'Expect to be shot if you burgle gun owners' - Judge says

Generali

The shooter and his Missus have moved to Aus to escape any potential revenge attack apparently.

To be fair, I have a lot of sympathy with people protecting their property, it's the acceptable face of the US gun laws and if I move to a rural property in Aus where police coverage is patchy at best then I will arm myself.

JonnyBravo

Naf wrote: »

Surely, then, the same logic applies to kitchen knives, bare electrified cabling, axes, power tools, broken bottles... yes?

I can see what you're trying to do.
Unfortunately it doesn't make sense.

Yes if he'd grabbed a knife in fear for his life and used it, it could be the same result.
Setting a trap involving bare electrified wire is something quite different.
He was questioned for hours. This was to ascertain, I'd imagine amongst other things, was he lying in wait with his gun.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

I think the point was that the burglars asked for leniency on the basis that they'd been shot in the aris. The judge said no.

Yes, this is nothing to do with whether or not you can legally shoot someone who breaks in to your home, the judge is simply saying if you deliberately commit a crime, and happen to get injured in the process, you cannot expect to receive a lighter prison sentence - because you still deliberately committed a crime. it's just common sense and not really newsworthy, frankly. if you drink drive, crash, and break your arm, you aren't going to get a shorter sentence.

the judges comments are completely unconnected to decision not to charge the occupant of the house that was burgled with GBH.

chewmylegoff

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I can see what you're trying to do.
Unfortunately it doesn't make sense.

Yes if he'd grabbed a knife in fear for his life and used it, it could be the same result.
Setting a trap involving bare electrified wire is something quite different.
He was questioned for hours. This was to ascertain, I'd imagine amongst other things, was he lying in wait with his gun.

well actually the same does apply for knives etc. if you stab a burglar who breaks into your house, he isn't going to get a shorter sentence for burglary because he was stabbed. you may or may not be charged with an offence scaling from wounding to attempted murder. (or even murder, but obviously the burglar wouldn't be serving a prison sentence in that case...)

ILW

I think the shooter should be given a reward for having the guts to do something about the thieving scum.

dunstonh

The shooter had 40 hours of questioning (interrogation) by the police. I bet the burglars didn't get as much.

chewmylegoff

dunstonh wrote: »

The shooter had 40 hours of questioning (interrogation) by the police. I bet the burglars didn't get as much.

i suspect 40 hours may be the total amount of time they spent in the police station, not the total length of the police interview. i'm only basing this on having been involved in interviews involving serious, complex and lengthy fraud with dozens of documents to go through which didn't last anything like that long. alternatively it might be the cumulative time that the two residents were questioned for but even so 20 hours of interview is extreme for a single event, so i reckon it's time in the station.

in any event, the bloke shot someone with a shotgun, so the police are obliged to investigate whether an offence was committed, especially in line with the previous precedent of a farmer shooting a burglar in the back as he fled the property and being sent to prison. the police cannot just arbitrarily decide that the burglar deserved what was coming to him and that the shooter was acting in self defence without investigating properly. they probably interviewed the shooter first, then interview the burglars, and then had to go through the allegations made by the burglars in a second interview.

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i suspect 40 hours may be the total amount of time they spent in the police station, not the total length of the police interview. i'm only basing this on having been involved in interviews involving serious, complex and lengthy fraud with dozens of documents to go through which didn't last anything like that long. alternatively it might be the cumulative time that the two residents were questioned for but even so 20 hours of interview is extreme for a single event, so i reckon it's time in the station.

in any event, the bloke shot someone with a shotgun, so the police are obliged to investigate whether an offence was committed, especially in line with the previous precedent of a farmer shooting a burglar in the back as he fled the property and being sent to prison. the police cannot just arbitrarily decide that the burglar deserved what was coming to him and that the shooter was acting in self defence without investigating properly. they probably interviewed the shooter first, then interview the burglars, and then had to go through the allegations made by the burglars in a second interview.

There is nothing in law that says a victim must be questioned about a crime by detaining them against their will for 3 days.

It's time some-one funded a test case against the police to see whether or not is is lawful to falsely imprison some-one who was clearly using reasonable force to protect themselves and their wife.

dunstonh

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i suspect 40 hours may be the total amount of time they spent in the police station, not the total length of the police interview. i'm only basing this on having been involved in interviews involving serious, complex and lengthy fraud with dozens of documents to go through which didn't last anything like that long. alternatively it might be the cumulative time that the two residents were questioned for but even so 20 hours of interview is extreme for a single event, so i reckon it's time in the station.

in any event, the bloke shot someone with a shotgun, so the police are obliged to investigate whether an offence was committed, especially in line with the previous precedent of a farmer shooting a burglar in the back as he fled the property and being sent to prison. the police cannot just arbitrarily decide that the burglar deserved what was coming to him and that the shooter was acting in self defence without investigating properly. they probably interviewed the shooter first, then interview the burglars, and then had to go through the allegations made by the burglars in a second interview.

I understand all that but 40 hours in a police station for someone with no criminal background has to be traumatic. For professional criminals, it is part of the job. The stress and trauma they had to go through because in the dead of night a couple of professional criminals decided to wear masks and break into their home is heavy. They would be fearing for the life during the crime and then fearing for their freedom for much longer.

chewmylegoff

as said, i suspect it is 20 hours each, not 40 hours in total, and it probably wasn't all in one go, as you are normally only have 24 hours on the bail clock, so you wouldn't use up 20 hours in the initial interview knowing you might need to test their account again later. yes it is a long time, but once you have processed someone into a police station, waited for their lawyer to turn up, given them an opportunity to consult with their lawyer (for as long as they want, perhaps sequentially if the same lawyer represented both), interviewed them, and processed them for bail / charge / release then you are looking at many hours.

i doubt you would be making a fuss about this if it was some lowlife who had been arrested.