David Leyonhjelm comments

[<<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?

[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]

.