A guy here in NZ shot a guy who was trying to rob his gun shop with a machete

How do you shoot someone with a machette?

How do you shoot someone with a machette?

Lol, the robber had the machette, the shop owner had the gun.

Edited June 27, 200719 yr by Flukey

I think when defending yourself/family/property, you are allowed to use "reasonable" force.

If the guy was being attacked with rocks as the article reports, returning gun fire is probably deemed unreasonable, hence the charges against him.

shoulda waited for them to be inside. I think the police charging him is a good thing, but if he's convicted then I dont agree. I believe if the guy was really protecting his family then good on him but what happens if he was some drug dealer who was getting robbed, does it justify shooting, im not sure. Being charged will give everone time to put their case foward.

This Briefing Paper examines the major legal considerations at issue in the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill 1995. Under the Bill, it is declared that it is public policy of this State that its citizens have a right to enjoy absolute safety from attack within their home from intruders. To this end, in certain circumstances, immunity from criminal liability would be granted to an occupant who used physical force, or even deadly physical force, in defence of that right. In particular, therefore, the Bill has raised the question of whether the common law provides adequately at present for the defence of self-defence where the use of deadly force by the occupant is at issue. The main points of the Briefing Paper include:

at present the common law recognises the rights of victims of home invasions to use 'reasonable force' in self-defence (page 4);

the occupant would have to demonstrate that he or she behaved reasonably on both an objective and a subjective view; otherwise the defence of self-defence would fail (page 4);

the leading case is Zecevic v DPP (Victoria) (1987) 162 CLR 645 in which the High Court held that both subjective and objective reasonableness were relevant to the defence of self-defence in all cases, including murder (page 4);

reasonableness in the context of the use of force in self-defence has two key elements: necessity and proportionality. Thus, the occupant would have to believe on reasonable grounds that it was necessary to use force in self-defence and the force used would have to be proportional to the threat posed by the intruder (page 7);

allowance would be made for the fact that the occupant's decision was made under stress (page 5);

in Zecevic it was held that 'A killing which is done in self-defence is done with justification or excuse and is not unlawful, though it be done with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm'; that is, where murder is concerned it is clear that reasonable force may encompass deadly force (page 7);

it is suggested, tentatively, that clause 7 of the Bill (Use of force) reflects the common law approach to the use of deadly force in self-defence. Although a difference of degree or proportion exists in that clause 7 enables a home occupant to respond to the threat of physical force (not specifically deadly physical force) with deadly physical force (page 9);

however, again tentatively, it is suggested that clause 10(b) of the Bill (Limitations on use of deadly physical force) may, in addition, provides a different and less stringent test where the use of deadly physical force is concerned. What seems to be contemplated under clause 10(b) is that, if an occupant can be shown to have acted reasonably according to his or her subjective assessment of the relevant circumstances, then the occupant would be acquitted altogether. This appears to be similar to the pre-Zecevic position at common law, as enunciated in Viro v R (1978) 141 CLR 88, only in Viro the subjective test of reasonableness allowed the charge of murder to be reduced to manslaughter. Clause 10(b) would also seem to reflect the common law position generally on the use of force in self-defence in England and Wales, as well as under the Tasmanian Criminal Code (page 9);

clause 12 of the Bill (Immunity from criminal liability) may re-order the chronology of the criminal trial in a way that could place greater evidential burdens on the defence of the occupant (page 11);

on a comparative note, both the Tasmanian Criminal Code and the common law in England and Wales provide that the force used in self-defence must be objectively reasonable but, in contrast to Zecevic, the test is subjective to the extent that the force used is to be judged on the circumstances as the accused honestly believed them to be. In South Australia the force used in self-defence need only be subjectively reasonable; further, if death has resulted and the force used was 'grossly' unreasonable and accompanied by 'criminal negligence', an accused 'may' be convicted of manslaughter, but not of murder (page 17);

in both the Western Australia and Queensland Criminal Codes specific provision is made for the defence of a dwelling; there is no restriction on the degree of force which may be used, as long as it is believed on reasonable grounds to be necessary. Section 83 of the Queensland Criminal Code 1995 explains in detail the meaning of the 'objective concept of reasonable force, act or belief' for this purpose (pages 18-20);

with regard to the issue of the occupier's civil liability to an intruder, it appears that at common law, in relation to the criminal trespasser, the courts would be reluctant to impose any burden on the occupier whose fault was regarded as one of omission; however, the situation may be less clear cut where the occupier's fault was regarded as one of commission, as in the case of Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614 (page 25); and

the Bill goes some way towards codifying the law as regards an occupier's immunity from civil liability to a criminal trespasser. The Bill's treatment of the issue has four components:

(I) under clause 14 absolute immunity is given to the occupier of a dwelling house who does not use any level of force against an intruder who has unlawfully entered the premises for the purpose of committing a crime therein;

(ii) also under clause 14 qualified immunity, depending on the existence of certain aggravating circumstances, is given on the same basis where the intruder has unlawfully entered onto the 'grounds and land' of the dwelling house to commit a crime;

(iii) under clause 13(1) conditional immunity is given where the occupier does use physical force or deadly physical force, as long as its use was justified under the proposed Act, which means that no criminal liability attaches to the occupant; and

(iv) under clause 13(2) in any civil proceedings a positive evidential burden is placed on the occupant to justify his or her conduct on the balance of probabilities. This would appear to reverse the present position where the criminal trespasser would bear the onus in any civil proceedings of proving breach of duty and a causal connection between the breach and the injury (page 27).

To put it in a nutshell !

WTF is with the blue type....

Wonder what happened prior to the incident and why they were trying to gain entry.....

There might be more too it. Shooting through a door could be considered reckless. Imagine if you were driving past in a car and copped a bullet in the side of the head.

While the guy was protecting his family, he should have waited for a clear shot and blowen the perps away. He would not have been charged for shooting a crim, but I think it was the way he shot, rather than him actually shooting.

I agree, reckless here is the keyword. The shooter hasnt turned his mind to the fact or considered the other possibilities of his actions and this would be the primes reason he has been charged.

It doesnt appear he was defending himself from immediate attack with no other options available to him.

WTF is with the blue type....

It's not blue it's Blueprint !

wtf next thing you know the intruders will sue this guy for damages!! whats the world coming to...

NSW have changed the laws and he would not be charged here. Should have shot the pricks dead. Bloody poor guy in Castle hill was beaten to death while he was asleep with his wife in a home invasion.