Why I killed the robber (have to read this to believe it)


PDA






GSB
August 1, 2004, 03:02 PM
I did a search on "Karen Brown" and didn't find this in L & P. If it's a dupe, one of the mods can delete it. You just have to read this to believe some the quotes from the perp's grandfather (a retired policeman).

Addendum: read the follow up post below after reading this one. Believe it or not, it looks like they are charging this poor woman with murder.

This story is out of Australia by the way.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10302789%5E661,00.html


Why I killed the robber
ECLUSIVE by BEN JONSTON and WARREN OWENS
01aug04

THE security guard who shot and killed a robber who bashed her has spoken about her ordeal for the first time.

Shaking and crying, a traumatised Karen Brown, 42, said yesterday she had feared for her life as she was punched in the head several times by William Aquilina, who was armed with a knuckle duster.

"I was so scared," she said of the ambush and shooting outside a hotel in Sydney's southwest last Monday morning.

Ms Brown suffered a fractured skull, a fractured eye socket, a fractured nose, a fractured left hand and possible brain damage when the 25-year-old grabbed her hair, king-hit her and then battered her to the ground.

The convicted criminal then dragged her across the bitumen towards a stolen getaway car before she could release a bag containing between $30,000 and $50,000 in hotel takings. Moments later, a bleeding Ms Brown, who was dressed in casual clothes and whose gun had been concealed, shot Aquilina as he sat in the car.

Surrounded by her family, Ms Brown tried to recall the incident that left her covered in blood in the hotel car park.

"I looked up through a bloody haze," Ms Brown said. "I did not know where I was or exactly what had happened to me. All I knew was that blood was pouring into my eyes and my head was throbbing."

Despite her injuries, which also include severe concussion and a floating bone fragment behind her eyeball, Ms Brown said she felt sympathy for Aquilina's family and expressed remorse for what had occurred.

"I really feel sorry for his family," said Ms Brown, who has been a security guard for four years. "It must be awful. I just wish this had never happened. It's been a terrible week."

Ms Brown had been collecting and banking the pub's takings for the past five months.

"Nothing like this has ever happened before and nothing prepares you for this," she said.

Ms Brown's sister, Katrina, said the incident had been devastating.

"It has completely wrecked her life," she said at the Sydney home Ms Brown shares with her de facto, George Muratore. "She's a complete mental and physical wreck. This is the worst thing that's ever happened in her life. She has never hurt anybody or anything before and it's completely crushed her."

Mr Muratore's father, Vic, 73, said he believed Ms Brown should not be punished.

"She should not be charged -- I would have done the same thing," he said. "If you pay me to protect, I have to protect. Everybody reckons she's a champion.

"We have known her for seven years and she is a very decent person -- she is a good person.

"I say sorry for the other people, but you deserve what you get when you do something like that."

But Aquilina's grandfather, retired policeman Frank Rasmussen, has said Ms Brown should be charged.

"He was murdered," Mr Rasmussen said. "That woman should have torn into that hotel as soon as she alleges she was hit and she should have asked for help. Instead, she advanced on my grandson and shot him in cold blood.

"She's just a bitch. Sorry."

Mr Rasmussen said he was upset by how his grandson -- who has convictions for drugs and robbery -- had been portrayed.

"They're saying he's a rotten dangerous criminal and he's not. He's lovable," he said. "We still don't believe he's done this on his own -- he's too good a person.

"He's never been involved in anything like this in almost 26 years that we've known him. It's not in his nature."

Ms Brown underwent further medical tests on Thursday. Detectives are not expecting to speak to her until tomorrow.

Channel 7 has secured Ms Brown for the only television interview, on Today Tonight, tomorrow night.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I killed the robber (have to read this to believe it)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GSB
August 1, 2004, 03:08 PM
Oh, by the way, the NSW police are charging this woman with murder, it would seem.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10311778%255E1702,00.html

Guard given murder charge deadline

01aug04

A FEMALE security guard who shot dead a robber who attacked her was set to be charged with murder, New South Wales Police said today.

Karen Brown had until 6pm (AEST) to hand herself in to police in southwest Sydney, police said.

So far, Ms Brown has refused to be formally interviewed by investigating officers, saying she has been in no mental or physical condition to do so.

But she has spoken to media outlets.

Police today said they had been told repeatedly by Ms Brown's barrister, Joseph Busuttil, that she was unfit to speak with them.

