Absolute bollocks! (Self defence issue)

**jrandom** · 3rd October 2008, 23:53

Originally Posted by Boob Johnson

... ended with a few vigilante justice delivered tears & we got a pat on the back from the 5-0 when they arrived

Yeah.

I'm guessing the charged shopkeeper might have crossed a few lines vis-a-vis taking out his frustrations on the naughty people's faces with his hockey stick.

Defending yourself and/or restraining crims until the cops arrive is one thing, rearranging their faces with a bat while you wait is another.

**Winston001** · 3rd October 2008, 23:59

Originally Posted by sinfull

If anyone from the age of 10 12 15 20 30 40 came into my home, work or in public for that matter in numbers, armed and with the intention to demand i hand over goods, money, my woman, or anything for that matter I would take my hockey stick and not stop till only one person walked out of there !

Mmmm...I'm with you but compelled to argue the other side. Hard to know what the facts are but so far looks like the fight was outside the shop. The shopkeeper took it to them.

So he wasn't defending his home and hearth, his business, or his wife and kids.

Having said that - just to be rational - I doubt the shopkeeper wandered out on the footpath just for a bit of aggro fun. He believed one of the group had been stealing and frankly I don't blame him for being pissed off and challenging them.

Comes down to this - where do you draw the line?

**Boob Johnson** · 4th October 2008, 00:00

Originally Posted by jrandom

Yeah.

I'm guessing the charged shopkeeper might have crossed a few lines vis-a-vis taking out his frustrations on the naughty people's faces with his hockey stick.

Defending yourself and/or restraining crims until the cops arrive is one thing, rearranging their faces with a bat while you wait is another.

Sure is, the chap we caught got a beating but nothing to the face so it couldn't be seen, gotta be smart about it. Can't say that for the other one though, he came back after the cops left & baited our mate (the owner of the car in question) who just happens to be a small, weedy chap with 10 odd years of kick boxing experience, plenty of stitches required, but thats what these gangster wannabes deserve.

**spudchucka** · 4th October 2008, 05:48

Originally Posted by jrandom

Yeah.

I'm guessing the charged shopkeeper might have crossed a few lines vis-a-vis taking out his frustrations on the naughty people's faces with his hockey stick.

Defending yourself and/or restraining crims until the cops arrive is one thing, rearranging their faces with a bat while you wait is another.

I don't know the circumstances of this latest fiasco but you are correct, there is clearly a cross over point when a "citizen's arrest" becomes an assault with a weapon.

**devnull** · 4th October 2008, 08:02

I reckon that if someone presents a weapon, that's an open invitation for the victim to kill them as quickly as possible

The Herald article is correct - "reasonable force" is too vague.

Defence against a weapon should be "lethal force" - someone brings a knife to a gun fight, too bad. They won't reoffend....

As it stands now, you're better off doing the offender in and NOT involving police.

What a fucked up country we live in....

(As my wife just pointed out - if you can use a car to run the offender down, you're sweet. Might get a little home detention, but not much else...)

**MSTRS:Me** · 4th October 2008, 08:07

Originally Posted by Boob Johnson

... vigilante justice delivered tears ...

Originally Posted by jrandom

...rearranging their faces with a bat ...

How it's delivered matters?
Pick me for the jury (on any case like this)

**Murray** · 4th October 2008, 08:35

Originally Posted by Jantar

So an armed criminal comes into your shop, stabs you and robs you.

There isn't a jury in the land that will find that shop keeper guilty, yet us tax payers will have to foot the bill for his defence and the defence of the criminals.

Not quite right, the shopkeeper will have to pay for his own defence, the little shitbags will probably be at the cost of the taxpayer. Bigtime SUX

**Dooly** · 4th October 2008, 08:38

Madness! But thats the norm now in our PC society.

No doubt there will be public outcry for the Indian bloke, and at the end of the day, he'll end up the loser even if not convicted purely by the crippling legal fees whereas the kids will get QC type legal aid...........

**Murray** · 4th October 2008, 08:38

Originally Posted by Boob Johnson

Apparently one of the shop keepers approached a drunk youth outside the shop that was suspected of stealing (highly likely took place id say), a fight broke out, no doubt started by the guilty party, from there on a im a lil sketchie, but can sure as shit say I would approach & hassle anyone stupid enough to stand out front of my shop with my goods in his pockets as well & if the prick started a brawl, situation dependant, you would defend yourself with whatever you had at your disposal, you wouldn't be human if you didn't defend your own life.

From what I have been led to believe the shopkeeper tried to stop them entering the shop as they were drunk and known shoplifters. Thats when the trouble started and the poor little boys got beat up.

**jrandom** · 4th October 2008, 09:06

Originally Posted by Murray

From what I have been led to believe the shopkeeper tried to stop them entering the shop as they were drunk and known shoplifters. Thats when the trouble started and the poor little boys got beat up.

Well, hmm. There you go. Even if people are drunk and 'known shoplifters', shopkeepers shouldn't be beating them up with hockey sticks outside the shop.

I can see why the cops decided to charge the guy. His actions are understandable, but then all sorts of violent crimes are understandable - doesn't make 'em right.