Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.news.com.au/national/man-who-shot-intruder-is-real-victim/story-e6frfkvr-1226093749448

T'S staggering that a man who tried to defend his home from armed intruders is now facing a manslaughter charge, a court has been told.

Kane Robert Cook, 29, is accused of shooting a man he claims broke into his Gold Coast hinterland home in the early hours of yesterday morning.

The injured man fled but collapsed and bled to death in the street where Mr Cook lives.

As Mr Cook faced the Southport Magistrates Court today, defence lawyer Bill Potts said his client was the real victim in the case.

He said Mr 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?" Mr Potts told the court.

Police told the court Mr 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 Mr Cook had been out and returned home to find a group of intruders inside his home.

Police prosecutor Glenn Whittle said a struggle broke out and the deceased, 34, of Sydney, was shot.

He said the dead man's World War II Luger 9mm pistol was used in the shooting.

Mr Cook had it in his hand when he went to his neighbour's home and told them: "Call police, call ambos, I shot someone", Sergeant Whittle told the court.

Mr Cook was allowed inside to call triple 0 and told the operator he'd shot someone and had been robbed, Sgt Whittle said.

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 who'd bled to death from a gunshot wound to the upper leg.

The court was told 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 Mr Cook's house with Mr Cook's name on it, the court was told.

The case will return to court on October 4.
I really hope that he gets off, if it was genuine self defense, which it seems like it was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Gotta say, it seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me. The guy legally owned the registered WWII handgun (collector?), was in a struggle and shot one of the men in the group of men that he found inside his own house, and called out for an ambulance for the guy he shot. Perhaps today's criminals are just softer, but to me it seems that if the home owner was a hardened criminal looking to murder people he wouldn't have registered the gun, would have shot them outright and wouldn't have called for an ambulance (or stuck around).

It irritates me too that some reports I've read say that "it is thought that drugs may have been involved". The only story I've found that mentioned drugs was this same news.com.au story which says that the car registered to the car of the guy who broke into the house (and got shot) was found with a balaclava, a jewellery box, a club and amphetamines. So...the bad guy had drugs, therefore drugs are involved?? Seems pretty clear that the criminals who broke in were involved in some kind of illegal activity (likely robbery, based on the jewellery box with a woman's name on it), yet I've seen no evidence that the victim (the guy who defended himself) was involved in any illegal activity.

I'd imagine that if there was much more to the story, we'd be getting much different quotes from the trial: right now they're simply "people have the right to defend themselves", not "he didn't mean to get involved in drugs, etc". Seems that if there was more involved, it would have to be addressed in the defence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Gotta say, it seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me. The guy legally owned the registered WWII handgun (collector?), was in a struggle and shot one of the men in the group of men that he found inside his own house, and called out for an ambulance for the guy he shot.
They way I read the article it was the criminal that started with the gun, and ended up getting shot by it.

IE, they attacked an unarmed man, with a gun, got themselves shot by their own weapon, and now he is in trouble for it:

He said the dead man's World War II Luger 9mm pistol was used in the shooting
I also havent read anywhere that the pistol was licensed/legal..
 

·
Camo nut
Joined
·
219 Posts
All we can do now is stand there with our thumbs up our butt while we watch our hard earned "stuff" get carried away by some low lifes.

Here is a suggestion given to me by a cop mate, if you catch someone in your house and have a chance of getting your hands on them with out getting hurt mess them up big time. (Make sure you don't get their blood on anything). Drag them off your property and leave them on the road, if you feel really nasty that day run over them before hand. Ring emergency and tell them that there is some out front of your property and it looks like they were hit by a car. The crim will not dob himself in by saying that he was breaking into your house and got messed up in the process.

Just an idea!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
They way I read the article it was the criminal that started with the gun, and ended up getting shot by it.

IE, they attacked an unarmed man, with a gun, got themselves shot by their own weapon, and now he is in trouble for it:



I also havent read anywhere that the pistol was licensed/legal..
Yep, you're right. Sorry about that. I've read several different stories on it, but the first few seemed to be saying that the guy who shot the intruder owned the gun (which would explain why the MSM seem to think the home owner is a bad guy), but this news.com.au story says otherwise. Shoulda read through it more thoroughly instead of skimming.

If it's true that it's the dead man's Luger, then this story just completely boggles my mind. Is the home owner seriously being put on trial for killing someone in a struggle who was pointing a gun at him!?! Is our only right to be a good witness or a good corpse for collecting evidence from, now??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Self defence shooting-any more news yet?

Any more news on this one yet?

I was told by local police many years ago that I have to have been shot myself before I could use a gun in self-defence. This is a bit much to expect, & is assuming you actually survive the shot! Anyway I would like to know how this case went & what the real circumstances were.
Thank you.
Regards, Keith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
FOR FARKS SAKE!!! I expect this sort of PC Horsesh!t here in NZ, but didn't expect it to be so bad across the ditch too. Let's see...a scumbag (part of a group) breaks into your house, has a pistol (and thus I would assume the willingness to use it in the commission of his crime), gets caught in the act, has his pistol taken from him in the ensuing struggle, has his pistol used against him in said struggle, bleeds to death (one wonders where his fellow scumbags were while this was happening - no honour among thieves)....Darwinism in action, I'd say. Give this guy a medal and name a holiday after him, he's done your country a favour.
 

·
Just plain snarky.
Joined
·
5,967 Posts
I think he will be found not guilty....unless he is found to have known the dead bloke in some nefarious context..........then all bets are off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
The U.S. has the same problem. Although a little more subtle here. We have the second amendment
That protects our gun rights. If you kill or injure someone in the process of defending yourself or family,
The government will bankrupt you in legal fees. Our problem is the legal system. Layers argue the law,
They preside over the law (judges), they prosecute the law, they make the laws and they get very wealthy
In doing so. They have built a system that created there own need. In my opinion they are the ultimate
Terrorist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The U.S. has the same problem. Although a little more subtle here. We have the second amendment
That protects our gun rights. If you kill or injure someone in the process of defending yourself or family,
The government will bankrupt you in legal fees. Our problem is the legal system. Layers argue the law,
They preside over the law (judges), they prosecute the law, they make the laws and they get very wealthy
In doing so. They have built a system that created there own need. In my opinion they are the ultimate
Terrorist.
Every state in the US is different. There are plenty of states in the US where you could just shoot the intruder, there are other states where you basically have no 2nd amendment rights in the first place.

Which state are you referring to?
 

·
Beginner's Mind
Joined
·
1,681 Posts
Texas has the Castle Doctrine which means if you shoot an intruder, you may not be sued by the family. It's legal here to defend yourself and property with deadly force in your home, your car and your place of work among others.

When I go out in public I know a good bit of the people I see are carrying a firearm and it warms my heart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Texas has the Castle Doctrine which means if you shoot an intruder, you may not be sued by the family. It's legal here to defend yourself and property with deadly force in your home, your car and your place of work among others.

When I go out in public I know a good bit of the people I see are carrying a firearm and it warms my heart.
That does it, I'm packing up the kids and moving to Texas. Although...would I have to wear a cowboy hat?:D:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,890 Posts
First: My God, the pistol wasn't even the home owners! It belonged to one of the thugs and there was a struggle for the gun. And the poor man is up on manslaughter for that??"

Second: A Luger??? Kriminey! The Aussies can't own guns, but when they do have one, it's a piece that's now so rare (in my parts, anyway) that it fetches more than 3 brand new Kimbers?

Strange world.
 

·
civilizationsend.com
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
thing is that because the attacker was shot with his own gun it is man slaughter because the gun was taken away from him he was no longer a threat and so it is considered a form of murder because the threat was already neutralized when the gun was fired.

at least thats how it works here in RSA .... unless it proven that the perp was trying to escape citizens arrest

the law is quite clear that you cannot shoot an unarmed man even if you just disarmed him ....
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top