Australian Politics Forum

capitosinora Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2172 USA Florida Gender:	Re: Self defence Reply #60 - Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:34pm Hunting is bad and fishing is good.
Back to top	GOD BLESS AMERICA IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #61 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 5:25pm

Panther, you're displaying your ignorance of how Australian law works. The Police are required to investigate every crime reported to them. They are required to charge any wrong-doing detected. It is up to the courts to determine innocence or guilt. That the person was unlawfully killed is evident from the report. Whether they are guilty of murder or manslaughter is up to the court to determine. Unlike like America's Wild West mentality, law breakers have just as many rights to protection as do their victims. Killing this law breaker was unlawful. So, his killer has to prove his innocence in a court of law, as it should be. His right to self-defence was allowed. Self-defence doesn't mean he is above the law and unanswerable to the law. Wake up to how much your mentality is destroying your own society. I hear there will be no guns at the Republican Convention. Good. Can't trust people with guns. Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 37678 Gender:	Re: Self defence Reply #62 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 5:46pm Quote: So, his killer has to prove his innocence in a court of law, as it should be. Never. Onus of proof is always on the Crown.
Back to top	IP Logged

Lionel Edriess

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1932
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #63 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:45pm

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

Quote:

So, his killer has to prove his innocence in a court of law, as it should be.

Never. Onus of proof is always on the Crown.

He is now defending himself on a murder charge, is he not?

I thought a murder charge automatically involved intent and/or premeditation.

Ergo, he has to prove his innocence of that charge.

The Crown has already set the stakes.

Back to top

Toughen up, Australia!

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #64 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:53pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

Quote:

So, his killer has to prove his innocence in a court of law, as it should be.

Never. Onus of proof is always on the Crown.

He is now defending himself on a murder charge, is he not?

I thought a murder charge automatically involved intent and/or premeditation.

Ergo, he has to prove his innocence of that charge.

The Crown has already set the stakes.

The Crown has to prove all elements of every offence including that something was unlawful. If on some evidence a defence is suggested (not proven....suggested) then the onus is on the Crown to exclude that defence beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:

Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 302
302 Definition of murder 302 Definition of murder

(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—

      (a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;

      (b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

      (c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

      (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);

      (e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

Something is unlawful unless it is authorised, justified or excused at Law.

The Crown carries the onus of proving beyond reasonable that that an act was not authorised, justified or excused at Law. The accused does not have to prove it was authorised, justified or excused at Law.

Back to top

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11106
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #65 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:15pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

Quote:

So, his killer has to prove his innocence in a court of law, as it should be.

Never. Onus of proof is always on the Crown.

He is now defending himself on a murder charge, is he not?

I thought a murder charge automatically involved intent and/or premeditation.

Ergo, he has to prove his innocence of that charge.

The Crown has already set the stakes.

In a criminal proceeding, all defendants are presumed innocent, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution must prove each & every element of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to succeed.

The defendants need not testify in their own behalf, they need not prove their innocence, meanwhile their legal team's main objective from the onset is to cast doubt into the claims of the prosecution via cross examination.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:21pm by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Panther Gold Member Offline My Heart beats True for the Red White & Blue... Posts: 11106 Gender:	Re: Self defence Reply #66 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:27pm Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:53pm: The Crown has to prove all elements of every offense including that something was unlawful. If on some evidence a defense is suggested (not proven....suggested) then the onus is on the Crown to exclude that defense beyond reasonable doubt. Correct
Back to top	"When the People fear government there is Tyranny; When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!" ' Live FREE or DIE! ' IP Logged

Lionel Edriess

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1932
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #67 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 9:02pm

Panther wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 8:15pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 6:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

Quote:

So, his killer has to prove his innocence in a court of law, as it should be.

Never. Onus of proof is always on the Crown.

He is now defending himself on a murder charge, is he not?

I thought a murder charge automatically involved intent and/or premeditation.

Ergo, he has to prove his innocence of that charge.

The Crown has already set the stakes.

In a criminal proceeding, all defendants are presumed innocent, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution must prove each & every element of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to succeed.

The defendants need not testify in their own behalf, they need not prove their innocence, meanwhile their legal team's main objective from the onset is to cast doubt into the claims of the prosecution via cross examination.

In other words, he's fooked.

Looking at the scene of the 'crime', one hardly imagines that this 'defendant' is capable of affording a 'legal team'.

Such double-speak means, in effect, that he has to 'cast doubt on the 'claims of the prosecution'. FFS, look at the record of the 'party-goer'.

The police. the prosecution, have no interest in establishing a precedent in this case, therefore it will be conducted with the utmost prejudice against the defendant.

This bloke will be crucified by the legal system for the simple reason that they don't wish to create a precedent. Innocence has nothing to do with it.

Big drunk Abo invading a house on the pretext of attending a party. Turns up at 3.30 in the morning uninvited and won't leave. Wrestles with two blokes who want him out, falls over in the scuffle. Breaks neck.

poo happens. Broken neck is bad poo.

Lots of questions here.

I live alone. Come into my house uninvited at 3.30 in the morning, I might just have a knee-jerk reaction. I've seen the wives of Vietnam vets wake 'em up by poking 'em with a broomstick. There's a reason they did that, and a reason they stayed.

I am so fuggin tired of being beaten by women, sooks and the system.

Courtesy costs nothing and assumptions are dangerous.

Back to top

Toughen up, Australia!

