The Right to Self Defence (2 Viewers)

[Rafy]

ugh this is clearly self defense

http://www.news.com.au/national/man-who-shot-intruder-is-real-victim/story-e6frfkvr-1226093749448

 

[meilz92]

Re: The Thread that never Ends

ugh this is clearly self defense

http://www.news.com.au/national/man-who-shot-intruder-is-real-victim/story-e6frfkvr-1226093749448

fucking hell, they're charging him. really

 

[iRuler]

Re: The Thread that never Ends

ugh this is clearly self defense

http://www.news.com.au/national/man-who-shot-intruder-is-real-victim/story-e6frfkvr-1226093749448

this is what happens in australia

 

[stampede]

Re: The Thread that never Ends

ugh this is clearly self defense

http://www.news.com.au/national/man-who-shot-intruder-is-real-victim/story-e6frfkvr-1226093749448

fuck we have some stupid laws

if a motherfucker tried robbing my home i kill the bitch with my bare hands

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Re: The Thread that never Ends

ugh this is clearly self defense

http://www.news.com.au/national/man-who-shot-intruder-is-real-victim/story-e6frfkvr-1226093749448

Fuck Australia is aids.

 

[powlmao]

Re: The Thread that never Ends

So stupid. He shot the guy once, how the fuck is that not self defence!

 

[ohexploitable]

Re: The Thread that never Ends

So stupid. He shot the guy once, how the fuck is that not self defence!

how observant

 

[meilz92]

Re: The Thread that never Ends

So stupid. He shot the guy once, how the fuck is that not self defence!

in the leg too

 

[Chemical Ali]

>Police told the court Mr Cook should not be granted bail


cops are scum

 

[SylviaB]

haha, and it was the intruder's gun

fuck the police
l

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

of course he was charged; the more pertinent question is whether or not he will be convicted

 

[meilz92]

of course he was charged; the more pertinent question is whether or not he will be convicted

dats wot i m3nt lol my bad

 

[abbeyroad]

nsw crimes act

418 Self-defence-when available

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or

(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or

(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

421 Self-defence-excessive force that inflicts death

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the person uses force that involves the infliction of death, and

(b) the conduct is not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them,

but the person believes the conduct is necessary:

(c) to defend himself or herself or another person, or

(d) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person.

(2) The person is not criminally responsible for murder but, on a trial for murder, the person is to be found guilty of manslaughter if the person is otherwise criminally responsible for manslaughter.

he shot him in the leg, how the fuck is that not a reasonable response. also there's reasonable doubt as to whether he had intentionally shot his attacker, the gun could have accidentally gone off in the struggle and I doubt either of them even knew what trigger discipline is. there are no witnesses to the act, basically it's his words against the other 3 intruders' and any competent lawyer can completely trash their credibility and reliability before they even take the stand. fuck if he's convicted then either the defense is an incompetent fucktart or there's something wrong with our legal system.

 

[meilz92]

but it happened in qld

 

[abbeyroad]

but it happened in qld

d'oh

 

[meilz92]

same story: slightly different information

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...r-after-qld-home-invasion-20110712-1hb9d.html

The unofficial story is that the home invasion was drug-related, and that up to four men, one armed with a gun, lay in ambush in the early hours of the morning.

While they're not saying so officially, it's believed both men, to use a long-standing phrase, were known to police.

maybe they were drug fiends... maybe it wasnt just self-defense after all..

 

[abbeyroad]

qld criminal code

271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault

(1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for the person to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous bodily harm.

 

[abbeyroad]

same story: slightly different information

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...r-after-qld-home-invasion-20110712-1hb9d.html





maybe they were drug fiends... maybe it wasnt just self-defense after all..

so?

 

[meilz92]

maybe he had more motivation to shoot the guy other than just self defence. who knows

 

[abbeyroad]

maybe he had more motivation to shoot the guy other than just self defence. who knows

hard to prove.

besides it's irrelevant, it's all about whether the degree of force was reasonable ie whether a reasonable person would exercise the same degree of force in the same situation.