Teacher Jailed for Self Defence?

[Solaris]

Roflmao, thats funny stuff.

 

[Edcrab]

Hah, yeah, that kind of thing isn't as uncommon as we might wish

Now while she admitted that she wasn't aware if they were the actual perpetrators of that particular incident (as annoying as I might find it, a bunch of noisy youths hanging around my house aren't really deserving of a shooting, although if they got abusive for no good reason I'd be tempted) she recognised several past vandals from among the group and jumped to the conclusion that they were responsible, since they were hanging around laughing or whatever.

Although I'm yet to encounter a bunch of teens milling around a location who weren't up to no good. Even in bloody bus shelters or queues half of them have their brains surgically removed...

 

[baxter]

That was not self-defence. That was revenge.

Wrong, she was terrorised and in fear for her own safety and property.

She went out after some guys with an air-rifle, because she thought they were the guys who smashed her garden ornaments and poured washing up liquid on a family car. You just don't get to do that.

Unless you are really driven to your wits end and whereby all rational reason goes out of the window. Do you really think that a women special needs teacher really brought this upon herself?

As annoying as vandalism is, and ive copped plenty in my time - if you own a good car in australia it will be vandalised pretty quickly by people who are jealous. Nothing you can do. Install cameras maybe and hope you catch them. But you cant run after the nearest suspects with an air-rifle.

And just what age are you? some 45 year old teacher? Oh the voice of youth who simply accept these thing as the way they are.
I wonder that in the years to come when you start to settle own and raise your own family, in your own home will you still have the same opinion.
This poor women was tormented remorselessly and finally snapped but hey what does that matter.
I will leave my post with a quote from you...em ok

Install cameras maybe and hope you catch them

Excellent solution.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Yes, but she didnt know if that group of youths were the perpertrators.

Ahhh, this changes it quite a bit. I thought they wre outside heckling and doing the acts right then as she came out, then shot at them in the act. Eg: A confrontation.

The penalty is still far too harsh in my opinion- she should've at the MOST had a very small fine if not just a warning, but it's different than I thought. You'd get in trouble here too for just doing it to a random person who wasn't guilty of it.

 

[Locust]

I bet they outlaw using your fists next. they will say that anything to which a force can be applied to so that it may cause harm is illegal. Where do they get the nerve!

 

[Calanen]

That was not self-defence. That was revenge.

Wrong, she was terrorised and in fear for her own safety and property.

Not wrong. Self-defence means that you take steps at the time to defend yourself from imminent attack. Under US law, under Australian law and under English law. Probably the furthest self-defence law goes is in the US, where you can kill people who violently enter your home, although some states in the US require you to 'retreat' first, that is, run away if you have to. California sensibly does not.

But what the law never does anywhere as far as I know - is to permit you to go after who you *think* smashed your back garden up with a firearm. Point to me one statute anywhere where this is the case.

Even if you she was certain that it was those guys who smashed up the back garden, she has no legal right to confront them with a firearm.

And you'll see the judge agrees with me - so I think I am right about the law, that it was not self-defence. And would not have been in almost in any civilised place on the planet. Self-defence means you get to defend yourself from an attack at that time. It does not mean you get a revenge card to be used at your discretion because someone commits acts of vandalism upon you.

Indeed, the attacks were not on her person - so - in most places this would not be self-defence either, ie they did not bash her up and she was not preventing injury or death from occurring upon herself or another by using the firearm. So even if, she was in the backyard and they were smashing up her garden, lethal force (which is what a BB gun is believe it or not) or potential lethal force normally cannot be used in defence of property. Only in defence of your life or another, and her life clearly was not in danger at the time she went outside.

In any event - don't want to give a self-defence lecture. But its annoying when people tell me what self defence is, when they clearly do not know.

 

[Calanen]

Charged for what? "misconduct against burglar"? :|

In New South Wales, you would be charged with 'causing public mischief' which means that you have told the police something which is false that has made them change policing priorities. I am sure they have something similiar in England.

Arresting the burglar is fine. You may apprehend a burglar (who is committing a felony) chase him wherever he may go, and use reasonable force to detain him. But you must bring him before the police or a magistrate as soon as possible after you do. You cannot just jail him yourself.

 

[baxter]

In any event - don't want to give a self-defence lecture. But its annoying when people tell me what self defence is, when they clearly do not know

I did not give you or anybody a lecture on self defence and stop being so dismissive of other people’s points of views. I pointed out, and as you have acknowledge that this women was in fear of own safety. She acted out of self preservation.

Even if you she was certain that it was those guys who smashed up the back garden, she has no legal right to confront them with a firearm.

And you wouldn't, you would simply stand there and allow them to carry on, maybe ask them in a nice polite manner to stop what they were doing.

It is so easy for any of us to take the moral high ground and dissect these poor women’s actions.

I doubt you have been driven to the despair that this women was but don't lecture me on what is and isn't right when it comes to defending yourself and your family. You can state all the laws you wish but you can kiss them goodbye when reality kicks in and we are confronted with the moronic behaviour this women endured.

But its annoying when people tell me what self defence is, when they clearly do not know

Yeah right..

 

[Danimal]

Yea, that teacher shoudn't of gotten arrested...

You know, a robber can hold you up in court if you attack him while he is in your house Talk abou crazy.

 

[mosquave]

The kids who she pulled the gun on just poured water on her sons car, doesn't mean they were the same people who had previously vandalised her property. That was pretty stupid of her.

If you take the law into your own hands you must be prepared to face the consequences, thats what happened to me so I fail to see why this woman should be treated any differently.

 

[Calanen]

I did not give you or anybody a lecture on self defence and stop being so dismissive of other people’s points of views. I pointed out, and as you have acknowledge that this women was in fear of own safety. She acted out of self preservation.

I said I did not want to give a lecture on self-defence. Not that you did. I can if necesary. I did not ever acknowledge that this person was in fear for her safety. I do not know what she thought or was thinking. And as annoyed as she may have been, it is still unlawful to attack people with firearsm other than in the defence of yourself or another. And the defence of yourself or another does not extend so far as to threaten perceived potential future attackers.

Its a very different thing to say that I (as in Calanen) am wrong about what the law of self-defence is, than it is to say, 'I think that the laws of self-defence are wrong or should be changed'. All that was said was 'Wrong.' when I said that this was not a self-defence. So I was right. Not wrong.

If you think that the laws should be different than ask that they be changed. But to say that I was wrong about what self defence means, was itself, clearly wrong.

When I said it was not self-defence, it was not. Whether it should be or you believe it should be is besides the point.

 

[Calanen]

The kids who she pulled the gun on just poured water on her sons car, doesn't mean they were the same people who had previously vandalised her property. That was pretty stupid of her.

If you take the law into your own hands you must be prepared to face the consequences, thats what happened to me so I fail to see why this woman should be treated any differently.

Even if they were the people who smashed up her car or burnt her house down, she cannot confront them with a firearm. The fact that she did not know for sure it was them made the situation even more ridiculous.

That said, very harsh sentence for someone without form. Judge must have been very anti-gun. I would have given her probation, not jail time.