1
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
I was unhappy with little Johny Howard’s firearms ban - I lost my semi-auto .22 and 12 gauge - but I have to admit now that it was good public policy.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all Show Posts made by this member. Note that you can only see Show Posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - DJC
I was unhappy with little Johny Howard’s firearms ban - I lost my semi-auto .22 and 12 gauge - but I have to admit now that it was good public policy.
2
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Victoria is mainly suffering at the hands of under 6,000 crooks and you'd think that the police, courts and politicians could come up with a more effective way of curtailing their illegal activities.
3
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
You cannot sue for injuries suffered while committing a crime EOS.You haven't committed a crime until you are found guilty, at least here in Australia.
If you managed to get the case to court, it would be laughed out by the judge and/or jury.
“Just how did you injure your leg Mr Smith?”
“I was kicking in the door so we could do a burg yer honour.”
When there is a settlement there is no jury, no judge and not many questions, it all happens across a desk.
My recommendation is you have a long long calm chat with legal aid before you jump at a defence.
No lawyer would seek a settlement or advise their client to agree to a settlement for a damages claim arising from a criminal act.
What are our crime statistics based on? Incidents reported to police, not convictions.
A trespasser may sue if they were harmed by a man-trap, but with little chance of success. The law is very clear, there is no duty of care owed to a trespasser regardless of whether that trespasser is ever convicted of a crime.
4
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
We are discussing two different things, you are talking about post criminal convictions, I'm talking about being sued long before or in the absence of any criminal conviction. Nobody given the sensible advice would take a civil case to court risking 30K+ in legal fees if the alternative was to settle for $10k.
If you want to see the same mechanism at play study Workcover, or study how the CCCP leverages people into become spies, it's all about risk management. Why do you think companies settle or people relent, because the risk on the other side of the equation is too great.
You'd be a dead set dud if you legally advised someone to risk $30K, $50k or there house to save $10k, and it is in that margin that blokes like Lennon worked because they can. I suppose if you have cash to burn you can stand the high moral ground.
You cannot sue for injuries suffered while committing a crime EOS.
If you managed to get the case to court, it would be laughed out by the judge and/or jury.
“Just how did you injure your leg Mr Smith?”
“I was kicking in the door so we could do a burg yer honour.”
5
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
It's not that black and white, the law takes into account cause, so if the home owner contributes to injury even for someone there illegally they can be liable. These cases are usually settled long before any formal ruling, nobody in their right mind will risk their house for a punitive amount and lawyers know it.
Crooks want cash not a cellmate.
That’s garbage LP. My late brother specialised in representing crooks - the same people he used to arrest when he was a copper. He would often speak of “in pari delicto” - a wrongdoer is barred from seeking damages arising from their own illegal activity.
No such case could ever be settled because it could never be made.
6
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Thats a bit of a myth me thinks.That's almost 50 years ago, and I've had a couple of encounters with a bloke called Pat Lennon that suggests otherwise.
I do know of a business owner (and state level rifle shooter) who shot an intruder (wounded him the leg) who broke into his High St Northcote business in the 80s. Got off those chargers IIRC. Years later, was broken into again, again he shot the intruder in the leg but did some time for the second offence.
The law hasn’t changed LP.
As long as you believe that you’re in strife and use appropriate force to defend yourself, you’re fine.
A smallish woman being attacked by a large bloke can use whatever means she has to defend herself. A large bloke being attacked by an old woman can’t shoot or stab her.
You can’t be charged with “assault and battery” if someone trips over. For a start, battery is now considered as assault and would have to involve the application of unlawful force.
Can you give an example of a crook who successfully sued someone after tripping over?
7
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed "attacks or bites any person or animal" or "causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal" or "rushes at or chases any person" the owner of the dog and/or the person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence. However, the Act specifies that "it is a defence to that offence if the incident occurred because—
(a) the dog was being teased, abused or assaulted; or
(b) a person was trespassing on the premises on which the dog was kept; or
(c) another animal was on the premises on which the dog was kept; or
(d) a person known to the dog was being attacked in front of the dog."
There's no "grey area" and the provisions of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 are completely separate from the "self-defence" provisions set out in the Crimes Act 1958:
Section 322K
1. A person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
2. A person carries out conduct in self-defence if –
1. The person believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence; and
2. The conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.
Section 322M adds specific provisions for self-defence in a family violence situation.
As an example, it would be lawful to choke someone who attacked you with a knife and there's no requirement to stop choking them provided that you believe that it's the only way to stop them stabbing you.
8
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Be careful,vid your dog bites an intruder can't you be charged with assault by a dangerous animal of some such rubbish? Crazy world we live in
Incorrect.
If your dog bites someone, it is a defence if that person was (a) trespassing, (b) attacking you or (c) teasing or harming the dog.
My two are more likely to lick than bite but their very large size tends to intimidate people who don't know them.
9
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
The abstracts and summaries of studies I've read indicate that guns in the home don't actually make people safer, and create an increased risk of injury and fatalities unrelated to intruders.
My “Client interaction and defensive tactics” instructor warned against using weapons in a home invasion situation. He said that weapons generally ended up in the intruder’s hands and were used against the innocent party.
I have firearms at my place. If I wanted to use one for self defence I would have to retrieve the keys from a key safe, go to the gun safe and unlock it, take out my weapon of choice, unlock the ammunition storage safe, get the right ammunition and load the firearm. I generally can’t manage that in time to get a shot at the foxes that occasionally visit.
Our security service sign and “caution - dogs on premises” sign probably mean that I won’t have to decide about trying to retrieve a firearm.
10
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)
I’m still waiting for Abbott to shirtfront Putin 🙄
11
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)
That sort of behavior is an indictment on both of them, and others. The fact that he is such a baby and is so easily played, and the fact that diplomats, business leaders, world leaders and others would stoop so low as to lick his saggy, sorry ar$e. Have some f%%^^ng principles and self respect. Capitulating to bullies just encourages them to bully you more.
Couldn't agree more Paul. While flattering and kowtowing to a narcissistic bully may get the outcome you desire, it's hardly good leadership and does little to make the world a better place. Zelenskyy fluctuates between standing up to Taco and bending over backwards, but he's in a difficult predicament. Musar of Slovenia, Colombia's Petro, Ireland's Micheál Martin, Brazil's da Silva and, leading the way, Carney, Sheinbaum, Frederiksen, Steinmeier and von der Leyen, are shining lights in how they don't take a backward step when confronted by Taco.
12
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)
And this man controls a nuclear arsenal 😳
13
Blah-Blah Bar / Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Police minister interview was very stern in condemning the Far left wing throwing glass shad missiles at police while the far right protesters were congratulated on following the rules. Hmmm arent the right wing aligned with being the violent ones?
The police minister sounded fed up and at breaking point putting up with these twits.
Goverments that refuse to accept any accountability and dont have the brains to do something productive to arrest the slide have turned our once great state into a debt ridden lawless violent crap hole.
14
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)
One if the features of demonstrations is this...
Folks on the left will march and demonstrate.
Those with extreme views on the right will march and demonstrate
Moderate conservatives won't march or demonstrate.
They don't feel rhe need because they're quite happy with the status quo.
It's why you can't draw much from protest numbers in terms of projecting election results.
While that’s largely true, the No Kings demonstrators aren’t just folk on the left. For a start, most Democrats would be considered centre-right by our standards. Lots of Republicans are concerned about Taco’s overreach and the threat that he poses to their form of democracy. Of course, many of the protesters won’t vote.
Political commentators were predicting the largest US protests ever with 2-3M. 7M protesters is incredible!
15
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)
Let’s not get too excited with congratulating ourselves, look around you… 😩
And then take a look at the situation in any other country you care to choose 😇
Meanwhile, back in the good old US of A, more than 7M folk attended boisterous but peaceful “No Kings” rallies across the country.