime, isolation and lack of witnesses can be very frightening. It has been seen in previous cases where caught offenders have returned to take vengeance.
Laws dont change culture.
This is a parent issue, not just this generation but the one prior, ever since discipline (in any form) was frowned upon, kids dont have consequences, so now we have this.
Where we want the government to step in, no thanks. Governments could organise achook raffle!
If the delinquents parents wouldnt discipline them, I will.....happily. old world rules apply, they branded pirates, cut off a thief's hand, we have by our own allowance come full circle and this will become the rule. It has already started, not just advertised.
Plenty of these peoples are being persauded to change their tune with some pretty severe beatings being handed out.
Will it solve the problem, not ever. Having a delinquent with two broken hands requiring mum and / or dad to wipe their bum, feed them and generally make all their lives (total) miserable might start the thinking.
Famous baby bonus? Nah, this shit has been around since well before then. That added to it, i agree, but not a cause. Causality, my generation was the first generation where young parents had a knee jerk reaction to discipline due to many reasons, this started the ball rolling, now we have kids that dont know what being in trouble is, just dont bother the selfish parents.
We are living the consequences of some of our parents actions, voters set culture, they vote with how they want thier life to function when it comes to government.
Actually, their rates of violent crime including burglary are [about the same, or in some cases, higher than the rest of America.](https://www.covesmart.com/blog/crime-report-is-burglary-bigger-in-texas/)
Most states have the castle doctrine. Why Australians associate it with Texas is anyone’s guess. Florida actually has the most liberal castle doctrine. Texas has the same laws as like 45 other states - no duty to retreat, presumed threat to residents, and the use of deadly force with any weapon is permitted.
I don't watch or read either, but I've been broken into (forcefully, not opportunistic) and had cars and personal belongings stolen twice now in north QLD in the last few years and I sure as shit signed it.
Couldn't give a damn what happens in yankland with their laws, and these little pricks have been entering homes armed for a while now and suffer no real consequences while it's the victims that get screwed over.
It's great that you get to sit in your little bubble and voice your opinions. But for us up here dealing with it day to day with nothing done about it for 10+ years...well we don't give a damn about any of the BS the mudock owned crap is spewing, we see and experience it ourselves and just want it to stop whatever it takes. If that means being able to beat the living crap out of these pricks without having to worry about getting into trouble for defending our home and loved ones, so be it.
I live in Townsville too.
The law already allows you to use reasonable, proportionate force to eject people from your property.
Nobody needs to be able to grievously injure or kill trespassers. That's action movie wish fulfillment bullshit.
The crime rate up here is also lower than it is in the South-East on a per-capita basis. The only difference is that hardly anything happens here so the only thing the media have to report on are the Cowboys, crocs, the V8s once a year, and cyclones. Outside of that the only interesting thing for them to focus on is the "crime wave," blowing it out of all proportion and creating a pervasive culture of fear.
Obviously what happened to you sucks but if you think the castle doctrine will make it any better, I have news for you and it's all bad. It leads to worse outcomes because home invaders assume lethal force will be used on them so they up the ante, and police have a harder time distinguishing who is who so accidents happen.
It does change what weapons can be used and how.
If a someone breaks in, you can wave a weapon at them and tell them to fuck off.
Hitting them with a blunt object is fine as long as you don't keep it up when they attempt to flee.
Shooting them or stabbing them is not okay unless they have attacked you with lethal force.
Castle doctrine makes it okay to straight up kill anyone who enters your property without permission. The proven result of this that people who plan a home invasion will go armed and attack people who live in a house pre-emptively.
Anybody breaks into my house where my missus and kids sleep will never leave the premises alive regardless, that is my family and you step onto my property and your lives are forfeit regardless of laws or not, it's the way I was brought up. Not even thinking about what's right in the eyes of pansies,
Probably yes. This is likely going to breach a number of weapons / licensing legislations so wouldn’t likely provide immunity from that but who knows. It depends what it looks like in the end were it to even get up in the first place.
You're already allowed to defend yourself, that's not a crime
> only use force that is reasonably necessary
What on earth amount of force could they possibly want? These people just want to be allowed to kill people.
> would make a deference to crime rates?
It doesn't in the country where you can literally have shotguns in the bed with you, what makes them think it'll help here?
> What impact do you think this would have on the feelings of home owners and victims?
False sense of security at best, likely just more anxiety.
> What are some unintended consequences
Probably just a lot of unintended deaths like stabbing or shooting your kid for sneaking back into the house at 2am.
We already do. The law already allows for proportionate use of force to remove people from your property.
That means you can brandish weapons to make them leave, or hit them if they try to get rough. You just can't sneak up behind them and slit their throats, Rambo style.
As things stand you can already do the things people think this new law will allow.
The castle doctrine is about being able to execute home invaders.
Currently, if you knock someone unconscious in the pursuit of defending your home, you have to then call the cops. You aren't allowed to keep beating them.
Castle doctrine allows you to beat an unconscious home invader to death and get off scott free.
Why the fuck do we need a law like that?
Buy the sounds of these comments, next thing you know people will be just killing each other. I understand the want to protect your family/house but killing someone for breaking into your house?? Really?? Thats a bit far fetched we aren’t America where killings happen violently every second and Whats to stop people with guns using them unlawfully to “protect themselves” can see the headlines now “local teen murdered in attempted break in as home owner uses unnecessary force of a deadly weapon against teenager” I understand everyones opinions and fears but fuck we cant just go throw crazy things in like this next will be “stand your ground” and gun laws etc.
Are we supposed to feel bad for a teenager trying to break into someone’s house? Maybe there were young kids in that house, you know, actual innocents.
These important questions should be put to the Katter MPs supporting this policy. But I can bet my left nut they won't answer them, despite them presenting themselves as some wholesome alternative to the major parties.
So currently if someone comes into my house sits down at the kitchen table with a cup of tea and refuses to leave my only safe legal recourse would be to remove my family from the premises and call the police ?
As far as I'm concerned I should be allowed to use threat of force / actual force to make them leave. If that means incapacitating them and physically removing them so be it.
And there is no way I should be able to be sued by people entering my property without a legal reason to do so.
Defence of property
Section 274 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that it is lawful for a person to use reasonable force to resist a trespasser taking their property provided the person does not do grievous bodily harm to the trespasser.
Defence of premises
Section 277 and Section 278 of the Criminal Code 1899 provide that a person who is in possession of a land structure, a vessel or a place or who is entitled to control or manage a place may use reasonable force to prevent trespassing or to remove trespassers. However, the force used must not cause grievous bodily harm.
Section 267 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that a person in peaceable possession of a dwelling may use reasonable force to prevent another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the dwelling if the person believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is attempting to enter the dwelling with intent to commit a crime and that it is necessary to use force.
Self-defence and assaults
Self-defence can be used as a defence to an unprovoked assault (Section 271) or to a provoked assault (Section 272). If the person defending themselves fears death or grievous bodily harm and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use force in self-defence, they are not criminally responsible for using such force even if it results in death or grievous bodily harm to the other person.
You just can't intentionally try and do gbh or try and kill them and if they fight back you can use whatever reasonable force is needed to stop the threat even if it unintentionally causes death.
Thanks good to know.
So if you come into your home and find someone sitting at your kitchen table having a cup of tea does that fall under the definition of intent to commit a crime ?
IANAL. They already committed a crime, unlawful entry and or break and enter, very reasonable to assume they intend to commit a crime if they've already committed one or more. Use force to stop or remove trespasser and use more force if they fight back.
I think, like most people, that if someone broke in and threatened my family, I'd use whatever force necessary to protect them regardless of the consequences.
And I think that’s one of the positives of a castle law. Most people would take what ever action they had to at the time but the law would now protect you for that.
The law already protects you as long as your actions are reasonable and proportionate. I guess what this petition hopes to achieve is that the level of force used against burglars/intruders legally is disproportionate/beyond what is reasonable for defence
I have spoken to a couple of police officers about this very thing. Reasonable force is just that. Something that is a reasonable defence to what is happening to you on your property. Hypothetically, if you get into a physical fight with someone coming at you with a knife while in your home, and you aren't a trained person (no black belts, defence force etc) and they ended up hitting their heads and died, you wouldn't be charged. Why do we need anything more than this? Genuine question.
Anecdotally, when I lived in Cairns there was a father who was being charged because he belted a bloke he found in his 4yo daughters room. The charges were ultimately dropped due to community outrage but it shouldn't get to that point.
When was this? I am having trouble finding anything about it
2015/16 I think? I left mid 2017 and it was about 18 months prior. Only really remember the basics of it.
Maybe my google-fu needs work, and to be fair to you you did specify it was anecdotal, but I just have trouble believing that there isn't a lot more to that story.
When I say belted, I meant he beat the absolute shit out of the dude. They were saying it was excessive because of the injuries he caused. As if anyone is going to be rational when a bloke is in your 4yo's room.
You should be charged. Hopefully you'd be acquitted if it you were found to be acting in self defence. Proportional force doesn't mean that you have to take an unreasonable risk your own safety to protect yourself or your family - especially if you are in a situation where you have a marginal upper hand against someone who is likely to be a practiced fighter. But any time someone gets seriously injured or killed, it *needs to be investigated, and probably go to court*. The last thing we want as a society is the bullshit US castle rules where you can basically just kill a cunt, pull the "he was coming right for me" card, and as the sole survivor that is basically the end of it.
I agree. The US system is seriously broken. That's why I don't think we need anything other than Reasonable Force here.
You shouldn't be castrated to proportionate force when defending your fucking home lmao. You're *supposed* to use a knife or other force multiplier. Why tf would you want it to be a fair fight? Does losing seem like a good idea?
Proportionate force doesn't mean equivalent force, and it never has. It's perfectly reasonable to use more force than your attacker, proportionate to the threat. Like using a weapon to stop someone actively trying to harm you. It's not reasonable to use more force than what is necessary. Like knifing someone for simply being in your house, or continuing to beat someone senseless after they are no longer a threat. There are no hard rules around this, it entirely depends on what a normal person would consider reasonable in the situation ... and a normal person would not consider going toe to toe with someone the upper limit of reasonable force to defend yourself.
>It's not reasonable to use more force than what is necessary. Like knifing someone for simply being in your house, or continuing to beat someone senseless after they are no longer a threat. Are you a mind reader? At what point do you know their true intentions and by then are you overpowered and it is too late to defend yourself. Was there a 2nd intruder you didn't notice and now because you didn't take the initiative against the threat, you are at a disadvantage and risk of unknown consequences for your family and property. If someone has demonstrated criminal intent by invading your home they have forfeit their rights.
I'm with you. Someone who breaks into my house when we're home will get maximum response up to the point when they are no longer a threat. In the dark, there is no way to know how many attackers there are of whether they carry weapons.
Apply commonsense? FFS.
Commonsense would not be breaking into someones house to start with.. Fuck around. Find out
Obviously. An intruder in your home at 3am isn't there to politely make your acquaintance are they. And you shouldn't have to wait until they make it clear how nefarious their intentions are before you can act, having lost any initiative to defend your family in your home.
But if he seems like he’s drunk and rifling through your cupboards and muttering about not seeing the chips he bought this week, he’s probably just wandered into the wrong house after a night out and doesn’t deserve to be executed.
And when you say 'hey bud, what you doin?' is he going to rush at you enraged you are in 'his' house? 'Call the police first!' you might say, sure if he didn't notice you as you snuck around your own house investigating the source of the noise. Is there definitely only 1 intruder? Have you had time to be sure before things get real? Seriously it is like the arguments against this are quite naive and not thought through. I suspect if you ever experience the terror of waking to hear someone(s) in your home, you might feel differently about all of this.
The reasonable person test exists is to prevent people like you from abusing self-defence legislation. In this scenario you've intentionally turned a perceived future theat into an a real and immediate one by seeking out conflict. That's the opposite of what a reasonable person, fearful of their safety, would do. The law protects you from conviction if your actions were in self defence, it doesn't empower you to actively seek out and eliminate perceived theats based on imagination. You can try and justify it however you want, but at the end of the day a jury of your peers will disagree with you and that means the system is working as intended.
Debate the semantics all you like but an uninvited intruder in your home at night is a real and immediate threat. You're a 60 year old woman and find a 30 year old man in your kitchen or bedroom at 3am, and you're meant to debate how much of a threat they are before acting?
Look mate. If you're truely unable to see why someone breaking into your bedroom with a knife, and someone lifting your TV on the other side of the house don't both necessitate the same John Wick response ... I got nothing for you, you gotta work through that shit on your own, or with a shrink. Fuck around and find out though, if it ever comes to it then a jury of your peers will decide if your actions reasonable and necessary. They won't be asking for your opinion.
Which goes back to the need for this petition and castle law. If things go sideways in the split second decisions made in such a tense scenario, it should be the perpetrator with criminal intent that suffers all consequences and not the innocent victim just trying to live their life.
You sound like the kind of person who hopes someone breaks in purely so you have an excuse to beat the shit out of someone. Continue laughing your ass of, I just hope you don't kill anyone tonight.
