webfact Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Australian burglar shot in bottom with bow and arrow SYDNEY: -- A burglar in Australia was shot in the buttocks with a bow and arrow after being confronted by an angry homeowner. The intruder stole cash, car keys and other property from the house in Sydney on Sunday afternoon. The homeowner, a 68-year-old man, used a compound bow to challenge the thief as he tried to steal a car. Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37868026 -- © Copyright BBC 2016-11-07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gravy Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 That will teach him to be so cheeky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumbNut Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said: That will teach him to be so cheeky. Sure will. And if he was a Trump supporter it would have been a head shot eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Actally as it was the thief's bottom he risks facing charges for grievous bodily harm. He is only entitled to use force to protect himself (not his property) and if it is in the bottom the thief was not a threat facing away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Is someone confusing the news with Benny Hill reruns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prbkk Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said: That will teach him to be so cheeky. The homeowner should have known just to butt out and leave it to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gravy Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2 hours ago, harrry said: Actally as it was the thief's bottom he risks facing charges for grievous bodily harm. He is only entitled to use force to protect himself (not his property) and if it is in the bottom the thief was not a threat facing away. That is a sad case and the same in the UK, minimal force. Either way he will be using a rubber ring to sit down on for a while so there is some poetic justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyhangmon Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2 hours ago, NumbNut said: Sure will. And if he was a Trump supporter it would have been a head shot eh. Hehe, good 1, true too ... And let me add: fine job Robin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyhangmon Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2 hours ago, harrry said: Actally as it was the thief's bottom he risks facing charges for grievous bodily harm. He is only entitled to use force to protect himself (not his property) and if it is in the bottom the thief was not a threat facing away. Sad state of affairs then. In that case he should have aimed higher and then used the perp to fertilize his garden ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 54 minutes ago, jollyhangmon said: Sad state of affairs then. In that case he should have aimed higher and then used the perp to fertilize his garden ... A chicken farmer in Melbourne did that some years ago. about 10 years later I believe they let him out of jail on parole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyhangmon Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Just now, harrry said: A chicken farmer in Melbourne did that some years ago. about 10 years later I believe they let him out of jail on parole. Well, because he obviously was dumb enough to get caught ... should have fed the punk to his chickens then! Wrong livestock either - pigs would be even better ... You step onto my property - let alone into my crib - uninvited and with obviously bad intentions and you're on the best way to pushing daisies, plain & simple, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soc Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) 58 minutes ago, jollyhangmon said: Well, because he obviously was dumb enough to get caught ... should have fed the punk to his chickens then! Wrong livestock either - pigs would be even better ... You step onto my property - let alone into my crib - uninvited and with obviously bad intentions and you're on the best way to pushing daisies, plain & simple, period. Oh, l completely agree with you. Unfortunately the law in Australia doesn't see it that way. Didn't you know that the criminal has "rights"? When l lived in the Philippines a policeman told me that a person loses all "rights"(in the Phil) when they trespass on your property. l concur. Edited November 7, 2016 by soc missed a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said: That is a sad case and the same in the UK, minimal force. Either way he will be using a rubber ring to sit down on for a while so there is some poetic justice. The notion of "minimal" is a misconception. It is "reasonable" force and if you genuinely thought your or your family's life to be at risk you could legally kill the attacker. But not if the attacker was running away from you. That is where the farmer who shot and killed a teenage burglar went wrong and was convicted. They were running away and therefore no threat to his life. That's the UK and Australia may have differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 8 minutes ago, soc said: Oh, l completely agree with you. Unfortunately the law in Australia doesn't see it that way. Didn't you know that the criminal has "rights"? When l lived in the Philippines a policeman told me that a person loses all "rights" when they trespass on your property. l concur. Unfortunately the HR laws do convey some rights who don't deserve them. But you can't put "man traps" on your land in the "enlightened" countries either. I'm afraid police seem to regard "theft" as an insurance matter these days; and you need to be more careful with your possessions judging by their lack of interest. So property and the protection of it is no longer such a big issue to the law. If however someone is violently attacking you or a member of your household on your property you have a right to stop them using force that is reasonable and appropriate to that circumstance. If you you believe lives are at risk then taking a life to prevent it may be a reasonable thing in those circumstances. But, you'll never persuade a court / jury that if the attacker was running away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey4u Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Was the arrow returned to 68 year old Robin Hood of Sydney or did the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandtee Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 5 hours ago, harrry said: Actally as it was the thief's bottom he risks facing charges for grievous bodily harm. He is only entitled to use force to protect himself (not his property) and if it is in the bottom the thief was not a threat facing away. But he got the point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 6 hours ago, NumbNut said: Sure will. And if he was a Trump supporter it would have been a head shot eh. Heh..any reasonable society would allow their citizens the right to defend themselves w/out resorting to the Middle Ages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyhangmon Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 1 hour ago, soc said: Oh, l completely agree with you. Unfortunately the law in Australia doesn't see it that way. Didn't you know that the criminal has "rights"? When l lived in the Philippines a policeman told me that a person loses all "rights"(in the Phil) when they trespass on your property. l concur. I just heard in Austrian (yes, not Australian, Sissy instead of Kangaroos) news about it, so Robin makes the rounds. But originally i didn't get it that the perp still got away with the stolen car, now that i'd call annoying, definitely aimed too low then ... I'm not sure how that Philly 'trespassing' philosophy would work out for bigger to vast property, know what i mean, if you come across some bloke miles/klicks away from your house - say somewhere in the woods, unarmed maybe etc. - and you still pop him ... might go a bit too far!? But in/around my dwellings, damn, wouldn't think twice - as it's exactly that which could get one killed easily, or hacked about a bit for that matter which seems MO of choice hereabouts ... however, if in doubt strike first ask later. Admittedly my guess is that back in AT the laws are probably similarly PC-BS and for fairies, never was a topic, at least not where & when i used to live there. Ain't a topic where i'm staying here in TH neither, no bars at windows/doors to begin with (nowhere around here actually) & until about a fortnight ago - besides open windows - i had the door to the outside-kitchen open all nights (just mozzie screen) because of heat and the plot itself is fairly easy to get on to if one really intends to. Thing is booby-trapped though - no explosives (yet) just some spray-cans and shit that would make some noise to wake me up in case, but then it might get explosive ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, soc said: Oh, l completely agree with you. Unfortunately the law in Australia doesn't see it that way. Didn't you know that the criminal has "rights"? When l lived in the Philippines a policeman told me that a person loses all "rights"(in the Phil) when they trespass on your property. l concur. Yes. Australia and NZ are run by a bunch of PC ***** that think bad people have more rights than the law abiding. Not many cops around now, so no point expecting them to do more than turn up hours later and fill in a form. Edited November 7, 2016 by thaibeachlovers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 1 hour ago, Baerboxer said: Unfortunately the HR laws do convey some rights who don't deserve them. But you can't put "man traps" on your land in the "enlightened" countries either. I'm afraid police seem to regard "theft" as an insurance matter these days; and you need to be more careful with your possessions judging by their lack of interest. So property and the protection of it is no longer such a big issue to the law. If however someone is violently attacking you or a member of your household on your property you have a right to stop them using force that is reasonable and appropriate to that circumstance. If you you believe lives are at risk then taking a life to prevent it may be a reasonable thing in those circumstances. But, you'll never persuade a court / jury that if the attacker was running away. Oh I soooooo hope to be on a jury with a case like the OP. Any PC wonk** that wants to convict the home owner won't know what will ( verbally ) hit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadmo63 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 9 hours ago, webfact said: SYDNEY: -- A burglar in Australia was shot in the buttocks with a bow and arrow after being confronted by an angry homeowner. Someone's gotta say it - "som num na!". You'd guess (hope) that arrow would penetrate pretty deeply. He hasn't presented to any hospital yet so let's hope that him and his mates pull it out themselves and avoid the authorities. It'd be hard to charge him if no victim turns up. The ABC - "Police said inquiries with hospitals had yet to locate anyone treated for an injury consistent with this incident." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 So he shot a guy in the ass with a compound bow trying to steal his car? Good. Too bad AU will probably throw the guy through the ringer for it. In Murica a head-shot would be fine under Clinton OR Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPI Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 9 hours ago, harrry said: Actually as it was the thief's bottom he risks facing charges for grievous bodily harm. He is only entitled to use force to protect himself (not his property) and if it is in the bottom the thief was not a threat facing away. Agreed, although the burglar may have twisted away at the last minute, at least that would be my story!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpoint Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 What's the problem here? I thought the best place to practice archery was at the butts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 An off-topic post has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khundon Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Had the old guy scored a bullseye (centre of the buttocks) the arrow may have gone in further than expected and the thief would be laying in A&E, whilst the Doctor was shouting out, "quick nurse, the screens and pass me the pliers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now