Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:



Because of the Bible:


Luke 6:29   KJV

[27] But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

[28] Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

[29] And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;
    and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

[30] Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

If you could prove to the police that you were receiving death threats then
you should be allowed to carry a firearm & receive training in it's use.

Unfortunately if  someone is after you then you're a sitting duck.

The law won't help you - proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Terrence_and_Christine_Hodson

Quote:

In the case of Terrence and Christine Hodson they shouldn't
have become informants without being given the means to defend themselves.

They were just stupid criminals although the woman -
Christine - was innocent & just a gangsters mole.

Panther wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:55pm:



But the Yanks have guns & their cities are war zones.
33,000 people are killed by guns every year in the USA -
11 times more than the 911 attacks.

We don't want to be like them.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:58pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:



Eugene,

You have asked that Q. at least three times....

And i can tell you that it is NOT lawful to 'destroy' a brown snake [e.g. Dugite] with a firearm.

Why so ?

Because, even though if the brown snake [e.g. Dugite] bites you, you can die, the brown snake [e.g. Dugite] is a protected native animal.


If you have a poisonous snake on your property, out of town, you are supposed to call a snake wrangler.     [....me ?,       ....if i find a poisonous snake outside my back door, i just kill it!     .....addendum; very carefully]

Panther wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:
grow some freaking balls and stop hiding behind your curtains.

Yadda,

I've asked it three times and have yet to get an answer.

Sir Bobby,

No, but we have dogs, pigs, billy goats, scrub bulls, aggressive camels and magpies.

So I'll tell you, so that you may understand the stupidity of Australian law.

It is illegal to carry an umbrella for the purpose of protection against nesting magpies, it's OK to have an umbrella and to unfurl it as protection against a nesting magpie, but one commits an offence if one goes out with the intention of self defence.

It is quite legal for a farmer to hunt pigs but it is illegal for him to go out fencing and take a rifle with him for the purpose of self defence against a boar/scrub bull etc.

Ain't that a stupid law?

|dev|null wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:


Wrong, it is illegal in Australia to possess anything for the purpose of self protection.
If you possess oven cleaner in a spray can, in the kitchen, to clean the oven, that's OK, but if you have it in the bedroom for protection against a thief that breaks in then an offence has been committed, ditto insect spray but that can be kept in the bed room without indicating illegal intent.

ian wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

Let me put this in the perspective of your government.

Any one person is not important.

If the victim is a family man and doesn't fight back and dies someone else will eventually live in his home, sleep with his wife and raise his kids No loss to the government.

If a woman is beaten and raped but survives, no harm done. You can't wear those things out or break them. The trauma caused by her injury just creates job security in the Mental Health Industry.

If a child is taken and never seen again there are plenty of children, one more or less will not be missed.

Don't fight back, it may be a natural right of all living things but it is against the law!

ian wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

ian wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 11:54am:

Mortdooley wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 11:00pm:

I dont need a gun to stop someone buggering me. are all you American men walking around trying to bugger each other all the time, Im not surprised you want a gun.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:08am:


No it isn't.  Provide reference to the legislation - from each state - which you claim proves that, please.  Otherwise you're talking bullshit.

Quote:


Again, prove it - quoting each piece of legislation from each state that proves your claim.

Otherwise you're just bullshitting.   

Hot Breath! OH, it is so good to see you and your smileys here again!

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

Seeing as it's legal to own a weapon to kill animals that are of no threat... your question seems redundant.

I see Sir Eoin hasn't provided any links.  Does this mean his argument has been discarded?   

a walking stick springs to mind as something that can be carried for a lawful purpose and used in defence lawfully if needs be.

Yes, it is bullshyte. just like the old "my hands are registered as a deadly weapon" routine.

A good first line of defense is to stay out of low-class pubs.

And I think you need to look at the admissions to Police.

If you need to thump someone with a stick, it's probably the better option to answer that it was handy in the circumstances. To admit that you were carrying it in self-defence is admitting that you knew it was a weapon.

A stick becomes more than a stick if it is intended as a means of self-defence.

The same applies if you carry a baseball bat in your car. It is more credible if you also carry a ball and glove.

Nuance. Understand nuance?

It matters in Court.

|dev|null wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 11:12am:


As usual, you have no rebuttal, just a line of 'smilies' to accent your reply.

Read it again, point out where I am incorrect and post a rebuttal of my observations.

Until you do so, you got nothin'.

In the eyes of the Court, evidence is everything.

In this country, you are forbidden to possess anything with the express purpose of self-defence - whether it be pointy, sharp, blunt or otherwise. If, however, you manage to grab a handy item that manages to injure your assailant, the onus is upon YOU to defend both your use of force and the means of defence.

A curled fist in the Valley is. apparently, not a weapon.   

Lionels comment is quite correct.

Father 'using force to defend family' charged with murder over death of intruder.

Source:   7NEWS  Quote:


   

Ajax wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:38am:

ian wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:42am:

ian wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

ian wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:




 

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.   

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


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.

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

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



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.

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

Quote:


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.

Aussie wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:01pm:


Need reasonable grounds to support your apprehension of violence. Once you've got that, you're set!

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.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:32pm:

A person I know (a black belt Karate instructor) was attacked by two men.
He was struck from behind by the first man and he grabbed said man and threw him aside as the second man ran in to strike him.
He did not hit the man, he threw him to the side with a body throw.
The second man was coming at speed so he punched him as he attacked, breaking the mans jaw and collar bone, mainly from the mans momentum.
The first man however head butted the wall and suffered a concussion.

The police came and arrested the man who was attacked and the criminals went to hospital.

In court, the man could not refer to the two criminals previous violent convictions as there was an outstanding conviction and the mans case may/ would have impacted on a "Fair" trial.

The man was charged initially with assault occasioning bodily harm, but this was argued down to using undue force to defend himself.
Apparently, although he only struck 1 person, this was unreasonable force because he was a trained fighter.
He avoided a jail sentence, but lost his job because he had a criminal conviction, he also had a 12 month probation requiring him to go to a police station every day.
He was 45 years old and had never committed a crime in his life.....ever.

There is a provision by law that allows you to defend yourself with an open hand, the law is an ass, thee are several very effective techniques that use an open hand in Karate, unfortunately these are quite injurious to the attacker, but hell, as a martial artist of over 20 years that is the way I will defend myself in future.

Sorry, sadly no.

The law is an ass, governed by an ever expanding plethora of asses.

Judges are so far out of touch with the real world that they see nothing other than their own overgrown guts.

For privacy's sake Ill let you believe that the law is always right and never gets it wrong and that this never happened.
That Judges have all the answers and that the police are un-corruptible.
That politicians and public servants actually serve the interests of the public before their own and that the tooth fairy is alive and well and living with Santa Clause in the North Pole.
And that the world is a lovely place inhabited by altruistic, benevolent people from all walks of life.

Valkie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Yes, you did. Your whole post was abject nonsense not based on any fact at all. Would you like me to highlight the obvious fabrications or are are you going to admit the whole post was BS?

Valkie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 8:45am:
An impossible injury from one punch, the jaw and collarbone are not connected. Ive been boxing and fighting for decades and seen plenty of broken jaws, never came across a collar bone and jaw been broken by one punch.

Quote:
this sort of thing quite happens in the movies where the skills of the martial artist are choreographed and the defendant performs some type of expert akido deflection. Looks great in the movies  but in real life to head butt a wall unwittingly the person would have to be held at the right angle at the point of impact, not somehow "swept aside" as claimed.

Quote:
also, that would never happen. with varying accounts of the incident all 3 would be initially arrested even thought hey went to hospital.

Quote:
there is no such charge as "using undue force" there is common assault, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, etc, etc. If the charges were downgraded from grievous bodily harm, there is no trial, common assault charges are heard in the Magistrates court.

Quote:
more nonsense, the outcome would be decided on the degree and level of force used, not on the defendants fighting capabilities. of course, his degree of skill could be used against him if he over reacted but thats quite different.

Quote:
reporting to a police station very day over a common assault charge is BS. if so there would be thousands of people reporting to every police station every day.

Quote:
No, there isnt, it doesnt exist. Pure fabrication.
Quote:
the only piece of truth in your whole story.

Valkie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 5:18pm: