Since Australia was colonised over 200 years ago, its citizens were able to protect and defend themselves against robbers and thugs by any reasonable means suitable. Until recently, when the politically correct do-gooders managed to seize control, there was an element of deterrence available to the population in the form of weaponry and laws sympathetic to crime victims.
Because of the unfortunate Port Arthur massacre, the Australian Government performed a colossal knee-jerk reaction and passed draconian laws to disarm the population, thinking that not only would the law-abiding citizens surrender their weapons, but that the criminals would do so too. This had the worst possible outcome imaginable.
Prior to this disarmament of honest people, most criminals thought very hard about committing robberies because they never knew whether their intended victims were armed. Thus realising that they faced the very real risk of ending up being corpses, many crooks decided that there were greener and safer pastures in more legal occupations. In fact, after a few armed robbers were shot and killed by storekeepers with guns, the crime rate dropped dramatically.
This principle was recently demonstrated most adequately when Bernard Goetz, a commuter on the New York subway was mugged by four assailants. He promptly shot them all, killing some of them. Although he had every justification in protecting himself against these thugs, he was charged with murder by the police but, quite rightly, was subsequently acquitted. The most noticeable effect was that muggings on the New York subway, Manhattan's notorious Central Park and many other places in the USA literally ceased for a long time, which proves that thugs are very hesitant to attack if they know that they are at risk.
The film "Death Wish" starring Charles Bronson had much the same effect. It portrayed the reactions of a mild-mannered architect whose wife and daughter were raped and massacred in cold blood by a gang of thugs. The architect then embarked on a campaign of ridding his city of such thugs by putting himself into situations that invited attack, then killing his attackers. Notwithstanding any moral arguments about whether such action was right, wrong or justified, the one very interesting thing to observe was that while this film was on the cinema circuit, muggings in every major city dropped by more than half.
The situation these days is completely the reverse. In Australia, robbers can go about their business with complete impunity, knowing that their intended victims were honest and had handed in their weapons. The crooks, not caring one whit about the gun laws and being armed with illegal firearms, could then rob and murder their victims without any fear of opposition.
The government claims that the populace has the protection of police and do not need weapons with which to defend themselves, however one thing is glaringly apparent. The police are never there when they are needed. Robbers generally make certain that the coast is clear before they commit their crimes, so by the time police arrive, the victims are not only robbed but most probably badly traumatised, and in the worst case, murdered.
Even if they do not use firearms, robbers often use other very dangerous weapons such as knives and blood-filled syringes. Again, if the storekeepers are unarmed, they have no defence against these crooks, but if a storekeeper produced a gun when confronted by a knife or syringe wielding robber, that crook would most certainly turn tail and run, possibly saving the health and maybe the life of the intended victim.
Police have had many powers taken from them to deal effectively with certain crimes. When the Summary Offences Act was repealed, hooligans literally had licence to run wild and terrorise innocent people. Some decades ago, police would grab such thugs and give them a clip across the ear or frighten the living daylights out of them. Now the police are fairly powerless to curtail the activities of street criminals, who literally thumb their noses at the law.
Propping up the rights of criminals over those of honest people are courts of law and politically correct magistrates and judges as well as conniving lawyers. There have been many cases in recent times where people who have tried to defend themselves against criminals have themselves been charged with offences. Some have very rightly been acquitted by a jury of their peers, such as the shopkeeper in the NSW country town of Orange who shot and killed an armed robber but was charged with murder.
The same happened with a shopkeeper in the Sydney suburb of Auburn who had been threatened with death by a problem customer who came back to the store armed with a knife. In self-defence the shopkeeper shot the offender but was charged with murder. The good news was that not only was he acquitted, but each member of the jury shook his hand after the case and congratulated him on his action.
In July 2011, a Queensland court was told that it was staggering that a man who tried to defend his home from armed intruders was facing a manslaughter charge. Kane Robert Cook, 29, was accused of shooting a man he that he claimed broke into his Gold Coast hinterland home in the early hours of the morning. The injured man fled but collapsed and bled to death in the street where Cook lived.
As Cook faced the Southport Magistrates Court, defence lawyer Bill Potts said his client was the real victim in the case. He said that Cook had simply been trying to defend "his home, his castle" but had now been lumbered with a manslaughter charge. "What kind of world is it we live in when a person who defends his own home from invasion can be opposed bail and then charged?" Potts told the court.
Police told the court that Cook should not be granted bail, but the magistrate decided to free him, on the condition he report to police once a week. The court was told that Cook had been out and returned home to find a group of intruders inside his home. Police prosecutor Glenn Whittle said that a struggle broke out and the deceased, 34, of Sydney, was shot. He said that the dead man's World War Two Luger 9mm pistol was used in the shooting.
Cook had the gun in his hand when he went to his neighbour's home and asked them to call police and an ambulance. He also told his neighbour of the struggle and how he managed to grab a gun off one intruder and shoot him. When police arrived, they found a pool of blood outside the house. When they followed the blood trail up the street, they found the body of a man, George Gioiello, who had bled to death from a gunshot wound to the upper leg.
The court was told that police found a Holden Commodore nearby, registered to the Benowa address where the deceased had been staying. Inside the car was a black balaclava, a jewellery box carrying the name Stephanie, a homemade club and amphetamines. When police searched the Benowa home on the Gold Coast, they found a mud map of Cook's house with Cook's name on it, the court was told.
Here is an open-and-shut case of a man defending himself and his property from armed intruders, yet after he managed to overcome one of the bandits and killed him, he is then charged with manslaughter. Kane Cook should be lauded as a hero, not be persecuted by police like this. If every householder shot and killed armed intruders, such robberies would cease to exist, because those criminals would be too petrified to attempt to break into houses, knowing that they stood a good chance of being carried out in a body bag.
In this particular matter and other similar cases, the law is a colossal ass. The police found a balaclava, a home-made club and narcotics in the vehicle of the robber. There is no doubt that the deceased was a criminal. The police should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for even contemplating charging Cook with any sort of crime. All that the police have done in this matter is to give encouragement to crooks and thieves, because householders will now feel that they will be at risk of prosecution if they try and defend themselves and their properties from armed robbers.
Another absolutely preposterous example was that of John Lee, the owner of a video store in Maitland who had been the victim of serial thefts by a gang of young hoods. Getting advice from police that he had to catch the thieves leaving the store with the stolen videos, Lee eventually apprehended one of the gang and restrained him from leaving until police arrived. For protecting his property and doing what the police failed to do for so long, Lee was charged with assault and was given a six month good behaviour bond. But what happened to the thief? He walked free.
Fortunately some people in positions of influence have been able to sway the odds slightly towards the honest shopkeeper. John Tingle of the Shooters Party has now managed to have a bill passed in the NSW Parliament that gives shopkeepers the right to defend and protect themselves with virtually any means they see fit, including some weapons, and also be indemnified against their actions. Hopefully when a thug armed with a blood-filled syringe or knife attempts to rob a business, he will be faced with an adversary that can legally take him apart before calling the police instead of being the hapless victim. A similar bill to allow householders to do the same has recently been passed, however it is fairly ineffective for residents to have such rights to defend themselves if they are not allowed to possess the means to do so effectively, such as firearms.
The case of Scott Pilcher in Queensland has to be near the top of the list for the most asinine and unfair application of the law. Pilcher saw a group of men attacking taxi driver Ted Casper. Being outnumbered Pilcher did the only logical thing to help save the cabbie and that was to drive slowly at the assailants. Instead of receiving accolades for his heroic efforts, Pilcher was charged and convicted of dangerous driving while the four men involved in the melee with Casper have not been charged with any offence.
Pilcher lost his licence for six months, was fined $900 and with no licence, lost his job delivering newspapers and to add insult to injury, his former employer is being sued for $10,000 by one of the four men. After Queensland Attorney-General was approached by a parliamentarian to have the conviction quashed, the response was that would be highly unusual and improper for the Attorney-General to appeal a case where the defendant has pleaded guilty.
This sort of nonsense can only lead people to believe that getting involved in preventing crimes is simply not worth the trouble. With the way the law is applied so much in favour of criminals, it is far safer these days for honest people to merely walk away from crime scenes and simply refuse to render assistance on the grounds that doing so could place them in jeopardy, not just from the criminals, but the law. After seeing the Pilcher debacle, nobody could blame people from believing that this is the case.
Unfortunately it can cost honest householders dearly for protecting themselves. Sydney resident Dominic Blake made a citizen's arrest on a 12 year-old vandal who was throwing rocks at his window one night. Police came and took the boy away, however two hours later a gang of men, allegedly including the boy's father, smashed their way into Blake's home, where they bashed two of his friends unconscious and wrecked the premises.
In an incredible turnaround from being the victim to now being the offender, Blake was charged with seriously assaulting the vandal he had apprehended and was also refused an Apprehended Violence Order against the gang who had raided his house and had left him in fear of his life. Blake was eventually convicted by a magistrate who stated that he considered sending him to jail, before settling on a community service order as the penalty.
