Swordsman kills intruder [Archive]

View Full Version : Swordsman kills intruder

Kilgor

11-01-2005, 06:41 PM

AN INTRUDER has been killed and his accomplice injured by a sword-wielding man whose south-west Melbourne home they broke into early today, police said.

Police said the man, in his 20s, and his accomplice got into the Noble Park home about 12.30am (AEDT).
A man in his 30s and a woman in her 20s were at home at the time, Senior Constable Wayne Wilson said.

"It was an aggravated burglary that has gone wrong," he said.

"They've gotten inside. While inside there has been an incident between one of the persons, a male from the house, and one of the intruders, with the intruder suffering fatal injuries."

Const Wilson said the other intruder fled, but was was likely to seek medical help for cuts to his hands and legs.

Advertisement:
"We are asking any medicos who might treat a fellow in his late teens to 20 mark with those sort of injuries to contact us," Const Wilson said.
"We are also asking that the person who was involved in this incident might think about giving himself up at this stage."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17114419-2,00.html

woot

Justice served, sliced and delivered !

Now watch the liberals and civil libertarians justify rights and safety whilst carrying out voilent robbers. And one less piece of **** in jail to waste 55k a year on.

WarriorMonk

11-01-2005, 07:01 PM

damn...that's skill.

Well...after all, I'm not an accomplished fencer or swordsman despite the fact that I have 3 samurai swords at home...all I'd do is just flail them around...

tsuri

11-01-2005, 07:50 PM

This is the ultimate proof that a man with dedication does not need a gun to defend himself.

What kind of sword was it?

joe mama

11-01-2005, 08:02 PM

This is the ultimate proof that a man with dedication does not need a gun to defend himself.

What kind of sword was it?

So do you approve of the guy defending his home with a sword? Would you disapprove if he did it with a gun?

walford

11-01-2005, 08:19 PM

If the homeowner is not prosecuted for successfully defending his home w/a sword -- as he most certainly would have been if it were a firearm -- this [and a few other incidents] may give indication of a government-sanctioned trend in the UK.

Perhaps the authorities are trying to give the message that they are legally favoring a return to the days of Medieval weaponry. If concealed weapons are illegal, fine. carry your sword, mace, shield, etc. openly then as was the case in ye days of olde.
http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_8_6_2003_15_24_45/swords2.jpgD8B98A76-E081-227F-DA233F3A78BB2D40.jpgLarge.jpg

zonk

11-01-2005, 08:24 PM

that mace would be an awesome weapon to use on a perp

tsuri

11-01-2005, 08:25 PM

So do you approve of the guy defending his home with a sword? Would you disapprove if he did it with a gun?
No. The tools are not important.
Although those burglars were strange, ours run away if you turn on the light.

Omaha

11-01-2005, 08:28 PM

If I was breaking in to house...and the guy gave me the choice between getting shot, or being hit with that mace....I'd take a slug any day of the week.

Now watch the liberals and civil libertarians justify rights and safety whilst carrying out voilent robbers. And one less piece of **** in jail to waste 55k a year on.

Actually, those days have already arrived. A burglar sued the owners of a house after he tried getting into their home through a basement window, broke his leg and had to stay there for 8 days while the owners were on vacation. All he had to eat and drink was dog food and puddles of water on the basement floor.

He won the suit. "Dangerous environment"

Oddbod

11-01-2005, 09:23 PM

-stk-

11-01-2005, 11:40 PM

Justice doesn't always come from the barrel of a gun.

If the burglars HAD been carrying firearms, then I feel there would have been a less just ending to this incident.

Once again we see the necessity for allowing the law-abiding citizen the means to defend himself EFFECTIVELY.

Just got an update on the news here in Aus, one of the burglars did brandish a firearm......... they didnt say if he was the the one that was killed or not though.

Jimmy C

11-02-2005, 02:35 AM

That guy is f***in old school.

Mark Sman

11-02-2005, 05:51 AM

Swords don't kill people,
massive blood loss does.

David Tate

11-02-2005, 08:35 AM

This is the ultimate proof that a man with dedication does not need a gun to defend himself.

What kind of sword was it?

I don't need a gun or a sword to defend myself 95% of the time?

dangerclose

11-02-2005, 08:54 AM

So do you approve of the guy defending his home with a sword? Would you disapprove if he did it with a gun?

lol there you go making sense again.

dangerclose

11-02-2005, 08:55 AM

Let's state the obvious:

Liberals are so damn stupid.

dacanadianbomb

11-02-2005, 09:05 AM

Ouch talk about oldschool.
I have a picture of mental picture of Richard Chamberlain ( you know the sailor turned samurai guy ) swatting arms and legs off his home intruders.

joe mama

11-02-2005, 10:22 AM

Ouch talk about oldschool.
I have a picture of mental picture of Richard Chamberlain ( you know the sailor turned samurai guy ) swatting arms and legs off his home intruders.

I'm picturing Ujio from The Last Samurai in the scene where the ninjas attack and he assphinctorlates like 97 of them.

joe mama

11-02-2005, 10:25 AM

No. The tools are not important.
Although those burglars were strange, ours run away if you turn on the light.

So, if the tools are not important, you're ok with him using a sword, and you'd be ok with him using a gun? (Since it appears legal for him to use a sword, which CLEARLY equals potential deadly force, for the sake of the discussion, let's assume it would be legal for him to use any tool to deliver the potential deadly force.) Just curious where you stand, your first statement seemed anti gun, but ok with deadly force.

joe mama

11-02-2005, 10:26 AM

Swords don't kill people,
massive blood loss does.

Max: You killed him!
Vincent: No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him.

Name the movie.

dacanadianbomb

11-02-2005, 10:46 AM

duh Collateral

Geezah

11-02-2005, 10:55 AM

Swords don't kill people,
massive blood loss does.

Max: You killed him!
Vincent: No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him.

Name the movie.

Any movie by Michael Mann rocks,

Vincent Hanna: You can ball my wife if you want to, you can lounge around in her ex-husband's "post modernistic" bullsh!t house if you want to, but you CAN'T watch my television set, Ralph!;)

joe mama

11-02-2005, 10:56 AM

duh Collateral

Mostly I posted that to try to get some anti's in a bloodlust screeching about how that movie just shows fantasies of gun nuts blah blah blah. SHHHHHHHH, don't tell them I'm baiting them.
:)

Belrick

11-02-2005, 05:12 PM

tsuri

11-02-2005, 05:35 PM

So, if the tools are not important, you're ok with him using a sword, and you'd be ok with him using a gun?
Using a gun would have been perfectly fine. I am not anti gun. I am anti "OMG BIG GUNS WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS"

Liberals are so damn stupid.

Yeah those stupid liberals and their ideas of individual freedom, restrictions on state power for more personal liberties.

joe mama

11-02-2005, 05:43 PM

Using a gun would have been perfectly fine. I am not anti gun. I am anti "OMG BIG GUNS WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS"

Yeah those stupid liberals and their ideas of individual freedom, restrictions on state power for more personal liberties.

Who, exactly, may I ask, is saying "OMG BIG GUNS WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS" ?

Funny how, for many liberals, their ideas of individual freedom don't extend to the freedom to be armed if someone chooses to be. And how they're so big on restrictions on state power, but at the same time opposed to allowing people to preserve the physical means (arms) to deal with state power IF it becomes too big and other freedoms (speech, press, etc) haven't been able to stop it.

joe mama

11-02-2005, 05:47 PM

Not to flame but some pointers for people to bear in mind before jumping on high horses.

-Whats the killing range of a sword compared to a gun?
-Whats more common place: Swords or guns?
-Are sword killings as common place as guns therefor they require the same level of effort and publicity to control there spread?

ps: A sword can be an ornament yet if to be used as such why did it need to be kept sharp enough to slice a man to peices? Does that mean this man kept his sword for the purpose of inflicting injury?

As long as he's not breaking the law with it, what's it matter what state he chooses to keep his personal property in? Should I only be allowed to keep my chainsaw fueled if I'm actively cutting down trees?

For somebody who seems VERY opposed to welfare (at least welfare the way it gets implemented too often, ie stupidly), which kind of indicates you're opposed to the idea of the state wiping people's noses for them, you're so quick to be against people being allowed to have objects that might be dangerous, and seem to want the state involved to keep them from having dangerous things even when they're obeying the law. You're tough to figure out.

Geezah

11-02-2005, 05:57 PM

walford

11-02-2005, 06:14 PM

I have a knife -- and it's sharp. Never used it though. I also have a 5 D-cell MagLite. It's heavy -- and I have used it to good effect.
:bash:

Kilgor

11-02-2005, 06:47 PM

A update on the story.

The intruders actually tied up the male of the house, then began to rob his girlfriend. He freed himself, managed to grab the samurai sword off one of the intruders and did his slice and dice. The police now have the other intruder in custody, he was badly wounded. The plolice say they will not charge the home owner with manslaughter.

woot. alls well that ends well

However the mental trauma of the home invasion will be with the victims for many many years.

tsuri

11-02-2005, 07:36 PM

Who, exactly, may I ask, is saying "OMG BIG GUNS WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS" ?

I read that all the time from people who believe that the posession of guns will lead to a free and safe society. I just say that is a mind thing. If you are determined you can defend yourself with everything.

Oh and stop mixing up American Liberalism with Liberalism. Those are two entirely different pairs of shoes.

Howitz

11-02-2005, 08:17 PM

so only the physically and mentally strong, like this guy who freakin' untied himself and then sliced up some intruders have the right to defend themselves? What about the physically weak? Yes, self defense it is a mental thing. And damn near everyone can be taught how to properly and safely store a gun, and how to use it confidently in a manner of self defense. Not everyone has the mental capacity and confidence to calmly and effectively defend themselves with a sword, knife, flashlight, their fists or whatever they have on hand.

Edit: What about the mental effects of having a well armed society on the criminals themselves? If the 'bad guy' was sure that the owner of the house he was breaking into had a gun do you think he would've thought twice about breaking in?
More so, do you think this story will have much of an effect on any criminal who happens to hear it?
As much of an effect if this story had involved a gun, not a sword?

joe mama

11-02-2005, 08:45 PM

I read that all the time from people who believe that the posession of guns will lead to a free and safe society. I just say that is a mind thing. If you are determined you can defend yourself with everything.

So you read that all the time, huh? Where? On this forum? I frequently visit a forum run by fans of a specific gun maker, people who any person who's even remotely anti gun would think are rabid gun nuts. And I've NEVER seen that. You have fun converting what people write into what you believe they're saying.

walford

11-02-2005, 09:38 PM

It is not a matter of 'belief' [i.e. an irrational conviction] that increased gun ownership leads to reduced crime. It is a simple fact. Quoting John Lott (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html) concerning his study of real-world evidence [that has never even been challenged much less refuted by any other scientific study, BTW]:States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes...

...Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.Furthermore, I question the motives of those elitists who fundamentally distrust law-abiding citizens who are armed. Deep down, I think that they know that crime would be reduced if people were able to defend themselves from armed criminals w/o fear of prosecution.

The way that it's supposed to happen is that a good person is killed by a thug and it gets a passing mention in the local news. Then there will be opportunity for the social engineers to argue for new programs for the poor disadvantaged people who commit these crimes [they call it 'prevention']. If instead the would-be murderers are taken out by the intended victims, there is no need for the benificent public servants to craft society in their image.

A self-reliant public is an anethema to the would be Philosopher Kings amongst us, which is why much of what they advocate tends to result in the opposite.

Belrick

11-02-2005, 10:56 PM

Well im certainly not advocating taking away anyones rights to sharpen there sword.

As for figuring me out? Its quite easy. Im dead center. Im no more anti-liberal than i am pro-authortarian.

Also while i can see why my comment on him having a sharpened sword i think its silly to compare said sword with knives and chain saws as they serve other purposes.

I guess i should of worded my statements to be clearer. What is the purpose of a sharpened sword other than the intention of having it as a viable weapon? Or is it merely a case of the owner wanting to be 100% authentic?

Howitz

11-02-2005, 11:06 PM

Maybe the guy liked slicing watermelons in half in his spare time, who knows?
We Americans have so much **** we don't need, and a sharpened sword is the very least of it. This however is not a bad thing, it's the way our country is. We value our private ownership of things, a lot. So let's not get into that debate, it would never end.

walford

11-02-2005, 11:15 PM

Most of the people I know [or know of] who have Samurai swords [as was used in this incident] tend to keep them sharp because they are considered by most of their owners to be functional weapons. In contrast, most people who own European medieval-type swords almost never sharpen them, because they are largely kept for ornamental purposes.

I personally have no use for either of them, preferring blunt, multi-functional objects that can be legally kept handy when needed. It's difficult to make a case for self-defense when your opponent is a slashed-up bloody mess. You don't want the jury to see those pics.