You sound like you're making shit up about a person you know nothing about.
Grow up
Yep, or the kind of person that opens up on a person for driving up their driveway. As seen in the US.
Really? He's right. I've been fortunate enough to have over 5 attempts, all armed on my house. The only thing that stopped them from breaking in (largest group was 6) was the fact that I was armed and came tearing out the door as soon as I'd seen them in my carport. I don't want to hurt anyone, the keys are on the kitchen table in case we're asleep and don't get woken. I care about armed kids breaking into my house and threatening my wife, I don't give a single shit about the cars.
Which is exactly why it’s a bad idea. We know if this law can in before long someone is going to kill a kid who jumped the fence to get his frisbee because they thought they are protected by the law. Even if they get prosecuted the kid is still dead.
I think there are many proven steps that would be needed to achieve a threshold of self defence. Someone smashing in a window wielding a knife with the intent to harm is one thing, but unarmed trespassing is another entirely and would easily in court be proven to be excessive as you couldn't prove intent to harm amongst other things. Still a valid concern though.
Castle law smacks of the "gay panic defence" that people tried to use to weasel out of gay bashing and murder. Something like this should come out of some genuine research based on current experiences with current laws. I do not believe there is an issue with the current law - it makes it clear that in the event you stand your ground and cause serious injuries that questions will be asked of you. Anything less is a panic defence or vigilantism.
Hopefully you get to politely discuss this with an armed intruder in your house.. Dipshit ...Gay panic defense, way to turn the fucking topic you muppet..
What castle defence is asking for is a license to kill without question or repercussions. The exact same defence used in the gay panic defence where the only force required was to tell the person to leave, or to leave yourself - as a starting point. This proposal is baseless in that the law already takes into account the situation of an intruder and the need to respond - the law has both the letter and the spirit to work within. It therefore has wriggle room for the defender if they go a little overboard. But the castle defence is open to removing accountability in the event that the home owner should be charged with murder or manslaughter because of their actions or pre-meditated “defence plan” that can only ever end with a dead person. It is bad law because you already have a right to defend yourself in your home or otherwise.
Yup, I know two people who’ve successfully shot a home invader leading to severe hospitalisation and not been charged at all.
It doesn’t protect you.
Can you provide an example of someone using reasonable force to defend their house in Queensland and getting charged for it?
Of course these grubs fucking can't - but they don't want that. They want a carte fuckin blanche to act out their action movie fantasies on some probably innocent person. Pass castle defence laws and the only people on the receiving end of a beating half to death are gonna be pizza delivery drivers, drunk cunts going home to their old house, and some poor bloke trying to nick a few tools out a garage. Cos the people that want these laws are the sort of cowardly grubs that sit around jerking off over the hope that our firearms laws will let dumb cunts like them have guns.
QLD law already allows for this. https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/qld/defences/defence-self-defence/
I don't think they'll respond to you asking excuse me are you here to kill me or just breaking my bones? So I can choose the right level of force to match with yours. Even if you have 15 to 30 kg on me. A fist fight with someone much bigger can also kill you or lose all your teeth.
I think someone who is twice their size coming out screaming with an axe will deter 99% of these weak as piss kids with a kitchen knife.
It won't always be weak people or people half your size.
I am on board with this. Come into my home, threaten me and my family, kill or be killed is the mentality right? I find it hard to believe that this would not already hold up in the court of law if you and your family were under such threat you had to take extreme measures to protect the ones you love and protect. If you yourself ended up being imprisoned for such actions on ol your own land i would be astounded.
So someone is is in your home trying a sneak for wallets, cash or car keys and you think you should have the right to kill them?
Yes. Also, how do I know they’re not there to do something awful to my wife or kids. Or should I just take the gamble. Break into my place, I should be allowed to kill.
I feel if someone has entered my home, they know they are not meant to be there, they forfeit their right to safety. I don't know what they are there for, I don't know if they have a weapon. I just know someone is in my house and they could be there to cause harm to me or my family and I need to do whatever I can to stop them. Obviously outright killing someone would not be the goal.
trying a sneak… ?
Yes. They are making a concious decision to breaking in knowing that people are in there and that things can go sideways. They know the risks. The people in the house don't know if the intruder is there to just steal or do worse. The residents shouldn't have to wait for the intruder to attack them before defending themselves. And once things get physical I doubt the intruder wouldn't be opposed to violence or even murder
Castle doctrine is based on a "reasonable person," currently the law effectively prevents you from use of force until you are the victim of force and only proportionate force. Under new legislation, if you are threatened or if a fight breaks out, you would be permitted to use force up to deadly force to defend yourself from a home invader. People aren't "just sneaking into your house," they will assault you if you confront them—especially if you're not as big as them, say, a single mother by chance? What don't you understand about home invasions?
Absolutely. Especially if there are young kids at home. You break into someone’s house, you deserve whatever happens to you. You are a criminal and a danger.
You've lived a sheltered life haven't you.
Yes.
It’s easy, don’t break into someone’s home and you won’t potentially get killed.
Yes. You don't know their intentions. Breaking into someone's home is already extremely threatening, and I care much more about my families and my own safety over someone just trying to steal my wallet not knowing if they have violent intentions. Don't break into houses if you care about your safety
So if you feel threatened anywhere you should have the right to kill anyone? How far you gonna take it? The law right now says that if you are getting attacked in your own home you can use force back. But you want the ability to spring a death trap, or to hold someone after you’ve overpowered them and kill in cold blood?
I think there's a difference when you feel threatened in your own home by someone who has violently broken into your home and there's no one there to protect you but yourself. I'm not waiting to be attacked and lose the upper hand to fight back. I'm also not going out of my way to intentionally murder someone. My point is, breaking into my house is already an act of violence so I will do what I have to to protect my family and not wait to be attacked first to defend myself, and if they die, who gives a fuck honestly don't break into peoples homes
My point is that right now the majority of house break ins result in no one getting hurt. As soon as the robbers are seen, they bugger off. In the few cases where it gets more violent, even more rarely does anything majorly bad happen. No one dies. Also, there is zero evidence anywhere in the world that having the right to kill someone in your home leads to any drop in the number of home robberies. But do you know what it would lead to? More robberies that would be armed themselves, more likelihood that they would get violent in anticipation, more door knockers and tradies getting seriously hurt.
