Petition to Bring castle law to Australia

[TassieTiger]

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]

This thread is going on in two different circles.. funny

From this i take drinking to stuper is not good... even at home

[trekin]

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.

So, you're saying that you, and the community in large, want the right to be judge, jury and executioner, to dish out whatever punishment to a intruder in your home you see fit to, with no checks and balances, and not requiring to give any justifications for your actions at all?

[trekin]

This thread is going on in two different circles.. funny

From this i take drinking to stuper is not good... even at home

And yet, we as a society want the whole book thrown at the drunk driver who wipes out an entire family with their car.

[Ziege]

[quote="trekin"[/quote]
So, you're saying that you, and the community in large, want the right to be judge, jury and executioner, to dish out whatever punishment to a intruder in your home you see fit to, with no checks and balances, and not requiring to give any justifications for your actions at all?[/quote]

Way I see it, it's pretty simple. If said person doesn't want a lead lobotomy or pry bar to the face or a lung full of carbon steel they should think long and hard about whether or not their choices are adequate for their wants in life. If someone doesn't want to die they should invade someone else's home. No one would die unecessesarily if no one invade the home of another person, why should someone entering someone's home uninvited with criminal intent have any rights in that situation? It's really not hard to not break into peoples homes. It's not something they do by accident

[straightshooter]

I haven't read all the posted comments but I think you would have to be a special species of stupid to sign this petition.
On the one hand, consider exactly what latent fantasy you might be revealing on the permanent public record.
What happens if it should come to pass that circumstances cause you to in some way carry out your stated latent desire and how will that then be viewed by a prosecution.
On the other hand the modern political class is promoting an absolute monopoly of force in the hands of the government, so does a proposal along the lines of this petition have even a snowflakes chance in hell of ever receiving any consideration whatsoever.
There is as much chance of success of petitioning the government to bring back 5 quid ($10) 303's and all you can eat ammunition.

[Sergeant Hartman]

The thing is god given rights do not exist. If you behoove in religion (God given right implies you do). Adam and eve didn't commit murder, the concept of murder was not something that was even present when humans started.

It was only until Cain murdered Able that the concept of murder came into existence. And for killing Cain was banished.

After this religious lesson, how do you justify killing someone that might have gotten into your house to steal your car?

And if you can justify that, then let's say i am a livestock farmer and someone broke into y farm to steal my livestock, can i kill them? If not why is the city dwellers given preferential treatment.

And if i am allowed to kill someone who came to steal my chicken.... how is death the justified punishment for someone stealing a chicken to feed their family... or death be a justified punishment for someone who tried to steal your car...esp if your car is insured.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Going back to history America stated in a different way, they were more wild and pioneered areas where no laws existed... and having to face wild animals and Indians out for blood If they didn't vary a firearm they probably be dead very soon. Then addef to that they were no laws and ruled by a government that was far far away the distrust for governments in local men started. Their government is bloody heavy handed to begin with, piss someone off they come get you... think even standard oil was broken up. Plenty of cases where someone was made an example off by getting FBI, IRS etc onto them

So no wonder their founding fathers had to enshrine firearms in the wild bunch otherwise none of the crazies would follow them. The Old thinking goes if you cannot defeat them, join them

[trekin]

The thing is god given rights do not exist. If you behoove in religion (God given right implies you do). Adam and eve didn't commit murder, the concept of murder was not something that was even present when humans started.

It was only until Cain murdered Able that the concept of murder came into existence. And for killing Cain was banished.

After this religious lesson, how do you justify killing someone that might have gotten into your house to steal your car?

And if you can justify that, then let's say i am a livestock farmer and someone broke into y farm to steal my livestock, can i kill them? If not why is the city dwellers given preferential treatment.

And if i am allowed to kill someone who came to steal my chicken.... how is death the justified punishment for someone stealing a chicken to feed their family

I relize your questions are for the others, but,
Never said it was a God given right, but it is a Common Law Right.
To steal my car, or guns, or anything else, would require an act of agression/violence on the behalf of the intruder. That will be meet with lethal force in return, because that is my Common Law Right under the Castle Doctrine we up here have.
267 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.

This is the law no matter where within the State QLD you live.
Livestock theft, tresspass are different areas of law, and neither give justification to kill in, and of themselves.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Soryy trekkin, it was in refrence to AC and zeig comments that carrying a firearm and/self defence is their God given right, as that's enshrined in the US constitution. Apart from the fact we are not in America.

Anyway what you have said is also (as my understanding goes) correct, common law does give us many basic protections.

[AussieCapitalist]

Thanks trekin, I was just reading the criminal code act and I found this little gem. Keep that one in your back pocket if you ever have to go to court.

601 Standing mute
(1) If an accused person, on being called upon to plead to an
indictment, will not plead or answer directly to the indictment,
the court may, if it thinks fit, order a plea of not guilty to be
entered on behalf of the accused person.
(2) A plea so entered has the same effect as if it had been actually
pleaded.

[TassieTiger]

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.

So, you're saying that you, and the community in large, want the right to be judge, jury and executioner, to dish out whatever punishment to a intruder in your home you see fit to, with no checks and balances, and not requiring to give any justifications for your actions at all?

If some arse breaks into your home with the intent to do harm - and that’s not hard to prove these days with cctv - if the perpetrator came to harm or worse by way of you undertaking defence - then I think it’s fair to assume that most ppl would not like to face charges...

[Ziege]

Why are you trying to use religious Context as a misnomer Ziad?


Everyone gets 1 life, 1 body, regardless how they get it they only get 1, I would never allow an intruder to cause harm to a member of my household, regardless of the repercussions because you have 0 idea what that intruders intent is.

[Ziege]

Question to ask yourself is, if you had a firearm at your disposal and didn't use it because of the "law" then your daughter was raped or killed or wife murdered, all because you pussied out, would you live with yourself?

[Sergeant Hartman]

No point to explain more or argue with you mate.

[Ziege]

I'm not advocating anyone break the law, I'm merely illustrating that it's absurd that this is the reality we condone, whereby we haven't the right to act in our best interest for fear of reprisals from the over reaching and inactive authority

[TassieTiger]

I’m still confused Trekkin - your advocating that we have a resemblance of castle law already In existence, yet in the Life examples you have previous posted - despite the home owner meeting the bulk of existing criteria - they still ended up Very much, Very deeply - in the poo...And in at least one case - it may have been an accidental fatality to the intruder. I don’t understand how you can think this is acceptable?

[Ziege]

No point to explain more or argue with you mate.

Never a truer words from you,

Especially since you have no explanation or logic to impart, and you can't argue with me

[bigrich]

Way I see it, it's pretty simple. If said person doesn't want a lead lobotomy or pry bar to the face or a lung full of carbon steel they should think long and hard about whether or not their choices are adequate for their wants in life. If someone doesn't want to die they should invade someone else's home. No one would die unecessesarily if no one invade the home of another person, why should someone entering someone's home uninvited with criminal intent have any rights in that situation? It's really not hard to not break into peoples homes. It's not something they do by accident

sounds perfectly logical and common sensed to me . unfortunately , in the modern australia , the victim of a home invasion is supposed to just cop it sweet .

if people started to defend themselves in the manner described , it would complicate things for the courts . it would upset the revolving door legal system that ensures there's a constant job for judges, balifs , legal aid , and phychiartrists . all paid for by the tax payer for those poor petty criminals and career criminal nut jobs who go in and out of jail

[Sergeant Hartman]

Tassie didn't someone say the guy who lived in the house was drink off his face.

Maybe that's why he ended up in jail

[bigrich]

Tassie didn't someone say the guy who lived in the house was drink off his face.

Maybe that's why he ended up in jail

criminals regulary use the influence of drugs and alcohol as a excuse for diminished responsabilites , and lighter sentences . i guess that lady out the front of the court building with the scales and is wearing a blindfold to hide the fact she's a bit one eyed on occassion

[TassieTiger]

Tassie didn't someone say the guy who lived in the house was drink off his face.

Maybe that's why he ended up in jail

It was mentioned that cuskelly (jailed for 9 years) had aN estimated blood level of - don’t quote me - .175 to .340 but, how is that a factor? The bloke is at home, getting shizzled when confronted by a drunk person who has yelled out he is going to kill him...sorry - any fatality is sad, but own your actions...are you now not allowed to exceed .05 in your own home in case an event out of your control unfolds? Madness...just madness.

[Ricochet]

Castle doctrine or not Australia's laws badly, desperately need an overhaul. Forget about firearms in general, the law protects thugs and criminals with all sorts of legal BS, while home owners get sued by a breaking and entering crim who falls through a skylight or trips down the stairs. Equal Force laws don't take into account multiple people vs single person, old and frail vs young dumb and strong. An individual who reacts to prolonged bullying kicks the snot out of someone who deserves it at school gets expelled or suspended while the bully escapes punishment.

If someone breaks into a home any resident should be able to defend themselves and or their loved ones with any object that comes to hand. If a criminal is intent on breaking the law after being told to get the hell out by the legal occupant of the dwelling then they should forfeit all legal grounds if they get injured in the attempt to remove them.

This should not mean you can just whip out the old shotgun and let them have it just because they are there, but the law is always on the crims side and this must change.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Agreed with most of what you said mate, defiantly if you have drugs, alcohol or baf upbringig you are given a chance to rehabilitate while a white collar worker who did one bad thing might end up depending long time in prison.

But saying that the reality is that most of prison is filled with what we would call actual criminals.

But still i don't think it justifies a homeowner to shoot someone entering their house, unless it was crystal clear the intention of the invader was to do bodily harm to the occupants (and not just their property)

That is the point that is important to me and what's different than what some of the members believe should happen.

[TassieTiger]

Agreed with most of what you said mate, defiantly if you have drugs, alcohol or baf upbringig you are given a chance to rehabilitate while a white collar worker who did one bad thing might end up depending long time in prison.

But saying that the reality is that most of prison is filled with what we would call actual criminals.

But still i don't think it justifies a homeowner to shoot someone entering their house, unless it was crystal clear the intention of the invader was to do bodily harm to the occupants (and not just their property)

That is the point that is important to me and what's different than what some of the members believe should happen.

So if someone comes into your house brandishing a knife, your ok with that - because, he is only carrying it as a deterrent - it wouldn’t be crystal clear though, so you’d be okay yeah? Your okay with him tying up your kids and wife - because its not really crystal clear his intent ? I mean roping someone isn’t harm - it’s just really getting someone to stay put, why he takes the tv, yeah?

[Ziege]

"unless it's crystal clear their intentions"

Oh yeah sure, you wake up from a deep rem sleep due to some goings on, arm yourself because who the f*** knows what's going on downstairs/in the other room, sit patiently at the table awaiting the Mission statement from the criminal invading your house, you both sign understanding what their intentions are and that you should just hand over your grandfathers wedding ring and other priceless heirlooms, take it on the chin like a good Muppet,

Meanwhile back in reality your daughter is dead and you've been severely injured.

What planet are you on that a person, a human being, in their own home, their own space, their own dwelling, harming no one, minding their own business and not affecting anyone else, should then have to be a magical mind reading gypsy the minute some law breaking asshole enters his house.

Biggest issue with your BS assertion is that every crim under the sun would just say, "hey nah, like I was never gonna hurt them aye and stuff" handing a defence to the accused is the last thing a victim needs to be doing.

[TassieTiger]

^ exactly. Ffs.

[Sergeant Hartman]

So if someone comes into your house brandishing a knife, your ok with that - because, he is only carrying it as a deterrent - it wouldn’t be crystal clear though, so you’d be okay yeah? Your okay with him tying up your kids and wife - because its not really crystal clear his intent ? I mean roping someone isn’t harm - it’s just really getting someone to stay put, why he takes the tv, yeah?

Mate if you want to use deadly force, as your first choice...be my guest, but i have a feelling if you did that in any country of the world there is more than 50% chance you will ne finding out if they have internet in jail..... and that includes most American states.

[TassieTiger]

Ziad - your saying that you only agree with deadly force for a home invasion IF it’s crystal clear the intruder is intent on killing you. I’ll 100% agree to your position - if you can answer how you will know this is the intruders intent ?

[Ziege]

It doesn't include most of USA states fyi...

Just thought I would correct that lefty idealist misrepresentation