I'll be interested to hear the full story but it's a real worry if you can no longer defend yourself in your own home

http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/man-dies-after-breaking-into-home-in-newcastle-and-being-detained-by-homeowner-20160327-gnruib.html

If someone breaks into your house the first thing you are going to need is a law degree to give you a sound understanding of the law surround 'self defence'. Then of course you will need a range of potential self defence weapons and fighting skills so you don't use any more force than is necessary.

See if you accidentally kill a thieving scum-bag, you will find yourself in a world of hurt, thanks to the brave men and women who weren't there to help you in the first place.

Once someone seeks to illegally  enter your home with ill intent, then you should have the right to put them down without repercussions or recourse.

why is it the laws protects an insurance company if you are found to have caused your own accident through illegal activity, but it doesn't protect you?

If someone breaks into your home you should be allowed to take action first, ask questions later. I'm not going to wait for you to do something to my kids before I determine what is reasonable force.

Totally non leftist in that answer Smithy :P

Gnads wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:

Totally non leftist in that answer Smithy :P

sorry I don't fit your misconceptions ... I'll try harder next time

You don't invite yourself into ANYONE'S home at 3.30 in the morning - even if you know them, and especially without a 'phone call beforehand.

The world is now less one scumbag. No loss.

Of the two residents, at least one is now in a world of deep sh1te.

He is now in a position where he has to prove that the defence he gave was appropriate in the situation. If he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time, he's sunk without a trace. At least he sustained injuries consistent with the story so far. The 'castle doctrine' is no legal defence in this country.

One hopes that that the 'massive bang' heard by the witness was a china cabinet falling on the home invader during the scuffle.

In a society where a raised voice is considered assault, there exists little legal excuse for the use of a weapon. Especially when a weapon is considered anything held in the hand.

A $10 bag of old golf clubs can be considered a wise investment. Or a big shifting spanner.

Everyone needs either a hobby or an interest.

If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;)

red baron wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;)

Charming, from an ex Copper who raved on loud and long about a (misperceived) perversion/corruption of the course of justice.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:27pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Charming, from an ex Copper who raved on loud and long about a (misperceived) perversion/corruption of the course of justice.

I'd hazard a guess and say that the 'ex-copper' probably has as much an issue with the current laws as we, the public, have.

As an ex-copper, he probably has a better idea of the dangers the public faces nowadays than you do.

Give the man the benefit of his experience when he voices an opinion.

It's merely polite.

I hope he gets off. There but for the grace of 'god' go I. If scum invade your home like that, there should be hell to pay.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:27pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Charming, from an ex Copper who raved on loud and long about a (misperceived) perversion/corruption of the course of justice. I'd hazard a guess and say that the 'ex-copper' probably has as much an issue with the current laws as we, the public, have. As an ex-copper, he probably has a better idea of the dangers the public faces nowadays than you do. Give the man the benefit of his experience when he voices an opinion. It's merely polite.

No.  He wants to interfere with a crime scene to corrupt and pervert the course of justice.   He said so.

The Law is clear issue on trespassers/break in/burglars etc as it was if the Pretorius case.  It is not rocket science at all.  I doubt you'd have the slightest idea what the current Law is, yet you bitch about it.

Until I know all the facts, I'm not going to comment on the specific case, and even then, that will not be in this Thread.

red baron wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;)

This, from an ex-cop.

And then, some numbskull supports him.

Jesus - what's wrong with you people?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people?

An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed.

Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand?

GordyL wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand?

Yes.

Without a shadow of a doubt.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt.

Apologist.

Frank wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:24pm: GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt. Apologist.

https://secure.static.tumblr.com/733a4a06f6131ee4c92e314aa05dadce/m6aofjc/v57nnfveb/tumblr_static_tumblr_static_filename_640.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people?

Never had to defend yourself on your home ground, eh, greggery?

When it becomes a situation where it's hurt or be hurt, 'tis better to have what you need rather than need more than you have.

Simples!

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt.

If their actions would lead to 10 years in jail, resulting in the chldren growing up in a foster home but placing a weapon in the intuders hand would mean a walk.

Is it immoral?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? Never had to defend yourself on your home ground, eh, greggery? When it becomes a situation where it's hurt or be hurt, 'tis better to have what you need rather than need more than you have. Simples!

Is English your first language?

Or, are you simply an illiterate fool?

"Hurt or be hurt"?

Read it again, Einstein:

"you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold".

https://secure.static.tumblr.com/733a4a06f6131ee4c92e314aa05dadce/m6aofjc/v57nnfveb/tumblr_static_tumblr_static_filename_640.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:31pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? Never had to defend yourself on your home ground, eh, greggery? When it becomes a situation where it's hurt or be hurt, 'tis better to have what you need rather than need more than you have. Simples! Is English your first language? Or, are you simply an illiterate fool? "Hurt or be hurt"? Read it again, Einstein: "you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold". https://secure.static.tumblr.com/733a4a06f6131ee4c92e314aa05dadce/m6aofjc/v57nnfveb/tumblr_static_tumblr_static_filename_640.gif

It would help if you could distinguish between a comment and a statement. English Lit. 101, eh?

If he's out cold, bring on the zip ties and call the coppers.

If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there?

Better to salt the scene, eh?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there?

Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth.

It's not even something I'd need to think twice about.

Charges have been upgraded to murder and bail denied.

I'd say the police just lay the charge out of procedure and let the court work it out .

His young family were in the house.
I bet he'll get off but his life will be fkd, all because some junky wanted to steal something from his house at 330am while his family was sleeping

Quote:

Better to salt the scene, eh?

That is....fabricate evidence, cover up evidence, lie, cheat and deceive all the way through the legal process which has been corrupted and perverted by you....a criminal, in this case, encouraged to do so by a former Copper.  Just goes to show where moral compasses are really calibrated around these parts.

Are you serious? 

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about.

Then you're in exactly the same boat as that gentleman under discussion at the moment.

The onus of proof is upon you to defend your actions.

After all, he died after the fact. But he still died as a result of your actions.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:38pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about. Then you're in exactly the same boat as that gentleman under discussion at the moment. The onus of proof is upon you to defend your actions. After all, he died after the fact. But he still died as a result of your actions.

Utter rubbish.  Please....cease.  Go read the Law.  Do a Google, whatever.  Stop making a complete ass of yourself!

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:38pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about. Then you're in exactly the same boat as that gentleman under discussion at the moment. The onus of proof is upon you to defend your actions. After all, he died after the fact. But he still died as a result of your actions.

I'm an honest person, not a criminal.

Therefore, I'd call the cops, man up, and tell the truth.

Interfering with the scene of a crime would never even cross my mind.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:46pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:38pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about. Then you're in exactly the same boat as that gentleman under discussion at the moment. The onus of proof is upon you to defend your actions. After all, he died after the fact. But he still died as a result of your actions. I'm an honest person, not a criminal. Therefore, I'd call the cops, man up, and tell the truth. Interfering with the scene of a crime would never even cross my mind.

Not just interfering....reconstructing it all to corrupt, pervert, lie, cheat, deceive, dupe and all on the recommendation of an former Copper.  Unreal I tells ya!  What really does go on in Copper World these days to fabricate evidence to shaft blame and responsibility where it does not lie?

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:42pm:

Quote: Better to salt the scene, eh? That is....fabricate evidence, cover up evidence, lie, cheat and deceive all the way through the legal process which has been corrupted and perverted by you....a criminal, in this case, encouraged to do so by a former Copper.  Just goes to show where moral compasses are really calibrated around these parts. Are you serious?

Was it intentional? Did you go beyond what was necessary? Were you in fear of your life? Was your family genuinely at risk?

Prove it!

Nobody's acting under advice.

The case in question at the moment will pan out as it may.

If all these people aren't connected in some way, the outcome will be interesting.

In a real life scenario, if tampering with evidence means the difference between GBH and manslaughter, what is the real additional penalty when you acted under panic and duress?

If you pardon the pun, it might be worth the shot.

Some coppers would understand.

If it wasn't a REAL threat, there's no need for such a reaction in the first place.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:46pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:38pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about. Then you're in exactly the same boat as that gentleman under discussion at the moment. The onus of proof is upon you to defend your actions. After all, he died after the fact. But he still died as a result of your actions. I'm an honest person, not a criminal. Therefore, I'd call the cops, man up, and tell the truth. Interfering with the scene of a crime would never even cross my mind. Not just interfering....reconstructing it all to corrupt, pervert, lie, cheat, deceive, dupe and all on the recommendation of an former Copper.  Unreal I tells ya!  What really does go on in Copper World these days to fabricate evidence to shaft blame and responsibility where it does not lie?

There's always been plenty of corrupt cops around.

Sounds like red might have been one in his time.

As for the rightards condoning his suggestion, no surprises there: most Liberal Party supporters/members are corrupt in one way or another.

GordyL wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:40pm:

Charges have been upgraded to murder and bail denied. I'd say the police just lay the charge out of procedure and let the court work it out . His young family were in the house. I bet he'll get off but his life will be fkd, all because some junky wanted to steal something from his house at 330am while his family was sleeping

If this turns out to be an ice junkie or another Somali opportunist, this man's actions were completely justified under the circumstances.

I miss my fuggin Rottweilers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about.

I doubt you would ever find yourself defending your family or anyone else greggy, being as your a gutless coward and would never put yourself in harms way for any reason.

So lets not kid anyone about what you would or would not do.

You would abandon your family and save yourself at all costs, wouldn't you?

GordyL wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 3:57pm:

I'll be interested to hear the full story but it's a real worry if you can no longer defend yourself in your own home.

Who said "you can no longer defend yourself in your own home"?

Quote:

If it wasn't a REAL threat, there's no need for such a reaction in the first place.

There you go.  You've now got it in a nutshell.  Real threat....real reaction in response is justified, and the Crown has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the reaction was not justified in all the circumstances as they have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Let's wait for all the facts to emerge.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:06pm:

would never put yourself in harms way for any reason.

Planting a weapon on an unarmed man,"on his back out cold", is hardly putting yourself in harm's way.

It's the act of a dishonest coward.

No surprise that you would support such an illegal act, though.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Quote: If it wasn't a REAL threat, there's no need for such a reaction in the first place. There you go.  You've now got it in a nutshell.  Real threat....real reaction in response is justified, and the Crown has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the reaction was not justified in all the circumstances as they have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Let's wait for all the facts to emerge.

Exactly.

Bloody lucky he had a witness and someone available to give him a hand, who was then released without charge.

Someone else might not have been so lucky.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:07pm: Quote: If it wasn't a REAL threat, there's no need for such a reaction in the first place. There you go.  You've now got it in a nutshell.  Real threat....real reaction in response is justified, and the Crown has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the reaction was not justified in all the circumstances as they have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Let's wait for all the facts to emerge. Exactly. Bloody lucky he had a witness and someone available to give him a hand, who was then released without charge. Someone else might not have been so lucky.

Lack of a witness makes the job tougher for the Crown, as, unless there is relevant forensic evidence, the only evidence will be that of the 'accused' assuming he told the Coppers or the Court anything.  He has no obligation to do either, and all he has to fear in such a circumstance is some corrupt arsehole Copper fabricating evidence at the crime scene, as Mr Baron recommends.

just saw on the news ... the thief had a broken neck.

If the home owner has had any sort of unarmed combat training, he's screwed. If the thief broke his neck in a fall, the homeowner might get lucky

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:38pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about. I doubt you would ever find yourself defending your family or anyone else greggy, being as your a gutless coward and would never put yourself in harms way for any reason. So lets not kid anyone about what you would or would not do. You would abandon your family and save yourself at all costs, wouldn't you?

Well said BiGOl,

Greggy needs to grow some balls.

He reminds me of Dr Smith.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz2_d6zWDhg

Bobby. wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:08pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:38pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:37pm: If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Be a man, call the police, and tell the truth. It's not even something I'd need to think twice about. I doubt you would ever find yourself defending your family or anyone else greggy, being as your a gutless coward and would never put yourself in harms way for any reason. So lets not kid anyone about what you would or would not do. You would abandon your family and save yourself at all costs, wouldn't you? Well said BiGOl, Greggy needs to grow some balls. He reminds me of Dr Smith. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz2_d6zWDhg

Booby: can I post those PMs you sent me, asking for sexual favours, in the forum?

Greggy - you're a pain.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKwwcCpa2Ag

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:06pm: would never put yourself in harms way for any reason. Planting a weapon on an unarmed man,"on his back out cold", is hardly putting yourself in harm's way. It's the act of a dishonest coward. No surprise that you would support such an illegal act, though.

Apologist. Disgusting apologist.

Frank wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:11pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:06pm: would never put yourself in harms way for any reason. Planting a weapon on an unarmed man,"on his back out cold", is hardly putting yourself in harm's way. It's the act of a dishonest coward. No surprise that you would support such an illegal act, though. Apologist. Disgusting apologist.

Who is he apologising for "Frank."

Bobby. wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Greggy - you're a pain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKwwcCpa2Ag

Sir Booby: do I have your consent to post the PMs you've sent me?

red baron wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;)

Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court.

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:

just saw on the news ... the thief had a broken neck. If the home owner has had any sort of unarmed combat training, he's screwed. If the thief broke his neck in a fall, the homeowner might get lucky

nonsense.

Sir Booby: do I have your consent to post the PMs you've sent me?

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:59pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court.

In fear of an unarmed man.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I must be really bad, no calling the cops, no body found.

Nah not really, but I would put up a reasonable fight.

FBD,s is the answer tho


(Very Big Dogs)

I think its an amazing coincidence that all the members here are lawyers, what are the odds of that happening  ;D

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

I think

Link?

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:22pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:07pm: Quote: If it wasn't a REAL threat, there's no need for such a reaction in the first place. There you go.  You've now got it in a nutshell.  Real threat....real reaction in response is justified, and the Crown has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the reaction was not justified in all the circumstances as they have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Let's wait for all the facts to emerge. Exactly. Bloody lucky he had a witness and someone available to give him a hand, who was then released without charge. Someone else might not have been so lucky. Lack of a witness makes the job tougher for the Crown, as, unless there is relevant forensic evidence, the only evidence will be that of the 'accused' assuming he told the Coppers or the Court anything.  He has no obligation to do either, and all he has to fear in such a circumstance is some corrupt arsehole Copper fabricating evidence at the crime scene, as Mr Baron recommends.

Can't let it go, can you? The jibe against the coppers.

The police, like any other club or group, act in the ways allowed/condoned by their bosses/superiors. The legal profession is no different.

The vast majority of citizens in this country are are decent, law-abiding people who possess a great deal of common sense and regard for one another. They are not 'sheeple', they are the future of humanity.The boundaries they set, as a collective, are for the greater good. They are pretty good at self-policing their own societies.

It's not our fault that because of the way today's society is structured that arseh0les rise to positions of power.

If you want to have a go at someone, pick on the politicians and those that influence them.

In fact, it's that very same structure, that of influenced governance, from ancient times, that has led to almost all the rebellions in the world.

Humanity, in its evolution, still has to rid itself of the limbic system. Until such times as it does, we 'civilised' people will still have to deal with the animals in our midst and amongst our leadership.

The quickest way to speed this process is to arm the populace, remove warning labels and use-by dates, and let nature take its course.

But it's not allowed.

Work that out.

In the meantime, we take our chances as we find them.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:30pm:

It's not our fault that because of the way today's society is structured that arseh0les rise to positions of power.

A very good friend of mine wrote a song on that subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRjul4JWpJg

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:07pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:59pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court. In fear of an unarmed man. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

sure. Anyone who breaks into my house is a threat to be eliminated with prejudice. Fear, aka fight or flight can be channelled either way. In your case it would be run away, cower and call the police. In mine it would be defend the castle to the death. Life threatening situations are actually quite a buzz Greggary, better than sex.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:07pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:59pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court. In fear of an unarmed man. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D sure. Anyone who breaks into my house is a threat to be eliminated with prejudice. Fear, aka fight or flight can be channelled either way. In your case it would be run away, cower and call the police. In mine it would be defend the castle to the death.

You invented a story, where he had a knife   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You're frightened of a lie  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This is so funny.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:40pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:07pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:59pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court. In fear of an unarmed man. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D sure. Anyone who breaks into my house is a threat to be eliminated with prejudice. Fear, aka fight or flight can be channelled either way. In your case it would be run away, cower and call the police. In mine it would be defend the castle to the death. You invented a story, where he had a knife   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You're frightened of a lie  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This is so funny.

Im fearful of going to jail. I would certainly lie and fabricate to prevent that,  Not sure why you find that funny but each to their own.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:42pm:

I would certainly lie and fabricate

And there we have it.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:40pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:07pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:59pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court. In fear of an unarmed man. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D sure. Anyone who breaks into my house is a threat to be eliminated with prejudice. Fear, aka fight or flight can be channelled either way. In your case it would be run away, cower and call the police. In mine it would be defend the castle to the death. You invented a story, where he had a knife   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You're frightened of a lie  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This is so funny. Im fearful of going to jail. I would certainly lie and fabricate to prevent that,  Not sure why you find that funny but each to their own.

You don;t need to "lie and fabricate" if you don;t stab an unarmed person.

Im sure that was obvious when i stated I would invent the knife attack. Took you a while to catch on there Greggary

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:42pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:40pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:07pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:59pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court. In fear of an unarmed man. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D sure. Anyone who breaks into my house is a threat to be eliminated with prejudice. Fear, aka fight or flight can be channelled either way. In your case it would be run away, cower and call the police. In mine it would be defend the castle to the death. You invented a story, where he had a knife   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You're frightened of a lie  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This is so funny. Im fearful of going to jail. I would certainly lie and fabricate to prevent that,  Not sure why you find that funny but each to their own. You don;t need to "lie and fabricate" if you don;t stab an unarmed person.

Your point?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:22pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:07pm: Quote: If it wasn't a REAL threat, there's no need for such a reaction in the first place. There you go.  You've now got it in a nutshell.  Real threat....real reaction in response is justified, and the Crown has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the reaction was not justified in all the circumstances as they have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Let's wait for all the facts to emerge. Exactly. Bloody lucky he had a witness and someone available to give him a hand, who was then released without charge. Someone else might not have been so lucky. Lack of a witness makes the job tougher for the Crown, as, unless there is relevant forensic evidence, the only evidence will be that of the 'accused' assuming he told the Coppers or the Court anything.  He has no obligation to do either, and all he has to fear in such a circumstance is some corrupt arsehole Copper fabricating evidence at the crime scene, as Mr Baron recommends. Can't let it go, can you? The jibe against the coppers. The police, like any other club or group, act in the ways allowed/condoned by their bosses/superiors. The legal profession is no different. The vast majority of citizens in this country are are decent, law-abiding people who possess a great deal of common sense and regard for one another. They are not 'sheeple', they are the future of humanity.The boundaries they set, as a collective, are for the greater good. They are pretty good at self-policing their own societies. It's not our fault that because of the way today's society is structured that arseh0les rise to positions of power. If you want to have a go at someone, pick on the politicians and those that influence them. In fact, it's that very same structure, that of influenced governance, from ancient times, that has led to almost all the rebellions in the world. Humanity, in its evolution, still has to rid itself of the limbic system. Until such times as it does, we 'civilised' people will still have to deal with the animals in our midst and amongst our leadership. The quickest way to speed this process is to arm the populace, remove warning labels and use-by dates, and let nature take its course. But it's not allowed. Work that out. In the meantime, we take our chances as we find them.

That rant is.....irrelevant.  The 'legal profession' plays no part in the investigation of a crime until (at the earliest) someone is arrested for that crime.  Then, we are all over it if we have been engaged by the accused person.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:

Im sure that was obvious when i stated I would invent the knife attack.

Why?

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:46pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:45pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:42pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:40pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:07pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:59pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Good advice. Only my story would be he attacked me with the knife and i managed to get it off him and was in fear of my life so had to stab him. No need to leave any witnesses, that would only go against you in court. In fear of an unarmed man. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D sure. Anyone who breaks into my house is a threat to be eliminated with prejudice. Fear, aka fight or flight can be channelled either way. In your case it would be run away, cower and call the police. In mine it would be defend the castle to the death. You invented a story, where he had a knife   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You're frightened of a lie  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This is so funny. Im fearful of going to jail. I would certainly lie and fabricate to prevent that,  Not sure why you find that funny but each to their own. You don;t need to "lie and fabricate" if you don;t stab an unarmed person. Your point?

Isn't it obvious?

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:

Im sure that was obvious when i stated I would invent the knife attack. Took you a while to catch on there Greggary

I'm not sure what you are saying.  What are you saying?

I can guess. i would rather you explained your point.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

I can guess. i would rather you explained your point.

It's not difficult Ian.

You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences.

I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person.

Did you really need that explained to you?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:33pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:30pm: It's not our fault that because of the way today's society is structured that arseh0les rise to positions of power. A very good friend of mine wrote a song on that subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRjul4JWpJg

Very clever indeed. Thank you for sharing.

It's still a long way from explaining the Stalins, Einsteins, Dahmers, Chaplins, Ghandis, Tojos and Christs rise to the froth at the top.

Humanity, still, possess none of the empathy of a wolf pack.

Shame, really. It's an indictment of our so-called 'intelligence', don't you think?

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you?

What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid.

this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed.

AiA wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:01pm:

this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed.

Really?  Link?

AiA wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:01pm:

this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed.

Agreed.

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:

AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link?

it happens every day. you want links to particular cases?  why?

AiA wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:01pm:

this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed.

Do you have a link to the relevant legislation?

AiA wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:02pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link? it happens every day. you want links to particular cases?  why?

You said "right".

Where does that "right" come from?

Can you cite the relevant legislation?

Aussie wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:

AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link?

3 days ago gimp:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/24/criminals-dont-break-into-a-house-with-a-pistol-sign/

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:00pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid.

No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone.

No-one deserves to die over stuff.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:04pm:

AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:03pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:02pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link? it happens every day. you want links to particular cases?  why? You said "right". Where does that "right" come from? Can you cite the relevant legislation?

considering that this sort of thing happens every day and homeowners aren't charged then wouldn't you say it comes from legislation?

AiA wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:02pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link? 3 days ago gimp: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/24/criminals-dont-break-into-a-house-with-a-pistol-sign/

You said "right".

Do you have a link to the legislation that gives you the "right"?

“Do not hurt where holding is enough;
Do not wound where hurting is enough;
Do not maim where wounding is enough;
and kill not where maiming is enough;
The greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill”

AiA wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:04pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:03pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:02pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link? it happens every day. you want links to particular cases?  why? You said "right". Where does that "right" come from? Can you cite the relevant legislation? considering that this sort of thing happens every day and homeowners aren't charged then wouldn't you say it comes from legislation?

You seem very reluctant to cite the legislation.

Why is that?

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:05pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff.

nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:08pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:05pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff. nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner.

Why else would they break into your home if it weren't to get stuff?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:08pm:

AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:04pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:03pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:02pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link? it happens every day. you want links to particular cases?  why? You said "right". Where does that "right" come from? Can you cite the relevant legislation? considering that this sort of thing happens every day and homeowners aren't charged then wouldn't you say it comes from legislation? You seem very reluctant to cite the legislation. Why is that?

Individual states in the US have varying legislation. texas for one i know has so called "castle laws"

google it yourself. i will help you. "stand your ground"

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:09pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:05pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff. nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner. Why else would they break into your home if it weren't to get stuff?

To bask in ian's aura.

AiA wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:10pm:

google it yourself. i will help you. "stand your ground"

White flag accepted.

Would any other liars like to give it a try?

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:04pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:03pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:02pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link? it happens every day. you want links to particular cases?  why? You said "right". Where does that "right" come from? Can you cite the relevant legislation? considering that this sort of thing happens every day and homeowners aren't charged then wouldn't you say it comes from legislation? You seem very reluctant to cite the legislation. Why is that? Individual states in the US have varying legislation. texas for one i know has so called "castle laws"

Yet you're incapable of citing that legislation.

Funny, that.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:12pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:09pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:05pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff. nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner. Why else would they break into your home if it weren't to get stuff? To bask in ian's aura.

who could blame them?

Ee-gad, I just came home and found my front door open, Muslim ghetto and all.

It’s been open for three days, since I went away.I didn’t close it properly. Whoops.

Why didn’t anyone want to come in and have a w@nk or something? Where are all these heinous home invaders?

Next time, I’ll leave a sign. Use a tissue please, effendes. And don’t wake Mother.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:13pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:04pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:03pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:02pm: AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:01pm: this is one thing the USA gets right:  you break into my house and I have the right to kill you. case closed. Really?  Link? it happens every day. you want links to particular cases?  why? You said "right". Where does that "right" come from? Can you cite the relevant legislation? considering that this sort of thing happens every day and homeowners aren't charged then wouldn't you say it comes from legislation? You seem very reluctant to cite the legislation. Why is that? Individual states in the US have varying legislation. texas for one i know has so called "castle laws" Yet you're incapable of citing that legislation. Funny, that.

nah, Im just too lazy. If you dont want to believe it, no skin off my nose. Inquiring minds and all that.

DENIED.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:12pm:

AiA wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:10pm: google it yourself. i will help you. "stand your ground" White flag accepted. Would any other liars like to give it a try?

https://www.google.com/search?num=40&rlz=1CATAAB_enUS616US619&q=stand+your+ground&oq=stand+your+ground&gs_l=serp.3..0i67l4j0i20j0i67j0l4.287051.294740.0.295378.45.29.15.0.0.0.209.3333.7j20j1.28.0....0...1.1.64.serp..2.39.3265.cqrg22Y2bY0

Ah.

SMH needs to have a comments section after stories like this. I have read Sydney Morning Herald online occasionally since the 2000 Olympics and the lack of a comments section after an unfavorable opinion story led me here.

The Sheep need to be reminded from time to time that they are Sheep, persecuting this one individual for trying to defend what is his is an example for all. He should have gotten as many family members as possible out of the house or cowered with them in a bedroom. After the tradesman has finished collecting valuables he will leave and all is well again. And I thought I lived in bizarro world!


http://lawnewz.com/crazy/woman-kills-home-intruder-and-media-actually-outraged-at-her/

54-year-old Gwendolyn Jenrette shot and killed a 17-year-old teen that broke into her Liberty City home on Thursday and now the teen’s family members are calling for the state’s attorney to file charges against the woman.  What’s more, The Washington Post is using the incident to criticize Florida’s homeowner protection laws.

Jenrette raced home last Thursday after she received an alert from a security system company that there was a possible break-in at her home.  Police were also alerted and dispatched to the home, however, Janrette arrived and found 17-year-old Trevon Johnson climbing out of a window.  According to investigators, there was then a confrontation between Johnson and Jenrette and police officers responding to the scene heard at least one gunshot.  They immediately entered the backyard and found Johnson on the ground bleeding from an apparent gunshot wound.  He was immediately transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead later that evening.

Jenrette was taken to the police station and interviewed while other investigators stayed behind at the home to collect evidence.  Authorities described her as “a little distraught” by the events but said she was otherwise cooperating with the investigation.

Enter Michael E. Miller with the Washington Post, who picked up on the story for an article this morning in which he laments about the difficulty some states have in prosecuting homeowners that dare to defend their homes from intruders.

The Post highlights several comments critical of Janrette made by Johnson’s family members to local news reporters in the aftermath of the shooting and described them as “an impassioned claims that the teenager deserved justice, despite the circumstances of his death.”

The newspaper even goes so far as to highlight a comment from Johnson’s cousin that seems to blame Janrette for failing to recognize that maybe Johnson didn’t have another way to get money school clothes.

“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” Johnson cousin Naukita Harris said. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

However, what really gets at the Post is that Florida law provides “some of the staunchest protections in the country” for those seeking to protect their home intruders.

    “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony,” according to state law. “A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

The Post goes on to note that in Florida “anybody who ‘unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.’”

It will ultimately be up to the state’s attorney to decide whether charges are justified in this case.  However, as noted above, Florida homeowners are essentially presumed to be lawfully acting in self-defense if they have to shoot an intruder trying to break into to their home.  As a result, Janrette is unlikely to be charged with a crime in this case.  Furthermore, given the circumstance of this case, a strong argument could be made that she would not be charged even in state’s with lesser homeowner protections than Florida.

Bottom line, critics would be wise to pick another incident to hold up as example of alleged injustice that results from Florida’s homeowners protection laws.

Ladies, bring a plate.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:12pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:09pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:05pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff. nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner. Why else would they break into your home if it weren't to get stuff? To bask in ian's aura. who could blame them?

You. You'd kill them for it and then lie about why and how you killed them.

Mortdooley wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:19pm:

SMH needs to have a comments section after stories like this. I have read Sydney Morning Herald online occasionally since the 2000 Olympics and the lack of a comments section after an unfavorable opinion story led me here. The Sheep need to be reminded from time to time that they are Sheep, persecuting this one individual for trying to defend what is his is an example for all. He should have gotten as many family members as possible out of the house or cowered with them in a bedroom. After the tradesman has finished collecting valuables he will leave and all is well again. And I thought I lived in bizarro world! http://lawnewz.com/crazy/woman-kills-home-intruder-and-media-actually-outraged-at-her/ 54-year-old Gwendolyn Jenrette shot and killed a 17-year-old teen that broke into her Liberty City home on Thursday and now the teen’s family members are calling for the state’s attorney to file charges against the woman.  What’s more, The Washington Post is using the incident to criticize Florida’s homeowner protection laws. Jenrette raced home last Thursday after she received an alert from a security system company that there was a possible break-in at her home.  Police were also alerted and dispatched to the home, however, Janrette arrived and found 17-year-old Trevon Johnson climbing out of a window.  According to investigators, there was then a confrontation between Johnson and Jenrette and police officers responding to the scene heard at least one gunshot.  They immediately entered the backyard and found Johnson on the ground bleeding from an apparent gunshot wound.  He was immediately transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead later that evening. Jenrette was taken to the police station and interviewed while other investigators stayed behind at the home to collect evidence.  Authorities described her as “a little distraught” by the events but said she was otherwise cooperating with the investigation. Enter Michael E. Miller with the Washington Post, who picked up on the story for an article this morning in which he laments about the difficulty some states have in prosecuting homeowners that dare to defend their homes from intruders. The Post highlights several comments critical of Janrette made by Johnson’s family members to local news reporters in the aftermath of the shooting and described them as “an impassioned claims that the teenager deserved justice, despite the circumstances of his death.” The newspaper even goes so far as to highlight a comment from Johnson’s cousin that seems to blame Janrette for failing to recognize that maybe Johnson didn’t have another way to get money school clothes. “You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” Johnson cousin Naukita Harris said. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.” However, what really gets at the Post is that Florida law provides “some of the staunchest protections in the country” for those seeking to protect their home intruders.     “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony,” according to state law. “A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.” The Post goes on to note that in Florida “anybody who ‘unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.’” It will ultimately be up to the state’s attorney to decide whether charges are justified in this case.  However, as noted above, Florida homeowners are essentially presumed to be lawfully acting in self-defense if they have to shoot an intruder trying to break into to their home.  As a result, Janrette is unlikely to be charged with a crime in this case.  Furthermore, given the circumstance of this case, a strong argument could be made that she would not be charged even in state’s with lesser homeowner protections than Florida. Bottom line, critics would be wise to pick another incident to hold up as example of alleged injustice that results from Florida’s homeowners protection laws.

ah

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:20pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:12pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:09pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:05pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff. nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner. Why else would they break into your home if it weren't to get stuff? To bask in ian's aura. who could blame them? You. You'd kill them for it and then lie about why and how you killed them.

if you say so. All hypotheticals. Like greggary says, im a gutless coward.

Well, among others, there's this:

" ... In the United States, a stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) is a law that authorizes an individual to protect and defend their own life and limb against threat or perceived threat. This law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place the individual has a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if the individual reasonably believes they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

The castle doctrine applies in 45 US jurisdictions and in Guam,[1] which gives immunity from liability to individuals (ie., there is no duty to retreat) when an intruder enters their home. Of these, twenty-two jurisdictions have also extended the immunity to other locations,[2] some extending it to anywhere where they may legally be.[3]

Other restrictions may still exist, however, such as when in public, a person must be carrying a firearm or other weapon in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

I believe it stems from the time, in English Common Law, when doorways were constructed so that you had to stoop upon entry. If the home-owner had a sword, forced entry became a game of "Who's next!"

The law in the USA certainly differs from ours when it comes to self-defence.

No law student me, of course, but simpler and more violent times demanded easier, immediate solutions to home invasion.

We might live in more enlightened times these days, but some problems never seem to go away.

It's the solutions that have become more complicated.

8-)

Karnal wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:19pm:

Ladies, bring a plate.

I refuse unless the men bring one too.

Equality, innit.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:22pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:20pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:12pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:09pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:05pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff. nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner. Why else would they break into your home if it weren't to get stuff? To bask in ian's aura. who could blame them? You. You'd kill them for it and then lie about why and how you killed them. if you say so. All hypotheticals. Like greggary says, im a gutless coward.

No. You said so.

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:23pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:22pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:20pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:12pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:09pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:08pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:05pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:00pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid. No. Their life is not "forfeit". It is highly relevant whether they are armed or not. And you don't need to go to jail if you don't kill anyone. No-one deserves to die over stuff. nothing to do with "stuff". i wished I lived in your world. seriously. i dont mean that in a demeaning manner. Why else would they break into your home if it weren't to get stuff? To bask in ian's aura. who could blame them? You. You'd kill them for it and then lie about why and how you killed them. if you say so. All hypotheticals. Like greggary says, im a gutless coward. No. You said so.

you got me.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:29pm:

]you got me.

"You do it to yourself, you do.
And that's what really hurts.
You do it to yourself, just you.
You and no-one else.
You do it to yourself"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_qMagfZtv8

Ouch. Scathing.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:30pm: just saw on the news ... the thief had a broken neck. If the home owner has had any sort of unarmed combat training, he's screwed. If the thief broke his neck in a fall, the homeowner might get lucky nonsense.

if you think it's nonsense, it's a safe bet that I'm right

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:45pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:00pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:30pm: just saw on the news ... the thief had a broken neck. If the home owner has had any sort of unarmed combat training, he's screwed. If the thief broke his neck in a fall, the homeowner might get lucky nonsense. if you think it's nonsense, it's a safe bet that I'm right

Go with that.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:45pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:00pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:30pm: just saw on the news ... the thief had a broken neck. If the home owner has had any sort of unarmed combat training, he's screwed. If the thief broke his neck in a fall, the homeowner might get lucky nonsense. if you think it's nonsense, it's a safe bet that I'm right Go with that.

was planning too.

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:43pm:

Ouch. Scathing.

Are you going to "kill" me too?

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:19pm: Ladies, bring a plate. I refuse unless the men bring one too. Equality, innit.

Whose washing up is what I want to know.


Those who cook, those who bring the plate, those who earn the money for the food on the plate?


Equality, innit? Where does it start, where does it end.

Frank wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:49pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:23pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:19pm: Ladies, bring a plate. I refuse unless the men bring one too. Equality, innit. Whose washing up is what I want to know. Those who cook, those who bring the plate, those who earn the money for the food on the plate? Equality, innit? Where does it start, where does it end.

When all is equal.

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:48pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Ouch. Scathing. Are you going to "kill" me too?

Are you going to break into my home at 3:30am?

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:

ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:45pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:45pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:00pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:30pm: just saw on the news ... the thief had a broken neck. If the home owner has had any sort of unarmed combat training, he's screwed. If the thief broke his neck in a fall, the homeowner might get lucky nonsense. if you think it's nonsense, it's a safe bet that I'm right Go with that. . was planning too.

well bully for you

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:47pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:45pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:45pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:00pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:30pm: just saw on the news ... the thief had a broken neck. If the home owner has had any sort of unarmed combat training, he's screwed. If the thief broke his neck in a fall, the homeowner might get lucky nonsense. if you think it's nonsense, it's a safe bet that I'm right Go with that. . was planning too. well bully for you

bravo Ian ... what a retort. My gosh, what did we do for entertainment before you came  :D :D

Setanta wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:53pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:48pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Ouch. Scathing. Are you going to "kill" me too? Are you going to break into my home a 3:30am?

 

No.

But if i did, would you, like Ian, disarm me, render me unconscious, kill me then "lie and fabricate" to get away with no consequences?

Or do you think disarming me and rendering me unconscious and then calling the police is sufficient?

Setanta wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:53pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:48pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Ouch. Scathing. Are you going to "kill" me too? Are you going to break into my home at 3:30am?

only if she knows your wife won't be home  ;D ;D ;D

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:56pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:48pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Ouch. Scathing. Are you going to "kill" me too? Are you going to break into my home a 3:30am?   No. But if i did, would you, like Ian, disarm me, render me unconscious, kill me then "lie and fabricate" to get away with no consequences? Or do you think disarming me and rendering me unconscious and then calling the police is sufficient?

mmmmm, rendering you unconscious . Tell us more.

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:56pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:48pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Ouch. Scathing. Are you going to "kill" me too? Are you going to break into my home a 3:30am?   No. But if i did, would you, like Ian, disarm me, render me unconscious, kill me then "lie and fabricate" to get away with no consequences? Or do you think disarming me and rendering me unconscious and then calling the police is sufficient?

I would do my best to do the highlighted, if you died as a result of my efforts, I would have very little sympathy.

Setanta wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:59pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:56pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:48pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Ouch. Scathing. Are you going to "kill" me too? Are you going to break into my home a 3:30am?   No. But if i did, would you, like Ian, disarm me, render me unconscious, kill me then "lie and fabricate" to get away with no consequences? Or do you think disarming me and rendering me unconscious and then calling the police is sufficient? I would do my best to do the highlighted, if you died as a result of my efforts, I would have very little sympathy.

Dying as a result of self defence is a very different argument from the one Ian is making.

But that said, if i took a life, even in self defence, i would be absolutely gutted.

mothra wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:01am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:59pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:56pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:48pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Ouch. Scathing. Are you going to "kill" me too? Are you going to break into my home a 3:30am?   No. But if i did, would you, like Ian, disarm me, render me unconscious, kill me then "lie and fabricate" to get away with no consequences? Or do you think disarming me and rendering me unconscious and then calling the police is sufficient? I would do my best to do the highlighted, if you died as a result of my efforts, I would have very little sympathy. Dying as a result of self defence is a very different argument from the one Ian is making. But that said, if i took a life, even in self defence, i would be absolutely gutted.

As would I but I doubt much sympathy for the person that put me in that position, through his own premeditated actions, would be forthcoming.

Frank wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:49pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:23pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:19pm: Ladies, bring a plate. I refuse unless the men bring one too. Equality, innit. Whose washing up is what I want to know. Those who cook, those who bring the plate, those who earn the money for the food on the plate? Equality, innit? Where does it start, where does it end.

If you break into my house, you can steal the plate.

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:51pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:23pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:19pm: Ladies, bring a plate. I refuse unless the men bring one too. Equality, innit. Whose washing up is what I want to know. Those who cook, those who bring the plate, those who earn the money for the food on the plate? Equality, innit? Where does it start, where does it end. When all is equal.

By what amazing array of yardsticks that change from day to day?  :-X

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

If someone breaks into your house the first thing you are going to need is a law degree to give you a sound understanding of the law surround 'self defence'. Then of course you will need a range of potential self defence weapons and fighting skills so you don't use any more force than is necessary. See if you accidentally kill a thieving scum-bag, you will find yourself in a world of hurt, thanks to the brave men and women who weren't there to help you in the first place. Once someone seeks to illegally  enter your home with ill intent, then you should have the right to put them down without repercussions or recourse.

the law of self-defence is pretty basic. You are entitled to defend yourself to the level of the attack you received.  if someone shoves you to the ground you are not entitled to them shoot him.  it sounds like the two guys got carried away and beat him up well past the level of self-defence.

its not rocket science.

GordyL wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand?

immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid.  so yes.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:31pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? Never had to defend yourself on your home ground, eh, greggery? When it becomes a situation where it's hurt or be hurt, 'tis better to have what you need rather than need more than you have. Simples! Is English your first language? Or, are you simply an illiterate fool? "Hurt or be hurt"? Read it again, Einstein: "you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold". https://secure.static.tumblr.com/733a4a06f6131ee4c92e314aa05dadce/m6aofjc/v57nnfveb/tumblr_static_tumblr_static_filename_640.gif It would help if you could distinguish between a comment and a statement. English Lit. 101, eh? If he's out cold, bring on the zip ties and call the coppers. If he don't wake up, like in the scenario being discussed, where do you go from there? Better to salt the scene, eh?

how dumb are you?  corrupting the crime scene will ensure a stay in jail for that alone and render your claim to self-defence, invalid.

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:51pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:23pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:19pm: Ladies, bring a plate. I refuse unless the men bring one too. Equality, innit. Whose washing up is what I want to know. Those who cook, those who bring the plate, those who earn the money for the food on the plate? Equality, innit? Where does it start, where does it end. When all is equal

Who & what determines that?

ian wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:00pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:55pm: ian wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:50pm: I can guess. i would rather you explained your point. It's not difficult Ian. You said you would stab an unarmed person. You would then "lie and fabricate" about your actions to avoid consequences. I'm saying you don't need to "lie and fabricate" if you don't kill an unarmed person. Did you really need that explained to you? What arent you understanding? The intruders life is forfeit.. The fact they were armed or unarmed is irrelevant. Im not going to jail. Im posting via a proxy here so Im being quite candid.

Quite the bloodlust there...  You are just salivating over the opportunity to kill someone.

Imagine however that the 'intruder' is in fact someone who mistook your house for where they were going.  drunk, wrong address or whatever.

would you kill them?  because you would get a life sentence for that.

Mortdooley wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:19pm:

SMH needs to have a comments section after stories like this. I have read Sydney Morning Herald online occasionally since the 2000 Olympics and the lack of a comments section after an unfavorable opinion story led me here. The Sheep need to be reminded from time to time that they are Sheep, persecuting this one individual for trying to defend what is his is an example for all. He should have gotten as many family members as possible out of the house or cowered with them in a bedroom. After the tradesman has finished collecting valuables he will leave and all is well again. And I thought I lived in bizarro world! http://lawnewz.com/crazy/woman-kills-home-intruder-and-media-actually-outraged-at-her/ 54-year-old Gwendolyn Jenrette shot and killed a 17-year-old teen that broke into her Liberty City home on Thursday and now the teen’s family members are calling for the state’s attorney to file charges against the woman.  What’s more, The Washington Post is using the incident to criticize Florida’s homeowner protection laws. Jenrette raced home last Thursday after she received an alert from a security system company that there was a possible break-in at her home.  Police were also alerted and dispatched to the home, however, Janrette arrived and found 17-year-old Trevon Johnson climbing out of a window.  According to investigators, there was then a confrontation between Johnson and Jenrette and police officers responding to the scene heard at least one gunshot.  They immediately entered the backyard and found Johnson on the ground bleeding from an apparent gunshot wound.  He was immediately transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead later that evening. Jenrette was taken to the police station and interviewed while other investigators stayed behind at the home to collect evidence.  Authorities described her as “a little distraught” by the events but said she was otherwise cooperating with the investigation. Enter Michael E. Miller with the Washington Post, who picked up on the story for an article this morning in which he laments about the difficulty some states have in prosecuting homeowners that dare to defend their homes from intruders. The Post highlights several comments critical of Janrette made by Johnson’s family members to local news reporters in the aftermath of the shooting and described them as “an impassioned claims that the teenager deserved justice, despite the circumstances of his death.” The newspaper even goes so far as to highlight a comment from Johnson’s cousin that seems to blame Janrette for failing to recognize that maybe Johnson didn’t have another way to get money school clothes. “You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” Johnson cousin Naukita Harris said. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.” However, what really gets at the Post is that Florida law provides “some of the staunchest protections in the country” for those seeking to protect their home intruders.     “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony,” according to state law. “A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.” The Post goes on to note that in Florida “anybody who ‘unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.’” It will ultimately be up to the state’s attorney to decide whether charges are justified in this case.  However, as noted above, Florida homeowners are essentially presumed to be lawfully acting in self-defense if they have to shoot an intruder trying to break into to their home.  As a result, Janrette is unlikely to be charged with a crime in this case.  Furthermore, given the circumstance of this case, a strong argument could be made that she would not be charged even in state’s with lesser homeowner protections than Florida. Bottom line, critics would be wise to pick another incident to hold up as example of alleged injustice that results from Florida’s homeowners protection laws.

he was climbing OUT the window. So how did he constitute a threat of any kind?

There is no defence for a perfect stranger to be in someones house uninvited, entering by breaking in.

What happens to them is as a result of their own stupid actions.

No sympathy.

Most of the cases of "home invasion" that have been in the media of late have had the perpetrators armed & occupants have been injured/wounded.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:00am:

GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid.  so yes.

So there's a dead intruder on the ground.
Your children will be raised in foster care for 10 years.
You'd hold you head high and cop the 10 years?

You can defend yourself & your loved ones as long as
the force used is "reasonable".

That would be decided by a court if you're charged with anything.

More about the dead guy.

He had served more than 20 months before the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled his convictions should be quashed due to errors made by the trial judge.

Mr Slater had been convicted of a ram raid at Sandgate adult store Nauti & Nice in November, 2012, in which cash and a quantity of synthetic drugs were stolen. 

He was acquitted on appeal and released from custody after the Crown conceded a number of errors were made in the trial, including the use of CCTV footage.

red baron wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;)

Crime Scene Investigation has come a long way since you were in 'the job', and staging a scene by providing your own evidence such as a "knife" will ensure that your defence has very little to defend you with if they find out the truth, which they almost certainly will. Far better to rely on your Lawyer than to manufacture evidence.

Gnads wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:20am:

There is no defence for a perfect stranger to be in someones house uninvited, entering by breaking in. What happens to them is as a result of their own stupid actions. No sympathy. Most of the cases of "home invasion" that have been in the media of late have had the perpetrators armed & occupants have been injured/wounded.

there is no defence for someone to punch me in the street either. doesnt mean I am then entitled to execute them.

Fuzzball wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Crime Scene Investigation has come a long way since you were in 'the job', and staging a scene by providing your own evidence such as a "knife" will ensure that your defence has very little to defend you with if they find out the truth, which they almost certainly will. Far better to rely on your Lawyer than to manufacture evidence.

Yes  about one minute under a microscope will show
that the knife was sharpened with the same stone or steel
used on all your other knives.  i.e.

it was your knife.

It's a silly idea to manufacture "evidence"

Fuzzball wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Crime Scene Investigation has come a long way since you were in 'the job', and staging a scene by providing your own evidence such as a "knife" will ensure that your defence has very little to defend you with if they find out the truth, which they almost certainly will. Far better to rely on your Lawyer than to manufacture evidence.

I agree. I'm too clueless to stage a crime scene, as I imagine most people are.
I'm curious about the moral question of it.

GordyL wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:30am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:00am: GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid.  so yes. So there's a dead intruder on the ground. Your children will be raised in foster care for 10 years. You'd hold you head high and cop the 10 years?

A) you are not clever enough to fake the evidence especially since it was not planned. You will be caught and go to jail for a long time
B) reasonable self-defence does not mean killing someone unless they are intent on killing or seriously injuring you. most burglars when confronted... RUN.


your morals and ethics appear to be... well... missing.

GordyL wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:37am:

More about the dead guy. He had served more than 20 months before the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled his convictions should be quashed due to errors made by the trial judge. Mr Slater had been convicted of a ram raid at Sandgate adult store Nauti & Nice in November, 2012, in which cash and a quantity of synthetic drugs were stolen.  He was acquitted on appeal and released from custody after the Crown conceded a number of errors were made in the trial, including the use of CCTV footage.

he sounds like someone who was going to get killed eventually anyhow.   HOWEVER (and its a biggie) that in no way excuses killing a burglar who did not intend to kill or harm the  inhabitants.  note the idiot had no convictions for violence.

GordyL wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:50am:

Fuzzball wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:47am: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Crime Scene Investigation has come a long way since you were in 'the job', and staging a scene by providing your own evidence such as a "knife" will ensure that your defence has very little to defend you with if they find out the truth, which they almost certainly will. Far better to rely on your Lawyer than to manufacture evidence. I agree. I'm too clueless to stage a crime scene, as I imagine most people are. I'm curious about the moral question of it.

Im more curious about how you can be curious about the morality of faking evidence to cover-up your own crime.

some moral and ethical questions can be debatable... this is not one of them

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:50am:

GordyL wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:30am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:00am: GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid.  so yes. So there's a dead intruder on the ground. Your children will be raised in foster care for 10 years. You'd hold you head high and cop the 10 years? A) you are not clever enough to fake the evidence especially since it was not planned. You will be caught and go to jail for a long time B) reasonable self-defence does not mean killing someone unless they are intent on killing or seriously injuring you. most burglars when confronted... RUN. your morals and ethics appear to be... well... missing.

What you're saying is that all people will react calmly and proportionally which is unreasonable.

Someone who's trained would be able to dial up the response exactly enough to meet the threat.

Someone who's never had a fight in their life may sh!t themselves and over react.

If someone walks into my house at 3am in the morning and I clock him once with the 3/4 baseball bat which lives behind my door and he dies, I'm not going to jail.

The latest update on the story is the dead guy was placed in a headlock on the street.

That is why the guy was arrested.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

Gnads wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:20am: There is no defence for a perfect stranger to be in someones house uninvited, entering by breaking in. What happens to them is as a result of their own stupid actions. No sympathy. Most of the cases of "home invasion" that have been in the media of late have had the perpetrators armed & occupants have been injured/wounded. there is no defence for someone to punch me in the street either. doesnt mean I am then entitled to execute them.

There is a vast difference between you getting dropped in the street for being a t/wat

than someone being in your home uninvited with criminal intent.

And I didn't say anything about execution.

There is something immoral about a legal system that does not allow a homeowner to defend against an invasion.

Are there circumstances where a homeowner could face charges? Absolutely. Shooting a fleeing invader in the back could be one, but the sentence, I think, should be light. People panic when threatened. Not everyone is a cool, calm hero like some members of OzPol.

GordyL wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:30am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:00am: GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid.  so yes. So there's a dead intruder on the ground. Your children will be raised in foster care for 10 years. You'd hold you head high and cop the 10 years?

"immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid"

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:54am:

GordyL wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:50am: Fuzzball wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:47am: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) Crime Scene Investigation has come a long way since you were in 'the job', and staging a scene by providing your own evidence such as a "knife" will ensure that your defence has very little to defend you with if they find out the truth, which they almost certainly will. Far better to rely on your Lawyer than to manufacture evidence. I agree. I'm too clueless to stage a crime scene, as I imagine most people are. I'm curious about the moral question of it. Im more curious about how you can be curious about the morality of faking evidence to cover-up your own crime. some moral and ethical questions can be debatable... this is not one of them

Interesting how you've said 'my crime' when I'm posing this as a thought experiment.

>>>>

AiA wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:03am:

There is something immoral about a legal system that does not allow a homeowner to defend against an invasion.

Home owners can defend themselves.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 9:05am:

GordyL wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:30am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 8:00am: GordyL wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:14pm: red baron wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:19pm: If you encounter an intruder and if you have a massive fight in which you come out on top and the intruder on his back out cold. Just make sure you don't overlook 'that knife' in the intruder's hand which is in situ before you call the cavalry in. And make sure your prints aren't all over 'that intruder's' knife hey? ;) This, from an ex-cop. And then, some numbskull supports him. Jesus - what's wrong with you people? An intruder enters a home where a family is sleeping and the adult in the house is not trained or confident in combat. When they encounter the intruder in the dark pure fear takes over and they over react and kill him. Lights go on and discover he is unarmed. Is it immoral to place a weapon in the intruders hand? immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid.  so yes. So there's a dead intruder on the ground. Your children will be raised in foster care for 10 years. You'd hold you head high and cop the 10 years? "immoral, unethical, criminal and utterly stupid"

Copy, paste & selective editing dolt

Bobby. wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 8:34am:

You can defend yourself & your loved ones as long as the force used is "reasonable". That would be decided by a court if you're charged with anything.

I remember s hop keeper who was robbed over and over again by this one person.. he had a video store...he caught the guy red handed and tied him up... the shop keeper was charged.,..with assault and the guy threatened to sue him....I dont know if he ever did..

but our laws have gone stark raving mad..

I mean think of the trauma to you if you killed someone??? you would never get over it....and then to be charged with murder???......like your a common criminal seems to me extreme....

the dead guy cannot be charged with his crime ...

that had he not committed the crime in the first place.. he wouldnt be dead would he???>..