Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by trekin » 17 May 2020, 10:01 am

TassieTiger wrote:^ not quoting as it’s just getting insanely long.
@ trekkin.
Was cuskelly given 9 years? Yes. Does it matter what the court docs say, when the ultimate outcome is....9 years??

What is the actual point asking me if it was my son that was deceased? It’s insane - what if my son killed someone drunk driving? What if my son killed someone shooting ? These are laws that are in place - and sorry to my son if he reads this but if he breaks into someone’s home, attacks them, Was heard to say his intent is to kill that person and he comes out on the wrong end - he has crossed the line.

And again - how is it relevant trekkin re ABV when your in your OWN home drinking ? In saying that, are you now saying that, ppl should moderate their actions at home, in case someone breaks in ?

HMMM..... Will do anything to keep your family safe, but are willing to not seek justise if said member is killed by a person who is so drunk that they can not even form a rational thought. Says a lot.
Well, there are some places left in the world that have no problems with unjustified murder, maybe you should consider moving to one. There is not one civilized, first world, country, anywhere, even those States in Amercia, with any form of Castle Doctrine, that will allow what you want without some level of justification. I challage you to name one, just one, with a link to their law allowing it!
Look, mate, I not arguing that we don't need to able to defend ours and our own in our homes, with what ever means up to and including ,without fear of prosecution, I'm just saying that we already have that Castle Doctrine, here in QLD with it's checks and balances to weed out unjustifable killings.
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
I earned every grey hair I have.
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 803
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 17 May 2020, 10:39 am

trekin wrote:
TassieTiger wrote:^ not quoting as it’s just getting insanely long.
@ trekkin.
Was cuskelly given 9 years? Yes. Does it matter what the court docs say, when the ultimate outcome is....9 years??

What is the actual point asking me if it was my son that was deceased? It’s insane - what if my son killed someone drunk driving? What if my son killed someone shooting ? These are laws that are in place - and sorry to my son if he reads this but if he breaks into someone’s home, attacks them, Was heard to say his intent is to kill that person and he comes out on the wrong end - he has crossed the line.

And again - how is it relevant trekkin re ABV when your in your OWN home drinking ? In saying that, are you now saying that, ppl should moderate their actions at home, in case someone breaks in ?

HMMM..... Will do anything to keep your family safe, but are willing to not seek justise if said member is killed by a person who is so drunk that they can not even form a rational thought. Says a lot.
Well, there are some places left in the world that have no problems with unjustified murder, maybe you should consider moving to one. There is not one civilized, first world, country, anywhere, even those States in Amercia, with any form of Castle Doctrine, that will allow what you want without some level of justification. I challage you to name one, just one, with a link to their law allowing it!
Look, mate, I not arguing that we don't need to able to defend ours and our own in our homes, with what ever means up to and including ,without fear of prosecution, I'm just saying that we already have that Castle Doctrine, here in QLD with it's checks and balances to weed out unjustifable killings.


Putting words into people’s mouths says a lot too - and you know that you have misquoted what I’ve said, but tbh, this is an informative debate and your clearly educated to be able to retort, so let’s continue, as this is HOW issues / laws should be formed and I’ve said multiple times on here that I’m not too big to have my mind changed on any topic - doubt it on this one though :-)

In saying that, a couple Q’s on what you posted.

In regards to cuskelly - the person who attacked him was also very, very intoxicated, so maybe with the dilution of blood, it was an underlying reason why he bled out so fast, so if the deceased wasn’t so drunk, he would be alive, if the deceased didn’t attack cuskelly, he would be alive, if the deceased didn’t trespass then he’d be alive - I don’t understand how or why (I’ll grant you his history was pretty darn bad, but that shouldn’t come into either), consumed alcohol at home, regardless of impairment (in the scenario at least) can be so heavily weighted - it wasn’t a frenzied attack - it was a scuffle with a single wound, I think I recall that he attempted to render first aid after the attack, so it wasnt pre meditated...and to end up with 9 years ?

Would the same be said if the person was on cancer pain killing medication and thus was heavily impaired - ? Maybe cuskelly had a drinking problem and his abv wasn’t attributable to “nominal” behaviour - I know of such ppl who can drink like fish but don’t seem to get impaired..


How do you conclude that this is unjustified murder?
Even the courts overturned it to manslaughter, so is this an exaggeration, or do you really believe this was unjustified murder? Not being smart arse, is this your view?
In your reply, you’ve stated that I seem to be a fan of unjustified homicide, this is clearly untrue and you would have read that in my previous posts - i suspect an over reaction on tour part there.

Shouldn’t the bottom line in castle doctrine be intent? If the trespasser is intending harm OR you believe via parameters that they are intending harm - then you have the right to defend yourself without fear of reprisal ?? That is the bottom line for me.
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Ziege » 17 May 2020, 10:49 am

Would I be agreeing to castle doctrine indeed regardless of who the perp is, trekkin, ya ever heard of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"?
Ziege
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 964
Western Australia

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Ricochet » 17 May 2020, 11:21 am

Where Cuskelly stuffed up was that he went and confronted the guy whilst armed with two knives, that both ended up buried in the guys chest if memory serves me correctly.

He did not attempt to retreat and rightly or wrongly in the eyes of the law went on the offence.

Given that he was at home, tanked, and had been threatened I believe he was screwed over by the courts, but had he stayed inside with a locked door it may have ended differently (remember that duty to retreat BS). The guy who died was said to have accessed the fire escape, if I'm wrong and he break and entered his way into Cuskelly's place then the law was entirely wrong. If Cuskelly went outside then it's a different story.
Ricochet
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 112
New South Wales

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 17 May 2020, 12:07 pm

But Ric, the deceased was also heard (by a credible witness) to say that he intended to kill cuskelly - So, perhaps he didn’t think retreat was a viable solution - especially because he had issues with his front door lock?
I’ve heard that saying Z - very applicable....
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by trekin » 17 May 2020, 12:17 pm

TassieTiger wrote:
trekin wrote:
TassieTiger wrote:^ not quoting as it’s just getting insanely long.
@ trekkin.
Was cuskelly given 9 years? Yes. Does it matter what the court docs say, when the ultimate outcome is....9 years??

What is the actual point asking me if it was my son that was deceased? It’s insane - what if my son killed someone drunk driving? What if my son killed someone shooting ? These are laws that are in place - and sorry to my son if he reads this but if he breaks into someone’s home, attacks them, Was heard to say his intent is to kill that person and he comes out on the wrong end - he has crossed the line.

And again - how is it relevant trekkin re ABV when your in your OWN home drinking ? In saying that, are you now saying that, ppl should moderate their actions at home, in case someone breaks in ?

HMMM..... Will do anything to keep your family safe, but are willing to not seek justise if said member is killed by a person who is so drunk that they can not even form a rational thought. Says a lot.
Well, there are some places left in the world that have no problems with unjustified murder, maybe you should consider moving to one. There is not one civilized, first world, country, anywhere, even those States in Amercia, with any form of Castle Doctrine, that will allow what you want without some level of justification. I challage you to name one, just one, with a link to their law allowing it!
Look, mate, I not arguing that we don't need to able to defend ours and our own in our homes, with what ever means up to and including ,without fear of prosecution, I'm just saying that we already have that Castle Doctrine, here in QLD with it's checks and balances to weed out unjustifable killings.


Putting words into people’s mouths says a lot too - and you know that you have misquoted what I’ve said, but tbh, this is an informative debate and your clearly educated to be able to retort, so let’s continue, as this is HOW issues / laws should be formed and I’ve said multiple times on here that I’m not too big to have my mind changed on any topic - doubt it on this one though :-)

In saying that, a couple Q’s on what you posted.

In regards to cuskelly - the person who attacked him was also very, very intoxicated, so maybe with the dilution of blood, it was an underlying reason why he bled out so fast, so if the deceased wasn’t so drunk, he would be alive, if the deceased didn’t attack cuskelly, he would be alive, if the deceased didn’t trespass then he’d be alive - I don’t understand how or why (I’ll grant you his history was pretty darn bad, but that shouldn’t come into either), consumed alcohol at home, regardless of impairment (in the scenario at least) can be so heavily weighted - it wasn’t a frenzied attack - it was a scuffle with a single wound, I think I recall that he attempted to render first aid after the attack, so it wasnt pre meditated...and to end up with 9 years ?

