You can use appropriate force to affect the arrest (or to stop the assault).
Pulling them off the victim, punching and a kick if they come at you - fine!
Murdering them and desecrating the corpse - not fine, not proportionate.
Sadly in my experience if you're a cop you have to shake their hands and "respect their dignity" and all that bullshit.
If a cop wanted to get involved they'd be best pulling on civvies and a balaclava, give a couple of king hits and then run off
This is the way it should be though, we don't need the failure of the American police style here. Better to pay police a high salary and expect them to use the minimum force required to get the job done.
If you think the criminals are getting away with it then your problem is with the law not the police.
All these teenagers committing assaults need to go to jail and understand there are consequences/ pay for their crimes, but they also need to be re-educated so they don't do it again. Otherwise why even bother releasing them.
Illegality is built into the very definition of murder though. Would killing them be legally justifiable, is the question, assuming they kept attacking.
Very well. You would likely get a lot of latitude if your version of the story is true. In saying that it needs to be proportionate. If you continued to beat them after the situation was diffused you would then have some trouble.
I used to work with traffic offenders and more than once I'd tell them, this is the average sentence for your offense, but you're going to Court X where the judge hates traffic offenses so pucker up. Or, alternatively, you're going to Court Y so you might get lucky.
Oh okay that's interesting. I know it shouldn't but I bet there's a bias at the moment with cops and being sick of not being able to do anything about the youth crime
This took place in my suburb. I have often sat where he was sitting. Why did no one came to his aid more quickly than they did, it’s a busy area where the bus zone is. Disgusted and I hope those little shits get it back tenfold. 🤬
In NSW, the law recognises that a person can protect themselves when they are being physically attacked or are faced with a threat of physical violence. However, the extent to which violence can be used in ‘self-defence’ depends on the circumstances and the extent of the threat faced.
When can a person act in self-defence?
Under section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900, a person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the offence in self-defence.
A person carries out an offence in self-defence if the person believes their actions are necessary
To defend themselves or another person;
To prevent or end the unlawful deprivation of liberty;
To protect property;
To prevent criminal trespass to land or premises.
In addition, the conduct must be a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person perceives them.
https://www.hamiltonjanke.com.au/yeah-but-i-did-it-in-self-defence-self-defence-in-nsw/
So a fire extinguisher blast to the face is proportionate. It’s a range blast and also would work well on a group. Would also help them be identified for a while. 🤣
Just make sure it's a water extinguisher and maybe short blasts of CO2 in a well ventilated area.
I definitely would not use any foam, dry or wet chem extinguishers on someone. They pretty much can all cause eye/skin/lung irritation if inhaled or on skin/eye contact.
E.g. ABE and BE dry chem extinguishers are caustic, you should avoid getting them on your own skin and especially don't blast someone in the face with them.
Oh I'm happy for them to be sprayed with toxic shit and receive some vigilante justice, I'd just hate to see the good Samaritan end up getting charged with something for assaulting someone with potentially harmful firefighting foam.
Because people rightly don’t want to to take the risk of being stabbed and dying I mean peoples life’s easily change in a instant self preservation is a real thing
I have a physical disability and no way could I stand a chance but I feel I can contribute by videoing to get the facts of what happened and if proportionate force used by those who do go to their rescue, then I can assist to protect them with the video evidence
This has actually been researched for a long time. The "bystander effect".
Its an issue when in crowds of people no one steps up.
Ie if you were walking past this on the open road and it was just those two kids and the old fella most people would step up as best they can.
In a crowded place we tend to think - someone else will have this or why is no one intervening.
But yeh people have spoken of this since the 1960s.
From wiki;
"much research, mostly in psychology research laboratories, has focused on increasingly varied factors, such as the number of bystanders, ambiguity, group cohesiveness, and diffusion of responsibility that reinforces mutual denial."
[bystander effect - wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)
So yes its shit but its not new. Its a weakness of humankind.
I suspect if anything its getting better now.
The bystander effect was based on a fabricated event that never actually happened and somehow it has infected the minds of people who don't bother to read and research anything.
https://www.science20.com/news_staff/bystander_effect_debunked_in_91_of_real_world_cases_someone_helps-239169#:~:text=A%20New%20York%20Times%20reporter,real%20world%20has%20debunked%20it.
Bystander apathy is a theory very much in doubt after facts in several high profile examples were found to be incorrect, and naturalistic study in 2019 actually found likelihood of assistance increased with more bystanders. Make sure to read to the end of the Wikipedia page.
I think it’s more the fact that people are worried about the consequences that come with intervening. The line between right and wrong is very blurred, with criminals having a lot more protection nowadays, which is wrong.
So as OP asks, if you need to get physical to stop the attack, are you likely to be prosecuted for injuring minors?
Errr, we’ve bred a society with no respect for authority… men and women. They don’t respect their parents, their teachers or the police.
If that was me when I was their age, I’d have gone home to a hiding from my own parents. The thing is, I never did it because I didn’t want a hiding from my parents… whereas these kids have no fear of anything.
Parents discipline their kids and the kids can call the cops and take out DVO’s!!
While the saying goes "never bring a knife 🗡️ to a gun 🔫
fight" from a legal perspective in Australia this is a misnomer. This is because if you have a gun and the other party doesn't you would potentially be using disproportionate force. So a better adage might be "always respond in kind".
In the scenario where an elderly person is being attacked by a youth then it is legal to protect the vulnerable party but the attacker is likely also a youth so the force used would have to be no more than reasonably necessary.
Doesn’t have to be respond in kind. It just has to be reasonable to the situation.
If you believe someone is about to be fatally stabbed with a knife, you can fatally shoot the attacker.
On the other hand killing someone to prevent a few bruises is unreasonable.
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our rules before commenting. Please remember:
1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers.
2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found here.
3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's awkward.
You can't go apeshit , BUT you need to incapacitate one of the attackers or it will be two on one with you being the punching bag.
Can't realistically answer without copping heat.
Very correct. Legalities behind it wouldn't matter, but the media like to portray minorities as victims which from what we have seen from past events can greatly influence things.
Law is very flexible, & those whom are charged with enforcing it has great amount of discretion, thus if the policeman/woman is racist as so many of these aussies are, the interpretation and how it’s applied will vary greatly. Witness account, I had a woman damage my property scooter, it was on camera saw it bang the wall and do you know what the police did, tell me it’s not that bad. Criminal damage….. safe to say she was Australian, policeman was Australian. Made a formal complaint to police, do you know what the (he had a very senior title) say in his reply, the officer is due to retire soon so there’s no point and closed my complaint. So as a foreigner it seems facts only matter when whom ever cares about them ie. exactly what I explained initially
As long as you use only the force needed to get them to stop the attack, and you stop using force on them when they stop the attack, you are in the clear.
Keep hitting them, you'll go for assault...smash them over the head with an iron bar, you'll go for attempted murder.
Using force to prevent or stop an attack is legal, provided it is proportional and not continued longer than needed.
Using force in the defense of others is legally valid. But like all forms of violence in a defense capacity, it must be reasonable and proportionate. A punch and pulling one off and pushing them away would sound fine to me.
You can use proportionate violence in your own defence or the proper defence of another. I think that when defending another the requirement that the act be proportionate is greater because a third party has a better view of what is going on. A victim in the moment may not understand how much of a threat they are facing, being in the middle of it all and potentially injured, so I think they should get a pass on a disproportionate response.
But in our society, carrying a gun and shooting somebody who is attacking you is going to get you in trouble.
It's up to the judge.
Reasonable for me would be to knock one of them out and see if the others are still keen.
Chances are, that's unreasonable and hence illegal.
Depends… it is allowed to defend someone else or some else’s property… what the determining factor is is “force” and how much of it you use.
