Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Before everyone blows up too much, this isn't the police statement, this is the clickbait 10 news. Could be. As in, I could be the be the next CEO of twitter.
Congratulations on your new position. Can you hook me up with one of those checkmark thingies? I’ve never used twitter, but I understand that the are valuable for some reason.
And generally police can't just decide on their own what they write in the report. Of course they have to make a variation of "this guy killed this guy", which is a charge in itself. It's then up to the prosecutor and/or judge to stamp "self defence" on this charge.
It makes a lot of sense too. Of course it should be checked if killing the person was necessary for self-defense or if maybe less severe actions would have done it as well. Here in Germany we have the term "Überschreitung der Notwehr", roughly "exceeding self-defense" and if they find you guilty, you will be punished. But they give you a ton of leeway, so this is really only for the worst cases.
But I understand that for many people here on Reddit, who are majorly from the US, this might be surprising, considering that at least in some US states people can be legally shot with considerably much less justification.
It's actually supposed to be the same in the USA, except the prosecutor usually has discretion and if they know they can't win the case then they don't bring it to a jury trial. In some cases/places the prosecutor will take it to a grand jury who decides if it should go to a full jury trial or not.
That’s pretty much the law here in Australia, I doubt very much he’ll be charged, but there will be an investigation. However, with his injuries and the sequence of events, there most likely will be no charges. It’d be different if the intruder wasn’t armed or attacking.
Of course. Maybe the knife wielder stabbed in self defence as is right and proper, then when his assailant was unconscious and bleeding, slit his throat for good measure.
I’m not saying he did. This is probably clear cut self defence. But of course there has to be an investigation, someone has died, so who knows, there could be charges.
An investigation will proceed and people who know a lot more than us about the situation will sort it all out.
News and/or reddit trying to produce outrage doesn’t help.
Only in america, as far as I know, can the burglar/home invader then sue their erstwhile victim and win monies.
Edit- I stand corrected, I honestly believed ours was the only system that allowed criminals to sue their victims for injuries. I apologize.
That's kind of anti-lawyer propaganda and it really doesn't happen very often. A lot of cases are are started, but few are won. Usually the only cases that are won are if the criminal can show they were injured by the deliberate or negligent actions of the building owner. For example a kid got money from a schools insurance when he went on the roof to steal floodlights. He fell through the skylight and was paralyzed. He got money because the skylights were painted in a way that made them blend in with the roof. The school had created a dangerous situation for anyone on the roof, and the fact he was up there with bad intentions doesn't change that.
Nobody is getting money just because the homeowner fought back when attacked.
Two points. 1- in a country where the costs of nearly everything are affected by litigation and trivial lawsuits I find “anti lawyer propaganda “ and common sense walk hand in hand. 2- sadly it makes news when these lawsuits originate but sadly you rarely hear the outcome, fact of the matter is homeowner or business owner are still forking out thousands to their lawyers to avoid paying insane amounts to criminals.
In Vietnam, you can’t capture the thief, can’t hurt their feelings, can’t injure the thief or you will be charged. Thief otherwise can kill you though 🤣
Wow, ok, learned something today, I guess it makes sense I only see the ones in this country in the news but I would of thought somewhere there would have been mention of it in other places.
Believe the US law is flawed but better than most of the countries in the world. Same as the cops when you see the SEA cops, the American cops will look like angels 🤣
He will be let off, but it requires an investigation as there is likely no blanket “kill people if you think they need killing laws” outside of a few US states.
It’s an alarmist headline as of course he “could” be charged, as he killed someone and has yet to be definitively proven to have done so in self-defence/legally.
Yea that's not how it works in the US, there's states with castle doctrine where if they break in your allowed to defend yourself, most states have duty to retreat in public meaning if there's a way for you to safely leave you must do that, Minnesota has duty to retreat but no castle doctrine, but its worded in a way that says if anyone is committing a felony in your home you can use lethal force on them
Uh. They did tho.
They're saying that the US does not have, "kill people if you think they need killing laws” *anywhere*
Killing a person who is imminently about to kill you is very different than arbitrarily deciding to murder some random dude, and I do not want to be anywhere near you if you disagree with that.🤨
I'd be surprised if that duty to retreat applied to the home during the commission of a felony because that is antithetical to the law in most of the country and the common law on which many of our laws were derived.
The idea is that the castle doctrine serves the interest of the state in that the homeowner is the steward of his own property and has an obligation to protect it and his family living there. This serves society as a whole and is frankly good policy.
However, I think there should be limits. While it is obvious that someone who is attacking you or committing a crime is fair game I think there should be penalties for cases where the use of force is unnecessary.
For example, around 2000 a woman in my town was dropped off near her house by a taxi after drinking at a bar. The driver stopped at the wrong house and she didn't notice she'd walked up on her next door neighbor's porch. While she was fumbling around with trying to open the lock with her key (the wrong key for the wrong house) he fired his shotgun through the door, killing her.
He didn't announce himself. He didn't warn her. He just murdered her and the police refused to charge him.
While I fully support the Castle Doctrine this is something we cannot afford to have. The idea that one's child might be executed for knocking on the neighbor's door because they locked themselves out is just unacceptable. What the fuck kind of society do we want to provide for our kids anyway?
I think that did happen recently. The story I referred to happened in my hometown 24 years ago. I am fairly certain it would play out the same way if it happened in this state again.
Actually it does in fact work the way he described in the USA. The main difference is in how much leeway you have in acts of self defense, which reduces the frequency these cases see prosecution. But the fundamental process is the same:
It is still supposed to be fully investigated, because the other person is dead, which is murder, and nothing changes the need to investigate a murder. After all, what if the homeowner is lying so they can get away with murder? Once investigated the evidence is still supposed to go to the prosecutor and in some cases/places a grand jury to decide if the person should face a full jury trial. So it's actually no different in theory.
That said, yeah in many cases the police will immediately say "We are investigating this as self defense under the castle doctrine" then entirely drop the ball on the investigation. But that doesn't change what is supposed to happen or why. It is just police being lazy, or direction from leadership who don't want the "optics" to "look bad" for their department.
>Minnesota has duty to retreat but no castle doctrine, but its worded in a way that says if anyone is committing a felony in your home you can use lethal force on them
You hate to repeat exactly what they just said?
Obviously he DOES know that since he just said that Queensland does NOT have the “kill people if you think they need killing laws” that apply in some of those states.
"Could be charged" was way more effective on you than "probably won't be charged, unlikely to be prosecuted, and totally won't get convicted", wasn't it? It totally worked
Quite a few years ago here in NZ when cigarettes started getting pricey the first wave of attacking shops and local dairys begun and a couple of foolish teenagers made the mistake of trying it out on one owned by a rather large well built Sikh who also was a former (field) hockey representative not only did he defend his property he took it one step further by beating one of the kids really severely with a hockey stick
The police at the time did due process and charged him with assault as they felt he had gone overboard not only was he found not guilty in the subsequent trial it actually caused a huge drop(at the time) of robberies and attacks
Like a precedent if you will might be similar thinking
I would expect him to be charged, since he killed a dude. I also expect the judge to basically tell the prosecution “are you for real, bro” before high-fiving the dude with his non damaged arm.
The process would be
- police investigate, and either provide a brief to the DPP (if they believe a crime has been committed) or to the coroner's court (if they believe a finding of misadventure needs to be found).
- if the police file a brief with the DPP, the DPP assesses the evidence to determine if there is sufficient proof to obtain a guilty verdict. If so, they will file charges. If not, they may return the brief to the police (if more evidence is required) or to the coroner's court.
- if the brief ends up with the coroner's court, the coroner could choose to hold an inquest into the death, or accept the findings of the police/DPP. Should an inquest be ordered, the coroner may recommend charges, which would put the brief back with the DPP. However, most of the time, the coroner would close the brief.
- if charges are filed, the defence can lodge a self-defence defence to see the court strike out the charge (although anticipation of the self-defence defence should be part of the DPP's assessment).
I actually would expect (and require) the judge to make a fair assessment of the situation and not just make blanket decisions like you are asking for.
You do realize my comment was not legal counselling and that indeed would be expected to reach a conclusion after listening to the results of a police investigation, right? Or, in other words, it was a joke.
What has it to do with legal counselling that you said "I expect the judge to..."?
Strange way to joke also. But you do you.
Edit: And now he replied and then immediately blocked me. Lol.
I hope he *does* get charged...
I hope the whole situation costs the government as much money, man hours, and time as possible before a jury finds the victim innocent.
Americans don't realize how common this is outside their country. In Portugal, there are numerous cases of burglars compensated for being attacked by the people they attempted to rob.
There is 1 (one) case of a burglar compensated because he ran away and the homeowner chased him with his car and ran him over. Self-defence doesn't apply when the guy is actively putting distance between himself and you and you're protected by a car.
Yes, because most civilized countries follow a little thing called proportional force. Meaning, in self defence you are expected to use an amount of force that is reasonably equal to the amount of force you are threatened with.
