Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Topic: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments (Read 3705 times) previous topic - next topic

Lods and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #30 – October 23, 2025, 10:13:10 am

The abstracts and summaries of studies I've read indicate that guns in the home don't actually make people safer, and create an increased risk of injury and fatalities unrelated to intruders.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #31 – October 23, 2025, 10:50:17 am

Quote from: PaulP – on October 23, 2025, 10:13:10 am

The abstracts and summaries of studies I've read indicate that guns in the home don't actually make people safer, and create an increased risk of injury and fatalities unrelated to intruders.

My “Client interaction and defensive tactics” instructor warned against using weapons in a home invasion situation. He said that weapons generally ended up in the intruder’s hands and were used against the innocent party.

I have firearms at my place. If I wanted to use one for self defence I would have to retrieve the keys from a key safe, go to the gun safe and unlock it, take out my weapon of choice, unlock the ammunition storage safe, get the right ammunition and load the firearm. I generally can’t manage that in time to get a shot at the foxes that occasionally visit.

Our security service sign and “caution - dogs on premises” sign probably mean that I won’t have to decide about trying to retrieve a firearm.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #32 – October 23, 2025, 12:23:41 pm

Quote from: DJC – on October 23, 2025, 10:50:17 am

Our security service sign and “caution - dogs on premises” sign probably mean that I won’t have to decide about trying to retrieve a firearm.

These are the two important and under-rated aspects of security.

People install home alarms systems and cameras, then refuse to put up the signs provided by the security companies because they are "ugly". But the hard truth is the sign is a huge part of the deterrent, and it works.

The equal best option is a medium to large dog, small dogs are useless for defence and might only be marginally useful as an alert.

Years ago a relative was heavily involved in the first use of police dogs in Victoria, he could never understand why the program wasn't expanded more widely and faster. It was so successful when it first rolled out he had expected dogs to eventually be paired with every patrol. Unfortunately, opportunistic lawyers got involved and started suing the police for injuries incurred while resisting arrest.

If people want to have private security patrols in the local area, security with dogs is a much better deterrent than security with guns. A gun can only be used when in safe range, dogs can run someone down from hundreds of meters away, you can't hide from them, and they won't go through a wall or window and kill an innocent bystander!

When you watch a protest, the protesters harass mounted police, butt cigarettes on horses, throw projectiles at them, when the dogs are present the protesters give them a wide berth.

Finally, there are some specific cultural demographics that courtesy of long standing epigenetics are thoroughly petrified of dogs.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #33 – October 23, 2025, 12:35:05 pm

Be careful,vid your dog bites an intruder can't you be charged with assault by a dangerous animal of some such rubbish? Crazy world we live in

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #34 – October 23, 2025, 12:37:55 pm

Quote from: Professer E – on October 23, 2025, 12:35:05 pm

Be careful,vid your dog bites an intruder can't you be charged with assault by a dangerous animal of some such rubbish? Crazy world we live in

If you chase them out of your house and they trip and fall, they will claim injury and you'll be charged with assault and battery. The problem isn't really the crook or the law, the problem is the crooked lawyer.

So you might as well let the dog finish the job!

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #35 – October 23, 2025, 01:19:58 pm

Quote from: Professer E – on October 23, 2025, 12:35:05 pm

Be careful,vid your dog bites an intruder can't you be charged with assault by a dangerous animal of some such rubbish? Crazy world we live in

Incorrect.

If your dog bites someone, it is a defence if that person was (a) trespassing, (b) attacking you or (c) teasing or harming the dog.

My two are more likely to lick than bite but their very large size tends to intimidate people who don't know them.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #36 – October 23, 2025, 02:58:45 pm

I recall a couple of years ago a father choked out an intruder in his house and he faced no charges??

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #37 – October 23, 2025, 02:59:15 pm

And the intruder died.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #38 – October 23, 2025, 03:42:37 pm

Council advised us we have to erect and maintain signage at our property saying we have a Dog and the signage has to visible from the entrance to the property. We also asked our lawyers a while back when attending to another matter and they said while not breaking any laws or being enforceable its advisable to have clear signage and the Dog restricted to the back yard.
Problem we have that being a very large male German Shepherd our dog while not classified officially as a dangerous dog is stereotyped as an aggressive breed and has less leeway if an incident was to occur and we have to be very careful with him.
In Victoria the law states:
The law expects you to act proportionately to the threat and stop using force once it’s no longer necessary.
However, once the threat is over—say, the intruders run away—it’s not lawful to chase after them and attack like a dog would do. The law expects you to act proportionately to the threat and stop using force once it’s no longer necessary.
Which in the case of Dogs becomes a grey area, if there is no one home, your little Maltese terrier or plump lab is probably going to have a nip at the intruder then call it a day but a GS, Rottie, Doberman, Akita etc are going to keep going until the intruder escapes or either subdues the dog or the reverse...
Any severe or fatal injuries is probably going to end up badly for the dog especially if the intruder was unarmed or under adult age plus you could be facing a civil suit with claims against you for owning and training a dangerous animal.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #39 – October 23, 2025, 04:20:47 pm

Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on October 23, 2025, 03:42:37 pm

Council advised us we have to erect and maintain signage at our property saying we have a Dog and the signage has to visible from the entrance to the property. We also asked our lawyers a while back when attending to another matter and they said while not breaking any laws or being enforceable its advisable to have clear signage and the Dog restricted to the back yard.
Problem we have that being a very large male German Shepherd our dog while not classified officially as a dangerous dog is stereotyped as an aggressive breed and has less leeway if an incident was to occur and we have to be very careful with him.
In Victoria the law states:
The law expects you to act proportionately to the threat and stop using force once it’s no longer necessary.
However, once the threat is over—say, the intruders run away—it’s not lawful to chase after them and attack like a dog would do. The law expects you to act proportionately to the threat and stop using force once it’s no longer necessary.
Which in the case of Dogs becomes a grey area, if there is no one home, your little Maltese terrier or plump lab is probably going to have a nip at the intruder then call it a day but a GS, Rottie, Doberman, Akita etc are going to keep going until the intruder escapes or either subdues the dog or the reverse...
Any severe or fatal injuries is probably going to end up badly for the dog especially if the intruder was unarmed or under adult age plus you could be facing a civil suit with claims against you for owning and training a dangerous animal.

Makes sense and fair enough.

There is an element of responsibility for those of us who own a large dog with strong protective instincts. Recipe for disaster when a big dog is owned by irresponsible folks.

Our gal has been socialized, trained and came from a reputable breeder. I believe her bark and/or presence at any window is plenty of a deterrent. And a deterrent is far better than anything that is a step further. Our critter even qualified sufficiently to have our home and contents insurance costs reduced to the same as if we had an alarm system!

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #40 – October 23, 2025, 04:51:49 pm

The Domestic Animals Act 1994 defines dangerous dogs and restricted breeds. Restricted breeds are the Japanese Tosa, fila Brasileiro, dogo Argentino, Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario), and American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier). A dangerous dog is a dog that has been declared dangerous by the local Council, a dog that is, or has been, a guard dog for the purpose of guarding non-residential premises, or a dog that has been trained to attack or bite any person (or the protective sleeve worn when training guard dogs).

If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed "attacks or bites any person or animal" or "causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal" or "rushes at or chases any person" the owner of the dog and/or the person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence. However, the Act specifies that "it is a defence to that offence if the incident occurred because—
   (a)   the dog was being teased, abused or assaulted; or
   (b)   a person was trespassing on the premises on which the dog was kept; or
   (c)   another animal was on the premises on which the dog was kept; or
   (d)   a person known to the dog was being attacked in front of the dog."

There's no "grey area" and the provisions of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 are completely separate from the "self-defence" provisions set out in the Crimes Act 1958:

Section 322K
1. A person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
2. A person carries out conduct in self-defence if –
1. The person believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence; and
2. The conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.

Section 322M adds specific provisions for self-defence in a family violence situation.

As an example, it would be lawful to choke someone who attacked you with a knife and there's no requirement to stop choking them provided that you believe that it's the only way to stop them stabbing you.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #41 – October 23, 2025, 08:31:51 pm

Quote from: LP – on October 23, 2025, 12:37:55 pm

Quote from: Professer E – on October 23, 2025, 12:35:05 pm
Be careful,vid your dog bites an intruder can't you be charged with assault by a dangerous animal of some such rubbish? Crazy world we live in
If you chase them out of your house and they trip and fall, they will claim injury and you'll be charged with assault and battery. The problem isn't really the crook or the law, the problem is the crooked lawyer.

Thats a bit of a myth me thinks.
I do know of a business owner (and state level rifle shooter) who shot an intruder (wounded him the leg) who broke into his High St Northcote business in the 80s. Got off those chargers IIRC. Years later, was broken into again, again he shot the intruder in the leg but did some time for the second offence.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #42 – October 23, 2025, 10:09:58 pm

Quote from: Gointocarlton – on October 23, 2025, 08:31:51 pm

Thats a bit of a myth me thinks.
I do know of a business owner (and state level rifle shooter) who shot an intruder (wounded him the leg) who broke into his High St Northcote business in the 80s. Got off those chargers IIRC. Years later, was broken into again, again he shot the intruder in the leg but did some time for the second offence.

That's almost 50 years ago, and I've had a couple of encounters with a bloke called Pat Lennon that suggests otherwise.

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #43 – October 24, 2025, 12:20:04 am

Quote from: LP – on October 23, 2025, 10:09:58 pm

Quote from: Gointocarlton – on October 23, 2025, 08:31:51 pm
Thats a bit of a myth me thinks.
I do know of a business owner (and state level rifle shooter) who shot an intruder (wounded him the leg) who broke into his High St Northcote business in the 80s. Got off those chargers IIRC. Years later, was broken into again, again he shot the intruder in the leg but did some time for the second offence.
That's almost 50 years ago, and I've had a couple of encounters with a bloke called Pat Lennon that suggests otherwise.

The law hasn’t changed LP.

As long as you believe that you’re in strife and use appropriate force to defend yourself, you’re fine.

A smallish woman being attacked by a large bloke can use whatever means she has to defend herself. A large bloke being attacked by an old woman can’t shoot or stab her.

You can’t be charged with “assault and battery” if someone trips over. For a start, battery is now considered as assault and would have to involve the application of unlawful force.

Can you give an example of a crook who successfully sued someone after tripping over?

Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments

Reply #44 – October 24, 2025, 04:29:55 am

It's not that black and white, the law takes into account cause, so if the home owner contributes to injury even for someone there illegally they can be liable. These cases are usually settled long before any formal ruling, nobody in their right mind will risk their house for a punitive amount and lawyers know it.

Crooks want cash not a cellmate.