Home owner Charge with Murder after man breaks into his home

This is in Australia, and i just cant believe the owners being charged.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-dies-...ng-detained-by-homeowner-20160327-gnruib.html

 

Seems logical: Strong anti gun legislation ==> No right to defend property / privacy ==> You'll go to jail if you try.

I just hope this nonsense doesn't come to the US. They're trying tho.

 

The article says nothing about guns, just the homeowner and his friend overpowered the burglar and hold him until police arrived. And later the burglar died.

 

I know it didn't. It wasn't my point. Australia has one of the strongest anti-gun laws. If you look throughout the history any country with a strong anti-gun law strips their citizens the right to defend themselves (by default). When the citizens have no legal right to defend themselves (in the eyes of the government) stupid things like that article describes will happen. But if you believe that being charged with a murder after apprehending a burglar in your home, tackling him and in the process killing him is the right thing for the legal system to do, then you and I have two opposite views on the government's involvement into the lives of its citizens.

 

Just can't see the link to the guns you see there, but otherwise, unless they did something sick and the guy just died because they punch him or whatever, they should go free - no disagreement there at all.

 

If you ever have time to read this article: http://capitalismmagazine.com/1998/06/gun-control-and-the-right-to-self-defense/ it shows what anti-gun laws and the overreaching involvement of the government does to the rights of the citizens to defend themselves. It's all really as old as the earth itself.

What happens in the societies where their people are stripped off of the right to self-defense (using guns) goes something like this:

"...if you take the punishment of the criminal into your own hands subsequent to a crime, then you are a vigilante. Vigilantism is appropriately outlawed in civil society - the power of punishment is rightfully delegated to the government".

In the OP's article the government is now saying to the home owner: "You sir acted recklessly. After all, your life was no longer in danger, yet you still punished the burglar and he died as a result". It's all done under the pretense of "We are now a civil society!" They are setting a huge precedent there, by the way.

"In today’s society — one that is ruled by pragmatism and collectivism — any initial program of gun control will eventually result in a complete abdication of our rights to gun ownership, and by implication, to self-defense."

 

The merry old Orwellian land of Oz. Nothing new. When carrying weapons becomes a crime, when defending oneself, and one's family and property becomes a crime, then of course the actual act of defending becomes one as well. But talk about blaming the victim. Sheesh.

 

'Excessive force' is a term used to charge people who defend their homes/themselves against an intruder. Thieves, burglars, intruders are so emboldened by the way that the law can be used to their own ends that a home owner can even be sued for having 'dangerous' items (like fencing that is too sharp or glass on top of walls or even fierce dogs) the purposes of which is to keep intruders out. At this rate, a home owner could, soon, be sued for having polished floors and rugs that cause an intruder to slip and break his limbs/neck whilst attempting to escape.

One's home is no longer one's castle. The pendulum has swung so far that now victims have cause to fear the law more than the criminals.

In the UK, we have strict gun laws (thank goodness) so that guns are not readily available. Those that are, are owned by licensed people (police, military, farmers or collectors who have to have a licence for each gun) and, of course, hardened criminals.