Murder or self defense?

Jesterarts

Likes Dirt
So, probably starting a bit of a hot thread but this is something that really impacted me:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/emotional...iller-benjamin-batterham-20160327-gns2z6.html

Long story short; career criminal breaks into some blokes house while he and his family are in it. The owner of the found discovers this and an confrontation ensues. In this confrontation the bloke who broke in is put in a choke hold and ends up with a broken neck.

Now the home owner is up for murder.

This is actually probably one of my nightmare situations; finding an intruder in the house while my wife is there.

Many moons ago, I was a trained martial arts instructor and the essence of self defence was to inflict the appropriate amount of force onto your attacker until they are no longer a threat. For some that is verbal intimidation, for others it's maybe a joint lock/restraint and for some who are really going, it's chokes until they wee themselves.

My concern now, is that if I have to go down the most extreme course of action for someone who is either high or just really aggressive, and it goes wrong I would end up being charged for murder.

The reason this is a worry, is that if I don't go down the other path of inflicting less damage, the result could be me being in the right, but dead. I don't think I would get much comfort that I acted "the right way" when I am 6 foot under and the intruder gets charged with manslaughter/murder. Neither would my family.

So hypothetical; I'm at home with my wife, I hear something, I investigate and find an aggressive intruder in my house. Now what?
 

John U

MTB Precision
I read this earlier too. It seems odd the bloke who was defending his family/home is up for murder. There was a lot of talk about the crims kids having to grow up without a dad. There may be more to come that will make it make more sense. There are no winners in this story though.
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
Did he get him out of the house & then injure him or was it all indoors?

I doubt that the charges would be laid if excessive force wasn't used. But that's for the courts to decide.
 

ozzybmx

taking a shit with my boobs out
Self defence if it happened the way it says, defending his family against house breaking scum, if someone broke into my place I would be in the same boat. How much force do you apply to a intruder ? If you let up... and free him, he kills you then rapes and kills your wife and kids, not something I would be taking a gamble with.
 

pharmaboy

Eats Squid
I'm local, as is poodle, but social media has claimed so far that the choke hold occurred 300m from the house (that's a long chase), second that charged householder has some drug reputation.

Support for the above is that police have charged him very rapidly, also that no application for bail was made today and its adjourned for quite a few weeks. I can tell you, if it were me, a lawyer would be damn well making a case for bail for me rather than remanded in custody.

Either way a scumbag is dead, and his large extended family seem to be all victims now.....
 

Shredden

Knows his goats
Hard to tell from the article, especially the end part where it says "Family members claimed Mr Slater-Dickson had not broken into the house in Cleary Street and instead had been invited to a party at the residence"

Theres surely more to it, even if neither side is telling the truth yet.

Having said that, if I woke up to find a 150kg islander with neck tatts in the house with my wife and kids (as implied by the OP) the "reasonable response" to removing the threat would have to just about be killing him hahah.

Just looks like a domestic dispute that went bad for the dead guy.

Either way a scumbag is dead, and his large extended family seem to be all victims now.....
+1
 

ajay

^Once punched Jeff Kennett. Don't pick an e-fight
A fair bit going on here. Lots of conflicting stories floating around.

The general gist seems to be the perp was found inside the daughters room. A struggle broke out onto the street where his neck was broken.

If it continued out of the house and onto the street and someone ended up dying, it seems to me that "reasonable force" was exceeded. Murder? That's for someone with the facts to decide but if (I say, if) you chase someone onto the street and kill them, thats grtting into some pretty shady territory/vigilantism....

Witnesses - considering the guy is dead, constructing a a chain of events (was he in fact standing over his daughters bed?) will be pretty tough to ascertain, and likewise easy to fabricate.

Can you protect your home? You should be, but there has to be a pretty clear line in the sand - and may well be the perimeter of your property. It might set an interesting precedent given the focus of family violence in tbe home and protecting your self against it.
 

Jesterarts

Likes Dirt
Either way a scumbag is dead, and his large extended family seem to be all victims now.....
This is probably one of the main things that frustrates me. This guy by all accounts was a career criminal and scumbag.

His choices, associations and actions ultimately lead to this point. Now all of a sudden he and his family are victims? The only thing they are victims of are this guys own actions.

Now the family is "demanding justice". Really? For what? The fact that a criminal's illegal actions have lead to his demise?
 

stirk

Burner
Seems more to the story than self defence. They could be known to each other which makes it very different and if what pharma says is true then the thief may have been running away and the victim chased him and broke his neck, well that's manslaughter at least.

If a dodgy fucker is in your house you don't know why they are there and no clue as to their intentions then stop them with the force needed to, could be a fist in the face or a butchers knife to the heart, you'll need to decide in the moment. They shouldn't be in your house in the first place so fuck em.
 

bear the bear

Is a real bear
Have a look at this

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nsw...rself-in-a-home-invasion-20160328-gnsq7q.html

Gist being there are very fine lines that are easily crossed with the self-defence legal defence. Namely:

-You must be in fear of yours or someone else's life (In this context its debatable whether just having a big island bloke in your house uninvited meets this point);

-Use of force must be proportionate to the threat;

-Simply defending your property ie from trespass is not valid.
 

OscarWhitbread

Likes Bikes
Recently my boss woke at 2am hearing someone stumbling around at his front door, he is a pretty big guy and I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of whatever he dishes out. He went out the front door in his jocks all fired up ready to protect his wife/kid/house and he admitted he was ready to roll out the pain train to whoever was at the front door, the adrenalin was flowing. Luckily in that split second before creating a smear on his front porch he realised that it was just a drunk kid completely off his chops trying to find his way home from the pub up the road. He eventually managed to get some sense out of the kid and ushered him outside his front gate and on his merry way, but he did admit to me that he was glad he didn't completely wipe the smile off this kids face.

What to do? It's that split second assessment you need to make that can impact the rest of your life, not an easy one.
 

cokeonspecialtwodollars

Fartes of Portingale
My understanding is that murder must be premeditated or with malicious intent, without knowing the full circumstances I would have thought this would be a case for manslaughter especially regarding the OP topic.
 

bear the bear

Is a real bear
My understanding is that murder must be premeditated or with malicious intent, without knowing the full circumstances I would have thought this would be a case for manslaughter especially regarding the OP topic.
Correct, if the self-defence argument fails then the defender is up for a manslaughter charge.
 

ajay

^Once punched Jeff Kennett. Don't pick an e-fight
My understanding is that murder must be premeditated or with malicious intent, without knowing the full circumstances I would have thought this would be a case for manslaughter especially regarding the OP topic.

I copied this from somewhere... but this was my understanding:

He possibly fits into the 2nd degree catagory... but we'll see.

Most states distinguish between mere intentional murder ("second degree") and premeditated murder ("first degree"), with the former receiving harsher punishment. Both require intentional action; the difference between the two, in simplified terms, is that first degree murder is planned and considered before hand, and then carried out at a later time (i.e. done "in cold blood"), while second degree murder is done, although intentionally, without having previously considered the act (i.e. on the spur of the moment, or "in the heat of passion").
 

bear the bear

Is a real bear
I copied this from somewhere... but this was my understanding:

He possibly fits into the 2nd degree catagory... but we'll see.

Most states distinguish between mere intentional murder ("second degree") and premeditated murder ("first degree"), with the former receiving harsher punishment. Both require intentional action; the difference between the two, in simplified terms, is that first degree murder is planned and considered before hand, and then carried out at a later time (i.e. done "in cold blood"), while second degree murder is done, although intentionally, without having previously considered the act (i.e. on the spur of the moment, or "in the heat of passion").
Thanks Ajay, but that was my understanding of the difference between murder and manslaughter or intentional vs unintended. Does the above definition also discuss manslaughter?
 

fatboyonabike

Captain oblivious
all i can say is its a cruel and crazy world, and what goes around -comes around!
boo hoo, another scum off to meet his maker...move on people
 

Mywifesirrational

I however am very normal. Trust me.
If this case is as simple as a violent confrontation after finding a stranger in ones house resulting in a dead scum bag, I can't see a jury going the guilty verdict. We all can see the merit in defending ones family in ones home, at least if it is straight forward as that. Sounds like there might be more to the story, especially if it finished down the street.
 

ajay

^Once punched Jeff Kennett. Don't pick an e-fight
Yeah likely from U.S. That was just my understanding of how it worked here too. Not meant to be a snippet from our legislation.
Edit:

This is a more relevent definition:

Murder is defined in s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in the following terms:
Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.
There are therefore four identifiable bases of liability of murder, involving:
an intent to kill
an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm
reckless indifference to human life, or
the commission of a crime punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment for 25 years.
Murder has been described as the most serious offence in the criminal calendar: R v Penisini [2003] NSWSC 892 at [82]; R v Dalley (2002) 132 A Crim R 169 at [95]. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment: s 19A Crimes Act 1900."

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/murder.html[\url]
 
Last edited:
Top