Farmerpete wrote:Im not signing it based on the fact its a change.org petition. change.org may as well be an opinion poll on today or sunrise for all the attention that politicians will pay. If the owner of the petition was serious about making a change it would have been either a state or federal e-petition not a petition on a site thats going to spam your inbox with $h1t after you sign
bigrich wrote: But the Russians revolution started as just a idea.....
flutch wrote:bigrich wrote: But the Russians revolution started as just a idea.....
are you suggesting the Bolshevik revolution was a good thing?
Farmerpete wrote:Im not signing it based on the fact its a change.org petition. change.org may as well be an opinion poll on today or sunrise for all the attention that politicians will pay. If the owner of the petition was serious about making a change it would have been either a state or federal e-petition not a petition on a site thats going to spam your inbox with $h1t after you sign
Farmerpete wrote:Im not signing it based on the fact its a change.org petition. change.org may as well be an opinion poll on today or sunrise for all the attention that politicians will pay. If the owner of the petition was serious about making a change it would have been either a state or federal e-petition not a petition on a site thats going to spam your inbox with $h1t after you sign
trekin wrote:For Taz, at 1630 yesterday, the pub that one of my daughters is a manager at was held up at gun point (replica hundgun) by four men. Her bar staff recognised the gun as a replica, and took these scum to task and touched two of them up pretty good before they were able to get away. Unfortunatly, a sixty yo regular who stepped up to help, was beaten so badly he is not expected to survive. The local coppers ran three of the scum down within the hour, and they started bleating on about sueing the pub and staff for their injuries, and that it was in self defence that the old bloke got bashed. Coppers told them, in no uncertain terms, that, that crap doesn't wash up here, and that they had lost their right to that defence the moment they entered the premises with intent.
straightshooter wrote:trekin wrote:For Taz, at 1630 yesterday, the pub that one of my daughters is a manager at was held up at gun point (replica hundgun) by four men. Her bar staff recognised the gun as a replica, and took these scum to task and touched two of them up pretty good before they were able to get away. Unfortunatly, a sixty yo regular who stepped up to help, was beaten so badly he is not expected to survive. The local coppers ran three of the scum down within the hour, and they started bleating on about sueing the pub and staff for their injuries, and that it was in self defence that the old bloke got bashed. Coppers told them, in no uncertain terms, that, that crap doesn't wash up here, and that they had lost their right to that defence the moment they entered the premises with intent.
Can you see how sloppy use of language sometimes is the cause of a lot of problems for victims.
Wouldn't it have been better to say - when confronted, they were compelled to defend themselves for fear for their lives
In circumstances such as this, when speaking to Police, trying to 'big note' oneself even in a subtle way is only a recipe for a lot of problems.
trekin wrote:For Taz, at 1630 yesterday, the pub that one of my daughters is a manager at was held up at gun point (replica hundgun) by four men. Her bar staff recognised the gun as a replica, and took these scum to task and touched two of them up pretty good before they were able to get away. Unfortunatly, a sixty yo regular who stepped up to help, was beaten so badly he is not expected to survive. The local coppers ran three of the scum down within the hour, and they started bleating on about sueing the pub and staff for their injuries, and that it was in self defence that the old bloke got bashed. Coppers told them, in no uncertain terms, that, that crap doesn't wash up here, and that they had lost their right to that defence the moment they entered the premises with intent.
TassieTiger wrote:Your missing the point a little - I 100% guarantee, regardless of QLD laws vs other states laws, that one could quite easily find an insane court decision pertaining to someone who "believed" they were using self defense to protect themselves and then ended up getting F'd over it in one way or another - or very similar.
I recall from a few years back now and the "exact" facts I cant recall, but it went along the lines of - a kid broke into the Gympie hotel - got caught and was ejected. That same kid then attempted to climb the hotels roof in an attempt to gain entry and when the publican saw said kid, hurled abuse / something at the kid and he fell and broke a leg - and sued the publican. I was living in QLD at the time and recall the uproar...it's these situations Id like to see taken from "grey" and "debatable" to "clear cut" - no case to answer.
TassieTiger wrote:Re the first one - cusKelly was successful in obtainING a retrial but then got 9 years for manslaughter...
so - A drunken man attacked him in his home, heard by numerous witnesses (including an ambo) that his intent was to cut the throat of cusKelly who defended himself and he gets 9 years.
If this doesn’t scare the crap out of you...what does.
TassieTiger wrote:^ Mate - that’s what I thought as well but reading the actual court docs above...yeah, better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. Apparently...
SAnewb85 wrote:As long as you use a level of force that is equivalent +1 (basically you can only use just enough force to gain control of the situation) and you can argue that you had a "reasonable" fear of the intruder/person committing the assault/crime you shouldn't have an issue.
I think the grey area in Oz is found in whether you had the opportunity to hide or take cover instead of confronting the assailant.
That's my understanding at this point but I'm not a lawyer so I may be wrong.
trekin wrote:TassieTiger wrote:^ Mate - that’s what I thought as well but reading the actual court docs above...yeah, better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. Apparently...
Where, exactly in the court docs I posted, does it say it is better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. ??
TassieTiger wrote:trekin wrote:TassieTiger wrote:^ Mate - that’s what I thought as well but reading the actual court docs above...yeah, better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. Apparently...
Where, exactly in the court docs I posted, does it say it is better to just lay down and spend a few months in hospital. ??
Clearly sarcasm is lost in translation - thought it was mental enough that you’d get it...so you really believe a court doc round say that?
But - the Point being - cusKelly in court link 1, was at home drinking with his partner and was attacked with what may have been lethal intent - in fact an off duty neighbour (ambo) recited that the deceased was going to cut a throat or kill him or words to that effect. CusKelly attempts to sway intruder but is unsuccessful - cusKelly grabs a knife hoping that would definitely sway the intruder, but a scuffle breaks out - intruder wears the knife - once, in the chest....ultimately, cusKelly does 9 years for manslaughter. Had he laid down and copped the beating ? A few months in hospital...thus the alignment I was trying to make.
Regardless of the laws intent - there’s arguable criteria from any angle and the fact remains that it’s open to interpretation and therefore exploitation.
TassieTiger wrote:Well, It says it here (not in court doc, but aligned story) -
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cou ... 49ecec1f10
Regardless of How, or what level of what parameters were reached or which court found him guilty of what - the outright fact remains he did 9 years for trying to “defend his castle”. That is ultimately what it boils down to - in the big picture, who gives a crap if the court upheld the doctrine to reduce the charge ? Do you think cuskelly celebrated “only” getting 9 years lol? The outcome is the outcome for the defendant. The outcome that most people would be aspiring too, in a case such as this (with CL introduced), would be for NO sentence to occur at all...what is the point of having a castle law, if you can still do 9 years for apparent adherence to that law - but get almost a decade via an associated charge? Somewhere in the story it says that cuskelly was drinking and that was a deciding factor in the case, because he was xxx the driving limit - well what the heck ? if the now deceased hadn’t attacked him, in his home/castle, it wouldn’t have mattered would it?
I’ll bet My left one, it is not what the community, in large, is seeking.
“As I said before, irrespective of the outcome for the appellant, the fact that that QLD Supeme Court upheld the princple of Castle Doctrine (Section 267 of the QLD Criminal Code) is the important takeout froms this.”
Are you actually saying you agree with this outcome ?
“Irrespective of the outcome for the appellant?”? Errr what ? The important take out from this, is not to be dismissive of a miscarriage of justice...surely.
Sergeant Hartman wrote:This thread is going on in two different circles.. funny
From this i take drinking to stuper is not good... even at home