Would the same be said if the person was on cancer pain killing medication and thus was heavily impaired - ? Maybe cuskelly had a drinking problem and his abv wasn’t attributable to “nominal” behaviour - I know of such ppl who can drink like fish but don’t seem to get impaired..


How do you conclude that this is unjustified murder?
Even the courts overturned it to manslaughter, so is this an exaggeration, or do you really believe this was unjustified murder? Not being smart arse, is this your view?
In your reply, you’ve stated that I seem to be a fan of unjustified homicide, this is clearly untrue and you would have read that in my previous posts - i suspect an over reaction on tour part there.

Shouldn’t the bottom line in castle doctrine be intent? If the trespasser is intending harm OR you believe via parameters that they are intending harm - then you have the right to defend yourself without fear of reprisal ?? That is the bottom line for me.

Well if your so sure you won't change your mind, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.
But I will clarify a few things,
I never said this was an 'unjustified murder' (talk about putting words in someones mouth). It is, as said an 'unjustifable killing', unjustifable because in the eyes of the law, and the eyes 12 of his peers, this BAC was high enough to render the average person incapiable of reasonable and rational thought.
Yes, the QSC set aside the conviction of murder on the grounds that in Judges (plural) opinion,

"the appellant was denied a fair chance of acquittal under s 267. There was a miscarriage of justice in this case because the jury were not instructed to consider whether the appellant should be acquitted under s 267 of the Criminal Code.
That conclusion is sufficient to warrant setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial."

This ruling was on the evidence before the appeals court, this evidence did not include his BAC. In QLD, at least, you can not be recharged for the same offence (double jepardy laws) unless there is new and compelling evidence NOT avialable at the first trial. The prosecution had this evidence (his BAC), but did not use it until his trial for manslaughter.
The bottom line of any Castle Doctrine, and remember a castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. A person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another". The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions, is NOT the actual intentions of the intruder, but your belief on reasoable grounds ie not impaired.
My wife has been on cancer pain killing medication, and I know for a fact that she would not have been capable of mounting any sort of pychical defence against any sort of attack. This is the reason I have studied what legal defence of ones home is availiable should it be needed.
Google Alva beach stabbing to see how QLD's Castle Doctrine works. ingore the media reports saying "self defence" as they (like most QLDers) would not know the difference, the young fella has never claimed self defence as a defence, but has claimed Defence of Dwelling.
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
I earned every grey hair I have.
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 803
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by trekin » 17 May 2020, 12:31 pm

Ricochet wrote:Where Cuskelly stuffed up was that he went and confronted the guy whilst armed with two knives, that both ended up buried in the guys chest if memory serves me correctly.

He did not attempt to retreat and rightly or wrongly in the eyes of the law went on the offence.

Given that he was at home, tanked, and had been threatened I believe he was screwed over by the courts, but had he stayed inside with a locked door it may have ended differently (remember that duty to retreat BS). The guy who died was said to have accessed the fire escape, if I'm wrong and he break and entered his way into Cuskelly's place then the law was entirely wrong. If Cuskelly went outside then it's a different story.

Mate, go and read "Ground One" here;
QCA09-375.pdf
(91.47 KiB) Downloaded 408 times

Everything you list as his undoing, was ruled by the appeals court as lawful, on the evidence before them, under Section 267 of the QLD Criminal Code. He was only screwed over by the courts, at his retrial, because he was "tanked" and incapiable of reasonable and rational thought, the one and only requirement needed to use Defence of Dwelling as a defence.
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
I earned every grey hair I have.
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 803
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 17 May 2020, 12:43 pm

You’ve done it again trekkin - I said I doubt that you’ll change my mind but I’m not too big to have my opinion changed, and then you’ve said, “ if your so sure that I won’t change my mind, why continue “ - that right there, actually contextualises the problem with the legal fraternity in general.

Justifiable killing vs justifiable murder - yep, I’m wrong in that quote. My apologies.

Im sorry to hear about your wife - I hope she gets better. Just as you’ve noted she is not of capacity to mount a defence against someone, there is others that would be able too - I know a few ppl actually that have the horrid disease and now and again to get temporary relief, they take medication that wouldn’t see them pass the reasonable/rational thought line in the sand - but because the pain subsides, they can do things not previously available to them, like chopping wood, etc. so, it would be interesting to see if they too would be afforded the same standards as having a high abv, if tested in court.
Cuskelly was obviously of sound enough thought to win the struggle...and to find the blades.

In reality, it appears the Mr Cuskelly may have previously upset the prosecution...But take away the Mumbai jumbo and he was still openly attacked in his own home, and was threatened with death by The deceased...and cuskelly has now lost a decade of his own life because of it. No winners. I still struggle with the outcome.
Going to go read up on your link.

Edit. Alva beach. Interesting. Coroners inquiry late this year. The young person appears to have effectively made a 000 call to ensure he was acting in self defence / would not be charged, but that in itself might be seen as pre meditation...but then again, he’s at home when attacked by two men. I can only access some media based reports at present, but it’s interesting.
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by trekin » 17 May 2020, 1:28 pm

TassieTiger wrote:You’ve done it again trekkin - I said I doubt that you’ll change my mind but I’m not too big to have my opinion changed, and then you’ve said, “ if your so sure that I won’t change my mind, why continue “ - that right there, actually contextualises the problem with the legal fraternity in general.

Justifiable killing vs justifiable murder - yep, I’m wrong in that quote. My apologies.

Im sorry to hear about your wife - I hope she gets better. Just as you’ve noted she is not of capacity to mount a defence against someone, there is others that would be able too - I know a few ppl actually that have the horrid disease and now and again to get temporary relief, they take medication that wouldn’t see them pass the reasonable/rational thought line in the sand - but because the pain subsides, they can do things not previously available to them, like chopping wood, etc. so, it would be interesting to see if they too would be afforded the same standards as having a high abv, if tested in court.
Cuskelly was obviously of sound enough thought to win the struggle...and to find the blades.

In reality, it appears the Mr Cuskelly may have previously upset the prosecution...But take away the Mumbai jumbo and he was still openly attacked in his own home, and was threatened with death by The deceased...and cuskelly has now lost a decade of his own life because of it. No winners. I still struggle with the outcome.
Going to go read up on your link.

Edit. Alva beach. Interesting. Coroners inquiry late this year. The young person appears to have effectively made a 000 call to ensure he was acting in self defence / would not be charged, but that in itself might be seen as pre meditation...but then again, he’s at home when attacked by two men. I can only access some media based reports at present, but it’s interesting.

Inferring one is a member of the "legal fraternity", is one hell of an insult to someone you have never met.
I believe your exact quote was "that I’m not too big to have my mind changed on any topic - doubt it on this one though" so effectively your mind is made up.
The Coroners inquiry is to determine the cause of death of the two intruders, as the police have not, and will not, be able to prosecute as long as the young fella maintians Section 267 Defence of Dwelling as his defence. Remember Self Defence and Defence of Dwelling are entirely different defences to two different situations. You never, ever claim Self Defence if attacked in your home, and you never, ever allow police, lawyers or judges talk you out off using that defence.

Edit, you won't find too much in the media, as they lose interest pretty quick when there is no charges laid, and they can not destroy an innocent young blokes life with their BS reporting.
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
I earned every grey hair I have.
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 803
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 17 May 2020, 1:54 pm

trekin wrote:
TassieTiger wrote:You’ve done it again trekkin - I said I doubt that you’ll change my mind but I’m not too big to have my opinion changed, and then you’ve said, “ if your so sure that I won’t change my mind, why continue “ - that right there, actually contextualises the problem with the legal fraternity in general.

Justifiable killing vs justifiable murder - yep, I’m wrong in that quote. My apologies.

Im sorry to hear about your wife - I hope she gets better. Just as you’ve noted she is not of capacity to mount a defence against someone, there is others that would be able too - I know a few ppl actually that have the horrid disease and now and again to get temporary relief, they take medication that wouldn’t see them pass the reasonable/rational thought line in the sand - but because the pain subsides, they can do things not previously available to them, like chopping wood, etc. so, it would be interesting to see if they too would be afforded the same standards as having a high abv, if tested in court.
Cuskelly was obviously of sound enough thought to win the struggle...and to find the blades.

In reality, it appears the Mr Cuskelly may have previously upset the prosecution...But take away the Mumbai jumbo and he was still openly attacked in his own home, and was threatened with death by The deceased...and cuskelly has now lost a decade of his own life because of it. No winners. I still struggle with the outcome.
Going to go read up on your link.

Edit. Alva beach. Interesting. Coroners inquiry late this year. The young person appears to have effectively made a 000 call to ensure he was acting in self defence / would not be charged, but that in itself might be seen as pre meditation...but then again, he’s at home when attacked by two men. I can only access some media based reports at present, but it’s interesting.

Inferring one is a member of the "legal fraternity", is one hell of an insult to someone you have never met.
I believe your exact quote was "that I’m not too big to have my mind changed on any topic - doubt it on this one though" so effectively your mind is made up.
The Coroners inquiry is to determine the cause of death of the two intruders, as the police have not, and will not, be able to prosecute as long as the young fella maintians Section 267 Defence of Dwelling as his defence. Remember Self Defence and Defence of Dwelling are entirely different defences to two different situations. You never, ever claim Self Defence if attacked in your home, and you never, ever allow police, lawyers or judges talk you out off using that defence.

Edit, you won't find too much in the media, as they lose interest pretty quick when there is no charges laid, and they can not destroy an innocent young blokes life with their BS reporting.


The fact I said my mind was open to change on any topic, that I wanted to continue the debate - should elude to the words “I doubt” as being a challenge...and there in again, showcases the issues constantly encountered by the legal fraternity - of which, you have assumed was directed at you, rather than in general terms. The fact is 2 ppl can read the same sentence and come away with dramatically different interpretations...

I think you have highlighted at least part of the existing issue re self defence vs defence of dwelling ? The interpretation Of those two terms can get very clouded...and I 100% agree re talking. A person can so easily accidentally say something that has different legal meaning, than intended...
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 17 May 2020, 2:01 pm

Sergeant Hartman wrote:Actually can i say. The relevance is the same as when you asked me what would i do if someone was in my house intending to rape or kill my family members.

To answer the other question, when you are drunk your judgement is impaired. Hence you are not allowed to drive a vehicle or operate machinery when drunk. So while i might agree that there shouldn't be a restriction on what you do when you are in your home... but if those actions effect another person directly or indirectly then yes there are restrictions.

Simple example if you hit your child a lot it can become a DHS or police issue. Or planning a terrorism action it becomes a police or asio issue. Even though you were just minding you business at that point in time.

This situation the owner was extremely drunk and there is a reasonable chance he used excessive force in the eyes of the court because he was not in control of his actions..hence he ended up in jail.


The problem then becomes - what else could be used in a court to infer you were not of reasonable mind...prescription drugs? What about insomnia - or worse, just a poor nights sleep? Diet? What about mood?

“Well your honour, I saw the lights come on in the house at 2.30am so I can only assume the defendant had broken sleep last night and as we know, poor sleep can be counter productive to rationale decision making and as per study xxx lack of sleep can be shown to be equal to having an abv level of xxxx”
It’s a slippy slope...
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by trekin » 17 May 2020, 2:34 pm

TassieTiger wrote:
Sergeant Hartman wrote:Actually can i say. The relevance is the same as when you asked me what would i do if someone was in my house intending to rape or kill my family members.

To answer the other question, when you are drunk your judgement is impaired. Hence you are not allowed to drive a vehicle or operate machinery when drunk. So while i might agree that there shouldn't be a restriction on what you do when you are in your home... but if those actions effect another person directly or indirectly then yes there are restrictions.

Simple example if you hit your child a lot it can become a DHS or police issue. Or planning a terrorism action it becomes a police or asio issue. Even though you were just minding you business at that point in time.

This situation the owner was extremely drunk and there is a reasonable chance he used excessive force in the eyes of the court because he was not in control of his actions..hence he ended up in jail.


The problem then becomes - what else could be used in a court to infer you were not of reasonable mind...prescription drugs? What about insomnia - or worse, just a poor nights sleep? Diet? What about mood?

