Self-defense options and needs from around the world

[Forever_target]

I think "Choose you that play, the more you reduce enemy".

 

[John Fedup]

Not sure if this is the best thread for this article but I’ll post it here. It appears ammunition production hasn’t kept up with soaring gun sales in the US. Even police forces are affected. Big price increases for some calibers, especially 9 mm, $14 to $50 for a box of 50 shells. The article doesn’t mention military calibers being affected.

The Great Ammo Shortage Is Now Impacting Police Depts.

Small police departments across the country are also now be impacted by what has become a historic ammo shortage.

www.19fortyfive.com

 

[ASSAIL]

In Australia it is legal to defend yourself within reason using what ever you have at hand but it pretty much illegal to carry a weapon or something that could be used as a weapon with the express purpose of defending yourself. This is unless of course you are a member of an outlaw motor cycle gang, or criminal gang of any sort, in which case you can fit mini guns and RPGs to you gangster mobile, use them on suburban streets and if the police happen to pull you over they will be forced to appologise for being racially/culturally/socio-economically insenitive.

In Australia your response to an attack or home invasion has to be “proportionate”. If a knucklehead enters your home with a baseball bat you will be charged if you shoot them with a gun. It’s up to the judicial system to determine proportionality.

 

[Todjaeger]

In Australia your response to an attack or home invasion has to be “proportionate”. If a knucklehead enters your home with a baseball bat you will be charged if you shoot them with a gun. It’s up to the judicial system to determine proportionality.

A "proportionate" response is generally required in the US as well, though there are a few specific variations and/or exceptions. Also what is considered to be "proportionate" is based off existing statutes and case law, with the ultimate decisions being made either by the respective prosecutor's office or jury in a criminal trial.

In most US states, some variation of what is known as the Castle Clause doctrine exists which permits the use of deadly force against an intruder. As I understand it, the proportionality of the force permitted following a forced entry/home invasion is based off the premise that any/all such intruders are ready, willing and able to use serious and/or deadly force against those whose home has been invaded/had forcible entry to. This has also since been extended in many jurisdictions to include personal automobiles, permitted the use of deadly force in the event of a carjacking or attempted carjacking.

There are a few other things involving "proportionate" responses in most US jurisdictions. The first being that there are essentially lists of items/implements which are considered to "up the ante. In the example @ASSAIL made above, the person had a baseball bat which falls into being categorized as a deadly weapon, and the use of deadly force against someone so armed is usually considered proportionate.

One of the other things involving proportionate responses is the condition of the victim/would-be victim. There are some people who have chronic medical conditions so that what would normally be classified as simple assault or a similar type misdemeanor crime could, for them, have serious and/or fatal outcomes. For these people, they can use deadly force to protect themselves, albeit they are more likely to have to go deeper in the the legal system in the event that they had to take action.

An example of someone in this sort of situation was a man I knew who had suffered kidney failure and had to undergo dialysis regularly. He was largely able to go out and engage in normal daily activities, but he also had to always be aware of how he was much more prone to injury and injuries were far more serious. If he were to get mugged by someone, a punch in the abdomen or head could easily be fatal.

Now if someone were to ask the question of what is a "fair" standard for proportionate response, I would have to answer with, "how long is a piece of string..."

 

[King Wally]

In Australia your response to an attack or home invasion has to be “proportionate”. If a knucklehead enters your home with a baseball bat you will be charged if you shoot them with a gun. It’s up to the judicial system to determine proportionality.

In Australia our self defence laws are a total JOKE. You need to be VERY careful as even in defence of your own home you can be successfully convicted of manslaughter. This case was from last month.

Sydney man Blake Davis jailed for samurai sword killing of rapper Jett McKee - ABC News
My impression of the story was as follows
- Wanna-be rapper cranked up to the eye-balls on ICE breaks into a aussie home with a replica gun and steel knuckles
- The Thug punches the man and threatens his girlfriend taking her purse
- The boyfriend runs to grab his trusty Samurai Sword
- Thug makes a break for it escaping
- Boyfriend chases him up the street to get the girlfriends bag back
- Boyfriend confronts thug on street (who is still wielding replica gun) striking him with the sword killing him
- Boyfriend charged and convicted of manslaughter and now sentenced to 5 years in jail

We really need to fix our system.... I get that the boyfriend shouldn't have chased the guy but the legal system gives very little empathy to what it must be like to be assaulted and have your life threatened in your own home.

 

[OPSSG]

@King Wally, while I do share some similar concerns with you on the issue of proportionality, in law (when it comes to a home invasion), and have read the excellent link you provided, I suspect that there may be certain specific aggravating factors that led the prosecution to decide to charge Blake Davis.

I don’t have the case details from the judgment — but I suspect that it’s well worth your time to look it up to confirm your view. Based on your linked article, the couple went on the run after Bake struck down the Wanna-be rapper; which is behaviour that is not consistent with a self-defence claim.

This next point is speculative: it could well be that the police suspect that Blake Davis is an alleged drug dealer, and his killing of the Wanna-be rapper has other motives (eg. like a drug deal gone wrong) — that the police are unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[King Wally]

@King Wally, while I do share some similar concerns with you on the issue of proportionality, in law (when it comes to a home invasion), and have read the excellent link you provided, I suspect that there may be certain specific aggravating factors that led the prosecution to decide to charge Blake Davis.

I don’t have the case details from the judgment — but I suspect that it’s well worth your time to look it up to confirm your view. Based on your linked article, the couple went on the run after Bake struck down the Wanna-be rapper; which is behaviour that is not consistent with a self-defence claim.

A fair point. Indeed, the boyfriend did go on the run and I concur, it hurt his case badly. It could also allude to further conclusions....

All in all, just be careful if you live down here in Aussie-land. Going all Rambo and running out onto your driveway to attack someone steeling your car for example is the type of thing that will get you charged here. Jail time always a possibility.

 

[CB90]

A fair point. Indeed, the boyfriend did go on the run and I concur, it hurt his case badly. It could also allude to further conclusions....

All in all, just be careful if you live down here in Aussie-land. Going all Rambo and running out onto your driveway to attack someone steeling your car for example is the type of thing that will get you charged here. Jail time always a possibility.

It’s not that different in the US.

If you go out onto the street to defend your car, unless the thief actually presents a weapon, you’re going to have a hard time justifying shooting somebody. A few states may be a bit more...permissive, but it’s generally not done.

In your house proper, different story. Most states will give a fairly broad benefit of the doubt if the shooting was due to a home invasion.

 

[Todjaeger]

It’s not that different in the US.

If you go out onto the street to defend your car, unless the thief actually presents a weapon, you’re going to have a hard time justifying shooting somebody. A few states may be a bit more...permissive, but it’s generally not done.

In your house proper, different story. Most states will give a fairly broad benefit of the doubt if the shooting was due to a home invasion.

Provided the shooting was inside the home, yes. If it occurred outside the home/after the home invasion, things can get a bit different. If the shooter actually engaged in pursuit of the perpetrator, things get even more different.

Honestly I would expect a similar result in a US court.