Title_II wrote: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.
bentaz wrote:straightshooter wrote: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
albat wrote: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?
straightshooter wrote: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.
on_one_wheel wrote: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.
on_one_wheel wrote: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.
Oldbloke wrote:"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.
happyhunter wrote:Title_II wrote:Oldbloke wrote:"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.
happyhunter wrote: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.