David Leyonhjelm comments

[Itshurting]

I'm in Melbourne and what happened was truely awful.But what David The Lion said makes perfect sense and is perfectly reasonable.
I guess I have to ask.What were the cops aiming at when they hit him in the arm? And also the reports said "gunshots".Did some go astray?Tough situation I know but...
Thoughts?

[sandgroperbill]

He said police charged him on January 14 and had opposed bail but it was granted. He was scheduled to reappear yesterday.
-Abc news

This is where the outrage should be directed.

[bigfellascott]

He said police charged him on January 14 and had opposed bail but it was granted. He was scheduled to reappear yesterday.
-Abc news

This is where the outrage should be directed.

Spot on - yet again a "Man Monis" situation that could have been avoided if the legal system worked right.

[on_one_wheel]

Iv'e heard RUMORS that he has a track record of beind a blody idiot.
One of his first adventures included bringing explosives to school to blow up another student.

They let pretty much anyone drive cars these days.

[albat]

I'm in Melbourne and what happened was truely awful.But what David The Lion said makes perfect sense and is perfectly reasonable.
I guess I have to ask.What were the cops aiming at when they hit him in the arm? And also the reports said "gunshots".Did some go astray?Tough situation I know but...
Thoughts?

I think the coppers have been cut down to about one range shoot a year in queensland what with all the austerity measures etc half of em wouldnt know one end of glock from the other through no fault of their own

[<<Genesis93>>]

What I find infuriating.... is pretty much the whole situation... they were pursuing this grub... but fell back when he neared the City!!!! for 'safety'!!!!

=pursuit policy.

Then the burnout session outside Flinders St Station..... for those unfamiliar; THERE ARE MANY POLICE STATIONED RIGHT THERE!! What, was it doughnut time????

Yet it took "Two polynesian fellas" to (risk their lives!) to approach the car with the view to stopping him...THEY deserve bravery medal for that brave attempt - it could have ended differently for them - the guy 'went them' when he came around again.....

But the part that really strikes a chord is that the vision of the 2 fellas, has in the background... A COP standing on the other side with his thumb up his ar$e!

But he couldnt have known how it would end you say?? No. They had his bio, he had stabbed his brother with the view to killing him, in addition his extensive 'history' AND his facebook declaration of war Et Cetera...

Sorry. But when the police are the only CLASS permitted by the do-gooders to carry a firearm, whether to protect themselves and possibly members of the public... you get your self out there and damn well do SOMETHING! if not them the 'right' should return to the people...

[Oldbloke]

Perhaps something like. Regret to hear of deaths,..... Would have been a good start. But Timing is perfect and he is right. People kill not objects. There is another discussion about Vic gov leaking shooters details also, and crimes getting that info.

For me if you want to stop firearm deaths and the theft of them there is a simple solution.

Anyone found guilty of intentionally shooting someone and causing serious injury or death. Sentences should be, mandatory,

Serious injury. 20 yrs. No early release.
Murder. Death by public guillotine.

No excuses like I was on drugs or wife was f***ing my mate.

Just one public guillotining and half the unregistered firearms will be in the local bay.

Murder with knives, poison etc hanging in prison. Again mandatory if found guilty.

[albat]

Perhaps something like. Regret to hear of deaths,..... Would have been a good start. But Timing is perfect and he is right. People kill not objects. There is another discussion about Vic gov leaking shooters details also, and crimes getting that info.

For me if you want to stop firearm deaths and the theft of them there is a simple solution.

Anyone found guilty of intentionally shooting someone and causing serious injury or death. Sentences should be, mandatory,

Serious injury. 20 yrs. No early release.
Murder. Death by public guillotine.

No excuses like I was on drugs or wife was f***ing my mate.

Just one public guillotining and half the unregistered firearms will be in the local bay.

Murder with knives, poison etc hanging in prison. Again mandatory if found guilty.

I think isis already beat you to it oldbloke :

[<<Genesis93>>]

Why complicate the matter??

If someone intentionally kills another, whether under the influence of a drug, mental whatever, God or even 'peer group pressure'....

Then they LOSE the right be move among us, ie. THEIR life is ended and the first right of refusal goes to the victims family.... too uncivilised? too bad.

Run a poll a week ago as to whether we should reinstate the death penalty.... I'm sure it would have been a resounding NO.

Ask the same today; I'm not so sure - funny how circumstances change opinion about such matters....

[Oldbloke]

For many years my view was that death penalty should not be on the books. And that people deserve a second chance, and for say under 21 that should still be the case.

But not any more, incorrect conviction is extremely rare in Australia unlike some other countries . Also there have been a large number of reofending cases. Far too many deaths and lives ruined due to life changing injuries.
Judges need to be judged too.

[happyhunter]

.

[<<Genesis93>>]

If you follow the facts as they are known, the police did everything to stop the nutter. THis bloke had done some real bad s**t leading up to what happened in the city and it was a case of him knowing he was going away for a long time so in his sick mind he decided he would go with a bang.

Did we miss some facts HH?? The 'law' couldnt have known how it would have ended, but it is up to them to plan for anything, and consider all eventualities.....especially for a drug fueled sociopath loon - barrelling toward the CBD.

It is VICPOL that has dropped the ball big time, this is not the only time theyve called of a pursuit that has ended with destruction, I believe a number of those Apex gang PsOS had pursuits called off.....then totalled later....no doubt 'most of the time when the perps see the cops back off, they'll calm it down, but not ALL the time. Not this time.

One of my kids was at the location he was doing circlework the day before, walking along Swanston, My missers was there yesterday..... I don't care if others disagree, but it should have been POLICE running out to his car and it shouldnt have taken 2 members of the PUBLIC to run out while police stood back with their thumbs where i previously described... If you know Flinder St ST.... then you know how many police are stationed RIGHT THERE.....

[<<Genesis93>>]

as far as the no/limited/discretionary pursuit policy, Its an open invitation to criminality.
Recall the bloke who had his gun safe stolen in Blackburn? Police attend and watch the safe being driven away hanging out the back??
I'm sure he does.
Countless African gangs driving around the previously lawful suburbs in stolen BMWs Audis etc?? That results from a lawless state of affairs, the police were NOT pursuing those little pieces of crap...'for safety'.... but they were still entering lawful shooters bedrooms and loungerooms to 'inspect' their lawful guns

[straightshooter]

In the US we find that when a civilian starts shooting at a crim it tends to change their plans very quickly and saves lives whether they are killed by the fire or not. A crim trying to shoot people or run them over with a truck is ALWAYS more dangerous than a civilian trying to stop him with deadly force.

Just so you understand, in Australia, in general, we have a system where the state has a complete monopoly on force. Being able to adequately defend yourself as in the US is simply a fantasy.
If you are attacked you may not defend yourself. This is to protect you against the appalling possibility that you might use excessive force and thus commit an offence.
You are to call the police.
If you happen to be killed then you may die with the comforting thought that there is a fair probability the police will eventually catch the perpetrator who might then receive a degree of humane punishment.
Our system is a modern implementation of the ideas described by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Some of the ideas are exploited openly while others are hidden under the cloak of democracy.

[albat]

Our system is a modern implementation of the ideas described by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Some of the ideas are exploited openly while others are hidden under the cloak of democracy.[/quote]
Never heard of that bloke but your right the system is a fffing joke with law makers from a nanny state totally out of touch sitting in their north shore homes sipping champagne whilst this s___t goes down on a weekly basis

[albat]

From memory i think the defense as to be in proportion to the threat ie you cant pull a gun on someone who pushed you over or somthing like that?

[Oldbloke]

If you are attacked you may not defend yourself.

Not true, you do have the right to defend yourself in this country, but you are not allowed to carry a weapon for the purpose of defending yourself. it you where legally and legitimately in possession of a loaded firearm (say hunting in St. forest) and someone attacked you you would be within your rights to defend yourself with what you had in your hand, ie, a firearm, same as if you were banging in nails and someone attacked you you could hit them with the hammer.
Thats my understanding anyway

My understanding too.

[Title_II]

From memory i think the defense as to be in proportion to the threat ie you cant pull a gun on someone who pushed you over or somthing like that?

Again I can't tell if we are talking about Oz or the US, as I doubt a lot of people are "pulling guns" in Oz. In the US that is not the case. Use of deadly force laws vary by state and by situation. You can generally use deadly force if a reasonable person would be in fear for their life, severe injury, rape, or kidnapping. However, there are many circumstances under which it is assumed you have such fear without even being attacked, shown a weapon, or ganged up on. These justifications also transfer to protecting others. In some states you can shoot people in the back as they are running away with stuff they stole from you. There is also common law that has been upheld by the courts repeatedly that you can shoot fleeing felons provided you know they were felons and in custody or you witnessed them committing a felony, then detained them, and then they ran. Not surprisingly the scenarios go on and on.

We can't hang horse thieves

[straightshooter]

albat
bentaz
Oldbloke

OK I'll admit I may have been 'overegging the custard' as legal people sometimes say.
BUT I am closer to reality than your comments suggest. Under common law what you say may have some credibility but common law is overridden by statute law and there is no shortage of laws that you can be convicted under even if you are 'in the right'.
As for the comment that we have a right blah etc.
Get real, we live in Australia and we DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS! We merely have privileges granted by the government that can be added to or taken away at any time by the government.
For example carefully read section 5 of the NSW constitution and try really really hard to understand exactly what it means and how it could be used.
"The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth
of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace,
welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases
whatsoever:"
I imagine other states will have much the same.

[<<Genesis93>>]

We have the Bill of Rights of 1688, that allows for 'arms for defence'....

However, as it allows them subject to the laws of the day, we ALLOWED this 'right' to be fully written out in 96. The intent was for the regulation no prohibition.

[Gwion]

albat
bentaz
Oldbloke

OK I'll admit I may have been 'overegging the custard' as legal people sometimes say.
BUT I am closer to reality than your comments suggest. Under common law what you say may have some credibility but common law is overridden by statute law and there is no shortage of laws that you can be convicted under even if you are 'in the right'.
As for the comment that we have a right blah etc.
Get real, we live in Australia and we DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS! We merely have privileges granted by the government that can be added to or taken away at any time by the government.
For example carefully read section 5 of the NSW constitution and try really really hard to understand exactly what it means and how it could be used.
"The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth
of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace,
welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases
whatsoever:"
I imagine other states will have much the same.

Deadly force can be used when in 'reasonable fear' of deadly force for your self or others.

Only issue is proving that you where reasonably fearful of deadly force being used against you or another person.

As for death penalty. Many people have posthumously been found to be not guilty of crimes they where executed for in this country. Might be a different matter if they are killed whilst perpetrating the crime (no issue from me here) but as the legal system is known to be fallible, imposing death sentences is very shaky ground. Burden of proof and damage caused would have to be beyond question.

[Oldbloke]

"Many people have posthumously been found to be not guilty of crimes they where executed for in this country."

That is always a concern and has been my view for a long time.
BUT that is rare indeed in Australia. Yes many times in USA and other countries. Not here.
Something needs to be done, current system is failing the population.
I still reckon a few public guillotineings will see the criminals thinking twice.
Yes it barbaric, but cheaper and will get plenty of news coverage.

[Gwion]

I like your flare for the dramatic, Oldbloke!

(quote: Public Guillotining)

[on_one_wheel]

I totally agree that we should have the death penalty here again.

Provided that it's only used when there is absolutely no doubt, ie caught in the act.

The lowlife that committed this act deserves to die.

On another note all those behind bars should be put to work build roads rather than sitting around doing nothing but costung the country money.

[<<Genesis93>>]

I totally agree that we should have the death penalty here again.

Provided that it's only used when there is absolutely no doubt, ie caught in the act.

The lowlife that committed this act deserves to die.

On another note all those behind bars should be put to work build roads rather than sitting around doing nothing but costung the country money.

...or even when a court / jury of their peer decides on a guilty verdict....

Plus..jobs for the chippies - in this economically challenging environment - thats a win/win

[Oldbloke]

I totally agree that we should have the death penalty here again.

Provided that it's only used when there is absolutely no doubt, ie caught in the act.

The lowlife that committed this act deserves to die.

On another note all those behind bars should be put to work build roads rather than sitting around doing nothing but costung the country money.

Totally agree. (or DNA evidence)

The system has become too soft. In cases where someone who is out early or on bail those that let them out need to be judged too.

I'm all for rapists and pedofiles being castrated too.

PS Cardinal Pell can go to hell.

[Title_II]

"Many people have posthumously been found to be not guilty of crimes they where executed for in this country."

That is always a concern and has been my view for a long time.
BUT that is rare indeed in Australia. Yes many times in USA and other countries. Not here.

I don't think we have found people to be not guilty after execution in the US. We have found people to be not guilty while on death row, so it stands to reason it may have happened. But I have read there are no examples. Could be wrong I guess.

[Oldbloke]

Yes, mostly on death row. But a few have gone to heaven. I understand mostly blacks. Can't quote but read about it.

[happyhunter]

.

[Itshurting]

Has his comment been mentioned again in the media or have all the libtards moved on?