Strange legal case
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2017, 08:23 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(04-04-2017 08:17 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  
(04-04-2017 08:02 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Without knowing the specifics of the case, if the crime occurred in the actual home of the homeowner and also the intruders attacked with a knife, I can't can't imagine how the homeowner could have been charged. Maybe there is another factor in this case that you're overlooking.

The intruder who survived should be the only person that was charged. The outcome of all events connected with the commission of a felony fall squarely on the shoulders of the person or people committing the felony.

In the United States, if you decide to carry out a felony, be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison.

Thats what I mean though, I'm aware the home owner wouldn't get charged, so he was let off with Self Defence, and rightly so. But why would Intruder 2 be charged with Murder of Intruder 1, if somebody has already said "yes I did this"? Surely it'd be armed robbery or something of that nature?

It's the felony murder law. Someone mentioned in this thread that it's based on English law. Basically, if you participate in the commission of a felony, you're responsible for the outcome of events. All connected events. If you participate in the commission of a felony as a group, then you're all equally responsible. That's the law, so that's why Intruder 2 was charged.

Why? Because we're tough on criminals and our law favors justice for the victims, not justice or leniency for the criminals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2017, 08:33 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(03-04-2017 12:41 AM)f stop Wrote:  The shooter had the right to assume (1)they are adults, (2)all three are armed with deadly weapons and (3)their objective is murder.

(1) Assumptions are not a legally defensible "right". And apparently you condone killing burglars providing they're adults? Presuming that, how would you discern the difference between a 16-year-old child and 21-year-old adult in the heat of the moment?

(2) Assumptions can be tragically erroneous, as in this case. The only visible weapon was a knife carried by one burglar (which, in Australia, is not defined legally as a "lethal" weapon anyway).

(3) Assuming that three burglars' "objective" is murder is patently absurd. Obviously their objective was burglarising what they believed to be a vacant residence.

At the end of the day, nobody has the legal "right" to kill anybody else. And if you do, then you have to defend your actions in a court of law—as the 23-year-old resident will most likely have to.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2017, 08:56 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(04-04-2017 07:10 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  I just watched a program on a similar case like this, which happened somewhere in the US.

In that instance, 2 guys had broken into somebodys home. The home owner shot in self defense, after they tried to stab him, and he killed one of the intruders. That went to court, and the home owner was let off with "self defense".

However, the justice system still requires somebody be held accountable, and charged the surviving intruder with murder. Very messed up.

I believe in the US, if you are "present" during a murder you can be charged for it as well. For instance, if you're in a group of people, and one of those people out right murders somebody, the whole group can be held accountable.

It's mental.

I have no problem with the whole group being held accountable if one person kills say, the homeowner, but charging the surviving group with murder of one of the group following the self defence shooting of one of the group members that's what's fucked up totally not natural justice of any description.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2017, 07:34 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 04:51 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(28-03-2017 11:17 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  So your three buddies get shot by the homeowner in self defense while you wait in the getaway car yet you get charged with murder for their deaths? I've heard of felony murder but never quite seen it applied like this! What gives?

That's not self-defence it's cold blooded murder. The US is batshit crazy. Sure, look I agree the home-owner has every right to defend his life - including taking lethal action - but he had a gun, and they had knives. All he had to do was restrain them and call the police.

You need to go back and read up on the concept of use of deadly force. These people broke into someone's house armed with knives and brass knuckles for the express purpose of robbing the place and either beating or killing anyone who tried to resist. They posed an immediate threat to the life and limb or the occupants of that home and the occupants were fully justified to shoot those worthless little punks. I would have shot them too, had I bee there and had instrders break into my home like that.

Also I don't know how much you know about meelee combat but engaging someone armed with a knife at close range is even more dangerous than doing so to someone armed with a gun. If you can, stay out of arm's reach. Knives and brass knuckles are considered deadly weapons in these scenarios. No the homeowner was fully justified to shoot 'em.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
04-04-2017, 08:08 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 08:50 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 08:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The burglers had weapons. That shows that they were willing and prepared to get violent. They didn't get the chance to act upon it, but they would be considered violent.

That's not how self-defence laws work. Not here in Australia, not in Europe, not anywhere that's civilised. Self-defence is based on a proportional response. Did oyu even read the article? They only had two weapons between three of them - so the third kid was in fact unarmed. And none of them had guns.

In most places if you did what this American did, you'd be convicted for either murder or manslaughter. You have a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to kill people because they broke into your home and threatened you. If you use excessive force in self defence, you are culpable.

Well I am glad I don't live in Europe and be subject to European justice. I'm well aware of those standards for self defense. Had they been applied here, that kid in the house may well have been killed by those robbers.

I get really tired of this shit. Someone breaks into my home and threatens to harm or kill me? And I can't stop them, if necessary kill them, to protect myself? HOW DARE YOU DO THAT! HOW DARE YOU COMMIT A VIOLENT FELONY AND ENDANGER MY LIFE BECAUSE YOU ARE SO SELFISH YOU THINK YOU CAN INVADE MY HOME AND VIOLATE MY PEACE AND SECURITY JUST FOR A $300 STEREO OR JEWELERY! YOU SELFISH, WORTHLESS LITTLE COCKSUCKER! It's attitudes and judicial policies like this that make people feel powerless to do anything about crime and violence in their communities and gravy for the criminals who know they can rely on the state to punish those who fight back!

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
05-04-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(04-04-2017 08:08 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Had they been applied here, that kid in the house may well have been killed by those robbers.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all. Why would they kill the householder during a robbery?

Quote:I get really tired of this shit. Someone breaks into my home and threatens to harm or kill me? And I can't stop them, if necessary kill them, to protect myself? HOW DARE YOU DO THAT! HOW DARE YOU COMMIT A VIOLENT FELONY AND ENDANGER MY LIFE BECAUSE YOU ARE SO SELFISH YOU THINK YOU CAN INVADE MY HOME AND VIOLATE MY PEACE AND SECURITY JUST FOR A $300 STEREO OR JEWELERY! YOU SELFISH, WORTHLESS LITTLE COCKSUCKER! It's attitudes and judicial policies like this that make people feel powerless to do anything about crime and violence in their communities and gravy for the criminals who know they can rely on the state to punish those who fight back!

Again, that doesn't at all follow. The US has the highest number of people incarcerated per capita by a very wide margin, compared to all other first-world democracies. And it's certainly not worth killing someone over a few material possessions.

And of course a knife is a deadly weapon, I never said it isn't - look what happened to Ron Goldman, and he was a Karate black belt. But (spoiler) the perpetrator went there to kill him, not to rob him.

Another reason why this kind of shit can't happen in places in Australia is because firearm owners are required to keep their guns in a gun safe (a glorified locker), unloaded with the ammo box stored in a separate locked compartment. One of the guys that I knew through work absolutely loved hunting, but he would never let any of his kids near his guns. And he didn't keep his guns in a gun locker, he kept them in a 250kg CHUBB safe.

Having unsecured firearms in the house - like in America - leads to accidental deaths, especially regarding children. I saw a programme on ABC maybe a week ago (I think it was called guns and kids or something), that looked at the gun culture in the US... I think they talked about this case, where a 12 year old had his own gun and was allowed by his parents to go out hunting alone. He took his bolt-action rifle, went out, dropped the rifle and it shot him dead through the head. I don't know any gun owners in Australia who think Americans are the ones to model responsible gun ownership.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2017, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 12:19 PM by adey67.)
RE: Strange legal case
(05-04-2017 11:01 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(04-04-2017 08:08 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Had they been applied here, that kid in the house may well have been killed by those robbers.

That doesn't necessarily follow at all. Why would they kill the householder during a robbery?

Quote:I get really tired of this shit. Someone breaks into my home and threatens to harm or kill me? And I can't stop them, if necessary kill them, to protect myself? HOW DARE YOU DO THAT! HOW DARE YOU COMMIT A VIOLENT FELONY AND ENDANGER MY LIFE BECAUSE YOU ARE SO SELFISH YOU THINK YOU CAN INVADE MY HOME AND VIOLATE MY PEACE AND SECURITY JUST FOR A $300 STEREO OR JEWELERY! YOU SELFISH, WORTHLESS LITTLE COCKSUCKER! It's attitudes and judicial policies like this that make people feel powerless to do anything about crime and violence in their communities and gravy for the criminals who know they can rely on the state to punish those who fight back!

Again, that doesn't at all follow. The US has the highest number of people incarcerated per capita by a very wide margin, compared to all other first-world democracies. And it's certainly not worth killing someone over a few material possessions.

And of course a knife is a deadly weapon, I never said it isn't - look what happened to Ron Goldman, and he was a Karate black belt. But (spoiler) the perpetrator went there to kill him, not to rob him.

Another reason why this kind of shit can't happen in places in Australia is because firearm owners are required to keep their guns in a gun safe (a glorified locker), unloaded with the ammo box stored in a separate locked compartment. One of the guys that I knew through work absolutely loved hunting, but he would never let any of his kids near his guns. And he didn't keep his guns in a gun locker, he kept them in a 250kg CHUBB safe.

Having unsecured firearms in the house - like in America - leads to accidental deaths, especially regarding children. I saw a programme on ABC maybe a week ago (I think it was called guns and kids or something), that looked at the gun culture in the US... I think they talked about this case, where a 12 year old had his own gun and was allowed by his parents to go out hunting alone. He took his bolt-action rifle, went out, dropped the rifle and it shot him dead through the head. I don't know any gun owners in Australia who think Americans are the ones to model responsible gun ownership.

I apologise double post see below for real post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2017, 12:07 PM
RE: Strange legal case
Quote:That doesn't necessarily follow at all. Why would they kill the householder during a robbery?

Sure it does. Robbery is defined as the unlawful taking of of property from another by force or threat of force. If the homeowner resists, they're either going to beat the shit out of him or kill him in order to continue the robbery - or get beaten up or killed themselves. And that's not all; supposed these would be thieves broke into a house with a woman in it and they decided that pussy was more to their liking than the woman's iPad or jewelery. The point here is that these louts decided to commit a violent felony, invaded someone's home and in doing so, posed a clear and present danger to life and limb. Deadly force is perfectly authorized to neutralize the threat until the authorities can arrive on scene.

Quote:Again, that doesn't at all follow. The US has the highest number of people incarcerated per capita by a very wide margin, compared to all other first-world democracies. And it's certainly not worth killing someone over a few material possessions.

And of course a knife is a deadly weapon, I never said it isn't - look what happened to Ron Goldman, and he was a Karate black belt. But (spoiler) the perpetrator went there to kill him, not to rob him.

Another reason why this kind of shit can't happen in places in Australia is because firearm owners are required to keep their guns in a gun safe (a glorified locker), unloaded with the ammo box stored in a separate locked compartment. One of the guys that I knew through work absolutely loved hunting, but he would never let any of his kids near his guns. And he didn't keep his guns in a gun locker, he kept them in a 250kg CHUBB safe.

Having unsecured firearms in the house - like in America - leads to accidental deaths, especially regarding children. I saw a programme on ABC maybe a week ago (I think it was called guns and kids or something), that looked at the gun culture in the US... I think they talked about this case, where a 12 year old had his own gun and was allowed by his parents to go out hunting alone. He took his bolt-action rifle, went out, dropped the rifle and it shot him dead through the head. I don't know any gun owners in Australia who think Americans are the ones to model responsible gun ownership.

Again you miss the point: the perpetrator's unlawful presence in your home vis a vis breaking and entering constitutes a threat where there is a very reasonable danger to your life. I don't care if these kids were just there to rob the house or do worse; their presence alone in the commission of a felony constitutes the threat.

I own guns specifically for self defense and keep them loaded and in readily accessible places in my home. It isn't going to do me a whole lot of good locked in a safe. Other weapons which are not used for that purpose are unloaded and stored under lock and key until I need them.

Accidental gun deaths in the United States are so low it's almost a mute point; about 40 or so children die every year from the accidental discharge of a firearm, far less that the 400 or so who drown in swimming pools and bathtubs, not to mention deaths during team sports, traffic accidents, etc. This doesn't justify the kind of gun control Australia has, nor justify my right to defend myself, if necessary, with a firearm.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
05-04-2017, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 12:24 PM by adey67.)
RE: Strange legal case
(05-04-2017 12:01 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:01 AM)Aractus Wrote:  That doesn't necessarily follow at all. Why would they kill the householder during a robbery?


Again, that doesn't at all follow. The US has the highest number of people incarcerated per capita by a very wide margin, compared to all other first-world democracies. And it's certainly not worth killing someone over a few material possessions.

And of course a knife is a deadly weapon, I never said it isn't - look what happened to Ron Goldman, and he was a Karate black belt. But (spoiler) the perpetrator went there to kill him, not to rob him.

Another reason why this kind of shit can't happen in places in Australia is because firearm owners are required to keep their guns in a gun safe (a glorified locker), unloaded with the ammo box stored in a separate locked compartment. One of the guys that I knew through work absolutely loved hunting, but he would never let any of his kids near his guns. And he didn't keep his guns in a gun locker, he kept them in a 250kg CHUBB safe.

Having unsecured firearms in the house - like in America - leads to accidental deaths, especially regarding children. I saw a programme on ABC maybe a week ago (I think it was called guns and kids or something), that looked at the gun culture in the US... I think they talked about this case, where a 12 year old had his own gun and was allowed by his parents to go out hunting alone. He took his bolt-action rifle, went out, dropped the rifle and it shot him dead through the head. I don't know any gun owners in Australia who think Americans are the ones to model responsible gun ownership.

In the USA its a difficult situation unlimited guns = unlimited potential for violence = need for guns as protection. I understand fully why yanks need guns for protection, thankfully we don't have those same sad issues in the UK and Australia, we are lucky, their constitution has literally bitten them in the ass, and sadly they don't even realise it and fucking think its a good thing, now that's really fucked up, adoring your guns and gun culture above all else. However we will never convince them otherwise and no point in trying, we have to deal with what is. And who cares its NOT our problem, let them kill each other and think they're morally right, the rest of the first world isn't that retarded thankfully. Its horrible but wiser people than me have convinced me that guns for self protection are required in the USA.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2017, 12:13 PM
RE: Strange legal case
(03-04-2017 12:09 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(02-04-2017 09:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please respond to what I asked.

You didn't ask anything.

And, no, the law does agree with me. The fact that some inhumane backwards country in North-America has foreign laws that don't, doesn't change that.

Foreign? This is based on English Common Law and was the law in Australia at one time.

Quote:Or do you think that the USA's laws are supreme?

Where did I even imply that I thought that? Consider

Quote:I find it baffling that anyone in this thread would defend the householder. Even if he has the legal right to shoot any trespasser as a vengeful vigilante, it doesn't alter the fact that it's morally wrong and he had other options besides killing children that are in the process of committing a crime.

It's called threat assessment.
In the middle of the night, the safest assessment is that intruders in your home mean you harm.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: