VIC Shooting in Thomastown at a car restoration place - Page 3

tinman · 30-03-2013, 12:18 AM

I do firmly beleive that you give up all of your rights the minute you decide to harm person or property of someone else.in a perfect world and if the story is all true. all three of em deserved it, shoulda been quicker to reload or a better shot. death is a bit harsh over a car but for my family and friends its a fitting punishment for harming them

just my 2c

chamb0 · 30-03-2013, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so just let them take your property and maybe kill you because you can identify them? Killing someone to defend yourself even if it is an over reaction is not murder ( a premeditated act) it is manslaughter at the most if they determine you used excessive force.
I think this guy, on the face of it will have a good case seeing it was 3 against 1 ( if the news story is right) a murder seems an over reaction by police that will probably backfire as far as PR is concerned

Yes, it can be murder depending on the circumstances. Like it or not it's not reasonable to kill someone in overreaction.

There are tests that are applied to the case to determine whether self defence will carry. It centres around whether you believed on reasonable grounds that your actions were necessary in self defence. There's a subjective test (that you believed at the time it was necessary). Then there's an objective test determined by a jury - this belief must be based on reasonable grounds.

Was the action in proportion to the threat? You can't claim self defence if you originated the attack, if they are fleeing from you (even after any original assault) or just to prevent trespassing. Did you retreat when you had the chance? If you didn't, you are no longer acting to preserve your life but taking the law into your own hands.

The courts will take into account the fact you may not have had much time to consider your actions.

You'll have a much harder time proving self defence in regards to property.

Check out some more info on how the tests apply:

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4...l-matters.aspx

http://www.adla.com.au/web/page/vic_...s_self_defence

I'm not sure why you think pursuing a murder charge would backfire on the prosecutors. When they believe there's grounds to press charges they would do so as a matter of course. When the evidence is presented, sometimes it will stick and sometimes it won't. It's the legal process taking its due course, not a PR management exercise.

chamb0 · 30-03-2013, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

The general consensus in security from what ive heard is if this does happen and you do shoot someone make sure you kill them as only your side and the evidence can speak remember these scum are scum they will lie in court beg steal borrow and plead with the judge there mother didnt love them enough, daddy didnt give them pocket money its everyone else's fault but mine but now there dead so they cant

The instruction to shoot only to kill is because it's the last resort - it should be the very last step in an escalating series of efforts to resolve the situation another way. Encouraging shooting to injure only gives room for this to be used lower down the chain of events.

BHDOGS · 30-03-2013, 04:53 AM

I was more referring to in your house then at work but I do agree with you on the security side of it it would be nice if we had more then our **** In our hand at work especially when your working alone looking after 100's of people a day even a special baton licence seperate from the gun licence with appropriate training would be good

fte50 · 31-03-2013, 03:30 PM

Lot of these comments make me giggle - im suprised by all these rationalists here, many no doubt the same folk who would go off at a member of the public for 'only leaning' on their prized car.
Lets put it in perspective by what the media has informed.... An owner in his shop doing his thing, then being confronted by not 1 but 3 uninvited crims.
Adrenaline / panic kicks in and you automatically think self defence at any cost (its the mental risk assesment the owner made - one we all make if facing the situation).
So do you sit down and offer this scum a cup of tea ?? I think not.
Its a shame he never had an automatic to fill the other 2 with lead.
Had these low lifes conducted their own risk assesment, perhaps they would've engaged in a different occupation.
No sympathy to this scum, yet as civilians we should all be protesting against stupid court decisions and publicly help achieve just outcomes for the likes of the owner/shooter, providing there is no other motive to this scenario.

gtxb67 · 31-03-2013, 03:34 PM

agree fte50 - and further to posts earlier, i would suggest that "if" it was an attempted burlgary, the victim has received a much harsher deal than the deceased

Serial_Fool · 01-04-2013, 07:17 PM

We should institute Castle Law, as in the US. Anyone found trespassing on your property should be regarded by law with the intent to steal or cause harm to the property owner and dealt with force. Lethal force if necessary.

This will never happen though as we're all too sterilized by our PC society of cotton wool.

**Elks** · 01-04-2013, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

*Looks up Worksafe Victoria code of practise for home break ins*

As they are working at night, they must wear reflective hi viz vests.

All cat burglars must wear safety harness at heights above 3m.

Smash and grabs artists must not lift items over 30kg

Seriously. In Victoria you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to product yourself. Basically on a one up system. If the intruder has a knife you could use gun. But only if you were in imminent danger.

Even if the intruder has a knife or gun. You cannot shoot them from the top floor window if they are in the front yard. You must be in imminent danger such as they have burst into the room you're hiding in.

xisled · 01-04-2013, 10:05 PM

Only time will tell, we will have to wait for the court case, for the outcome.

End if the day, person is dead another looked up.