“Well your honour, I saw the lights come on in the house at 2.30am so I can only assume the defendant had broken sleep last night and as we know, poor sleep can be counter productive to rationale decision making and as per study xxx lack of sleep can be shown to be equal to having an abv level of xxxx”
It’s a slippy slope...

Laws such as these are written and appliied on averages. What are the effects of alcohol, drugs, lack of sleep etc on the average person. Some impairments are excepted averages such as alcohol were it is considered that a BAC of 0.15 will render the average person incapable of reasonable thought. Lackof sleep is another, but some impairements have no/little known averages, which is why the defence and or prosecution will have the defendent undergo medical/pych eval and use the reports as evidence for/against the defendent. It is also why these impairment are tested for as soon as possible after the incident.
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
I earned every grey hair I have.
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 803
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Ricochet » 17 May 2020, 4:47 pm

Trekkin,

I'm not a lawyer and as far as the law goes maybe the hallway or stair case within the building is as good as being inside his flat so that may change how the law sees the fact that he went outside, I don't know.
One of the other things that has been discussed in this thread is the use of equal force, and the fact he had knives while Mr Carr was unarmed does not translate to equal force, regardless of any perceived threat.

Cuskelly put himself in a silly situation.
He verbally threatened to cut the guys throat, then armed himself with a knife. Then he went outside.
That puts his whole argument of defence in doubt.

At the end of the day the fact he went outside saying he feared the door wasn't going to hold changes the situation, from a defensive one that could easily be viewed as aggressive depending on belief of his intent.

Both guys threatened each other, they both signalled intent to harm the other guy. The whole idea of castle doctrine is to defend yourself within your home, (most likely) against unknown intruders, which is a principal I totally agree with. However these guys are known to each other and have beef, and Cuskelly left his flat to confront Carr which changes everything, In my humble opinion which is often wrong but I don't mind being corrected.
Ricochet
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 112
New South Wales

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by trekin » 18 May 2020, 7:31 am

Ricochet wrote:Trekkin,

I'm not a lawyer and as far as the law goes maybe the hallway or stair case within the building is as good as being inside his flat so that may change how the law sees the fact that he went outside, I don't know.
One of the other things that has been discussed in this thread is the use of equal force, and the fact he had knives while Mr Carr was unarmed does not translate to equal force, regardless of any perceived threat.

Cuskelly put himself in a silly situation.
He verbally threatened to cut the guys throat, then armed himself with a knife. Then he went outside.
That puts his whole argument of defence in doubt.

At the end of the day the fact he went outside saying he feared the door wasn't going to hold changes the situation, from a defensive one that could easily be viewed as aggressive depending on belief of his intent.

Both guys threatened each other, they both signalled intent to harm the other guy. The whole idea of castle doctrine is to defend yourself within your home, (most likely) against unknown intruders, which is a principal I totally agree with. However these guys are known to each other and have beef, and Cuskelly left his flat to confront Carr which changes everything, In my humble opinion which is often wrong but I don't mind being corrected.

OK, let's start from the beginning. Setting aside the retrial, on the charge of manslaughter, and its outcome based on evidence NOT presented at the first trial (and therefore NOT a factor at the court of appeals) on the charge of murder, and focus soley on the outcome of the appeal case. The findings of the appeal court are based on the principles of law, and if they were applied correctly in the first case.

"The "Castle Doctrine" is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of prosecution."

The two important areas of the QLD Criminal Code are these;
Section 267 which states simply that,
Defence of dwelling
It is lawful for a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling, and any person lawfully assisting him or her or acting by his or her
authority, to use force to prevent or repel another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the dwelling, if the person using the force believes on reasonable grounds—
(a) the other person is attempting to enter or to remain in the dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence in the dwelling; and
(b) it is necessary to use that force.
And Section 6 (1) that states.
Civil remedies
(1) When by the Code any act is declared to be lawful, no action can be brought in respect thereof.

So to answer your first concern: "...as far as the law goes maybe the hallway or stair case within the building is as good as being inside his flat so that may change how the law sees the fact that he went outside, I don't know."
To "prevent or repel", in the liberal sense, would require you to meet the threat outside of your home. This is the finding of the appeal judges (plural) in paragraphs [23], [24], [25].

To your second concern: "One of the other things that has been discussed in this thread is the use of equal force, and the fact he had knives while Mr Carr was unarmed does not translate to equal force, regardless of any perceived threat."
Section 267 does not qualify (what force eg lethal/non lethal), nor quantify (how much force eg such/equal force). This is the finding of the appeal judges (plural) in paragraphs [26] [27] "[27]The respondent's submission fails to recognise that s 267 does not require that the force used by an accused be no more than is reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence of his or her person against a would-be intruder. Further, if lethal force is used, the accused need not reasonably apprehend death or grievous bodily harm from the accused's assault in order to raise a defence under s 267. "

Section 267 is,by definition a Castle Doctrine, and irrespective of the finding of the retrial, that was based on evidence NOT presented at the first trial, the Supeme Court of QLD, Appeals Court upheld the princples of laws of that Doctrine when it set aside the conviction of murder and ordered a retrial.
Image Rifle stock and pistol grip reproduction.
"legally obligated to be a victim in this country"
I earned every grey hair I have.
User avatar
trekin
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 803
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 18 May 2020, 12:31 pm

Well, regardless of opinion - some good info and thought in this thread.
Ironically - I am now getting adverts for criminal lawyers popping up on my phone lol.
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 18 May 2020, 12:54 pm

You criminal.

I got a Sony tv ad
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 18 May 2020, 1:00 pm

I also keep getting these vagina looking Push bike pants in between threads - anyone else? - my wife caught me looking At them as I wondered wtf they were and she thought I was buying some kinky shat...(great - now I’ll get ads for whips and chains.)
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 18 May 2020, 8:26 pm

Now i am getting free legal advice ads...
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by AussieCapitalist » 18 May 2020, 8:49 pm

Women's clothing here. Maybe I should be one of those green voting transvestites.
Attachments
snap.PNG
snap.PNG (715.12 KiB) Viewed 5140 times
AussieCapitalist
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 525
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 18 May 2020, 8:56 pm

I aint gonna say anything
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Ricochet » 19 May 2020, 8:14 pm

Trekin,
Regardless of Castle Doctrine we both agree Cuskelly was screwed. The judge messed up, he was pi$$ed as a newt and so was the other guy and where that was a mitigating circumstance for other people's mistakes it was ignored in this case. You could commit a random homicide pi$$ed on the street or out the back of a pub and get a lighter sentence, he was screwed because it was a self defence case.
Ricochet
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 112
New South Wales

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by NTSOG » 02 Jun 2020, 8:29 pm

G'day,

I've just read a news item in which the Sherriff of Polk County in Florida has publicly encouraged local citizens to have their firearms at the ready in case any of the rioters claiming to be 'protesters' come to the County and try to invade private property and warned, what he called 'the criminal element':

"The people of Polk County like guns, they have guns, I encourage them to own guns, and they're going to be inside their homes tonight with their guns loaded," Sheriff Judd said. Further: "And if you try to break into their homes tonight and try to steal, to set fires, I'm highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns."

It's a whole different 'league' in some US states and the Rights of private citizens are still supported over the criminal element.

Jim
NTSOG
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 555
Victoria

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by AussieCapitalist » 02 Jun 2020, 8:44 pm

That's why I love America bull. Safety is not just the polices reasonability it is every bodies reasonability. When you have a well armed and well trained populous you have a safe and polite society. The police know they show up after the fact so they need the armed citizen to help prevent crime when they are not around.

Texas has few home invasions compared to other areas because every house is strapped to the teeth so the criminal knows they are taking a big risk to rob a Texas home. Not to mention the law over there protects the home owner.
AussieCapitalist
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 525
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by AussieCapitalist » 03 Jun 2020, 7:11 am

AussieCapitalist
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 525
Queensland

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by TassieTiger » 03 Jun 2020, 6:42 pm

^ don’t let Sarge Z hill see this, he will need hospitalisation...
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

Post by Member-Deleted » 12 Jun 2020, 8:55 pm

So I signed today... Better late than never? Has anything happened with the petition?
Member-Deleted
 

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics