Just looked up the Self-Defence laws in Queensland
Queensland is the state of Australia in which I reside. It's the second biggest in terms of area, and third-biggest in population. Anyway, they've got one hell of a complicated set of laws on self-defence. Here:
quote:DEFENCE - SELF-DEFENCE
Most people have their own idea about what self-defence is. However, self-defence, under the Queensland Criminal Code, is quite complicated. The defence of self-defence is divided into self-defence against an unprovoked assault, and self-defence against a provoked assault.
Self-defence against an unprovoked assault
A person is lawfully able to use such force as is reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence against an assault which has not been provoked, provided the force is not intended, and is not such as is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. However, if the nature of the assault against the person is such as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of a defence reasonably believes that they cannot defend themselves other than by using force that may cause death or grievous bodily harm, then they are able to use such force.
Self-defence against a provoked assault
This applies when the person who has been charged (and is attempting to raise the defence of self-defence) has initially assaulted or provoked the assault from another person. The defence is only available if that other person who was initially provoked responds with such violence as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. However the defence does not apply if the person seeking to rely on it, first began the assault with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm.
In any other case the defence is not available to an "instigator/provoker".
Aiding in self-defence
A person who is acting in good faith in another person's aid is able to raise self-defence on the same basis as the person who they are aiding and can use a like degree of force for the purpose of defending the person.
Reasonableness
The force used by the person seeking to rely on self-defence must be reasonable. What is reasonable in the circumstances depends on the facts of each case, and is a matter for a jury to decide (or a magistrate, in a Magistrates Court hearing).
Courts recognise that persons defending themselves cannot be expected to weigh up the exact amount of defensive action which is necessary in circumstances where they have to act quickly in a stressful and dangerous situation. The jury (or a magistrate) will give substantial weight to what a person instinctively thought was necessary in determining whether the force used was reasonable.
Onus of proof
Once the person wishing to rely on self-defence raises it, the prosecution, in order to secure a conviction, must satisfy the jury (or magistrate) beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defence does not apply. In other words, if the jury is satisfied that the accused was acting in self-defence, or if the jury is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self defence, then they must find the accused not guilty.
Basically, if you feel that someone's about to try and kill you or put some serious hurt on you, you're allowed to kill them. You're also allowed to help out someone else in danger by using force to protect them. Whether or not the use of deadly force is "reasonable" is determined on a case-by-case basis, with a heavy bias in favour towards the defender, as the courts acknowledge what "instincts" can do to a person's reasonable judgment. The onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not acting in "self-defence" or that their use of force was "unreasonable".
It's a bit complicated, but I think it's fair for the most part. What do you American fellows think?
quote:DEFENCE - SELF-DEFENCE
Most people have their own idea about what self-defence is. However, self-defence, under the Queensland Criminal Code, is quite complicated. The defence of self-defence is divided into self-defence against an unprovoked assault, and self-defence against a provoked assault.
Self-defence against an unprovoked assault
A person is lawfully able to use such force as is reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence against an assault which has not been provoked, provided the force is not intended, and is not such as is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. However, if the nature of the assault against the person is such as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of a defence reasonably believes that they cannot defend themselves other than by using force that may cause death or grievous bodily harm, then they are able to use such force.
Self-defence against a provoked assault
This applies when the person who has been charged (and is attempting to raise the defence of self-defence) has initially assaulted or provoked the assault from another person. The defence is only available if that other person who was initially provoked responds with such violence as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. However the defence does not apply if the person seeking to rely on it, first began the assault with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm.
In any other case the defence is not available to an "instigator/provoker".
Aiding in self-defence
A person who is acting in good faith in another person's aid is able to raise self-defence on the same basis as the person who they are aiding and can use a like degree of force for the purpose of defending the person.
Reasonableness
The force used by the person seeking to rely on self-defence must be reasonable. What is reasonable in the circumstances depends on the facts of each case, and is a matter for a jury to decide (or a magistrate, in a Magistrates Court hearing).
Courts recognise that persons defending themselves cannot be expected to weigh up the exact amount of defensive action which is necessary in circumstances where they have to act quickly in a stressful and dangerous situation. The jury (or a magistrate) will give substantial weight to what a person instinctively thought was necessary in determining whether the force used was reasonable.
Onus of proof
Once the person wishing to rely on self-defence raises it, the prosecution, in order to secure a conviction, must satisfy the jury (or magistrate) beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defence does not apply. In other words, if the jury is satisfied that the accused was acting in self-defence, or if the jury is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self defence, then they must find the accused not guilty.
Basically, if you feel that someone's about to try and kill you or put some serious hurt on you, you're allowed to kill them. You're also allowed to help out someone else in danger by using force to protect them. Whether or not the use of deadly force is "reasonable" is determined on a case-by-case basis, with a heavy bias in favour towards the defender, as the courts acknowledge what "instincts" can do to a person's reasonable judgment. The onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not acting in "self-defence" or that their use of force was "unreasonable".
It's a bit complicated, but I think it's fair for the most part. What do you American fellows think?
0
-
I think that if someone presented a danger to myself or my loved ones, including my dog, there'd be no need to call an ambulance. A janitor armed with a mop and a squeegee would do just fine, proceeded only by the coroner. 0 -
Where I live, if someone is on my property and I believe that they pose a threat, I am justified in using deadly force. If some one tries to break into my car I may use deadly force (the car is considered an extension of my home, therefore I can keep a loaded firearm in it without a permit. If someone enters my home without permission I am also authorized to use deadly force. There is no requirement that I be in fear of my life or serious bodily harm.
Good law [:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
Where I live, if someone is on my property and I believe that they pose a threat, I am justified in using deadly force. If some one tries to break into my car I may use deadly force (the car is considered an extension of my home, therefore I can keep a loaded firearm in it without a permit. If someone enters my home without permission I am also authorized to use deadly force. There is no requirement that I be in fear of my life or serious bodily harm.
Good law [:)]
Not Illinois. you must live in texas.0 -
Not in Colorado, either. Your home, yes. Your car, no, unless you are currently occupying it. IOW, if someone is stealing your car stereo while you're in the house, you cannot use deadly force, unless the car happens to be inside your garage. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by CeeWhy
Queensland is the state of Australia in which I reside. It's the second biggest in terms of area, and third-biggest in population. Anyway, they've got one hell of a complicated set of laws on self-defence. Here:
quote:DEFENCE - SELF-DEFENCE
Most people have their own idea about what self-defence is. However, self-defence, under the Queensland Criminal Code, is quite complicated. The defence of self-defence is divided into self-defence against an unprovoked assault, and self-defence against a provoked assault.
Self-defence against an unprovoked assault
A person is lawfully able to use such force as is reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence against an assault which has not been provoked, provided the force is not intended, and is not such as is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. However, if the nature of the assault against the person is such as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of a defence reasonably believes that they cannot defend themselves other than by using force that may cause death or grievous bodily harm, then they are able to use such force.
Self-defence against a provoked assault
This applies when the person who has been charged (and is attempting to raise the defence of self-defence) has initially assaulted or provoked the assault from another person. The defence is only available if that other person who was initially provoked responds with such violence as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. However the defence does not apply if the person seeking to rely on it, first began the assault with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm.
In any other case the defence is not available to an "instigator/provoker".
Aiding in self-defence
A person who is acting in good faith in another person's aid is able to raise self-defence on the same basis as the person who they are aiding and can use a like degree of force for the purpose of defending the person.
Reasonableness
The force used by the person seeking to rely on self-defence must be reasonable. What is reasonable in the circumstances depends on the facts of each case, and is a matter for a jury to decide (or a magistrate, in a Magistrates Court hearing).
Courts recognise that persons defending themselves cannot be expected to weigh up the exact amount of defensive action which is necessary in circumstances where they have to act quickly in a stressful and dangerous situation. The jury (or a magistrate) will give substantial weight to what a person instinctively thought was necessary in determining whether the force used was reasonable.
Onus of proof
Once the person wishing to rely on self-defence raises it, the prosecution, in order to secure a conviction, must satisfy the jury (or magistrate) beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defence does not apply. In other words, if the jury is satisfied that the accused was acting in self-defence, or if the jury is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self defence, then they must find the accused not guilty.
Basically, if you feel that someone's about to try and kill you or put some serious hurt on you, you're allowed to kill them. You're also allowed to help out someone else in danger by using force to protect them. Whether or not the use of deadly force is "reasonable" is determined on a case-by-case basis, with a heavy bias in favour towards the defender, as the courts acknowledge what "instincts" can do to a person's reasonable judgment. The onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not acting in "self-defence" or that their use of force was "unreasonable".
It's a bit complicated, but I think it's fair for the most part. What do you American fellows think?
I am always suspicious when a law "giving" me the right to defend me and mine has to be so complicated at all the above. Such a right should be much simply described and put down in law. To make it complicated makes me think the writers of the law are just gurdgingly giving me a self-defense right and at the same time are trying to leave loopholes where they can prosecute me.
For example, in red above. If you see small, woman being attacked by a man and you jump to the woman's defense you can STILL find yourself with no legal protection for your action. Reason being in red above in that just perhaps the woman was the orginal attacker (angry wife, ex-wife, girl friend, etc) and had launched her attack with the intention of doing grevious bodily harm or even death to her intended victim.
So if you jump to the defense of some innocent looking and helpless looking person you better make sure that person you are trying to help didn't start the altercation.
JMHO0 -
quote:Originally posted by CeeWhy
Queensland is the state of Australia in which I reside. It's the second biggest in terms of area, and third-biggest in population. Anyway, they've got one hell of a complicated set of laws on self-defence. Here:
quote:DEFENCE - SELF-DEFENCE
Most people have their own idea about what self-defence is. However, self-defence, under the Queensland Criminal Code, is quite complicated. The defence of self-defence is divided into self-defence against an unprovoked assault, and self-defence against a provoked assault.
Self-defence against an unprovoked assault
A person is lawfully able to use such force as is reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence against an assault which has not been provoked, provided the force is not intended, and is not such as is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. However, if the nature of the assault against the person is such as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of a defence reasonably believes that they cannot defend themselves other than by using force that may cause death or grievous bodily harm, then they are able to use such force.
Self-defence against a provoked assault
This applies when the person who has been charged (and is attempting to raise the defence of self-defence) has initially assaulted or provoked the assault from another person. The defence is only available if that other person who was initially provoked responds with such violence as to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. However the defence does not apply if the person seeking to rely on it, first began the assault with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm.
In any other case the defence is not available to an "instigator/provoker".
Aiding in self-defence
A person who is acting in good faith in another person's aid is able to raise self-defence on the same basis as the person who they are aiding and can use a like degree of force for the purpose of defending the person.
Reasonableness
The force used by the person seeking to rely on self-defence must be reasonable. What is reasonable in the circumstances depends on the facts of each case, and is a matter for a jury to decide (or a magistrate, in a Magistrates Court hearing).
Courts recognise that persons defending themselves cannot be expected to weigh up the exact amount of defensive action which is necessary in circumstances where they have to act quickly in a stressful and dangerous situation. The jury (or a magistrate) will give substantial weight to what a person instinctively thought was necessary in determining whether the force used was reasonable.
Onus of proof
Once the person wishing to rely on self-defence raises it, the prosecution, in order to secure a conviction, must satisfy the jury (or magistrate) beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defence does not apply. In other words, if the jury is satisfied that the accused was acting in self-defence, or if the jury is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self defence, then they must find the accused not guilty.
Basically, if you feel that someone's about to try and kill you or put some serious hurt on you, you're allowed to kill them. You're also allowed to help out someone else in danger by using force to protect them. Whether or not the use of deadly force is "reasonable" is determined on a case-by-case basis, with a heavy bias in favour towards the defender, as the courts acknowledge what "instincts" can do to a person's reasonable judgment. The onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not acting in "self-defence" or that their use of force was "unreasonable".
It's a bit complicated, but I think it's fair for the most part. What do you American fellows think?
And what means are you supposed to use, in "self-Defence"?
A piece of pipe? IF you're not allowed to own any firearms, How are you to "DEFEND" ANYTHING??[?]0 -
In Idaho you can shoot them on your doorstep but it's best to then drag them inside. The lesson: don't shoot through the screendoor.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
So if you jump to the defense of some innocent looking and helpless looking person you better make sure that person you are trying to help didn't start the altercation.
Most Aussies' have been around a lot of drunk women, so they should already know that.0 -
quote:And what means are you supposed to use, in "self-Defence"?
A piece of pipe? IF you're not allowed to own any firearms, How are you to "DEFEND" ANYTHING??
What makes you think we don't own guns? About 5.2% of Australian adults own firearms. Only thing is that we can't carry them on us and you can't own semiautomatic longarms unless you're a farmer or professional culler (semiautomatic pistols, though, are A-OK).
Anyway, self-defence in the street? Well, not all self-defence requires the use of firearms - in many cases, Australians defend themselves with their bare hands. The police website recommend taking self-defence courses and to use absolutely anything within arm's reach as a weapon (this includes beer bottles, discarded needles, keys, anything). Indeed, many court cases where the legal defence of "Self Defence" is used, the "weapon" used by the defendant is their bare fists (quite a few news stories recently about how some people have killed others in self-defence with a single punch).
quote:For example, in red above. If you see small, woman being attacked by a man and you jump to the woman's defense you can STILL find yourself with no legal protection for your action. Reason being in red above in that just perhaps the woman was the orginal attacker (angry wife, ex-wife, girl friend, etc) and had launched her attack with the intention of doing grevious bodily harm or even death to her intended victim.
That "loophole", as you call it, only applies when the defendant themselves was the instigator. If the defendant came across a situation like what you described, I doubt there'd be problems. Of course, I might have to talk to a police officer or lawyer to check...0 -
It says that if you assist someone who is being attacked (or you think is innocently being attacked) you have the same right of defense as the person whom you are helping. So if you accidently help a woman who is being attacked by a man, but the man is only responding in self-defense from an attack orginally launched by the woman, then neither you nor the woman could claim self-defense. I.E. you would now both be considered to be an "attacker" (you and the woman) even though you thought you were a defender.
JMHO0 -
As I said, I'm going to have looked into by an officer or, at the very least, someone more qualified than me in the knowledge of Australian law. 0 -
About 5.2% of Australian adults own firearms.
That my friend, is a CRYING SHAME!
That leaves 94.8% of adult Australians UNARMED !!![:0][B)][:0]
I PRAY!!! That NEVER HAPPENS HERE!!0 -
On the face of it, it sounds fair.
But consider this, what are the odds of a 92 pound Grandma successfully defending herself against a 200+ pound strongarm robbery?
Without Colonel Colt to make them equal, the odds are pretty long.
Therefore, the premise of self defense in Queensland, and all of Australia, is at a disadvantage. Therefore, it cannot possibly be fair.0 -
Well, I asked some people more experienced than me, and apparently, there's some sort of "good samaritan law" which exempts people from liability if they're helping someone in good faith, but end up doing harm, so long as whatever questionable action taken by the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances. This applies to a variety of areas, from self-defence to first aid.
Also, here's something else to think about. Let's say the scenario goes like this:
Woman attacks man with what appears to be deadly force
Man retaliates, begins to beat up the woman
You happen across the scene
You try to break up the fight using less-lethal force (eg. try to forcibly separate the two, etc.)
Man strikes back at you with what appears to be lethal force
You defend yourself with lethal force
You kill the man
In this case... You're actually going to claim self-defence rather than defence of others. Why? Well, when you broke the two up, you provoked an assault without the intent to kill, but the assault provoked did involve potentially lethal force, so you were justified in retaliating with full lethal force against this provoked assault.
This state's legislation is really, really confusing.0 -
quote:Originally posted by CeeWhy
This state's legislation is really, really confusing.
That's one thing you have in common with the United States and most everywhere else. It's not unintentional. Laws are written by lawyers for lawyers.0 -
australia lacks alot of certain types of people who are known to cause crimes in other countries. australia is safe. australia is 92% white 0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
On the face of it, it sounds fair.
But consider this, what are the odds of a 92 pound Grandma successfully defending herself against a 200+ pound strongarm robbery?
Without Colonel Colt to make them equal, the odds are pretty long.
Therefore, the premise of self defense in Queensland, and all of Australia, is at a disadvantage. Therefore, it cannot possibly be fair.
The above pretty much defines the situation in a few words. No need to even think about it further.0 -
In Florida you cant just "Think" or "Believe" someone is a threat, they "Must" be a threat in order to use deadly force.
I would look silly shooting someone that came up my driveway bringing me a rifle or pistol to fix for em. Gee officer "I believe he was going to shoot me"..
One must use common sense and good judgement before applying the "Castle Doctrine" law here in Florida. Cant shoot a person just cause they are on your property and make Idle threats. Those threats must be apparent that they intend to carry them out..0 -
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
In Florida you cant just "Think" or "Believe" someone is a threat, they "Must" be a threat in order to use deadly force.
I would look silly shooting someone that came up my driveway bringing me a rifle or pistol to fix for em. Gee officer "I believe he was going to shoot me"..
One must use common sense and good judgement before applying the "Castle Doctrine" law here in Florida. Cant shoot a person just cause they are on your property and make Idol threats. Those threats must be apparent that they intend to carry them out..
Intent, ability, and opportunity is the rule of thumb.0 -
Australian laws sound more generous than I expected. 0 -
Greetings,
Here in Florida we have a law known as the "Castle Doctrine". Citizens are allowed to protect their person and property with deadly force if necessary. Its a good law and is but one of the many reasons I like living here.
No state income tax and it doesent get "bone busting" cold are two more !
Machinist Mate 1ST Class, United States Navy, (Retired)0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
21 comments