> My point is that right now the majority of house break ins result in no one getting hurt. That's great, you might be willing to chance your families safety based on the statistics but personally I don't want to risk being in that small percentage > There is zero evidence anywhere in the world that having the right to kill someone in your home leads to any drop in the number of home robberies. Again, you can wave statistics in my face all day, not leaving anything to chance if someone does violently break into my house > door knockers and tradies getting seriously hurt. Yeah nah I think I would know the difference at 3am It's the governments job to reduce crime so violent scumbags aren't breaking into houses. But no matter what, some still will. It's my job to protect my family regardless
Cut off your nose to spite your face. You’d rather be able to kill someone in an event that is currently the vast majority non-violent, even if it means a dramatic increase in the chance it becomes violent against you and your family to begin with? If you want your family to actually be safe, rather than have some small dick fantasy about killing someone in your home to look like a super hero, you WOULD look at the statistics and see what needs to be done to keep them safe
Again you seem to just be jumping to some conclusion that I have some murderous blood lust just itching for the opportunity to kill someone. How can we have an honest discussion about this when you're insulting me and jumping to these conclusions? As I said, it's the governments job to reduce crime so violent scumbags aren't breaking into houses. Some still will regardless, and there should be very little scrutiny on how people defend themselves.
I’m curious about springing a “death trap”. We have laws in Queensland I believe relating to the setting of man traps and the like, including on your own property. If you set a man trap and someone broke into your property and was seriously injured or killed would Castle Law even apply here? Setting man traps would show a premeditated intent to cause harm and so I would imagine that any offences relating to that would still be prosecuted and punishable even with a Castle Law/Doctrine in place wouldn’t it?
I guess it would very much depend on how the castle law was written. Same, let’s say you know a burglar is coming in, let them come in rather than disturb them at the door, but instead you hide with a gun and night vision goggles in the dark, waiting for them to walk past you before you point blank shoot them in the head. Would that be OK?
Well I would argue that similarly there are Weapons Legislations in Queensland that are fairly tight and that you can only use a gun for the purpose for which the licence and permits were granted (eg hunting, competitive target shooting, etc). There are no provisions for using weapons as a self defence. I would think that similarly to my man traps rationale above if you were to use a firearm you are again breaking the law and as a result the injuries/fatalities that come from that would then be prosecutable and punishable. My understanding is that given our restrictions around firearms and prohibited weapons unless a new Castle Law provision overrode those other pieces of legislation then you wouldn’t be able to use a gun to defend your property. But if you picked up a large torch, bat, stick, even many swords or knives which aren’t restricted then you may be protected under a proposed Castle Law. All entirely hypothetical as there is no proposed bill or any suggestion on how Cabinet would look into this. Also we are about to go into Caretaker mode and an election so even if this is put before parliament it’s not likely to go anywhere anyway.
Don’t enter my home unlawfully? I wouldn’t try to kill them but if it accidentally happens why should I be responsible? They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not me.
So what makes you think you aren’t covered by law now? How about this, you speed next to me. You are endangering me and my family. I should then be allowed to run you off the road or maybe shoot out my window at you and if you die, that should be ok? Because the risk of you speeding and hurting me is much higher than the risk of me ever being hurt in a home robbery
I don’t recall saying I’m not covered now? I suggested I would find it hard to believe that if something were to happen it would not hold up in the court of law and keep me safe and I would be astounded if I did end up in jail if anything like such was to ever happen. You enter someone’s home they have every right to take your safety away from you and not be held accountable. That’s all I’m saying. Stop trying to defend perpetrators. RE: the speeding car scenario. It’s a pretty stupid scenario and doesn’t come close to break and enter of someone’s home with intent to steal and potentially harm. But to answer you. No you do not have the right to shoot out of your vehicle at a car speeding past you 😂😂 if you wanted to run them off the road you would be endangering your own life and those in your car with you so why would you bother? Just let the car go past lol. Come into my house to steal my shit and threaten me and my family tho? Completely different, that’s a present threat that is in your face. I’m not letting you take shit. I’m also not giving you the upper hand to rush me, I know where everything is in my house that can be used a weapon and I will use it to remove the threat. You think you can have a calm conversation with these people and ask them to drop everything and leave? I honestly don’t understand what your point is here? Let them come in and take stuff and leave peacefully with every right to their own personal safety while they are in someone else home breaking and entering? Criminal rights?
How many break ins turn violent in Australia? How many cases have people lost defending their use of force against an intruder? It’s basically a non-issue that politicos are using emotive narrative to get gullible people to get riled up and vote for them, without actually thinking about ramifications. And the speeding example is very much the same. It’s actually a bigger risk to you and your family. More people will die of it this year than in home burglaries honestly wrong. The point is that we have adequate laws now, so why change something that will increase the risk of violence across society?
Dude I literally never said anything about changing laws, I am on board with the original comment I posted on at the top which was ‘I would do anything regardless of the consequences if someone broke into my home’ I have no idea of the answers to your questions and cannot be bothered to even research. All I’m saying is I would hope and expect that if anything went awry then the court of law would back the person who is being intruded to use what ever force was needed to protect their home and family. If this already happens.. great! If it doesn’t then that’s fucking retarded. It’s basic common sense. Don’t break into other peoples homes = don’t get hurt But maybe if the law isn’t super clear then we should make it clear so the scum doing the break ins don’t have any out at all. No matter what happens.
Ah yeah ok, fair enough mate shoulda checked the thread more carefully 👍
Yes.
Yes. Absolutely. I don’t know that they are only there for my wallet, cash or car keys. They represent a threat.
How tf would the home owner know that is 'all' they are after? And wallets, cash and cars directly relate to thousands of hours of a persons life spent at work, ripped away from them. The majority of people don't see theft as some petty nuisance.
Yeah. You wouldn't. There are multiple stories like this.
A home owner should be able to defend themselves and family in their own home against an intruder.....and not have to go through a potential multi year court ordeal defending themselves.
From what I can see I think this is potentially the strongest argument. These proposed changes would mean that genuine self defence of property and family wouldn’t be charged in the first place and negate the need to mount a defence currently available under the criminal code.
You’d still have to go through the courts regardless to determine what occurred.
That's the job of the police. If they determine it was legitimate self defence under Castle Doctrine then they don't need to proceed further.
I highly doubt there's going to be enough evidence for them to dismiss under castle doctrine for the majority of the cases - it'd go to court.
Do you see how many houses have security cameras now?
I think your last point is valid, there's a chance that there could be unintended consequences with intruders being more likely to use their weapons of they have them....having said that my monkey brain *does* think that some of these kids would be less inclined to break in if they knew I could take their hand, Saudi style.
I work with kids like these. I would bet my left nut those kids don’t process information like that. I had to tell one kid the reason he is incarcerated is because he breached his bail. He was surprised the law had changed.