It's a loose loose situation for everyone involved.

BENT_8 · 01-04-2013, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xisled

Only time will tell, we will have to wait for the court case, for the outcome.

End if the day, person is dead another looked up.

It's a loose loose situation for everyone involved.

It will be for the bloke sharing with bubba...

Franco Cozzo · 01-04-2013, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elks

As they are working at night, they must wear reflective hi viz vests.

All cat burglars must wear safety harness at heights above 3m.

Smash and grabs artists must not lift items over 30kg

Seriously. In Victoria you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to product yourself. Basically on a one up system. If the intruder has a knife you could use gun. But only if you were in imminent danger.

Even if the intruder has a knife or gun. You cannot shoot them from the top floor window if they are in the front yard. You must be in imminent danger such as they have burst into the room you're hiding in.

Shoot em from the top window, then call the cops, go to the pantry and get some tomato sauce and put it on your face and all over your shirt, then lie down next to his dead body on the grass outside face down.

xisled · 01-04-2013, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

It will be for the bloke sharing with bubba...

Lol autocorrect.

Sioso · 07-10-2014, 03:11 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pa...07-10r9xk.html

Bossxr8 · 07-10-2014, 04:14 PM

Crazy stuff.

Work Horse · 07-10-2014, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justice lasry

justice lasry said the worst part was that d'angelo went for the gun instead of picking up the phone and calling triple-0 when he saw the three men trying to break into his factory.

bingo!

neptune blue · 07-10-2014, 07:56 PM

Very sad that someone has lost their life , but if he stayed home instead of trying to steal what ever he was trying to get his hand on , he would still be alive

How would this guy go fixing your car after a breky bong? .....and all the others

Yellow_Festiva · 08-10-2014, 12:05 AM

This guy was going to kill someone eventually judging by his reckless behaviour. He has done all of us a favour by putting himself behind bars. Its a shame that a life was lost in the process but he is partially to blame by trying to break into a place.

It could have been a family out for a drive in the wrong place at the wrong time.

ILLaViTaR · 08-10-2014, 12:47 AM

40 stubbies.... 68 bongs.... Is that even possible? Talk about pathetic journalism.

What the **** is the owner supposed to do? Foolishly trust that the irrational minds trying to break in won't have guns themselves.... stupid people are never happy the article clearly should've been "Another GT stolen, owner shot dead".

It's not like the owner wasn't there at the time of the break in, it's completely reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later regardless of how ****** up you are.... when it's a breaking an entering from car thieves how the **** are you meant to know it's not a professional outfit happy to add you to their body **** without thinking twice. I would've done the same thing, especially if I was munted as **** I would not be taking any chances with my impaired senses. Sitting in his own shop hurting no one, ******* car thieves.

I feel sympathy but the thieves need to understand that people don't understand them and their downward spiral. Nor know the person breaking into their shop at 3am.... As far as the owner/victim is concerned could be ******* Jihad John for all he knows. Terrible situation, the thief should've realised there are actually murderers and **** abducting people and torturing them in eskies alive for weeks simply cause they're ****** in the head in our society. Hence the need not to take any chances and shoot anything before it get's in range.

It's a bit different to that America situation where that misanthropic redneck "baited" those teenagers into his house for nothing more than good sport/medieval anger. It's just what happens in these situations unfortunately. The guy was there when the thieves expected the shop to be vacant (being 3am). Lucky he did have that gun because the thieves might have killed him not expecting a witness to be there at 3am at all. Who knows how "organized" the thieves were until after the damage was done? Seems like a misunderstanding but this was the best outcome without knowing the characters of the thieves.

xxx000 · 08-10-2014, 06:08 AM

Perhaps if the business owner had simply yelled at the guy trying to break in the whole thing may have ended there.
Just as the police wouldn't have shot the guy simply for break and enter the business owner was way over the top in his reaction.
We live in a civilized society not one where we need to all carry guns and start shooting at people especially when our thought processes are severely impaired by alcohol and drugs.

xxx000 · 08-10-2014, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I used a shot gun ten days ago, trying to persuade the birds to stop eating my mate’s grapes we were about to harvest.

My brother-in-law is a hunter and gives us meat when he has spare. I would not describe myself as anti-gun, I am anti-silly.

I think it is silly to murder someone who is trying to steal my property, others may not agree.

None of us know the facts of the case in Thomastown. As a general principle using a gun to defend your property is fraught with problems.
The bad guys take your gun and use it on you.
The bad guys bring their own guns because they know you have one and really want your stuff
The bad guys end up being the meter reader, lost, your girlfriend...

As for defending yourself or your family with deadly force against a genuine threat, I do not consider that taking the law into your own hands. That is self defence as apposed to don't touch my stuff or your dead.

Quite possibly the best post in this thread.

Lotte · 09-10-2014, 01:40 PM

Quote: