Good shot Sir !
Fleeing Aussie burglar shot in arse with bow and arrow
An alleged burglar was shot in the backside with a bow and arrow after an angry homeowner caught him trying to steal his car. The intruder managed to make off with cash, car keys and other items from the Sydney house before being caught by the 68-year-old man living in the house, according to the BBC. The aggrieved homeowner …
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 13:36 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: He should be lucky
it was a recurve and not a compound bow
My exact thought. If it was something like my eight year old daughter's "toy" that person would have had a shattered pelvis or hipbone (even with the "harmless" training arrows). Even a "junior" compound bow for kids makes nice 9mm holes in 18mm plywood.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 13:28 GMT Joe Harrison
Bloke was lucky
Anyone who has ever used a bow will know which is the "dangerous end" of an arrow - it's the one with a plastic notch to fit the bowstring. Eye injuries from this end are quite frequent. The other end is called the "lethal end" with good reason. It's simple to kill someone with an arrow and if this guy had shuffled off the burglar I doubt if "but he bent my car" would have kept him out of jail.
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 13:53 GMT NinjasFTW
Re: Bloke was lucky
I understand the reasons behind it but I really hate that you can't defend yourself against 'minor' crimes.
Instead you are meant to let the cops handle it which basically means that they will take a statement and then throw it on the too hard pile unless you happen to be rich and/or know the right contacts to get it properly investigated.
Anecdotal story: A friend of mine has his garage broken into and had several motor cycles stolen. 12 months later he is advised that the police knew the culprit (licence plate of the van used was seen in the street), did nothing about it for 8 months before bringing the owner in for questioning and then deciding that too much time had passed to secure a conviction.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 15:19 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Bloke was lucky
"I understand the reasons behind it but I really hate that you can't defend yourself against 'minor' crimes."
You can, in most jurisdictions. But in many jurisdictions, it stops being "self defence" when you shoot the person from behind, ie s/he is running away and you are no longer in personal danger.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 17:55 GMT Marshalltown
Re: Bloke was lucky
There is something wrong about being told by the police to be a compliant victim. Compliance means that you cede situational control to someone you absolutely know you can't trust. They are after all trying to rob you - at a minimum. If the fellow was unlucky, he'll show up with a serious soil-born bacterial infection in a few days. One can only hope.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 23:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Bloke was lucky
Governments always try to disarm their citizens, easier to 'control' that way.
> "The opinion of Guardia Civil and Policia Local officers I knew from the local range was don't call us just kill the fecker and dump the body in the hills."
Here in the US it's called the "3 Esses: Shoot, shovel and shutup.
-
Tuesday 8th November 2016 07:37 GMT Suricou Raven
Re: Bloke was lucky
The aim of the advice is to make sure the robbery remains a robbery, and doesn't escalate into a murder. Police prioritise life over property, so from that perspective it's better to let the thief get away with it and hope to catch him later than to encourage the property owner to defend his home and risk one or the other ending up dead.
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 14:50 GMT Khaptain
Re: It will be a shame if the Archer gets charged
"He was merely defending his property."
As much as I don't care for Trump I can only hope that our Merican friends don't vote for Hilary as she will make sure that no-one will defend their home ever again, at least not with anything more lethal than a loud voice...... ( and a quick email from your secret server )
-
Monday 7th November 2016 15:20 GMT Pirate Dave
Re: It will be a shame if the Archer gets charged
" don't vote for Hilary as she will make sure that no-one will defend their home ever again"
I think you seriously underestimate the number of firearms we have here. Unless Hillary is planning to force the cops to do door-to-door search-and-seizures of weapons, we (us gun-toting rednecks, that is) will still have hundreds of millions of guns, even if she starts banning the manufacture and sale of certain of them (AR's, AK's). Not to mention the billions of rounds of ammo we have stored up for the impending zombie apocalypse.
I did find it humorous that the Aussie cops said "Do not confront a person in your house." As a Merican, the idea of that is completely foreign to me and runs counter to the basic instinct of "protect the house". But since Oz is mostly disarmed now, that's probably good advice, since the intruder may actually be armed - when they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, right?
-
Monday 7th November 2016 15:36 GMT HereIAmJH
Re: It will be a shame if the Archer gets charged
Bull. Neither is going to come 'take our guns'. The worst we would see is losing the ability to purchase new assault rifles and background checks on all non-private gun purchases. A bigger problem for gun owners is sites like Craigslist won't take gun ads making private sales a little more difficult.
As far as this article is concerned, where he screwed up is he waited too long. He should have shot him while he was in the house stealing the money and keys. At least then you can claim defense of a person over defense of property.
* BTW, assault rifle is defined as scary looking rifle with a large magazine, not based on it's actual ability to cause harm.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 16:35 GMT Pirate Dave
Re: It will be a shame if the Archer gets charged
"The worst we would see is losing the ability to purchase new assault rifles"
That's something I've been pondering recently - I know Hillary has a boner for banning sales of the AR platform, but considering how "modular" the AR is, what exactly are they planning to ban? Are they only wanting to ban completely assembled rifles, or completely assembled rifles and lowers (the serialized part), or ban complete rifles, lowers, and assembled uppers, or ban everything related to the AR platform? I bought two stripped lowers 2 months ago just so I'd have some outlet if The Worst does come to pass, and I've been stockpiling 30-round mags like they're going out of style.
"A bigger problem for gun owners is sites like Craigslist won't take gun ads making private sales a little more difficult."
With sites like Gunbroker.com, there's not much need to sell guns on Craigslist, eBay, etc. It's all guns, all the time. If the folks at Craigslist don't want to list guns, well, fine, it's their servers, we don't need them.
-
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 23:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Lame meme about Hillary coming for your guns
Exactly as true as Obama coming for your guns. What is going to be different with Hillary in office than Obama? Nothing, that's what. But the gun makers have realized that rather than trying to expand the market by selling to first time gun owners, they can make more money with scare tactics to try to get those who already own one or more guns to buy MORE guns based on the fear that it might become impossible to buy them soon.
It is amazing to me that people keep falling for this time and again - and every time there's a school shooting sales of guns go up. Not because first timers are wanting to defend themselves, but because a few liberals bring up the usual talking points about banning assault rifles and large magazines, and scare tactics convince weak minded gun owners that a total ban on guns is imminent so they buy more guns (generally ones that no one is even talking about banning) and stocking up on enough ammo to last the rest of their life.
There might be a majority of Americans willing to ban assault weapons, but that's EXTREMELY unlikely politically since the NRA has republicans in their pocket and there are enough democrats from red states would would vote on their side against such a bill because they know they'd never get re-elected otherwise. Even if democrats held 65 seats in the Senate there would be enough democrats would join republicans in a filibuster.
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 13:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Recurve or Compound?
Other reports I've seen state that a compound bow was used; this is pretty important since a compound bow will shoot a much heavier arrow much faster than a recurve (modern compounds are rated at up to 100+ m/s with a carbon/aluminium arrow) that could easy punch a hole clean through a body. An arrow shot from a recurve bow is unlikely to go through a body unless you only hit soft tissue. I am assuming target arrows in each case; broadheads (if they are legal in Oz) would probably inflict terminal damage from either type of bow.
Actually a compound bow seemsmore likely for another reason. Recurve bows are typically stored unstrung and deconstructed (i.e. the limbs are detached from the riser) while compound bows are kept strung all the time (you cannot unstring them without a specalised jig designed to take the strain off of the string). I tested things this morning when I first heard about this - it took me 30 seconds to get my compound bow (yes I am an archer) out of its transport case and ready to shoot with an arrow nocked (no stablisers on it, and no release aid but it was shootable from the fingers). The same thing for my recurve bow took about 4 minutes.
Mine is the one with the release aid in the pocket.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 14:00 GMT NinjasFTW
Re: Recurve or Compound?