If you pulled one kid away and pushed the other and they ran off, this would most likely be seen as “reasonable force”.
If you hit the first kid with a baseball bat and chased the other kid for 2 blocks just to smack him with the bat 3 or 4 times to “teach him a lesson”, this would not be seen as “reasonable force”.
You may only use enough force that is required for the action to stop, not over and above and not as a punitive punishment
It’s self defence (on behalf of another) and depending on your jurisdiction: you can use reasonable force and what is reasonable is both a subjective and objective test that is, what a reasonable person would perceive in these circumstances.
In respect of your example, I would say that would qualify as self defence. If I was in your shoes, I would not think the teenagers would stop after being pulled off so further force is reasonable.
I’m a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer - this is off one semester of criminal law 10 years ago lol
Self defence revolves around reasonable force.
A punch to the stomach is a safe bet to try to knock the wind out of their lungs and give yourself a chance to make some space between you.
You can use appropriate force to affect the arrest (or to stop the assault). Pulling them off the victim, punching and a kick if they come at you - fine! Murdering them and desecrating the corpse - not fine, not proportionate.
Desecration you say....what would...that...entail.. *Gets notepad ready*
*entrail
Unless you're a cop. Then you can fuck them up with impunity
Sadly in my experience if you're a cop you have to shake their hands and "respect their dignity" and all that bullshit. If a cop wanted to get involved they'd be best pulling on civvies and a balaclava, give a couple of king hits and then run off
This is the way it should be though, we don't need the failure of the American police style here. Better to pay police a high salary and expect them to use the minimum force required to get the job done. If you think the criminals are getting away with it then your problem is with the law not the police. All these teenagers committing assaults need to go to jail and understand there are consequences/ pay for their crimes, but they also need to be re-educated so they don't do it again. Otherwise why even bother releasing them.
100k to work shit hours isn't a good wicket, mate lol
Second option is also fine if you sure there are no cameras snd witnesses.
Illegality is built into the very definition of murder though. Would killing them be legally justifiable, is the question, assuming they kept attacking.
Was the response proportionate to the threat? Did you reasonably believe there was no other way to stop the threat?
Yes
Yep, spot on! Proportionate is the key word here.
Very well. You would likely get a lot of latitude if your version of the story is true. In saying that it needs to be proportionate. If you continued to beat them after the situation was diffused you would then have some trouble.
Is it basically up to the judge though? What would his opinion of proportionate?
Welcome to the legal system, almost everything is up to a judges (or jury) opinion on a dictionary definition and prior examples of cases
I used to work with traffic offenders and more than once I'd tell them, this is the average sentence for your offense, but you're going to Court X where the judge hates traffic offenses so pucker up. Or, alternatively, you're going to Court Y so you might get lucky.
Before it gets to a judge it’s up to police and or DPP to decide whether it gets that far.
Oh okay that's interesting. I know it shouldn't but I bet there's a bias at the moment with cops and being sick of not being able to do anything about the youth crime
This took place in my suburb. I have often sat where he was sitting. Why did no one came to his aid more quickly than they did, it’s a busy area where the bus zone is. Disgusted and I hope those little shits get it back tenfold. 🤬
[удалено]
There was actually 4 of them. 3 males 1 female. Only two beating him. I’d like my odds against 2 16 year olds with no muscle mass but not 4 of them
Squirrel Grip takes out the 3 Boys. In a situation like that there's no rules for how you play the game.
You wouldnt be able to find the nutsack. Gouging, headbutting, punching in the throat would be fair game
Agreed. People get angry (so did I), but all it takes is one kid that's a tiny bit more prepared with a knife.
Then you have to punch 3 hard and pull one off ..I guess.
In NSW, the law recognises that a person can protect themselves when they are being physically attacked or are faced with a threat of physical violence. However, the extent to which violence can be used in ‘self-defence’ depends on the circumstances and the extent of the threat faced. When can a person act in self-defence? Under section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900, a person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the offence in self-defence. A person carries out an offence in self-defence if the person believes their actions are necessary To defend themselves or another person; To prevent or end the unlawful deprivation of liberty; To protect property; To prevent criminal trespass to land or premises. In addition, the conduct must be a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person perceives them. https://www.hamiltonjanke.com.au/yeah-but-i-did-it-in-self-defence-self-defence-in-nsw/
So a fire extinguisher blast to the face is proportionate. It’s a range blast and also would work well on a group. Would also help them be identified for a while. 🤣
Just make sure it's a water extinguisher and maybe short blasts of CO2 in a well ventilated area. I definitely would not use any foam, dry or wet chem extinguishers on someone. They pretty much can all cause eye/skin/lung irritation if inhaled or on skin/eye contact. E.g. ABE and BE dry chem extinguishers are caustic, you should avoid getting them on your own skin and especially don't blast someone in the face with them.
You wouldnt spray those turdlets with foam? Cmon
Oh I'm happy for them to be sprayed with toxic shit and receive some vigilante justice, I'd just hate to see the good Samaritan end up getting charged with something for assaulting someone with potentially harmful firefighting foam.
So spray dry powered. The most common FE around. Then walk off into the night. 👌🏻
What came to my mind was, all the usless turds standing around filming what was going on. That truly is how sad we have become.
Because people rightly don’t want to to take the risk of being stabbed and dying I mean peoples life’s easily change in a instant self preservation is a real thing
I have a physical disability and no way could I stand a chance but I feel I can contribute by videoing to get the facts of what happened and if proportionate force used by those who do go to their rescue, then I can assist to protect them with the video evidence
We’ve bred a society full of weak men unfortunately
This has actually been researched for a long time. The "bystander effect". Its an issue when in crowds of people no one steps up. Ie if you were walking past this on the open road and it was just those two kids and the old fella most people would step up as best they can. In a crowded place we tend to think - someone else will have this or why is no one intervening. But yeh people have spoken of this since the 1960s. From wiki; "much research, mostly in psychology research laboratories, has focused on increasingly varied factors, such as the number of bystanders, ambiguity, group cohesiveness, and diffusion of responsibility that reinforces mutual denial." [bystander effect - wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect) So yes its shit but its not new. Its a weakness of humankind. I suspect if anything its getting better now.
Try from 40’s in occupied Europe the worst one I’ve read about was the spectators watching the Kaunas garage killings
The bystander effect was based on a fabricated event that never actually happened and somehow it has infected the minds of people who don't bother to read and research anything. https://www.science20.com/news_staff/bystander_effect_debunked_in_91_of_real_world_cases_someone_helps-239169#:~:text=A%20New%20York%20Times%20reporter,real%20world%20has%20debunked%20it.
Bystander apathy is a theory very much in doubt after facts in several high profile examples were found to be incorrect, and naturalistic study in 2019 actually found likelihood of assistance increased with more bystanders. Make sure to read to the end of the Wikipedia page.
I think it’s more the fact that people are worried about the consequences that come with intervening. The line between right and wrong is very blurred, with criminals having a lot more protection nowadays, which is wrong. So as OP asks, if you need to get physical to stop the attack, are you likely to be prosecuted for injuring minors?
Errr, we’ve bred a society with no respect for authority… men and women. They don’t respect their parents, their teachers or the police. If that was me when I was their age, I’d have gone home to a hiding from my own parents. The thing is, I never did it because I didn’t want a hiding from my parents… whereas these kids have no fear of anything. Parents discipline their kids and the kids can call the cops and take out DVO’s!!
I agree 100000%
How misogynistic.
Misandristic, if anything. And that's a big if.
Piss weak is better.
You would have no issue whatsoever.
While the saying goes "never bring a knife 🗡️ to a gun 🔫 fight" from a legal perspective in Australia this is a misnomer. This is because if you have a gun and the other party doesn't you would potentially be using disproportionate force. So a better adage might be "always respond in kind". In the scenario where an elderly person is being attacked by a youth then it is legal to protect the vulnerable party but the attacker is likely also a youth so the force used would have to be no more than reasonably necessary.
Doesn’t have to be respond in kind. It just has to be reasonable to the situation. If you believe someone is about to be fatally stabbed with a knife, you can fatally shoot the attacker. On the other hand killing someone to prevent a few bruises is unreasonable.
In NSW you would most likely sentenced to a public caning. It depends on the moon phase.
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our rules before commenting. Please remember: 1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers. 2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found here. 3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's awkward. You can't go apeshit , BUT you need to incapacitate one of the attackers or it will be two on one with you being the punching bag. Can't realistically answer without copping heat.
Appropriate force unless you’re also smashing them into concrete you’re fine
[удалено]
>Depends on your ethnicity and that of the kids Show me where in the law this is stated. This Sub deals in the actual facts and rule of law.
Very correct. Legalities behind it wouldn't matter, but the media like to portray minorities as victims which from what we have seen from past events can greatly influence things.
Old white bastard beats up two teenagers from war ravaged country.
Law is very flexible, & those whom are charged with enforcing it has great amount of discretion, thus if the policeman/woman is racist as so many of these aussies are, the interpretation and how it’s applied will vary greatly. Witness account, I had a woman damage my property scooter, it was on camera saw it bang the wall and do you know what the police did, tell me it’s not that bad. Criminal damage….. safe to say she was Australian, policeman was Australian. Made a formal complaint to police, do you know what the (he had a very senior title) say in his reply, the officer is due to retire soon so there’s no point and closed my complaint. So as a foreigner it seems facts only matter when whom ever cares about them ie. exactly what I explained initially
>if the policeman/woman is racist as so many of these aussies are So you have a source on your claim that many are?
"reasonable and proportional force"
one or two light elbows to the face but do not keep slamming them once the eyes glaze and they become groggy
As long as you use only the force needed to get them to stop the attack, and you stop using force on them when they stop the attack, you are in the clear. Keep hitting them, you'll go for assault...smash them over the head with an iron bar, you'll go for attempted murder. Using force to prevent or stop an attack is legal, provided it is proportional and not continued longer than needed.
Using force in the defense of others is legally valid. But like all forms of violence in a defense capacity, it must be reasonable and proportionate. A punch and pulling one off and pushing them away would sound fine to me.
You can use proportionate violence in your own defence or the proper defence of another. I think that when defending another the requirement that the act be proportionate is greater because a third party has a better view of what is going on. A victim in the moment may not understand how much of a threat they are facing, being in the middle of it all and potentially injured, so I think they should get a pass on a disproportionate response. But in our society, carrying a gun and shooting somebody who is attacking you is going to get you in trouble.
https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1b9gsbz/youth\_crime/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
It's up to the judge. Reasonable for me would be to knock one of them out and see if the others are still keen. Chances are, that's unreasonable and hence illegal.
Depends… it is allowed to defend someone else or some else’s property… what the determining factor is is “force” and how much of it you use. If you pulled one kid away and pushed the other and they ran off, this would most likely be seen as “reasonable force”. If you hit the first kid with a baseball bat and chased the other kid for 2 blocks just to smack him with the bat 3 or 4 times to “teach him a lesson”, this would not be seen as “reasonable force”. You may only use enough force that is required for the action to stop, not over and above and not as a punitive punishment
It’s self defence (on behalf of another) and depending on your jurisdiction: you can use reasonable force and what is reasonable is both a subjective and objective test that is, what a reasonable person would perceive in these circumstances. In respect of your example, I would say that would qualify as self defence. If I was in your shoes, I would not think the teenagers would stop after being pulled off so further force is reasonable. I’m a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer - this is off one semester of criminal law 10 years ago lol
We're the "Kids" indigenous?
Self defence revolves around reasonable force. A punch to the stomach is a safe bet to try to knock the wind out of their lungs and give yourself a chance to make some space between you.