Intruder dies in home invasion – Why you should be able to protect yourself in your own home

You should be able to protect yourself in your own home

One Nation has zero sympathy for anyone who breaks into someone’s home during the middle of the night and ends up dead.

The thought that a family man could be charged for the death of a home invader must be gut-wrenching.

Do you think we’re wrong on this one?

Man dies during suspected home invasion in Sydney’s southwest

Adella Beaini, Chris Harris and Nick Hansen, The Daily Telegraph

A barefoot burglar died in a confrontation with a Sydney father who found the man in his house early yesterday just metres from his wife and baby daughter.

Police said family man Johan Schwartz, 44, woke to the sound of his dogs barking at his Harrington Park home about 7.30am and went downstairs to find the 35-year-old intruder, who police described as “muscular”, standing inside his living room.

There was a confrontation between the pair and police suspect Mr Schwartz was restraining the would-be thief when he lost consciousness.

Mr Schwarz’s wife called to neighbours who ran into the house and began CPR on the man. Paramedics were also called but the intruder could not be revived.

Mr Schwartz, a business analyst known to neighbours as Francois, accompanied detectives to Narellan police station.

Following more than 10 hours of questioning, he was released without charge “pending further inquiries’’.

Camden Police Chief Inspector Shane Woolbank said Mr Schwartz was “affected” by the confrontation but was co-operating fully with police.

“People are entitled to (defend) their home, they’re entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property,” he said.

“The autopsy will determine hopefully his cause of death, which will be a significant factor in where we take this investigation. Like any incident that involves the death of a person, it has affected (Mr Schwartz) but he is co-operating.

“His wife and young child were at home, however they have been spoken to and are in the care of friends and relatives­.”

Police were yesterday working to identify the dead man, who had been seen by other residents earlier in the night.

“The man has a ginger-like moustache and beard, he was wearing a blue sleeveless top and grey Nike training shorts. He also had two distinct tattoos, one on the left upper inside of his arm, but that tattoo was not in English,” Insp Woolbank said. A tattoo on his chest began with the words “True to ourself”.

Neighbour Domenic Lombardo said he saw a man run through a neighbouring building site around the time of the home invasion and he was “breathing heavy and mumbling to himself’’.

Police believe other people had interactions with the deceased about 3am in the same area but were not certain he had tried to break into other homes.

A second crime scene was set up nearby, where police believe he had been earlier.

24 replies
  1. Tim
    Tim says:

    The Government wants us to lay down for criminals. The Melbourne police chief instructed citizens to give in to all demands of home invaders and not resist. We cannot stand for this!

    Reply
    • John Brandenburg
      John Brandenburg says:

      What happened to a man’s home is his castle, if someone enter my home UNinvited, I should be allowed to use whatever force to get him out or disarm him. Without any fear of going to jail for protecting my home and family.

      Reply
  2. Jeanne
    Jeanne says:

    The Govt is slowly dumbing down Australia society it’s about time we got real get rid of Labor and the Greens because they are dangerous and part of the cause..our home is our personal space and anyone entering it is invading it, we should be able to defend what is ours? would we lay down if our country was being threatened? no! so our home is no different

    Reply
    • Kevin Bowring
      Kevin Bowring says:

      They have to be caught and restrained first – penalties only work if they are caught. Bob Katter was thrown out of the National Party by Tim Fischer, at John Howard’s urging, in 1996, for making it clear, that the end result of the Gun Laws introduced by Howard, was that in the event of Home Invasion, the Law protected the Criminal, not the Home Owner. One notable Home Invasion in Queensland saw the Home Owner lose his Home and savings defending himself in Court, when the Queensland Justice Minister threw out the FIRST Court finding of “innocent” and took him to Court again with all the resources of Government behind him. Luckily the Court found in favour of the Home Owner once again – but it cost him his Home and Savings – definitely not a fair outcome.

      Reply
  3. Ken
    Ken says:

    This man should be congratulated for saving his family. What ever happened to a Man or Womans home is a castle. It would appear that some bastard politician has altered this law of self protection in ones one home. In fact bring back laws that if an invader enters into you Private home then he is guilty and therefor has no rights to exist as a living person Even better give home owners the right to self defense to do what ever has to be done.

    Reply
  4. Lindsay Hackett
    Lindsay Hackett says:

    If anybody enters a home illegally, at any time, I believe it reasonable to assume the intruder intends to cause harm to my family or me. There can be no benefit in assuming that no harm is intended and all will be well, to suddenly realise lives are in danger. I believe I should have the right to assume the worst and the right to defend my family and myself by all reasonable means. If I am in an obviously weaker position because of health, physical stature, etc., then I must be able to use a weapon to overcome the intruder. This use must permit me to dominate the intruder, not place me on an equal footing so as to leave the outcome to chance.

    Reply
    • Paul
      Paul says:

      I fully agree with you Lindsay. When an intruder enters our home, they are not giving us an equal playing field as they are doing the hostile action, not us. Laws should not protect those that deliberately cause or try to cause unjust harm to others. Harm others by unjustifiable attack, NO! Harm others by defending against such an attack, YES! We need strong individual rights to live in peace if peace is the path we have chosen.

      Reply
  5. Simone
    Simone says:

    Mr Schwarz is one of the rare people who really deserves a knighthood and a medal for bravery. We should be able to defend ourselves from invaders any which way.

    Reply
  6. Ronald Kelly
    Ronald Kelly says:

    Do you wait for a home invader to harm your family ? NO you don’t.
    Your home is your castle, if you enter a home without permission and you get harmed its no ones fault but your own.
    How many law makers have ever been through this type of situation? I don’t think it would be many if any.

    Reply
  7. Scott Dixon
    Scott Dixon says:

    The government and all the do gooders only talk about the rights of the criminal. Good on Johan for protecting his family. It is time for Australia to regulate that if you want rights don’t break the law. As far as I am concerned if you break into my home or my place of business you have NO rights including the right to life.

    Reply
  8. Brian Sayers
    Brian Sayers says:

    During a home invasion it is not possible to call police, as firstly there is no opportunity and secondly, by the time the Police arrive it will all be over and the homeowner or his wife and children could be traumatised if not injured or dead.
    Obviously there is but one solution.
    How do the Police determine “REASONABLE FORCE”?
    Personally I believe it what is required to subdue the invader.

    Reply
    • A
      A says:

      It isn’t just the police that determine this, but (in many cases) a jury. Basically up to 12 office monkeys who have never been in a conflict determining that the criminal has more rights than the person who used “excessive force” to deal with them.

      Reply
  9. D2
    D2 says:

    Let’s face it – the police do NOT defend the citizen; they merely respond to crimes and hopefully bring perpetrators to court (where justice is rarely done). Incidents in Melbourne and Sydney demonstrated very starkly how Police will stand by and avoid confrontation while innocents are murdered in public. The term ‘reasonable force’ is rubbish! As others have commented, if anybody chooses to enter my property in inappropriate circumstances without consent and I believe their intentions COULD BE malicious, I will defend self, family and property with any and all means available……..and then have to deal with the so-called law.

    Reply
  10. Ingrid Hall
    Ingrid Hall says:

    As the good book says “It is wrong to be partial to the wicked and deny the righteous justice”. Something that is clearly obvious these days within our justice system.

    Reply
  11. David J Currington
    David J Currington says:

    It’s going to take a politicians house to be broken into before some thing is done…same as medical and ambulances etc. it is going to take a politician laying beside the road for an hour waiting for an ambulance before something gets done, same with the police, our town in NSW has no police after seven o’clock or so, how good is that.They don’t care as long they get there four years and there pension thats all they go in there for now…

    Reply
  12. StephenSneddon
    StephenSneddon says:

    I love the comments that people have made
    If good people sit by and let the wicked who make laws to benefit the home invader then these people should be locked up themselves to bring true justice to the many people who have been traumatised, injured and killed over the year in Australia.
    The law should be clear that no home invader should be innocent in any circumstance.

    Reply
  13. John
    John says:

    It sometimes feels like we have to wait till we are attacked before we can respond to their level, if some one pulls a gun on a policeman they can’t just shoot they have to be sure that they intended on using it before the police can shoot them so sometimes it fells like they have to wait till they are fired upon to shoot back then they are put through hell to prove it was the right move if someone attacks a policeman or breaks into my home why do I have to wait to see how far they intend on going before I can respond proportionately and risk them having the upper hand and assaulting or killing me just in case there supposed civil rights are infringed upon they a greased me I should decide upon the response to make myself feel safe

    Reply
  14. A
    A says:

    This “minimum use of force” mentality is what is causing such a ridiculous rate in crime. What should be adopted is a policy of “maximum allowable force” instead, like the military are trained to use. I see no reason why it is unethical to kill a home intruder to protect your property or family. Funny enough, South Australia’s legislation tends to agree with me, and proportionality is not a requirement when dealing with a home invasion.

    Australia has almost 3-5x the rate of violent crime than the US, and yet people insist the US are “gun nuts” etc. Clearly the “gun nuts” know how to deal with violent crime.

    Reply
  15. Tony R
    Tony R says:

    If an intruder is found in your house or on your premises, I think the right thing to do would be to stop them in their tracks, after all they are not there to befriend you.
    In the event that this should lead to their death, then so be it.
    As far as I am concerned, reasonable force is what ever a home owner deems it to be, end of story.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *