Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12
th, 2021 at 10:26pm:
Rhino has already answered this for you. Your response must be proportional to the threat that you are facing at the moment. If you are being threatened verbally, you do not have license to defend yourself with deadly force. If you are being threatened with say, a machete, you do. Self-defence is not license to kill all and sundry, no matter what the circumstances are.
rhino has inadvertently (methinks) agreed with my idea of what circumstances would allow me to kill someone during a carjacking. The situation posed in this topic is one where the assailants are armed with machetes and trying to steal a vehicle of which you are in charge. If the situation allows a person to drive off at high speed to safety, then that is the first consideration. If the assailants are surrounding the car and trying to get into the car, and jumps onto the bonnet of the car, I would not be surprised if the car driver drives off far enough to get away from the rest, and then gives the person on the bonnet a chance to get off the bonnet and get away from the car before the driver can continue to flee.
Quote:And do not even bother with the "Queenslanders are racist and attack aboriginal/black people" stereotype. If anything, indigenous Australians are protected more than any other ethnic group.
Brian:
Quote:Are you sure of that, UnSub?
Oh FFS, Brian. I belong to a Facebook Crime Watch group that shows video footage of people breaking into homes and businesses stealing things. The number of times I see footage of indigenous people involved, they make up the majority of offenders. The Qld Police website has photos of people who police "are seeking assistance" in finding. Most of the photographs show people who are indigenous. If you have done volunteer work at the QPS, like I have, I had found that the identity stops are of indigenous people. And if you keep an eye open late at night, you usually see a disproportionate number of indigenous people roaming the streets -- not that they are not allowed to do that.
But, when you see a disproportionate number of indigenous people in court and then they get a slap on the wrist as punishment for assaults and robberies, it is not surprising that indigenous people are considered protected by the magistrates.
Brian:
Quote:You do understand what circumstantial evidence usually is, don't you? It is the evidence that your crime leaves behind, often inadvertently. It could be paint chips from your car which identify it's make and it's colour. It might be skid marks which tell an investigator what tyres you use. It might be blood marks on your car.
Quote:Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances which can be relied upon not as proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence. It differs from direct evidence, which tends to prove a fact directly: typically, when the witness testifies about something which that witness personally saw, or heard. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are to be considered.
To bring in a verdict of guilty based entirely or substantially upon circumstantial
evidence, it is necessary that guilt should not only be a rational inference but also
that it should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the
circumstances.
If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, it is your duty to
find the defendant not guilty. This follows from the requirement that guilt must be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Source:
https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/86048/sd-bb-48-circums...Reasonable doubt would mean that the prosecution failed to establish guilt for the accused. Amazingly, even the most thorough forensic investigations could not bring about a guilty verdict in a situation where someone inadvertently kills an armed carjacker during fleeing from a deadly situation. You could have security footage. You could have people identifying who you are. You could have those paint chips, dented car body, smashed windscreen, etc. The very fact that someone gets attacked is more than enough of a legal defence to flee the situation, even to the point that you can kill someone doing so.
What is next on your agenda? Perhaps you are one of those people that blame rape victims for getting raped. You seem to want to defend carjackers.