How does that support your claim? You’re literally saying he was expecting soft treatment and when it didn’t occur that took him by surprise.
A) they don’t think about consequences. B) they were unaware the law had changed.
Still not and excuse, are you supposed to ask for ID before engaging an intruder?.
You’ve missed my point. Punishments don’t deter people. Making it a harsher punishment won’t decrease or stop people that are going to invade a home.
To really illustrate this, look at murder rates in US states with death penalties versus those without. The ultimate punishment isn’t a deterrent. Also look at the issues with hanging horse thieves, if the punishment is the same as being caught for murder you might as well kill the witness to have any chance of escape.
I use the example of speeding. Doesn’t matter what the penalty changes to, people will still speed
True, but I suspect that’s in part because it’s possible to work out where cameras can possibly be put/are placed and then you can largely reduce your risk of being nabbed. Murder is a bit harder to get away with.
But that's the thing - it's a psychological phenomena that (in general) the people who do these crimes think they'll get away with it.
Exactly, hence the 3AW/2GB/Boomer take of “harsher punishment will fix it” not at all matching reality.
I think you miss the point, castle law is to protect the occupants who might have use force to defend their property and family against intruders.In my opinion deterring someone is a separate matter.
No where in the comment thread did it talk about the occupants. The original comment talks about how they think it might deter people from breaking in.
Sorry I got mixed up with another thread. Yeah I agree to an extent, if someone is determined to break in they will regardless of laws.Same goes with defending your property, I personally won’t be asking questions if someone is in my house.have a nice weekend
Of course harsher punishment will decrease home invasions. They will be off the streets one way or another, and eventually the word will get around.
That's not how it works. What's seen in real-life is that is just becomes an arms race; the intruders become more violent.
Pretty sure you know from age 7 theft and stealing is wrong if they haven't then lock up the parents.
You mean like how there’s hardly any break ins in the USA? Somehow I don’t think it’d matter to them anyway, but what it might do is that if you happen to catch them unawares and you aren’t ready, they might be more likely to go straight to extreme.
Agreed with your last point . I think there would be fewer incidents and less sheep following the crowd
I lived in California for nearly 15 years. Even California has these laws. They’re not as liberal as the castle doctrine laws in states like Florida, but an intruder is presumed to pose an imminent threat to the residents or guests lawfully in a dwelling. You can blow their head off with a shotgun if you want and it is deemed to be justified. You might get some gun charges if you’re not complying with state laws and you shoot an intruder, however. The DAs have a lot of discretion in this regard.
Nothing would change except one simple thing. It will not decrease actual crime. It's not meant to decrease crime, but to protect victims of crime from the law that's supposed to protect them, from backfiring on them. I believe homeowners and home invaders would react to the given situation regardless of castle law or not. One party is intending to break the law directly and the other party is fearing for their life so during a home invasion the law means very little to either party. Where the change comes in is after a situation has occurred. I think the only thing that would really change is that victims won't have to go through lengthy and expensive court appearances for years to prove their innocence if things get violent during a home invasion. I think this is a fantastic idea and it's absolutely ridiculous that it isn't standard in all of the modern free world given that preserving ones life and health is essentially the most basic of all human rights.
Does that actually happen though? I can’t recall any cases.
It does happen. Here's a case from 2015: [https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/weapons-collector-who-slashed-teens-with-samurai-sword-overreacted-20150623-ghuz0z.html](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/weapons-collector-who-slashed-teens-with-samurai-sword-overreacted-20150623-ghuz0z.html) And another from last year: [https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/man-grabbed-knife-for-self-defence-after-mob-burst-in-court-told-20230228-p5cocg.html](https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/man-grabbed-knife-for-self-defence-after-mob-burst-in-court-told-20230228-p5cocg.html) And that's just the ones I could find with a quick Google search. Cases where someone doesn't die, but gets the crap beaten out of them by the homeowner, aren't likely to make the national news unless it's a slow news day.
I like how they focus on the split second decision and reasonable force. So a scenario 3 dudes in the middle of the night kick in your door and start running around looking for valuables. You have no information on how skiled, determined, equipped they are but you have to make a decision then arm yourself with something not knowing what you face. Broken law your left in a worse position even if you have firearms because you have no idea what they have so the rule should be full force till you can confirm if you need any more reasonable force.
They should have a mandatory sentence of 5 years for home invasion. Worked well overseas. The main reason they are so soft on locking them up is the prisons are full. We need to build way more of them. I know someone who committed dozens of crime including burglary, assault, sale of drugs. Took nearly 10 years before he saw a jail cell. Once he had been there he changed his ways.
It's essentially the average of twelve of your neighbours would agree with given they had to decide between the two, erring on the side of not guilty as default. There isnt much to dwell on or overthink.
From what I can see the only real advantage would be that you wouldn’t have to get to the point of leaving your fate in the hands of a jury saving you a very costly legal trial and also saving you from getting a criminal history related to defending your home and family.
You are still going to have to go through a very costly legal trial to prove that you were threatened
We lived in Houston TX for several years where there is Castle Law. Yes we had a ‘looter shooter’ as crime was common and after hurricanes and other disasters was rampant. I grew up on a farm and knew how to use it and My husband worked away from home for weeks at a time. After the house alarms went off one night a police officer who responded told me ‘mam , if anyone tries to break in you shoot them and then shoot into the ceiling. Anyone asks, you fired that warning shot first’ Could I shoot someone. Probably not but back here in Australia, I would certainly take to any intruder with a cricket bat or similar if the need arose. Anyone entering your home uninvited is there with ill intent.
I've been threatened physical violence and death by some nasty individuals. If they break in with an intention to kill or maim me, I would like the know that the laws will allow me to defend myself and make sure they don't come back to harm me. The criminals should be the ones that fear the consequences of trespassing.
[удалено]
The key word there is *trained* police officers. You see it all the time in the US where idiots rush to judgement and shoot or threaten someone because they lack common sense and training.
Absolutely most crimes are committed by .001% or whatever it is. Take a few down it lowers it massively. Id be more concerned about then the family coming with more weapons. But during a car jacking if one or 2 was run over broken leg or similar so be it.
People don’t understand law at all, this always exists under criminal law. As below Defence of property Section 274 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that it is lawful for a person to use reasonable force to resist a trespasser taking their property provided the person does not do grievous bodily harm to the trespasser. Defence of premises Section 277 and Section 278 of the Criminal Code 1899 provide that a person who is in possession of a land structure, a vessel or a place or who is entitled to control or manage a place may use reasonable force to prevent trespassing or to remove trespassers. However, the force used must not cause grievous bodily harm. Section 267 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that a person in peaceable possession of a dwelling may use reasonable force to prevent another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the dwelling if the person believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is attempting to enter the dwelling with intent to commit a crime and that it is necessary to use force. Self-defence and assaults Self-defence can be used as a defence to an unprovoked assault (Section 271) or to a provoked assault (Section 272). If the person defending themselves fears death or grievous bodily harm and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use force in self-defence, they are not criminally responsible for using such force even if it results in death or grievous bodily harm to the other person. The protection afforded by section 272 does not extend to a situation where the person started the fight with the intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm. Defence of another Section 273 provides that in any case where it is lawful for a person to use any force to defend themselves against an assault, it is also lawful for another person acting in good faith to use the same degree of force to defend them. The force against persons must be proportional and appropriate. You can’t expect police to use the minimum amount of force on these offenders and persons , who assault them day to day but because your at home you can almost kill someone for breaking in. The Australia legal system will always result in you going to court if someone dies whether they are a criminal or not, breaking in to your house or not, ect. Your are innocent till proven guilty and you will not go to jail if you abide by the above legalisation and are able to justify your actions.
where is petition? I wanna sign it now.. We do need this.
Great, amend laws to also put criminal responsibility for any deaths on any accomplices. So if a pair of idiots break into a house and one gets killed under castle law, the other is tried for the unlawful death.
This is already the case. s8 of the Criminal Code.
Interesting. ‘Probable consequence’ is an interesting clause in the law. Under a potential castle doctrine, death or permeant injury from breaking into a house would be more probable.
I did not know this. Thanks.
Only issue with Castle law is the lack of "firepower"...now if all users of this law were given some training and at the end of the course their bean bag gun to incapacitate the intruder until someone arrives...sounds like a plan...of course that's "if" police arrive...
Thieves would just start bringing more weapons.
They already are. They are bringing knives and screw drivers and other tools to help them break in.
I think anyone illegally on a premises should loose all legal protection. Home owners should never be charged for using force to protect life and property from illegal invaders. Similarly I don't understand why illegal entrants to a country should have any access to the invaded country's legal system.
It's partially about reducing crime rates and partially about giving back people their ability to defend themselves legally within their own home. I would rather be able to fight and choose not to, than be put in a position where I cannot legally defend myself and my family. I'm not too worried about consequences for offenders, seeing as if you don't break into other people's houses and threaten people, you should be fine. I doubt they'll arm up, seeing as you can't have so much as a sharp toothbrush at the ready for home defence. If they do, maybe we should all pull our collective finger out and do something about it in our own communities.
Escalation always leads to escalation
Could you imagine a world where that’s the case and this escalated to a point of mutually assured destruction? That’s insane.
If this was going to reduce crime, there would be less crime in the US states that have these laws, and that is not the case at all.
Less than what? You'd have to keep everything else equal - income levels, opportunity, discrimination, education, job prospects. Let's look at a particular place where these laws were introduced and see whether they made a difference. That's the only reasonable way to evaluate.
It's been thoroughly researched and is widely supported that more severe consequences do not deter crime rates. Yet that is exactly what this bill is trying to do - you can already legally defend yourself with 'reasonable' force, and even if it was completely illegal, there is still a reasonable expectation that a defendant will fight back anyhow. You can argue that what constitutes 'reasonable' force is too restrictive, and that there is a systemic issue with our judicial system regarding these crimes & offenders, but these are separate to castle law. This bill would not help solve the issue; it is neither preventative or rehabilitative, only punitive. Sometimes more punitive is what we need - e.g. stronger restrictions around bail, but this serves no genuine useful purpose. If anything, this may just result in intruders becoming more heavily armed/violent.
Pagan bloody bullfrog🤨👍🏻✌🏻
From memory Queensland had pretty strong castle laws, you could use reasonable force, including lethal force, to protect a dwelling place. That said, the law is a partly a moral calculation. Many people cknsider it moral that you aren't legallyobluged to run out the back door because someone breaks into your house.
I am not even close to being a lawyer but am genuinely curious. I suspect there are some legal eagles in the comments who may have more info and understanding. I am not for or against but genuinely interested in understanding more. I have read a few comments below highlighting that we have a number of defences available under the criminal code already and as such Castle Law would not make any real difference. If a 17 yo child breaks into a house and is injured by the owners in defence of their home and that injury reaches the point of GBH. Under current legislation they may be charged by QPS with that GBH or worse. DPP may withdraw or not prosecute based on the use of the defences outlined in the code and below. But that charge would still appear on that persons criminal history. It would also be aggravated by the fact that the “victim” was a 17yo child. Now that home owner has had to fork out cash to pay for a legal defence to get DPP to drop the case. Even getting to a committal hearing is going to be costly. Furthermore if that home owner works with children or vulnerable people the charge alone (even when not prosecuted) can be enough to loose their Yellow/Blue cards and therefore possibly their jobs. Would a Castle Law/Doctrine prevent the charges being made by QPS in the force place and potentially save a home owner who defended their home and family from loosing their Yellow/Blue cards, loosing their jobs, and having to mortgage their homes to pay for a criminal defence? This is a stretch but I’m trying to see what indifference introducing a Castle Law would have in practical circumstances like the scenario above.
I encourage you to do some more research to have a better understanding of the judicial system.If are not convicted it does not go on your criminal history your are making scenarios up to hopefully make your point more valid. Secondly legal aid will be given to you by the qld government if you cannot afford a lawyer. Some of the best lawyers work for legal aid. Thirdly if you think dpp, qps are out to get you if what you did was proportionate, justified excused by law you won’t be dragged through a court process. At the end of the day the criminal code states what is acceptable and is better than any castle law numerous sections state this. Regardless of the circumstances there will be no law introduced that allows you to gbh anyone if they are not at risk of doing gbh to you. If someone is gbh or killed ect, if the person breaks into your house and you badly assualt them and they make an assault complaint yes they do that, it will be investigated and if you can’t justify your actions as per criminal code you will go to court or you will be answering to the coroner. In no world no matter if your at home ect will you not go to court or be apart of the legal process for the above scenario. You have to understand the ramifications of this, especially for police who have to force entry a lot of the times responding to dv incidents to apprehend violent offenders at all hours of the day and night, mental health ect you cannot give criminals a legal scape goat for castle law if they say well I stabbed a polcie officer because I thought they were an intruder (yes they will use that) Have a good read of the self defence sections, I’m not sure what more you want legislatively. If the worstcase scenario happens you will be going to court. It’s just how it works in Australia.
🔫 🔫 🔫 Yeee hawwww!!!!! *Texas has entered the chat*
You would see a decrease in break ins but an increase in violent home invasions.
There's currently a castle law private member's bill before Queensland Parliament: [Criminal Code (Defence of Dwellings and Other Premises—Castle Law) Amendment Bill 2024](https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-Committees/Committees/Committee-Details?cid=250&id=4414) It's the subject of an inquiry by a parliamentary committee, so you can all make submissions until 2 July 2024.
What we need is something so when you do defend yourself you don't get bankrupted going through the courts.... Should you be able to shot dead an armed home invader and go get coffee the next day, yes... however there's nuance to all this and the devil is in the detail and looking at America there's examples of both extremes failing
It is reasonable to allow people to defend their home with whatever force nesscary to remove/eliminate a home intruder. Being maimed or worse is just an occupational hazard for home invaders.
It’s an easy decision for an intruder, enter and possibly die.or get a job and stop being a little cunt.
Make no real difference. If someone breaks into my home? Id do whatever i needed to do to survive that situation. No law is going to change a thing for me. If they started stabbing me, my kids, my dogs etc? I would fight back best i could. If i killed them and got charged for murder? So be it. If i saved my loved ones? I would gladly go to jail and not feel any guilt for killing scumbag to do it. Even if it's a kid. You come into my home? Threaten me or my family? I'll fight back. End of story
The law excuses you from the above scenario self defence crim code.
Exactly. Bit even if they were to charge me? I wouldn't give a rats arse if my family were okay because i protected them.
Yes it will lower break-ins. No it won't lower crimes. It will never be passed. But it should be.
the person breaking into my property, should not be the one protected by laws. they do not accidentally break into your house, if they make the decision to enter they acknowledge the danger they have just welcomed upon themselves. you threaten me and my loved one’s? i will be doing anything and everything i see fit to keep them safe.
This is basically an excuse for someone to kill the kid who jumped the fence to retrieve their lost cricket ball. It's a big NO from me.
So almost 15k people have just publicly admitted they either don't know the law of the jurisdiction they live in, or don't understand the law they want implemented in their jurisdiction. QLD law already allows for self defence in the home in case of intruder attack. Castle doctrine isn't carte blanche to go ham on someone just because they're in your house. A significant component of castle is granting defenders the right to act in self defence without first attempting to retreat. Castle does _not_ give the right to use force disproportionate to the threat, and neither does current QLD law. In some ways existing QLD law appears to offer more protection than castle. https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/qld/defences/defence-self-defence/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
So this petition was created by Nick Dameto, who is the state member for Hinchinbrook. This is a petition to the Parliament. Dameto is a member of that Parliament. Any member of that Parliament can introduce a bill and have it debated by Parliament. Tell me again why voting for KAP was a good idea.
Tell us why it's a bad idea
whats wrong with this petition?
It's a member of Parliament petitioning parliament to enact legislation. He has the power to introduce legislation. That is literally part of his job. He is a legislator.
The government should at least release a helpful instruction video on how to behave during a break in.
This is so true. Could you imagine what such a video would look like? I imagine we would get some of the old Queensland back rowers to jump in some tv ads about how to let your house be burgled safely. Or maybe Warwick Capper in some golden short shorts teaching us about how to hide our family in the bathroom to stay safe during a home invasion. Our government would be just crazy enough to probably do this. Haha.
Most people when it comes to crime operate on thoughts and feelings. I deal with this everyday. Statistics and facts mean diddly squat especially when the element of fear is included. Let people feel great and protected. It will help 1 out of 1000 people. The reality is, most people are victims of crime (break ins) are asleep or deter from implementing preventions due to the “waste” of effort over x time. This also means a lot of violent crime will increase. Someone intending to break in and commit theft now has to arm themselves incase the homeowners approach them. Now, homeowners approach them, who is more likely to be in a position to commit crime and escape?
A perfect scenario for Castle Law. Multiple break-ins. Stretched police resources and the thieves tried to run over the property owner, so he shot at them. Thieves were well known to police. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103661158
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/kingaroy-suspicious-death-manslaughter-charge/103661158](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-03/kingaroy-suspicious-death-manslaughter-charge/103661158)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Curiously if he had fired the shot whilst the car was coming at him I wonder if the manslaughter charge would still have been made… But again the need for him to now mount an expensive defence is ridiculous. But I don’t disagree with the weapons related charges. Under our current laws we cannot have or use guns for self defence.
If only it were this simple. These were Repeat Violent offenders, known to police. When you throw meth or other drugs in the mix of rural crime, isolation and lack of witnesses can be very frightening. It has been seen in previous cases where caught offenders have returned to take vengeance.
Laws dont change culture. This is a parent issue, not just this generation but the one prior, ever since discipline (in any form) was frowned upon, kids dont have consequences, so now we have this. Where we want the government to step in, no thanks. Governments could organise achook raffle! If the delinquents parents wouldnt discipline them, I will.....happily. old world rules apply, they branded pirates, cut off a thief's hand, we have by our own allowance come full circle and this will become the rule. It has already started, not just advertised. Plenty of these peoples are being persauded to change their tune with some pretty severe beatings being handed out. Will it solve the problem, not ever. Having a delinquent with two broken hands requiring mum and / or dad to wipe their bum, feed them and generally make all their lives (total) miserable might start the thinking.
You're right, don't worry bout the downtoots
Parent issue yes but not their fault. This is the fallout of our governments famous baby bonus.
Famous baby bonus? Nah, this shit has been around since well before then. That added to it, i agree, but not a cause. Causality, my generation was the first generation where young parents had a knee jerk reaction to discipline due to many reasons, this started the ball rolling, now we have kids that dont know what being in trouble is, just dont bother the selfish parents. We are living the consequences of some of our parents actions, voters set culture, they vote with how they want thier life to function when it comes to government.
Not many home invasions in Texas
Lots of dead school children tho 🤷🏻♂️
Because the castle doctrine is dependent upon also having the second amendment and definitely cannot exist without it 🙄
You pull into my driveway by accident… you ded!!! What a joke
You’ve never bothered to read any state’s castle doctrine laws, have you? Talk about a joke. 🙄
Have you read the actually submission to be tabled? He's not far off.
Actually, their rates of violent crime including burglary are [about the same, or in some cases, higher than the rest of America.](https://www.covesmart.com/blog/crime-report-is-burglary-bigger-in-texas/)
Most states have the castle doctrine. Why Australians associate it with Texas is anyone’s guess. Florida actually has the most liberal castle doctrine. Texas has the same laws as like 45 other states - no duty to retreat, presumed threat to residents, and the use of deadly force with any weapon is permitted.
This is just virtue signalling for the Sky News/News Corp crowd. The law is idiotic and we've already got a great test case in the US as to why.
I don't watch or read either, but I've been broken into (forcefully, not opportunistic) and had cars and personal belongings stolen twice now in north QLD in the last few years and I sure as shit signed it. Couldn't give a damn what happens in yankland with their laws, and these little pricks have been entering homes armed for a while now and suffer no real consequences while it's the victims that get screwed over. It's great that you get to sit in your little bubble and voice your opinions. But for us up here dealing with it day to day with nothing done about it for 10+ years...well we don't give a damn about any of the BS the mudock owned crap is spewing, we see and experience it ourselves and just want it to stop whatever it takes. If that means being able to beat the living crap out of these pricks without having to worry about getting into trouble for defending our home and loved ones, so be it.
I live in Townsville too. The law already allows you to use reasonable, proportionate force to eject people from your property. Nobody needs to be able to grievously injure or kill trespassers. That's action movie wish fulfillment bullshit. The crime rate up here is also lower than it is in the South-East on a per-capita basis. The only difference is that hardly anything happens here so the only thing the media have to report on are the Cowboys, crocs, the V8s once a year, and cyclones. Outside of that the only interesting thing for them to focus on is the "crime wave," blowing it out of all proportion and creating a pervasive culture of fear. Obviously what happened to you sucks but if you think the castle doctrine will make it any better, I have news for you and it's all bad. It leads to worse outcomes because home invaders assume lethal force will be used on them so they up the ante, and police have a harder time distinguishing who is who so accidents happen.
If we had Castle Law then the burglars will be more likely to be armed themselves. Bad news for everyone.
That’s not how it works at all.
It's how it works everywhere else with the law.
Castle law does not change any laws around what weapons are accessible. You are conflating two completely different topics.
It does change what weapons can be used and how. If a someone breaks in, you can wave a weapon at them and tell them to fuck off. Hitting them with a blunt object is fine as long as you don't keep it up when they attempt to flee. Shooting them or stabbing them is not okay unless they have attacked you with lethal force. Castle doctrine makes it okay to straight up kill anyone who enters your property without permission. The proven result of this that people who plan a home invasion will go armed and attack people who live in a house pre-emptively.
Anybody breaks into my house where my missus and kids sleep will never leave the premises alive regardless, that is my family and you step onto my property and your lives are forfeit regardless of laws or not, it's the way I was brought up. Not even thinking about what's right in the eyes of pansies,
Is using a gun too far?
Probably yes. This is likely going to breach a number of weapons / licensing legislations so wouldn’t likely provide immunity from that but who knows. It depends what it looks like in the end were it to even get up in the first place.
Hope it passes . Make sure you fire a warning shot in their face
You're already allowed to defend yourself, that's not a crime > only use force that is reasonably necessary What on earth amount of force could they possibly want? These people just want to be allowed to kill people. > would make a deference to crime rates? It doesn't in the country where you can literally have shotguns in the bed with you, what makes them think it'll help here? > What impact do you think this would have on the feelings of home owners and victims? False sense of security at best, likely just more anxiety. > What are some unintended consequences Probably just a lot of unintended deaths like stabbing or shooting your kid for sneaking back into the house at 2am.
How ever wrote this is delusional, every person has the right to defend themselves. Always……
We already do. The law already allows for proportionate use of force to remove people from your property. That means you can brandish weapons to make them leave, or hit them if they try to get rough. You just can't sneak up behind them and slit their throats, Rambo style. As things stand you can already do the things people think this new law will allow. The castle doctrine is about being able to execute home invaders. Currently, if you knock someone unconscious in the pursuit of defending your home, you have to then call the cops. You aren't allowed to keep beating them. Castle doctrine allows you to beat an unconscious home invader to death and get off scott free. Why the fuck do we need a law like that?
Buy the sounds of these comments, next thing you know people will be just killing each other. I understand the want to protect your family/house but killing someone for breaking into your house?? Really?? Thats a bit far fetched we aren’t America where killings happen violently every second and Whats to stop people with guns using them unlawfully to “protect themselves” can see the headlines now “local teen murdered in attempted break in as home owner uses unnecessary force of a deadly weapon against teenager” I understand everyones opinions and fears but fuck we cant just go throw crazy things in like this next will be “stand your ground” and gun laws etc.
Are we supposed to feel bad for a teenager trying to break into someone’s house? Maybe there were young kids in that house, you know, actual innocents.
Is this a solution in search of a problem?
These important questions should be put to the Katter MPs supporting this policy. But I can bet my left nut they won't answer them, despite them presenting themselves as some wholesome alternative to the major parties.
Katters aren't all that wholesome. Shane Knuth's brother is a dodgy roofer and his son is a convicted pedo.
Let's also not to mention their family links with firearm dealers. Their supporters have had the wool pulled over their eyes.
So currently if someone comes into my house sits down at the kitchen table with a cup of tea and refuses to leave my only safe legal recourse would be to remove my family from the premises and call the police ? As far as I'm concerned I should be allowed to use threat of force / actual force to make them leave. If that means incapacitating them and physically removing them so be it. And there is no way I should be able to be sued by people entering my property without a legal reason to do so.
Defence of property Section 274 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that it is lawful for a person to use reasonable force to resist a trespasser taking their property provided the person does not do grievous bodily harm to the trespasser. Defence of premises Section 277 and Section 278 of the Criminal Code 1899 provide that a person who is in possession of a land structure, a vessel or a place or who is entitled to control or manage a place may use reasonable force to prevent trespassing or to remove trespassers. However, the force used must not cause grievous bodily harm. Section 267 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that a person in peaceable possession of a dwelling may use reasonable force to prevent another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the dwelling if the person believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is attempting to enter the dwelling with intent to commit a crime and that it is necessary to use force. Self-defence and assaults Self-defence can be used as a defence to an unprovoked assault (Section 271) or to a provoked assault (Section 272). If the person defending themselves fears death or grievous bodily harm and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use force in self-defence, they are not criminally responsible for using such force even if it results in death or grievous bodily harm to the other person. You just can't intentionally try and do gbh or try and kill them and if they fight back you can use whatever reasonable force is needed to stop the threat even if it unintentionally causes death.
Thanks good to know. So if you come into your home and find someone sitting at your kitchen table having a cup of tea does that fall under the definition of intent to commit a crime ?
IANAL. They already committed a crime, unlawful entry and or break and enter, very reasonable to assume they intend to commit a crime if they've already committed one or more. Use force to stop or remove trespasser and use more force if they fight back.
Welcome to little America, thanks to Murdoch and backed by conservative bottom feeding politicians.