You can still use force, not kill them if property is all that is in issue.
.......
I was referring to the wording of the clause you posted more than the words you used. But now I will refer to your words in relation to the legislation.
My reading of that clause is it only applies in circumstances of self defence. The heading alone makes that clear, as well as the content. Both (1) and (2) are specific about self defence. So if a person did not believe they needed to defend themselves, then this section is not relevant. There is nothing in there that says reasonable force to protect property is acceptable.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:28:35 PM
Yes, your interpretation may be that. Unfortunately for you, that interpretation is totally incorrect. It is written in plain English. I cant be any clearer.
Is your avatar a description of being geographically lost or cerebrally?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:52:23 PM
DMaxer, I will refer you to the thread " Anyone know what happen to a GN member know as denmonkey?"
Answers like yours are exactly the reason for Landy's comment about " Your right Magnarc we are not getting many popcorn threads these days. I used to be entertained for a considerable time reading the various discussions and opinions each night, but now I have normally moved on again in a few minutes".
This forum has changed from a supportive and happy place to one of sniping at everyone to the point where no one will post for fear becoming the butt of some nasty comment.
I think you will find that my original reply was to correct a comment suggesting that people are powerless to stop attacks on their person or theft or damage to their property.
Despite posting the specific legislation one poster continued to make totally baseless comments even though another poster also referred him to the legislation.
I concluded that he was just winding people up and responded accordingly.
I am sorry if I upset you.
Perhaps if some people didnt use this forum to peddle erroneous opinions then it may revert to what it once was.
i didn't say that at all. You cannot intentionally kill them or intend serious harm. You can still use force, not kill them if property is all that is in issue.
Ever thought about a remedial reading course or a trip to Specsavers?
Just read the section, it is there in black and white.
I can feel a severe case of ilithiophobia coming on.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I note that you have used the word ilithiophobia before, does it make you feel just a tiny bit superior? Everyone has an opinion on various things and they are not always correct, but they have a right to express them in a free country. (Least it used to be, not so sure nowadays).
Your posts are based on the current laws so I bend the knee to their accuracy, but I will continue to voice my opinions right or wrong. Lighten up DMaxer and be more tolerant with those of us that you perceive to be of lesser intelligence, for without the likes of us, there would be nothing much for you to say.
PS. I sincerely hope that the ilithiophobia is not terminal.
-- Edited by Magnarc on Sunday 24th of August 2025 08:13:30 AM
What does ilithiophobia mean?
A strong and persistent intolerance of stupidity
New Word Suggestion. A strong and persistent intolerance of stupidity. Additional Information. Ilithiophobia is a neologism (recently constructed word) from the greek ilithios (stupidity) and phobos (fear).
You were the one that questioned why that law regarding defending yourself and property did not apply here, Magnarc and you got my answer correcting your baseless statement.
It is not just the current law, it is the law that has applied in English and then Australian law for hundreds of years.
It does not make me feel superior in the slightest but I think it is wrong if posters make ill informed statements in an attempt to promote their own views.
If I posted an incorrect statement about a subject of which I had no idea or experience I am sure that other posters would soon correct me. It does not make me feel nor do I try to act superior. It is just an area in which I have had considerable experience. Besides you and a couple of others getting their noses out of joint, I think the majority would be pleased to know of their actual rights instead of being worried that they had no legal redress if a situation arose.
As far as using a term I have used in the past, so what. I am sure that a number of other posters have been afflicted by it as well after reading some of the tripe that gets posted from time to time. I am sure that they are pleased that they now know they are not alone in suffering the same phobia.
I will leave it at that.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 24th of August 2025 11:18:58 AM
It is not just the current law, it is the law that has applied in English and then Australian law for hundreds of years.
Not quite.
The UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 inserted the word "grossly" before the word "disproportionate" in relation to the force a householder may use - this makes a world of difference if defending your home against intruders. Australian law does not afford this courtesy to people whose family are about to be raped or beaten in their own home.
The legal system is generally adversarial.
That is two or more lawyers fighting a case in a court before a judge and or jury.
Sometimes people disagree with the judge or jurys decision and go through an appeals process. Sometimes more than once.
Sometimes the appeal is successful and sometimes not.
In here, instead of being insulting, just agree to disagree.
There was an advert on TV tonight for a Current Affair this coming Monday night.
It showed what looked to be a really decent family living in fear of hooded criminals in their street at night.
In the local supermarket today I had one of the state's finest criminals in the line behind me with a few of his cohorts.
He would be out on, at a conservative guess around his 20th plus release from the local revolving door as it is known.
My first thought was, I wonder who is going to cop a late night break in this week?
I had a tight grip on my mobile phone and had to sneak my visa card out of view for fear of a snatch and run they are well known for.
One of his cohorts pulled a knife on a mate of ours about two months ago.
They all would have been carrying today.
His son would be due for release soon after killing two kids a few years ago.
Again, I question why we have to live in a society alongside the scum of the earth.
A Current Affair on Monday will no doubt ask the same question, but nothing ever seems to change.
DMaxer, whether my opinions are right or wrong is hardly the point.
The point is that everyone has their opinions on things and they have the right to express them. It's called a forum! If you disagree then it"s your right to say so, but it does not give you the right to suggest that folks are stupid just because they do not agree with you. Those sort of comments do you no credit.
Much better to confine any browbeating of your opponents to the courthouse.
When the actual legislation is shown to a person written in plain simple English and after reading it then proffer an opposing view despite the factually correct answer right in front of them.
How would you describe that opinion.
What about if a person makes statements, not gives an opinion, based on nothing but their own misinformation.
How would you describe that.