Eventually a District Court overturned the conviction, vindicated Blake's action and awarded him all legal costs. However this was cold comfort for Blake and his friends, who after repeated threats by "visitors" and by telephone, had to move out of his house into security premises. Blake reflected that there was no point in citizens getting involved in preventing crime, because when they tried to protect property and themselves, they only became victims of violence and police stupidity as well as the incredible idiocy of some magistrates.
This lunacy is not restricted to Australia, as some incredible cases in New Zealand graphically demonstrated that criminals can actually legally profit from their crimes. A prisoner serving a five year sentence for fatally stabbing a man received a $22,226 payout for an injury he received while chasing his victim before killing him. In Auckland a prisoner who scaled the prison wall and fell to the other side and broke his leg, received compensation of over $20,000, even though his injuries were sustained as a result of him committing the crime of trying to escape from custody.
As long as such travesties of justice are allowed to continue, no honest person is safe. Recent cases concerning controversial Sydney magistrate Pat O'Shane are examples of judgements that have absolutely astonished many people. For instance, some police saw a car containing suspicious looking men and decided to check them out, as was their duty. The car fled, pursued by the police. When the suspects were cornered, they produced pistols and shot at the policemen who quite rightly defended themselves by shooting back and eventually disarmed and arrested the gunmen. In an incredible judgement, O'Shane acquitted the gunmen and castigated the police for infringing the rights of these criminals.
Along with a number of very strange decisions, O'Shane is one of many judges and magistrates who seem to have sent a clear signal to the criminal world that there is very little to fear from the law. O'Shane is the very same judge that acquitted some feminists after they were charged with deliberately vandalising billboards that advertised women's undergarments because they perceived them as degrading to females, even though these billboards were quite legally displayed. O'Shane allowed the feminists to literally take the law into their own hands and get away with it, however she handed down a nine month prison sentence to a police officer who manhandled a suspected drug dealer. The good news regarding this matter is that this conviction was quashed on appeal, as have been many judgements made by O'Shane.
There are certain crimes that are particular to many countries with strict gun control. One such crime is home invasion, where criminals break into houses of generally wealthy people and threaten them with harm unless they are given the valuables. Many of these home invasions have resulted in the death of occupants. The very simple reason why Australia is plagued by these types of crimes is that armed home invaders now know that law-abiding residents are not permitted to possess firearms to protect themselves, therefore they make perfect targets.
The crime of home invasion is literally unheard of in countries where citizens are permitted to bear arms, such as the USA and Switzerland. No crook in his right mind is going to invade a house where firearms are accessible and every member of the family may be a well-trained shooter. No crook is going to try to hold up a store using a blood-filled syringe if there is the strong likelihood that the storekeeper will produce a gun and shoot him. This is logical and undeniable.
It is time that the authorities recognised that armed robbery is increasing and that criminals can very easily get guns, knives and blood-filled syringes at any time and have no compunction in using them, regardless of the laws in force. It is time that the government realised that the police cannot be everywhere and that they are virtually never at the scene to protect people when crime is committed. The inescapable logic is that honest people must not only have the inalienable right to protect themselves, but must also have the right to possess the implements to do so. Citizens cannot protect themselves against armed thugs when they have been disarmed by law.
Every citizen should be thoroughly trained in firearm use, especially in their safe handling and the responsibilities regarding their possession. Coupled with this, the penalties for the use of a weapon in the conduct of any crime should be absolutely draconian. Armed criminals should always live under the threat of either being shot and possibly killed by their intended victims, or spending the best part of their lives in jail for even the most trivial armed offence.
Police must be allowed to use some discretion in their response to street thugs and to deal effectively with summary offences. This is not to say that a policeman should be allowed to act literally as judge, jury and executioner, however when the very effective operations of such legendary officers such as "Bumper" Farrell are examined, his technique would not go astray in dealing with much of the street crime so prevalent these days. As long as police are rendered ineffective by weak laws and politically correct spineless magistrates, gangs such as the ones seen in the Sydney areas of Bankstown, Cabramatta, Burwood and Campsie will continue their rampages unabated.
There is no deterrence in pandering to criminals by keeping their victims disarmed and defenceless, therefore all concerned Australian citizens should realise this and pressure authorities to permit the possession of firearms for protective and sporting purposes along with very stringent licensing and training in their responsible use. Also a complete revamp of the judicial system is long overdue, with judges and magistrates who consistently prize the rights of criminals over honest people being removed from these very important and responsible positions. This is not to advocate installing "hanging" judges, but the prime role of the legal system is to uphold and protect the rights of honest law-abiding people and make Australia a safe place to live.