Depends on the recurve bow.
I used to have several single piece wooden ones (15+ years ago). Not as powerful but with a much more ye-olde feel. They were stored unstrung but could be restrung in about 30 seconds including removal from the case.
Had a couple of long bows too but they were ridiculously hard to string and it would be better just to whack someone over the head with it!
-
Monday 7th November 2016 14:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Recurve or Compound?
Yup. just gone and tried - just under 30s including taking out of the case, and using a little belt like device that helps with the stringing. The comments about compound bows and arrow weights are all reasonable, but a recurve with a broad tipped arrow can be deadly at a reasonable distance. I spend half of my week in a small house in extensive woods. I regularly pick up both rabbits and pheasants at a decent range and I have seen far larger animals killed in the US (by rather more competent archers than I) with very similar bows. I think it was lucky for all concerned that it was only the looters arse that was hit, and that, I assume, there was no barb on the arrow. Would not like to have to either take out or break the shaft of a modern arrow while on the run.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 15:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Target or Broadhead
Keep in mind that in the vast majority of countries bow hunting (i.e. the use of broadhead arrows on wild life) is strictly regulated (i.e. you can only shoot certain game) or is completely illegal. Try shooting an arrow at anything alive in the UK and you will find yourself in front of an unamused judge asking very difficult questions.
Funny enough you can own broadhead arrows and even shoot them at targets. You can also shoot at 3-D targets on field ranges. You just cannot shoot at anything living.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 17:49 GMT Wade Burchette
Re: Target or Broadhead
Bow hunting is legal in the US. I can walk into a local sporting goods store and find all types of bows and hunting rifles. Even crossbows. Some hunters prefer the bow and arrow because it requires more skill. I have heard a few hunters tell me that it is very difficult to kill a wild turkey with a bow. The hunters told me that the wild turkey can hear the arrow and dodge it. Unless you are very close to the bird which is hard to do without the bird noticing.
-
-
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 16:05 GMT Tom 7
Re: Recurve or Compound?
Until a few years ago I could pull a 70lb longbow and I shoot 34" arrows. You dont want to be on the receiving end of that - it goes through a pig carcass and out the other side.
I could string it in about 30 seconds (if left on the stringer stand) and you'd still be a target even in the car!
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 14:40 GMT allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
Hmm. Maybe I should re-read Zen in the Art of Archery.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 15:37 GMT Dwarf
Inaccurate report
Surely the description is inaccurate.
The article states
The suspect – a dark-haired, olive-skinned white man in his mid-30s with a tattoo on his left arm – drove off in a silver Mazda. ®
Surely that should read
The suspect – a dark-haired, olive-skinned white man in his mid-30s with a tattoo on his left arm and an arrow sticking out of his buttock – drove off in a silver Mazda. ®
-
Monday 7th November 2016 16:01 GMT Rich 11
Re: Inaccurate report
...screaming in pain as the car went over a bump.
But more importantly, why was the man trying to steal a car if he already had one to hand? If he was thinking of it as some sort of trade-in, all he'd be doing is leaving a rich collection of forensic evidence for the cops.
-
-
-
Monday 7th November 2016 19:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Do not confront a person in your house."
Sorry constable, but if someone is in my house I am going to confront him. I'm not going to risk that he has something more harmful to my family on his mind than stealing the silverware, and even if it sounds a gung-ho, I won't promise that breaking into my house will not result in a case of high-velocity lead poisoning.
-
Tuesday 8th November 2016 01:32 GMT GrumpyKiwi
Re: "Do not confront a person in your house."
Too right. I live on my own. If a scumbag is found in my house then there is every possibility of me ending up being a victim lying in a pool of my own blood until work wonders where the hell I am - there's no-one to raise the ambulance or the police.
If you're found in my house during the night, you'll be found here in the morning too. I'm not taking chances that you're running away because you're scared of the hairy semi-nekked bloke or you're running to get reinforcements.
-
Monday 7th November 2016 20:51 GMT Curly4
Standing naked trying to defend ones property.
It sounds like the Aussies are bound and determined to make their citizens defenseless unable to protect what they have earned. So why earn anything become one else will just take it and if you try do protect what is yours you will face worse punishment that the criminal. Australia has large areas that if one called the police it would be much to late by the time they got there to do any good. and the likelihood of catching the criminal is quite low but if one tries to protect ones own and the criminal is injured or killed look out! You will get worse than the criminal if he was ever caught.
-
Tuesday 8th November 2016 00:39 GMT dan1980
"It was not clear from local media reports whether the homeowner had been arrested, though he is said to have exercised his right to silence while under interrogation"
No such thing in NSW.
With no constitutional protection of the 'right to silence' it is really only a convention, able to be weakened, over-ridden or out-right abolished by politicians as they see fit.
In NSW, if you are indicted then the 'right to silence' simply no longer applies to you. Which is not to say that you can't keep silent - no one can really force you to speak - but that your silence can be held against you in court. Specifically, if you remained silent during police questioning then the jury is not only allowed to infer dishonesty if you later speak in court, but they can be actively directed to do so.
For example, if you are questioned over suspicion of some crime or other but refuse to answer police questioning about why you were in such-and-such a place then, should you be indicted, if you provide a reason for your being their, the jury are likely to be directed to view your explanation with suspicion and not believe you.
In other words, if you don't spill to the cops, jury's are, effectively, told that you are likely to be lying.
Yay!
-
Tuesday 8th November 2016 19:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Interrogated"? Seriously, the cops "interrogated" him?!
WTF Aussie cops!! Here's a guy who finds someone on his property, stealing his car and takes non-lethal action, and he's the one who ends up down at the station house playing "good cop, bad cop"? I realize you don't want to turn Australia into live-fire Westworld, but I think some so-called public servants have lost sight of who they are working for.
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th November 2016 14:00 GMT Peter2
This is the thing. Are we sure he was hit? I'm sure he fired it at him, but no so sure about the hit. People claiming hits when they actually missed is quite well documented these days on moving targets that then rapidly departed the scene.
I mean, even a 30 pound bow sinks arrows without a warhead (in the original meaning of the term) into a straw target so deeply enough that you have to suspect that the chap wouldn't have sat down in the car with the arrow buried in him. If you pulled the arrow out before getting in the car, wouldn't a natural reaction be to drop it and then stick your hand over the wound rather than carry it into the car? It may well be that the arrow is sitting in somebodies garden a hundred yards downrange.
-
-
-
Thursday 10th November 2016 01:07 GMT dan1980
Re: Meanwhile in the UK
@peter 45
Well, injuring someone who is fleeing and therefore who poses no immediate threat to you is not "self-defence" at all - proportionate or otherwise.
Whatever someone's position on protection of property, "self defence" is something entirely different and only applies when you are - logically enough - defending yourself. Attacking someone who is retreating just does not, by definition alone, qualify.
The level of force acceptable to defend your stuff is another question entirely.
-
Friday 2nd December 2016 04:17 GMT Marshalltown
Specious argument
A "fleeing" burglar is not by any visible evidence a "discouraged" burglar. Fleeing as an act exhibits no indication that he would not come back, either when confident you are not home, or better equipped to deal with you as an armed occupant. So, there is absolutely no reason to argue that planting a barb, or shooting a fleeing burglar or car thief in the ass is anything but reasonable self defense. The only person who would disagree is the thief and his personal injury attorney who hopes to profit from the non-pc approach to criminal justice. A jury of potential or active criminals might, and so might a jury narrowly instructed by the judge to consider only the immediate events. Frankly, I would argue that anyone injured while committing a crime should be held to have forfeited the protection of the law during that act. And, since the police regard fleeing a crime scene as a criminal act in itself, fleeing is not an automatic justification for arguing an injury acquired when fleeing TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ATTEMPTED crime was not acquired in the course of committing the same crime.
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
