David Leyonhjelm comments

[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?

[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.

13% executed later found not guilty.

Provide examples.

[Ed9362]

I don't support the death penalty at all, but I wish the government would introduce laws to imprison habitual violent offenders.
time and time again innocent people are killed or hurt by scum bags that have spent most of their lives in jail for violent offences. I think if you have been convicted of GBH, rape, home invasions, murder etc more than twice then a habitual violent offender offence could come into play guaranteeing imprisonment until the age of 80, no bail no parole, just you are a piece of s**t so here is your home.

[happyhunter]

.

[Oldbloke]

Sorry totally, I can't quote. Away from home now. The book was written in say 1970. So they were old cases. Basically.the system failed the poor but the well off got off. I hope I'm wrong.
In any case I believe we need it here.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Orgs like Amnesty international and numerous online newspapers contain the data and where it has been obtained. It's 13%.. I know this because I wrote a paper on it back at school where I had to cite sources etc.. and was surprised at how great the percentage is. The other conclusion is the death penalty doesn't decrease crime.. it actually increases it. Look that one up too.

An of course we know how un-biased AI is and how factually correct the papers are, especially when deriving gun facts from their go-to gun-sperts (Sham Lee) with her rapid fire ammunitions, do something to avoid the impending Adler crime wave... and that....

[happyhunter]

.