Protecting your property against home invaders should not be an offence

The recent news of a New South Wales man facing possible charges, for defending his home, brings again to the fore the ridiculous situation of people being charged by police for defending themselves and their property against home invaders.

Azzam Naboulsi, a career criminal, was reported to have been stabbed by Donald Brooke when he was in the process of ransacking Brooke’s home in Yagoona (a suburb just to the west of Bankstown, Punchbowl and Lakemba). Brooke not only bravely defended his home, but also had the compassion to try to help the robber afterwards (neighbours reported hearing Brooke call after the injured Naboulsi “Come back, you’re injured”).

The home-invading criminal had been driven to the scene by overseas student Mohammed Abdul Baseer, who claims he did not know what Naboulsi was up to; he afterwards allegedly drove the wounded criminal to Fairfield East. Naboulsi later died from his wounds and lack of treatment (which he could have received, had he not fled the scene).

Azzam Naboulsi was part of the Lebanese Muslim community, and his funeral was later held at a mosque in Lakemba. He was well known to police and was due to be in court the following week to face a long list of criminal charges for other alleged offences.

How is it that the victim of the robbery ends up facing charges? It is ridiculous for anyone to have to worry about whether they will be charged, and possibly jailed, for defending their own home. The police, prosecutors and courts all have days, weeks and months to argue about what would be “reasonable force” in such a situation, yet the individual victim has to make a split-second decision on how to deal with someone coming at them in the dark, or what to do when they find an armed person ransacking their home. Can lawyers who argue back and forth about legal niceties and “reasonable force” in the safety of a courtroom really have any idea of the reality of coming face to face with a nasty criminal in your home?

How do you use “reasonable force” against two, three or four burglars who have broken into your home? Or even against one hefty thug? The average person cannot manhandle a big burly thug out of their home by themselves, let alone throw out three or four. A lone burglar may be high on drugs, which can make them impervious to pain; a situation which may require a number of persons just to apprehend and then contain him until police arrive. To talk of using “reasonable force” in these situations is ridiculous.

And what if there is a baby in the house, for whose safety the householder is legitimately concerned? Or a teenage girl or young woman, who may be attacked by the sort of home invaders who turn out to be rapists of opportunity?

In these situations it should be lawful for Australians to use any sort of weapon to defend themselves, their families, and their property against any home invaders, whether the criminals are in a gang or acting alone.

The police should not have to concern themselves with questioning whether “reasonable force” was used against home invaders; the only checking they should have to do, in any unclear circumstances, is to establish whether or not the person in question was a home invader or not.

Householders should not have to second-guess themselves as to whether what sort of force they should use against a group of three or four men invading their home; such indecision creates inaction and delays which enable thugs to attack those in the home.

Home invaders should not have the law on their side; if they are prepared to burglarize homes and assault people, then they should be prepared to lose their life. Home invaders steal, ransack, bash and rape people; they deserve to face the consequences of their actions; they do not deserve our sympathy, for that is better given to those who are bashed, raped and traumatized by such low-life thugs.

It is high time that the laws are changed so that everyone has the right to fully protect their homes and families against home invaders.



References:
Katherine Danks, Mark Morri. “Harrowing wait for homeowner who fatally stabbed intruder”, Daily Telegraph, 22 September 2011
Bystander regrets helping stabbed man”, The Age, 22 September 2011
Clementine Cuneo. “Don’t blame Donald Brooke for stabbing home invader Azzam Naboulsi, community says”, Daily Telegraph, 23 September 2011
Katherine Danks. “Thief Azzam Naboulsi’s dying threat to kill”, Daily Telegraph, 24 September 2011
Paul Kent. “Muslims pray Allah forgives a sinner”, Daily Telegraph, 24 September 2011
Janet Fife-Yeomans. “Defend your own home at your own risk”, Daily Telegraph, 24 September 2011

Comments

  1. Valerie says:

    So why is no one doing anything about this, it could be anyone of us. Why dont we all do our bit and help this man by getting petitions signed. Make waves, write to our MP’s. We must do something to get things changed and not just sit back as we normally do.

  2. A young guy came into my shop the other day and asked for a donation for some charity. I said no thank you. He asked why. I answered "because this government takes over half of what I work for to give it to other forms of so called charity that I do not morally or ethically support and im all out of charity."

    My point is one crook is in the house the other in your pocket and crooks have to look out for each other. The Gov boys and girls know what their doing and im sure it frightens them to see what decent people do to crud.

    My advice, real men do what they have to do. Im sure we can all agree that the coppers, judges and lawyers are not real men.

  3. Reasonable force is a farce. I know that it may sound silly to compare reality to a movie scene, but how many times have we seen the baddie knocked down, and supposedly out, only to see him get up again and inflict further pain and injury on the innocent. It can happen in real life, so the law has got to get rid of this "reasonable force" rubbish.

  4. The Kuta Kid says:

    Any would be burglar should be dealt with by force if possible by the owner/occupier. Just the fact they are on the property illegally for whatever reason should be enough to use any means necessary to remove them. Premeditated or not.

    Laws that can be used to protect illegal activities MUST be changed to protect the innocent.

    Clearly trespassing is illegal. Unlawful entry is trespassing.

    At least that,s another dirty little low life muslim gone to meet his maker

  5. In the context of a violent home invasion, it would be impossible to evaluate what reasonable force is. Your main concern is defending your life or property. That vulgar crim was the father of four kids {boohoo!} yet still out of control. That driver won't be deported as it will violate his human rights. What about the human rights of law abiding Australians??

  6. Well done Donald and good riddance Azzam. As far as Baseer is concerned, deportation wouldn't be inappropriate.

  7. Darren,

    Who do we lobby in Queensland?

  8. I'll defend my family and home to the death, i don't care what the law says. I couldn't live with myself if something like this happened to me and i didn't defend my family.

  9. Just to highlight how insane this is after a South Australian man killed an intruder SA changed the law so defending your home is not an offence. So in one state it is ok in another you go to jail….

  10. Gareth Connors says:

    The problem from the point of view of the authorities is not just 'reasonable force'. It concerns the issue of 'anticipation of need', that is, you anticipate you may have a need to defend youself your home your family, or others and take measures to do this. As plod sees it if you arm yoursef in the anticipation of having to use your weapon you are guilty of pre meditated assault.This I believe, is why we have gun laws. Gun laws are nothing to do with general crime but rather with the limiting of the rights of citizens to defend themselves. They fear a return to the days when we could reasonably defend ourselves because someday we may have to defend ourselves against them. Thus a disarmed society is easier to control.

    It is crazy but somehow compelling logic and is only for the cloud nine brigade of lawyers that stand to benifit and earn more by running endless legal arguements based upon obscure principles that leave the rest of us stupified.

    The Western world needs to support the peoples right to bear arms to defend their families, property and selves.This right to be granted only to those who can demonstrate complete loyalty and allegience to the culture and norms of the society in which they are born or choose to live. If they are not comfortable with this then I suggest the they move to somewhere where that they may be.

    Gareth

    • Gareth, please don't confuse the American Bill of Rights with Western norms, in any country out-side the US of A do you have the right to use lethal force in order to defend property and when defending one's life or liberty there is always the element of reasonibility.

      The problem arises at that point, what is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to someone else there-fore legislation must be clear as to what a citizen can and can not do when placed in that circumstance.

      In order to clear up any confusion in this area, as it stands in Australia you can only use force if the threat to you is real and immediate with very few exceptions. For example if someone breaks into your home but makes no attempt to threaten you or anyone else in your home you have no legal recourse, you must allow them to carry on as if you weren't there. Any attempt to use violence in order to stop the crime will see you charged with common assault and even deprivation of liberty.

      In all Westminster Tradition nations there is a very clear divide between the citizen and law enforcement, you as a citizen have no rightto enforce the law, that is the sole domain of the Police.

      That said, if someone lunges at you with a knife you are free to do unto them as you see fit in order to preserve your own life, on that, the law is clear.

      A N Mouse

      • SaveAustralia says:

        Mouse: In practical terms what you say is largely correct, however we do have the right to enforce the law by carrying out a citizen's arrest. Someone can even use lethal force in order to stop a murder taking place.

        But… in real terms, using force against robbers and assorted home invaders is problematic at best. That is why the law neds to be changed – to give ordinary citizens the right to use whatever force they feel is necessary to defend their homes.

      • It's a bizarre situation, If they injure themselves while unlawfully in your home, they can sue you. Is the legal system encouraging citizens to dispose of the offenders discretely?

Leave a Reply