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 37678 Gender:	Re: Self defence Reply #68 - Mar 29^th, 2016 at 9:13pm Quote: Big drunk Abo invading a house on the pretext of attending a party. Turns up at 3.30 in the morning uninvited and won't leave. Wrestles with two blokes who want him out, falls over in the scuffle. Breaks neck. How do you know those were the facts? "Assumptions are dangerous."
Back to top	IP Logged

MumboJumbo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1474
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #69 - Mar 31^st, 2016 at 4:54pm

Move to WA bitches, then the law will be on your side:

Quote:

244. Home invasion, use of force to prevent etc.

(1) It is lawful for a person (the occupant) who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling to use any force or do anything else that the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary —

(a) to prevent a home invader from wrongfully entering the dwelling or an associated place; or

(b) to cause a home invader who is wrongfully in the dwelling or on or in an associated place to leave the dwelling or place; or

(c) to make effectual defence against violence used or threatened in relation to a person by a home invader who is —

(i) attempting to wrongfully enter the dwelling or an associated place; or

(ii) wrongfully in the dwelling or on or in an associated place;

or

(d) to prevent a home invader from committing, or make a home invader stop committing, an offence in the dwelling or on or in an associated place.

(1A) Despite subsection (1), it is not lawful for the occupant to use force that is intended, or that is likely, to cause death to a home invader unless the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, that violence is being or is likely to be used or is threatened in relation to a person by a home invader.

I very much like this section. "It is lawful" are lovely words in a statute -- it also bars civil claims as well.

Consider (1A): you have carte blanch with the bastards if you believe, on reasonable grounds, that (any) violence is being used/threatened. Law note: no proportionality test, either in the code or in case law.

Bring it on.

Back to top

See Profile For Update wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:58pm:

Why the bugger did I get stuck on a planet chalked full of imbeciles?

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #70 - Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:01pm

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 4:54pm:

Move to WA bitches, then the law will be on your side:

Quote:

244. Home invasion, use of force to prevent etc.

(1) It is lawful for a person (the occupant) who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling to use any force or do anything else that the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary —

(a) to prevent a home invader from wrongfully entering the dwelling or an associated place; or

(b) to cause a home invader who is wrongfully in the dwelling or on or in an associated place to leave the dwelling or place; or

(c) to make effectual defence against violence used or threatened in relation to a person by a home invader who is —

(i) attempting to wrongfully enter the dwelling or an associated place; or

(ii) wrongfully in the dwelling or on or in an associated place;

or

(d) to prevent a home invader from committing, or make a home invader stop committing, an offence in the dwelling or on or in an associated place.

(1A) Despite subsection (1), it is not lawful for the occupant to use force that is intended, or that is likely, to cause death to a home invader unless the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, that violence is being or is likely to be used or is threatened in relation to a person by a home invader.

I very much like this section. "It is lawful" are lovely words in a statute -- it also bars civil claims as well.

Consider (1A): you have carte blanch with the bastards if you believe, on reasonable grounds, that (any) violence is being used/threatened. Law note: no proportionality test, either in the code or in case law.

Bring it on.

Incorrect. "On reasonable grounds."

Back to top

IP Logged

MumboJumbo Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1474 Gender:	Re: Self defence Reply #71 - Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:03pm Aussie wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:01pm: Incorrect. "On reasonable grounds." Need reasonable grounds to support your apprehension of violence. Once you've got that, you're set!
Back to top	See Profile For Update wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:58pm: Why the bugger did I get stuck on a planet chalked full of imbeciles? IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 37678 Gender:	Re: Self defence Reply #72 - Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:34pm MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 6:03pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:01pm: Incorrect. "On reasonable grounds." Need reasonable grounds to support your apprehension of violence. Once you've got that, you're set! You're set to do what? (Read that section of the WA Code again.)
Back to top	IP Logged

Lionel Edriess

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1932
Gender: male

Re: Self defence
Reply #73 - Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:32pm

News Flash!

The victim was an ice user who has a previous record of home invasion, kiddy fiddling, violence, etc. etc. Has served time and was 'getting his life back on track'.

Yeah, right!

The accused is now in jail and at the mercy of the somewhat dubious mercy of the police.

He'll suffer out of all proportion because of the media hype surrounding the case and the judiciary not wanting to set a precedent.

Just ring 000 and wait for help! Yeah, right!

25 years since Colin Winchester. Roger Rogerson recently.

Justice, these days, is proportional to representation, political agendas and vested interests.

Fifty years ago, this bloke would have already walked.

What has changed in our society since then to allow the the perpetrator to even walk the streets, to accuse a father defending his family of excessive force when defending his family, and the ever-present PC slant on the dead man's ethnicity?

Heaven forbid that the general public start defending themselves! FFS, if this keeps up, they might even start thinking for themselves!

Bureaucracy needs Soylent Green, not an educated populace.

Back to top

Toughen up, Australia!

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Self defence
Reply #74 - Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:37pm

|dev|null wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

Panther, you're displaying your ignorance of how Australian law works. The Police are required to investigate every crime reported to them. They are required to charge any wrong-doing detected. It is up to the courts to determine innocence or guilt. That the person was unlawfully killed is evident from the report. Whether they are guilty of murder or manslaughter is up to the court to determine. Unlike like America's Wild West mentality, law breakers have just as many rights to protection as do their victims. Killing this law breaker was unlawful. So, his killer has to prove his innocence in a court of law, as it should be. His right to self-defence was allowed. Self-defence doesn't mean he is above the law and unanswerable to the law. Wake up to how much your mentality is destroying your own society. I hear there will be no guns at the Republican Convention. Good. Can't trust people with guns. Grin

nearly everything you posted here is absolute facile drivel.i

Back to top

IP Logged