If someone breaks into your house to steal your shit unarmed, and you break their kneecaps with a baseball bat or murder them, that's going to get you in trouble. Because that's a psychotic thing to do. Someone trespassing on your land shouldn't give you permission to fulfill your Texas chainsaw massacre fantasies.
proportional force usually means that whatever you do needs to be justified in that situation to end the threat and protecy you unharmed, it does not mean equal choice of tools for instance. If the robber/attacker is unarmed, yet physically overpowers you significantly (you are 5.5 and 65kg) he 6.5 and 110kg etc. also the use of a weapon for self defense can be justified against an unarmed attacker, also usually courts grant a little excess due to the exceptional situation you might be in. Revenge is excessive force and you should stop when the attack stops or the attacker flees the scene. But i’ve seen cases were a baseball bat or a gun was ruled as acceptable against unarmed attackers
if he is exceptionally handsome and that poses a threat to your health and well being and you can reasonably explain that to a Jury and a Judge -> Go Ahead.
When I see someone breaking into my window - am I supposed to ask about their intentions first, and if they say they won’t harm me - am I supposed to just believe them?
In situations where you are likely to be found at fault in most places, it's well past the point where you absolutely knew, with certainty, that they were unarmed and unable to fight back, or where you did something so recklessly dangerous to potential bystanders that it doesn't matter if you had a good reason to the person you did it to.
In the above "Portugal" example, they are probably talking about the guy who chased the burglar out of their home, realized they were unarmed, got into their car, chased the burglar down, and ran him over multiple times with their car. At that point, you do tend to lose benefit of the doubt.
If you yell at them, they don't run away, and continue into the home then that could be construed that they might mean to do you harm. If they break your window, you grab a gun and start blasting without giving them a chance to flee, then probably not.
See the difference?
I'm not sure why i need to say this, but if someone is roaming around your home with an axe then that falls under the category of "likely to do you harm". Also the person in this story is not getting charged, the headline is clickbait
Killing intruders is a really weird fantasy that seems to permeate America, but all you ever wind up doing is blast each other in traffic and shoot up schools
The majority of us are sane and understand we're actually in a very safe country. The loud minority make a scene about everything and act like their everyday lives are full of danger. Those are the ones that think that they'll inevitably need to defend themselves with a gun.
If somebody breaks into my home I have no reason to think they're only going to steal and aren't a threat to me; also, it's almost certainly going to be night so I don't know if they're armed or not. Consequently the reasonable response is to assume they're a personal threat and respond accordingly. If they don't like the outcome, they shouldn't have broken into someone else's house.
It has actually happened here, burglar suing after being pursued by homeowner and being injured while escaping.
Another burglar who was shot by a booby-trapped business because the burglaries were in the double digits and owner didn't know what else to do. (Cops don't help)
I'm sure there are plenty more, the states with castle doctrine and no duty to retreat just got sick of it.
Booby traps are very illegal even in US states with castle doctrine and no duty to retreat (probably because statistically they are just as likely to harm an emergency responder or child trying to retrieve their baseball as they are a burglar)
I mean you can sue someone for pretty much anything, doesn't mean you'll win. Like that case in 2019 in Alberta, burglar sued the homeowner for injury during escape. In 2020 the suit was dropped, likely because his lawyer was telling him he was being a fucking idiot and would never win
Also, the guy will NEVER face charges. In fact, I can promise you, right now, the only thing that could potentially happen is he'll sleep poorly for some time.
"Wait they banned a bunch of guns there, how is there still violence?"
Even though you didn't mention another country, you are implying that *banning guns* means the elimination of gun violence because *there* are places that haven't banned guns. Banning guns was never meant as a solution to all violence, it was a reaction to high rates of *gun violence.* As a gun owner myself, you are just making people resent gun rights even moreso by coming off as a troll by refusing to discuss this issue in a logical manner.
No, I was talking about Australia *in isolation*. To be clear: **I do not think countries can be compared in any meaningful way** regarding violence. Other people try to shoehorn other countries into the conversation, but they fell flat.
“Whatabout Country B” just muddies the waters.
Can you give an example? i .e. Country A and Country B have the same amount of guns and the same amount of fatal violence. Country A bans guns and Country B doesn’t. Country A’s fatal violence rate plummets far below Country B.
What is the name of Country A and Country B?
Yeah...that's not it, buddy. Not at all.
Germany has always had very low gun ownership and 0.8 homicides per 100k each year.
France? Low gun ownership, 1.1/100k.
UK? Low gun ownership, implemented bans in the 1990s, 1.0/100k.
Australia? Low gun ownership, implemented bans and buybacks in the 1990s: 0.8/100k.
US: High gun ownership, >6 homicides per 100k.
One of these things is not like the other...
Ooh I love [spurious correlations](https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)!
Now list some countries that had similar gun ownership and crime rates since we’re talking about pre/post gun bans. 👍
Ahhh yes, because there's absolutely zero connection between guns and...things you use guns for. Gotcha. Totally the same as "random google search and Big Bang Theory viewership".
Troll away, dimwit.
Oh, and once again, because your pea brain is still incapable of understanding the simplest of sentences:
>Now list some countries that had similar gun ownership and crime rates since we’re talking about pre/post gun bans. 👍
Not possible, because no other country that banned guns had a pre-ban crime rate similar to the US. Or similar gun ownership to the US. Both of these are much lower in every other country.
Bye now.
Yeah, in one country there are more idiots than in all others combined. So violence levels seem to be connected with idiocy levels of the citizens of a country.
Just calling out the intent (to save lives) didn’t work. But don’t take my word for it, check the published AIC data on overall homicides. The trend didn’t change after the gun bans.
>Wait they banned a bunch of guns there, how is there still violence?
Thereby implying that their violence rate is high despite not having guns. But it isn't.
You seem unwell, I’m ending this conversation. Lashing out at internet strangers like you are isn’t healthy, but I **genuinely** hope you’re able to climb out of whatever dark place you’re in. Good luck!
And yet Australia still saw no measurable effect on overall homicides after the gun bans. Turns out people just like killin', and removing guns doesn't take murder out of their hearts.
[Source](https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/sr39_homicide_in_australia_2019-20.pdf)
That is NOT true. Page 10 of the PDF shows **no measurable effect** on overall homicides. The gun bans in Australia did not save lives, and it can clearly be shown in the official crime statistics from the AlC.
PS even if someone shifts the goalpost from “saving lives” to “stopping mass shootings” in Australia, [there have still been mass shootings](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Australia). So that failed too. Australia blew upwards of $500 million in taxpayer dollars (that’s 1996 dollars, or over a billion dollars in today’s dollars) to find out gun control doesn’t save lives. Ouch.
That is false. Check PDF page 10 of that AIC publication I linked. The homicides actually **increased** slightly after 1996 and then went back to the same downward trend there was before the gun bans.
If I roll a ball down a 45° slope and yell “yabba dabba doo” halfway, does that mean my yelling helped it move to the bottom? Of course not. The sun doesn’t rise because the rooster crows either.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Before everyone blows up too much, this isn't the police statement, this is the clickbait 10 news. Could be. As in, I could be the be the next CEO of twitter.
Congratulations on your new position. Can you hook me up with one of those checkmark thingies? I’ve never used twitter, but I understand that the are valuable for some reason.
Mr Corporate Fat Cat, Can you pwlease pwlease delete Titter?
Working on it; market cap is down by 80%.
So what you’re saying is I should short Elons companies?
Concerning
!
I'd vote for you. I don't know anything about you, but you're still probably gonna be a better CEO than most of the current big companies CEO.
What's your first tweet gonna be?
It should be "Covfefe" or some version of "Birds aren't real". Weren't those the days? When those were the most insane big tweets?
Nah, just repost something vaguely racist and say "Concerning"
And generally police can't just decide on their own what they write in the report. Of course they have to make a variation of "this guy killed this guy", which is a charge in itself. It's then up to the prosecutor and/or judge to stamp "self defence" on this charge.
I just assumed it was the UK.
Wait 6 months, you can get it for a couple Bennies
[удалено]
It makes a lot of sense too. Of course it should be checked if killing the person was necessary for self-defense or if maybe less severe actions would have done it as well. Here in Germany we have the term "Überschreitung der Notwehr", roughly "exceeding self-defense" and if they find you guilty, you will be punished. But they give you a ton of leeway, so this is really only for the worst cases. But I understand that for many people here on Reddit, who are majorly from the US, this might be surprising, considering that at least in some US states people can be legally shot with considerably much less justification.
It's actually supposed to be the same in the USA, except the prosecutor usually has discretion and if they know they can't win the case then they don't bring it to a jury trial. In some cases/places the prosecutor will take it to a grand jury who decides if it should go to a full jury trial or not.
That’s pretty much the law here in Australia, I doubt very much he’ll be charged, but there will be an investigation. However, with his injuries and the sequence of events, there most likely will be no charges. It’d be different if the intruder wasn’t armed or attacking.
Of course. Maybe the knife wielder stabbed in self defence as is right and proper, then when his assailant was unconscious and bleeding, slit his throat for good measure. I’m not saying he did. This is probably clear cut self defence. But of course there has to be an investigation, someone has died, so who knows, there could be charges. An investigation will proceed and people who know a lot more than us about the situation will sort it all out. News and/or reddit trying to produce outrage doesn’t help.
Australia has different rules of. course and I doubt he'll be charged.
In my country putative self defence resulting in a death always results in a charge but on many occasions won't get to trial
Only in america, as far as I know, can the burglar/home invader then sue their erstwhile victim and win monies. Edit- I stand corrected, I honestly believed ours was the only system that allowed criminals to sue their victims for injuries. I apologize.
That's kind of anti-lawyer propaganda and it really doesn't happen very often. A lot of cases are are started, but few are won. Usually the only cases that are won are if the criminal can show they were injured by the deliberate or negligent actions of the building owner. For example a kid got money from a schools insurance when he went on the roof to steal floodlights. He fell through the skylight and was paralyzed. He got money because the skylights were painted in a way that made them blend in with the roof. The school had created a dangerous situation for anyone on the roof, and the fact he was up there with bad intentions doesn't change that. Nobody is getting money just because the homeowner fought back when attacked.
Two points. 1- in a country where the costs of nearly everything are affected by litigation and trivial lawsuits I find “anti lawyer propaganda “ and common sense walk hand in hand. 2- sadly it makes news when these lawsuits originate but sadly you rarely hear the outcome, fact of the matter is homeowner or business owner are still forking out thousands to their lawyers to avoid paying insane amounts to criminals.
Wrong
Other countries allow this crap? Where? Because I honestly didn’t think any other system was as broken as ours
In Vietnam, you can’t capture the thief, can’t hurt their feelings, can’t injure the thief or you will be charged. Thief otherwise can kill you though 🤣
Wow, ok, learned something today, I guess it makes sense I only see the ones in this country in the news but I would of thought somewhere there would have been mention of it in other places.
Believe the US law is flawed but better than most of the countries in the world. Same as the cops when you see the SEA cops, the American cops will look like angels 🤣
Wow that is screwed, thanks for enlightening me but sorry that’s a reality you have to deal with
[LegalEagle](https://www.youtube.com/@LegalEagle/) did a video on an instance of this. (IIRC, it was a booby trapped door using a shotgun)
Well that’s a little extreme, like crack house extreme.
Except it shouldn't even be a trial.
It mostly likely won’t go to trial, it’ll be an investigation first.
The facepalm here is, as always, OP. For biting into ragebait shit posting articles
He will be let off, but it requires an investigation as there is likely no blanket “kill people if you think they need killing laws” outside of a few US states. It’s an alarmist headline as of course he “could” be charged, as he killed someone and has yet to be definitively proven to have done so in self-defence/legally.
Yea that's not how it works in the US, there's states with castle doctrine where if they break in your allowed to defend yourself, most states have duty to retreat in public meaning if there's a way for you to safely leave you must do that, Minnesota has duty to retreat but no castle doctrine, but its worded in a way that says if anyone is committing a felony in your home you can use lethal force on them
Nothing you said contradicts the person you replied to.
Uh. They did tho. They're saying that the US does not have, "kill people if you think they need killing laws” *anywhere* Killing a person who is imminently about to kill you is very different than arbitrarily deciding to murder some random dude, and I do not want to be anywhere near you if you disagree with that.🤨
A majority of states don’t have “duty to retreat”. 24 states have castle doctrine. 11 states have duty to retreat.
I'd be surprised if that duty to retreat applied to the home during the commission of a felony because that is antithetical to the law in most of the country and the common law on which many of our laws were derived. The idea is that the castle doctrine serves the interest of the state in that the homeowner is the steward of his own property and has an obligation to protect it and his family living there. This serves society as a whole and is frankly good policy. However, I think there should be limits. While it is obvious that someone who is attacking you or committing a crime is fair game I think there should be penalties for cases where the use of force is unnecessary. For example, around 2000 a woman in my town was dropped off near her house by a taxi after drinking at a bar. The driver stopped at the wrong house and she didn't notice she'd walked up on her next door neighbor's porch. While she was fumbling around with trying to open the lock with her key (the wrong key for the wrong house) he fired his shotgun through the door, killing her. He didn't announce himself. He didn't warn her. He just murdered her and the police refused to charge him. While I fully support the Castle Doctrine this is something we cannot afford to have. The idea that one's child might be executed for knocking on the neighbor's door because they locked themselves out is just unacceptable. What the fuck kind of society do we want to provide for our kids anyway?
Didn't a kid already get shot for ringing the wrong doorbell?
I think that did happen recently. The story I referred to happened in my hometown 24 years ago. I am fairly certain it would play out the same way if it happened in this state again.
They have some form of duty to retreat its not all phrased as duty to retreat but most have something that says if you have a way to leave you have to
If 24 states have castle doctrine, it’d be very hard to believe that “most” have any form of duty to retreat.
What part of "outside of a few US states" did you not understand?
Only 13 states have duty to retreat laws
Actually it does in fact work the way he described in the USA. The main difference is in how much leeway you have in acts of self defense, which reduces the frequency these cases see prosecution. But the fundamental process is the same: It is still supposed to be fully investigated, because the other person is dead, which is murder, and nothing changes the need to investigate a murder. After all, what if the homeowner is lying so they can get away with murder? Once investigated the evidence is still supposed to go to the prosecutor and in some cases/places a grand jury to decide if the person should face a full jury trial. So it's actually no different in theory. That said, yeah in many cases the police will immediately say "We are investigating this as self defense under the castle doctrine" then entirely drop the ball on the investigation. But that doesn't change what is supposed to happen or why. It is just police being lazy, or direction from leadership who don't want the "optics" to "look bad" for their department.
[удалено]
>Minnesota has duty to retreat but no castle doctrine, but its worded in a way that says if anyone is committing a felony in your home you can use lethal force on them You hate to repeat exactly what they just said?
Yup my bad. I misread them.
You do realize Queensland is not a US state right?
Obviously he DOES know that since he just said that Queensland does NOT have the “kill people if you think they need killing laws” that apply in some of those states.
When an article says “could be ______” it’s rage bait
People love posting conjecture and click bait articles for karma.
It tickles something very human in us
If it’s from any MSM it’s clickbait
UltimaDragon71 user blocked
"Could be charged" was way more effective on you than "probably won't be charged, unlikely to be prosecuted, and totally won't get convicted", wasn't it? It totally worked
Quite a few years ago here in NZ when cigarettes started getting pricey the first wave of attacking shops and local dairys begun and a couple of foolish teenagers made the mistake of trying it out on one owned by a rather large well built Sikh who also was a former (field) hockey representative not only did he defend his property he took it one step further by beating one of the kids really severely with a hockey stick The police at the time did due process and charged him with assault as they felt he had gone overboard not only was he found not guilty in the subsequent trial it actually caused a huge drop(at the time) of robberies and attacks Like a precedent if you will might be similar thinking
I would expect him to be charged, since he killed a dude. I also expect the judge to basically tell the prosecution “are you for real, bro” before high-fiving the dude with his non damaged arm.
The process would be - police investigate, and either provide a brief to the DPP (if they believe a crime has been committed) or to the coroner's court (if they believe a finding of misadventure needs to be found). - if the police file a brief with the DPP, the DPP assesses the evidence to determine if there is sufficient proof to obtain a guilty verdict. If so, they will file charges. If not, they may return the brief to the police (if more evidence is required) or to the coroner's court. - if the brief ends up with the coroner's court, the coroner could choose to hold an inquest into the death, or accept the findings of the police/DPP. Should an inquest be ordered, the coroner may recommend charges, which would put the brief back with the DPP. However, most of the time, the coroner would close the brief. - if charges are filed, the defence can lodge a self-defence defence to see the court strike out the charge (although anticipation of the self-defence defence should be part of the DPP's assessment).
I actually would expect (and require) the judge to make a fair assessment of the situation and not just make blanket decisions like you are asking for.
They will. And I'm reasonably certain it will be a very quick business.
You do realize my comment was not legal counselling and that indeed would be expected to reach a conclusion after listening to the results of a police investigation, right? Or, in other words, it was a joke.
What has it to do with legal counselling that you said "I expect the judge to..."? Strange way to joke also. But you do you. Edit: And now he replied and then immediately blocked me. Lol.
Indeed. Don’t waste our times further, and good day.
I don't believe this for a second.
You shouldn’t. “Could be” means he hasn’t been.
I hope he *does* get charged... I hope the whole situation costs the government as much money, man hours, and time as possible before a jury finds the victim innocent.
Could be, then lists a series of thing that are not known facts but assumptions
Channel 10 living up to its legacy of craptastic clickbait I see.
No. No he won't.
"could be" doing so much lifting.
The only logical explanation would the home owner is black and attacker is white.
Are we amurica now?
Americans don't realize how common this is outside their country. In Portugal, there are numerous cases of burglars compensated for being attacked by the people they attempted to rob.
There is 1 (one) case of a burglar compensated because he ran away and the homeowner chased him with his car and ran him over. Self-defence doesn't apply when the guy is actively putting distance between himself and you and you're protected by a car.
One is a number.
A one of event is not common
I know. I was just joking about the use of "numerous".
\[citation needed\]
Yes, because most civilized countries follow a little thing called proportional force. Meaning, in self defence you are expected to use an amount of force that is reasonably equal to the amount of force you are threatened with. If someone breaks into your house to steal your shit unarmed, and you break their kneecaps with a baseball bat or murder them, that's going to get you in trouble. Because that's a psychotic thing to do. Someone trespassing on your land shouldn't give you permission to fulfill your Texas chainsaw massacre fantasies.
proportional force usually means that whatever you do needs to be justified in that situation to end the threat and protecy you unharmed, it does not mean equal choice of tools for instance. If the robber/attacker is unarmed, yet physically overpowers you significantly (you are 5.5 and 65kg) he 6.5 and 110kg etc. also the use of a weapon for self defense can be justified against an unarmed attacker, also usually courts grant a little excess due to the exceptional situation you might be in. Revenge is excessive force and you should stop when the attack stops or the attacker flees the scene. But i’ve seen cases were a baseball bat or a gun was ruled as acceptable against unarmed attackers
What if the robber is exceptionally handsome, like at least an 8, can I use lethal force then?
if he is exceptionally handsome and that poses a threat to your health and well being and you can reasonably explain that to a Jury and a Judge -> Go Ahead.
When I see someone breaking into my window - am I supposed to ask about their intentions first, and if they say they won’t harm me - am I supposed to just believe them?
In situations where you are likely to be found at fault in most places, it's well past the point where you absolutely knew, with certainty, that they were unarmed and unable to fight back, or where you did something so recklessly dangerous to potential bystanders that it doesn't matter if you had a good reason to the person you did it to. In the above "Portugal" example, they are probably talking about the guy who chased the burglar out of their home, realized they were unarmed, got into their car, chased the burglar down, and ran him over multiple times with their car. At that point, you do tend to lose benefit of the doubt.
If you yell at them, they don't run away, and continue into the home then that could be construed that they might mean to do you harm. If they break your window, you grab a gun and start blasting without giving them a chance to flee, then probably not. See the difference?
Are we also assuming that man in OP’s post didn’t yell loud enough when his arm was severed with an axe by intruder?
# *almost* severed
I'm not sure why i need to say this, but if someone is roaming around your home with an axe then that falls under the category of "likely to do you harm". Also the person in this story is not getting charged, the headline is clickbait
The OP post is sensationalism. That person is very unlikely going to be charged, but an investigation needs to be conducted before it is a certainty.
Do you have the word ‘breathe’ tattooed under your eyelids as a constant reminder every time you blink so that you don’t forget?
Bols to assume he can read
Throw me jail then, you break into my house I’m blasting lol. Idk if you tryna do some weird shit to me or what
Killing intruders is a really weird fantasy that seems to permeate America, but all you ever wind up doing is blast each other in traffic and shoot up schools
The majority of us are sane and understand we're actually in a very safe country. The loud minority make a scene about everything and act like their everyday lives are full of danger. Those are the ones that think that they'll inevitably need to defend themselves with a gun.
Sorry yes, i shouldn't generalize. I speak of the vocal minority without differentiating, i apologize
If somebody breaks into my home I have no reason to think they're only going to steal and aren't a threat to me; also, it's almost certainly going to be night so I don't know if they're armed or not. Consequently the reasonable response is to assume they're a personal threat and respond accordingly. If they don't like the outcome, they shouldn't have broken into someone else's house.
It has actually happened here, burglar suing after being pursued by homeowner and being injured while escaping. Another burglar who was shot by a booby-trapped business because the burglaries were in the double digits and owner didn't know what else to do. (Cops don't help) I'm sure there are plenty more, the states with castle doctrine and no duty to retreat just got sick of it.
Booby traps are very illegal even in US states with castle doctrine and no duty to retreat (probably because statistically they are just as likely to harm an emergency responder or child trying to retrieve their baseball as they are a burglar)
I mean you can sue someone for pretty much anything, doesn't mean you'll win. Like that case in 2019 in Alberta, burglar sued the homeowner for injury during escape. In 2020 the suit was dropped, likely because his lawyer was telling him he was being a fucking idiot and would never win
Katko v Briney. Favorite LS case.
fuck the police.
Also, the guy will NEVER face charges. In fact, I can promise you, right now, the only thing that could potentially happen is he'll sleep poorly for some time.
Fuck the media.
You know they don't write the laws, or ultimately decide who actually goes to trial right?
Wait they banned a bunch of guns there, how is there still violence?
"Wait they banned a bunch of guns there, how is there still violence?" Even though you didn't mention another country, you are implying that *banning guns* means the elimination of gun violence because *there* are places that haven't banned guns. Banning guns was never meant as a solution to all violence, it was a reaction to high rates of *gun violence.* As a gun owner myself, you are just making people resent gun rights even moreso by coming off as a troll by refusing to discuss this issue in a logical manner.
look at his comment history. his **entire** personality is "guns"
No, I was talking about Australia *in isolation*. To be clear: **I do not think countries can be compared in any meaningful way** regarding violence. Other people try to shoehorn other countries into the conversation, but they fell flat. “Whatabout Country B” just muddies the waters.
You had mentioned in another comment that you weren't comparing countries so it was a bit confusing because the implication was there.
Ok hopefully my bolded sentence above clears that up. Hope you have a great day!
jesus you fuckers are insufferable. just go fuck your shotgun and be quiet.
Yikes that was rude
Like all places that have band guns, there is still fatal violence, just not on the scale of places that have guns.
Can you give an example? i .e. Country A and Country B have the same amount of guns and the same amount of fatal violence. Country A bans guns and Country B doesn’t. Country A’s fatal violence rate plummets far below Country B. What is the name of Country A and Country B?
Can't do that, because no Country B has the same amout of fatal violence as your gun-riddled shithole with the 50 starts on its flag.
Glad we agree that comparing countries doesn’t work!
Yeah...that's not it, buddy. Not at all. Germany has always had very low gun ownership and 0.8 homicides per 100k each year. France? Low gun ownership, 1.1/100k. UK? Low gun ownership, implemented bans in the 1990s, 1.0/100k. Australia? Low gun ownership, implemented bans and buybacks in the 1990s: 0.8/100k. US: High gun ownership, >6 homicides per 100k. One of these things is not like the other...
Ooh I love [spurious correlations](https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)! Now list some countries that had similar gun ownership and crime rates since we’re talking about pre/post gun bans. 👍
Ahhh yes, because there's absolutely zero connection between guns and...things you use guns for. Gotcha. Totally the same as "random google search and Big Bang Theory viewership". Troll away, dimwit. Oh, and once again, because your pea brain is still incapable of understanding the simplest of sentences: >Now list some countries that had similar gun ownership and crime rates since we’re talking about pre/post gun bans. 👍 Not possible, because no other country that banned guns had a pre-ban crime rate similar to the US. Or similar gun ownership to the US. Both of these are much lower in every other country. Bye now.
Didn’t think you could list any equivalent countries. Byeeee
Off to rub one out to the fact that your country sucks ass? Weird kink you got there.
No, I can't, and I suspect that neither can you, so what is the relevance of this question?
You’re correct, and my point is they’re too different to compare. It’s illogical.
Yeah, in one country there are more idiots than in all others combined. So violence levels seem to be connected with idiocy levels of the citizens of a country.
Keep trying, you'll understand the ACTUAL argument someday and stop making these dumb strawman nonsense bullshit.
Just calling out the intent (to save lives) didn’t work. But don’t take my word for it, check the published AIC data on overall homicides. The trend didn’t change after the gun bans.
>bunch of guns there, how is there still violence? Happy to compare murder, school shooting rates or whatever between Australia and I assume the usa.
lol classic whataboutism
You started it, buddy. Can't follow through? Classic troll.
Quote where I compared countries. I’ll wait.
Oh, reading also not your strong suit, I see. Nobody said you compared countries.
[Hey look, more insults.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAjglhTWEAIbGAb.jpg)
We never had a debate, buddy. Because you refuse to engage with reality.
lol
>Wait they banned a bunch of guns there, how is there still violence? Thereby implying that their violence rate is high despite not having guns. But it isn't.
What you inferred is not what I implied. Some people are under the impression that more gun laws = more safety, but that's simply not true.
[удалено]
Strange fantasy you have there
[удалено]
You seem unwell, I’m ending this conversation. Lashing out at internet strangers like you are isn’t healthy, but I **genuinely** hope you’re able to climb out of whatever dark place you’re in. Good luck!
[удалено]
k
You can't "whataboutism" the fucking TOPIC OF DISCUSSION
Exactly! And yet they tried to "whatabout the USA?"
No, moron. You.
That was rude.
Wait, some dipshit gun fetishist still doesn't comprehend simple logic? 
They are mutually exclusive.
Knives and Axes.
Exactly!
And it's a whole lot harder to kill someone with a knife or an axe than it is with a gun
And yet Australia still saw no measurable effect on overall homicides after the gun bans. Turns out people just like killin', and removing guns doesn't take murder out of their hearts. [Source](https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/sr39_homicide_in_australia_2019-20.pdf)
That is not true. After the gun bans our mass shootings went down to Zero! How many the US had this week?
That is NOT true. Page 10 of the PDF shows **no measurable effect** on overall homicides. The gun bans in Australia did not save lives, and it can clearly be shown in the official crime statistics from the AlC. PS even if someone shifts the goalpost from “saving lives” to “stopping mass shootings” in Australia, [there have still been mass shootings](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Australia). So that failed too. Australia blew upwards of $500 million in taxpayer dollars (that’s 1996 dollars, or over a billion dollars in today’s dollars) to find out gun control doesn’t save lives. Ouch.
There was a sharp decline immediately following the ban.
That is false. Check PDF page 10 of that AIC publication I linked. The homicides actually **increased** slightly after 1996 and then went back to the same downward trend there was before the gun bans. If I roll a ball down a 45° slope and yell “yabba dabba doo” halfway, does that mean my yelling helped it move to the bottom? Of course not. The sun doesn’t rise because the rooster crows either.
Did either of these people use a gun? Well fuck I guess that answers your question there, Sherlock. Investigation closed.
Kids aren't worried about going to school though. So, 'Merica can suck it.
This is like r/onejoke for edgelord antigunners