In Oz, defending your family gets you murder charge

[Crockerland]

And they should acquit.

Why?

Because the deceased was the aggressor?
Because the deceased was killed during an attempt to detain him for the legitimate authorities?
Because the deceased's death was clearly not premeditated, and lacked malice aforethought?

[Vassenor]

Why?

Because the deceased was the aggressor?
Because the deceased was killed during an attempt to detain him for the legitimate authorities?
Because the deceased's death was clearly not premeditated, and lacked malice aforethought?

Murder only requires the intent to harm the deceased, and in Australia Malice Aforethought is not actually required for a murder charge. And in what circumstances is chasing down someone who as already fled the property considered self-defence?

[Guy]

Let's have an idea of what we're talking about first, shall we

Although “self-defence” is referred to as a defence, it is for the Crown to eliminate it as an issue by proving beyond reasonable doubt that [the accused’s] … [specify act, for example, stabbing] was not done by [the accused] in self-defence. It may do this by proving beyond reasonable doubt either:

1. That [the accused] did not believe at the time of the [specify act, for example, stabbing] that it was necessary to do what [he/she] did in order to defend himself, or

2. The [specify conduct, eg stabbing] by [the accused] was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them.

For the Crown to eliminate self-defence as an issue, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt one or the other of these matters. It does not have to prove both of them. If you decide that the Crown has failed to prove either one of them then the appropriate verdict is one of “not guilty”.


This is, however, subject to a further direction of law which I must give you. This arises where:

1. You are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used force intentionally (or recklessly), thereby inflicting death, but

2. You are of the view that it is reasonably possible that [the accused] did believe that his conduct was necessary in self-defence; and

3. The Crown has satisfied you beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct of [the accused] was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as [the accused] perceived them because the particular use of force by [the accused] was excessive or otherwise unreasonable.

In these circumstances, I direct you that the appropriate verdict is one of “not guilty of murder” but “guilty of manslaughter”

So basically, as long as the accused thought that his actions were necessary for defence, then the worst that can happen is a manslaughter conviction.

If the actions were reasonable in all circumstances, then not guilty.

[Trollgaard]

Because the deceased was the aggressor?
Because the deceased was killed during an attempt to detain him for the legitimate authorities?
Because the deceased's death was clearly not premeditated, and lacked malice aforethought?

Murder only requires the intent to harm the deceased, and in Australia Malice Aforethought is not actually required for a murder charge. And in what circumstances is chasing down someone who as already fled the property considered self-defence?

Perhaps they were trying to perform a citizens arrest? That is basically what they were doing...detaining a criminal. The criminal just happened to die. Oh well.

If the criminal, or the criminals family didn't want to die maybe don't break into an infants room.

What self respecting person WOULDN'T chase down a scumbag who had done such a thing?

Again, the two men who supposedly chased him down should be acquited and given medals for doing what any reasonable person would do: defending their home and family and detaining the asshole who threatened said home and family.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't know, Jade, I think that in most places, this would prompt an investigation. Regardless of the reasons for the defense. If there is a death, the authorities are going to investigate. And if they think deadly force wasn't necessary in this case, well, yeah, this person murdered someone else. Can't say much about the charges, however.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Murder only requires the intent to harm the deceased, and in Australia Malice Aforethought is not actually required for a murder charge. And in what circumstances is chasing down someone who as already fled the property considered self-defence?

Perhaps they were trying to perform a citizens arrest? That is basically what they were doing...detaining a criminal. The criminal just happened to die. Oh well.

If the criminal, or the criminals family didn't want to die maybe don't break into an infants room.

What self respecting person WOULDN'T chase down a scumbag who had done such a thing?

Again, the two men who supposedly chased him down should be acquited and given medals for doing what any reasonable person would do: defending their home and family and detaining the asshole who threatened said home and family.

Yeah, no. That isn't how it works. It ceases to be self defense when you chase them down, and if they die after you chase them down you fully deserve to be charged with murder.

[Trollgaard]

Perhaps they were trying to perform a citizens arrest? That is basically what they were doing...detaining a criminal. The criminal just happened to die. Oh well.

If the criminal, or the criminals family didn't want to die maybe don't break into an infants room.

What self respecting person WOULDN'T chase down a scumbag who had done such a thing?

Again, the two men who supposedly chased him down should be acquited and given medals for doing what any reasonable person would do: defending their home and family and detaining the asshole who threatened said home and family.

Yeah, no. That isn't how it works. It ceases to be self defense when you chase them down, and if they die after you chase them down you fully deserve to be charged with murder.

According to this thread they chased him down to detain him, not kill him.

Case. Fucking. Closed.

I don't know why people want to punish someone who did the right fucking thing.

[Ethel mermania]

Perhaps they were trying to perform a citizens arrest? That is basically what they were doing...detaining a criminal. The criminal just happened to die. Oh well.

If the criminal, or the criminals family didn't want to die maybe don't break into an infants room.

What self respecting person WOULDN'T chase down a scumbag who had done such a thing?

Again, the two men who supposedly chased him down should be acquited and given medals for doing what any reasonable person would do: defending their home and family and detaining the asshole who threatened said home and family.

Yeah, no. That isn't how it works. It ceases to be self defense when you chase them down, and if they die after you chase them down you fully deserve to be charged with murder.

I don't know Australian law, in the US you can forcibly detain while waiting for the cops. You do not have to let the assailant flee.

[Ifreann]

Murder only requires the intent to harm the deceased, and in Australia Malice Aforethought is not actually required for a murder charge. And in what circumstances is chasing down someone who as already fled the property considered self-defence?

Perhaps they were trying to perform a citizens arrest? That is basically what they were doing...detaining a criminal. The criminal just happened to die. Oh well.

So you want people to be able to chase someone down, kill them, claim they were just detaining a criminal and the criminal died, and get away with no charges and be awarded a medal.

It's like you're actively avoiding thinking about the consequences of this.

If the criminal, or the criminals family didn't want to die maybe don't break into an infants room.

What self respecting person WOULDN'T chase down a scumbag who had done such a thing?

Why would you chase someone after they had stopped being a threat to your family?

Again, the two men who supposedly chased him down should be acquited

Only one is facing charges, so the other can't possibly be acquitted.

and given medals for doing what any reasonable person would do: defending their home and family and detaining the asshole who threatened said home and family.

You want to give out medals for doing what any reasonable person would do? Sounds like a waste of metal.

[Trollgaard]

Perhaps they were trying to perform a citizens arrest? That is basically what they were doing...detaining a criminal. The criminal just happened to die. Oh well.

So you want people to be able to chase someone down, kill them, claim they were just detaining a criminal and the criminal died, and get away with no charges and be awarded a medal.

It's like you're actively avoiding thinking about the consequences of this.

If the criminal, or the criminals family didn't want to die maybe don't break into an infants room.

What self respecting person WOULDN'T chase down a scumbag who had done such a thing?

Why would you chase someone after they had stopped being a threat to your family?

Again, the two men who supposedly chased him down should be acquited

Only one is facing charges, so the other can't possibly be acquitted.

and given medals for doing what any reasonable person would do: defending their home and family and detaining the asshole who threatened said home and family.

You want to give out medals for doing what any reasonable person would do? Sounds like a waste of metal.

The consequences would be that people who defend their home and families wouldn't be punished for doing so.

You chase someone down so they don't get away, and maybe to beat the shit of them, which should be allowed under the circumstances.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, no. That isn't how it works. It ceases to be self defense when you chase them down, and if they die after you chase them down you fully deserve to be charged with murder.

According to this thread they chased him down to detain him, not kill him.

Case. Fucking. Closed.

I don't know why people want to punish someone who did the right fucking thing.

It doesn't matter why they chased him down, what matters is they chased him down and he died. That's a stupidly huge slippery slope, you're pretty much saying I can chase down and kill someone and as long as I make up some bullshit reason I shouldn't face consequences.

I don't know Australian law, in the US you can forcibly detain while waiting for the cops. You do not have to let the assailant flee.

I'm well aware, but if you chase and kill the person you're trying to detain that suddenly doesn't look so good for you.

[Wallenburg]

Murder only requires the intent to harm the deceased, and in Australia Malice Aforethought is not actually required for a murder charge. And in what circumstances is chasing down someone who as already fled the property considered self-defence?

Perhaps they were trying to perform a citizens arrest? That is basically what they were doing...detaining a criminal. The criminal just happened to die. Oh well.

"Officer, you don't understand! I chased that guy down the street, threw him to the curb, and gripped him in a headlock until he died! His neck just happened to snap when I crushed it!"

Do you see how pathetic that defense is?

What self respecting person WOULDN'T chase down a scumbag who had done such a thing?

What self respecting person would kill someone after detaining them?

Again, the two men who supposedly chased him down should be acquited and given medals for doing what any reasonable person would do: defending their home and family and detaining the asshole who threatened said home and family.

If they did what "any reasonable person would do", Australia would be covered in body bags.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's absolutely ridiculous, and it's the same issue in New Zealand as well.

I've always been a firm supporter of stand your ground laws (or the Castle Doctrine policy) - and the reason I've always argued for it is that, while for urban middle class liberals it might seem a difficult concept to grasp, if you live in a rural area, far from a town or any law enforcement, and your home is invaded... you're much better off using a gun which you might own, than waiting for the police the complete the two hour drive to your farm.

Obviously, the police do need to ensure that there are mitigating circumstances involved, but the fact that it remains a grey area in the law (though I can't speak for Australia here), if not erring on the side of punishing those who would defend themselves, is unacceptable to me.

What, so the police show up (several minutes after you heroically defend your family of course), you tell them that you defended your family from a home invader and then what?

They just walk off your porch, dragging a dead fucking body with them? They'd stain the carpets.

No, a police investigation determines the facts of the incident and you argue your position - that you heroically defended your family, remember - in court, satisfying a jury of your peers beyond reasonable doubt that you acted in a justifiable manner to defend your home and your property.

[Wallenburg]

The consequences would be that people who defend their home and families wouldn't be punished for doing so.

You chase someone down so they don't get away, and maybe to beat the shit of them, which should be allowed under the circumstances.

Assault and battery should be legal, huh? Wonderful.

[Ethel mermania]

According to this thread they chased him down to detain him, not kill him.

Case. Fucking. Closed.

I don't know why people want to punish someone who did the right fucking thing.

It doesn't matter why they chased him down, what matters is they chased him down and he died. That's a stupidly huge slippery slope, you're pretty much saying I can chase down and kill someone and as long as I make up some bullshit reason I shouldn't face consequences.

I don't know Australian law, in the US you can forcibly detain while waiting for the cops. You do not have to let the assailant flee.

I'm well aware, but if you chase and kill the person you're trying to detain that suddenly doesn't look so good for you.

Agreed, but there is a standard of proof, if the assailant struggled while being detained, and was killed in the struggle, it's not murder. If he is passive and not resisting, and he is killed it may well be murder.

[Ifreann]

So you want people to be able to chase someone down, kill them, claim they were just detaining a criminal and the criminal died, and get away with no charges and be awarded a medal.

It's like you're actively avoiding thinking about the consequences of this.


Why would you chase someone after they had stopped being a threat to your family?


Only one is facing charges, so the other can't possibly be acquitted.

You want to give out medals for doing what any reasonable person would do? Sounds like a waste of metal.

The consequences would be that people who defend their home and families wouldn't be punished for doing so.

The consequences would be that murderers would claim they were defending their home and family and wouldn't be punished for committing murder. Innocent people would get beaten to death in the streets and their killers would get a medal because they made up some story about the dead guy coming in the window of their baby's room. Who's gonna say it isn't true? The dead guy?

You chase someone down so they don't get away,

So what if they get away? Catching criminals is a problem for the police.

and maybe to beat the shit of them, which should be allowed under the circumstances.

No it shouldn't.

[Wallenburg]

It doesn't matter why they chased him down, what matters is they chased him down and he died. That's a stupidly huge slippery slope, you're pretty much saying I can chase down and kill someone and as long as I make up some bullshit reason I shouldn't face consequences.



I'm well aware, but if you chase and kill the person you're trying to detain that suddenly doesn't look so good for you.

Agreed, but there is a standard of proof, if the assailant struggled while being detained, and was killed in the struggle, it's not murder. If he is passive and not resisting, and he is killed it may well be murder.

That's one fucking weird standard. If one guy is murdering another, you can bet your ass the victim will resist.

[Trollgaard]

The consequences would be that people who defend their home and families wouldn't be punished for doing so.

You chase someone down so they don't get away, and maybe to beat the shit of them, which should be allowed under the circumstances.

Assault and battery should be legal, huh? Wonderful.

Under certain circumstances, yes. A bit of corporal punishment admininstered by those wronged upon the wrongdoer. Perfectly fine.

The whole attitude of violence is bad all the time needs to just go away, as well, as its foolish and dangerous.

[Imperializt Russia]

Assault and battery should be legal, huh? Wonderful.

Under certain circumstances, yes. A bit of corporal punishment admininstered by those wronged upon the wrongdoer. Perfectly fine.

The whole attitude of violence is bad all the time needs to just go away, as well, as its foolish and dangerous.

An assault is a physical attack and is unlawful for a reason.
We have "reasonable force" as a standard for that reason.

[Wallenburg]

Assault and battery should be legal, huh? Wonderful.

Under certain circumstances, yes. A bit of corporal punishment admininstered by those wronged upon the wrongdoer. Perfectly fine.

The whole attitude of violence is bad all the time needs to just go away, as well, as its foolish and dangerous.

Wow. I didn't think you'd go so far as to advocate beating up random people. That made it into my memorable quotes repository.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Assault and battery should be legal, huh? Wonderful.

Under certain circumstances, yes. A bit of corporal punishment admininstered by those wronged upon the wrongdoer. Perfectly fine.

The whole attitude of violence is bad all the time needs to just go away, as well, as its foolish and dangerous.

You're making it seem like violence is the way to go here. And it isn't. There are other ways to subdue an assailant that do not end in death.

[Ifreann]

Assault and battery should be legal, huh? Wonderful.

Under certain circumstances, yes. A bit of corporal punishment admininstered by those wronged upon the wrongdoer. Perfectly fine.

The whole attitude of violence is bad all the time needs to just go away, as well, as its foolish and dangerous.

Violence is often useful at getting people to stop doing something, like posing a threat to people. But if you're continuing to use violence past the point where whatever threat you are resisting has ended, then you're just hurting someone because it makes you feel good. And that's fucked up. Why would we ever accept that, much less reward it?

[Wallenburg]

Under certain circumstances, yes. A bit of corporal punishment admininstered by those wronged upon the wrongdoer. Perfectly fine.

The whole attitude of violence is bad all the time needs to just go away, as well, as its foolish and dangerous.

Violence is often useful at getting people to stop doing something, like posing a threat to people. But if you're continuing to use violence past the point where whatever threat you are resisting has ended, then you're just hurting someone because it makes you feel good. And that's fucked up. Why would we ever accept that, much less reward it?

Because apparently people lose their personhood as soon as they make someone feel threatened.

[Ethel mermania]

Under certain circumstances, yes. A bit of corporal punishment admininstered by those wronged upon the wrongdoer. Perfectly fine.

The whole attitude of violence is bad all the time needs to just go away, as well, as its foolish and dangerous.

Wow. I didn't think you'd go so far as to advocate beating up random people. That made it into my memorable quotes repository.

Where did he say anything about random people? "Wronged up wrongdoer" is his quote. I may or may not agree with him, but let's at least stick to the argument made, and not make up words to argue against.

[Vassenor]

Wow. I didn't think you'd go so far as to advocate beating up random people. That made it into my memorable quotes repository.

Where did he say anything about random people? "Wronged up wrongdoer" is his quote. I may or may not agree with him, but let's at least stick to the argument made, and not make up words to argue against.

At which point you can just deck anyone you like and claim they looked at you funny.