Liverpool Police Superintendent Terry Jacobsen described it as "inappropriate" that Ms Brown had conducted an interview with a newspaper and, reportedly, been paid for another interview with Channel 7's Today Tonight program.

"We have been advised ... that she has been unfit to speak to police for medical reasons and we have accepted that and respected it," Supt Jacobsen said today.

However, he said the media interviews meant police "may have to proceed without the benefit of hearing from Ms Brown on these matters".

"If she doesn't surrender herself by 6pm this evening, we will issue a court attendance notice for the offence of murder based on the evidence we have gathered to date," he said.

The 42-year-old Rooty Hill woman shot and killed William Aquilina moments after he attacked her with a knuckleduster and stole a bag of cash she was carrying out of the Moorebank Hotel.

The Elite Guard Force security officer's skull, an eye socket, nose and left hand were fractured and she suffered possible brain damage.

Supt Jacobsen said investigators had waited in good faith for Ms Brown to speak with them.

"To that extent we have attempted to contact her legal representative today to arrange for her to be present at Liverpool Police Station by 6pm this evening," he said.

"If she comes we will give full weight to what she may or may not tell us."

However, Supt Jacobsen said officers earlier had been told Ms Brown was unavailable until Tuesday and if she did not attend the police station they would take action without her.

"If we are unable to serve it either because she's unavailable or because she has been squirrelled away, we will be seeking leave ... to file that court attendance notice in court," he said.

"And if we are granted that leave, then criminal proceedings will commence, it will be subjudice and Today Tonight will publish any material at their peril."

Supt Jacobsen said that while Ms Brown had a right not to say anything about the incident, police had an obligation to give her an opportunity to speak.

"We have given her that opportunity but she has elected to go to the media (instead), and that's not appropriate."

Reports that Ms Brown had been paid up to $100,000 for the television interview remained unconfirmed today.

Comment was being sought from Ms Brown's lawyer and Channel 7.

one-shot-one
August 1, 2004, 03:17 PM
i can not say what i feel about family members of scumbags who spout off stupid "stuff" like this guys grandpa did, it would get me kicked off this board.

Nightfall
August 1, 2004, 03:18 PM
"He was murdered," Mr Rasmussen said. "That woman should have torn into that hotel as soon as she alleges she was hit and she should have asked for help. Instead, she advanced on my grandson and shot him in cold blood.

"She's just a bitch. Sorry."

Mr Rasmussen said he was upset by how his grandson -- who has convictions for drugs and robbery -- had been portrayed.

"They're saying he's a rotten dangerous criminal and he's not. He's lovable," he said.
Yeah, your sweet, lovable, convicted robber who attempted to murder a woman by punching her to death over some money didn't deserve to be shot by his victim. :rolleyes: :barf: That guy is as much of a scum bag as his grandson would appear to be.

Don Gwinn
August 1, 2004, 03:30 PM
I read it, and I don't believe it.

My cousin once stole a grain truck. He was convicted of it. He went to jail. He's out now, and he's like a different person. No drugs, steady job, wife, kids, minivan.

I do not believe he will ever do such a stupid and criminal thing again in his life. But if he gets shot crawling in somebody's window some night, I'm sure not going to call the newspaper and say "He's never been involved in anything like this before! It can't be!"

Or maybe I will. Maybe it's human nature.


The really bad thing is that depending on how security guards fit into the lethal force laws in Australia, they may have a valid (legal) reason to charge her. The way I read it, he beat her, then took the bag and tried to escape with it. Apparently he was in the car and she was not when she killed him. It will be hard to claim immediate self-defense. But an American police officer (maybe a security guard, too) is empowered to use lethal force to stop someone from leaving a scene where they've committed a felony.


I leave you with a quick quote on the difference between humans and animals from Frank Herbert:

"You may have heard of certain animals gnawing off their own limbs to escape a hunter's trap. There's an animal kind of trick! A human would remain in the trap, ignoring the pain, the better to gain an opportunity to destroy a threat to itself and its kind."

GSB
August 1, 2004, 03:37 PM
Apparently he was in the car and she was not when she killed him. It will be hard to claim immediate self-defense. But an American police officer (maybe a security guard, too) is empowered to use lethal force to stop someone from leaving a scene where they've committed a felony.

Given her injuries at the time, do you think she was really in a position to think through all the nuances of her legal responsibilites vis-a-vis the guy who just bashed her skull in repeatedly with brass knuckles? I don't think you'd get a charge on that in this country outside of New Jersey. Sometimes there is a BIG difference between the letter of the law and what constitutes justice.

Firethorn
August 1, 2004, 04:03 PM
I hope they take it to trial, then she can be exonerated. I also hope her company picks up the defense. Unless things are majorly different than what's stated in the article, they might have a hard time finding a jury that will convict.

Does Australia recognize the 'temporary insanity' defense? I'd think that suffering from several hits to the head requiring surgury and 'possible brain damage', one eye useless, would count as a defense saying that she wasn't in a sane cognitive state. And at the fault of her 'victim'.

Don Gwinn
August 1, 2004, 05:01 PM
GSB, I hope I didn't give the impression that I would have considered charging her (unless the account above is somehow dramatically wrong.)

I was just stating the problem realistically.

Double Naught Spy
August 1, 2004, 05:14 PM
Oh come on. He tried to murder her and she killed him. Let's call it even and get a brew!

Maybe the grandfather was mad because his grandson got his butt kicked by a girl?

Hawkmoon
August 1, 2004, 05:25 PM
It appears to be something genetic, I suppose. Every time I read about some scumbag who gets shot while engaged in perpetrating a (armed assault/rape/carjacking/___ fill in crime of your choice), some relative or other invariably whines that said scumbag was "murdered" by the intended victim (who, after all, wasn't expected to resist, or events would never have taken such an unfortunate twist).

Someone should muzzle those people. Yeah, I suppose that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, but the Founding Fathers obviously overlooked the codicile requiring people who exercise their 1st Amendment rights to engage the brain before putting the mouth in gear.

Stickjockey
August 1, 2004, 05:25 PM
From what I've read, this woman's only crime was not shooting him sooner.

Unfortunately, it may get her prison time...:mad:

Pilgrim
August 1, 2004, 08:38 PM
Do you think the hotel will pay for her barrister?

Pilgrim

Ellery Holt
August 1, 2004, 09:14 PM
I'm gonna have to side with the LEOs on this one -- we weren't there so we don't know what really happened. All we know is what the paper published, and we all know how we can't trust them to get the story straight. Let's just wait until the facts come out and then we'll see.

:D

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2004, 09:25 PM
The woman deserves a medal, not prosecution.

Bunny921
August 1, 2004, 11:31 PM
That story is absolutely appalling, she's treated as if she did something wrong. I agree with the only crime she committed was not shooting him sooner. I'm suprised that I haven't read that better yet the gun itself didn't just up and shoot him, because as we all know guns themselves are evil.

joe sixpack
August 2, 2004, 12:39 AM
The law is favoring the criminals more than the persons wronged by the criminals it would appear. I think we've been seeing this for a while, and will continue to until? Perps responsible for this sort of thing deserve what ever comes back to them in return. That coupled with decent men and women carrying, might serve as a deterrent, or at least start thinning them out and eliminating the necessity for tax bucks to be spent on their malevolent souls.
This sort of thing riles me to no end.

cheers, ab

lbmii
August 2, 2004, 01:15 AM
Yes this type of nonsense is coming soon to your hometown if it has not all ready.

Zundfolge
August 2, 2004, 01:36 AM
That guy is as much of a scum bag as his grandson would appear to be.
How do you think the robber got that way in the first place?

Jeff
August 2, 2004, 02:19 AM
From what I've read, this woman's only crime was not shooting him sooner.


Exactly.


The laws everywhere have removed the human factor from self-defense and have completely reduced it to a matter of quantum physics.

"She should have shot him before the greater threat was over, otherwise it's over, and she has no right shooting him because she is still conscious."

Pendragon
August 2, 2004, 03:25 AM
The last thing the anti gun rulers in Australia want is an heroic woman who defends her life with a gun.

They need to charge her to taint her.

People like this simply are not helpful.

twoblink
August 2, 2004, 04:08 AM
Oh come on. He tried to murder her and she killed him. Let's call it even and get a brew!

And send the bill to the grandpa!

The apple don't fall too far from the tree I see..

If my son or grandson ever attempted to rob/mug someone, I swear I'd beat him to death myself..

The lack of responsibility is just amazing..

For me, I think she's a hero.. She prevented possible future deaths of others..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Open note to the grandfather of the scum:

Your grandson was a scum and after your comments, now I know why. You are irresponsible and you passed on that igorance to your now DEAD grandson. If you think being beaten to death is acceptable, please let me know, I know quite a few people who would be happy to beat you to death with brass knuckles... It's trash like you and your family that reduces the oxygen supply in the world, wastes our tax dollars, and degrades society. Your existance lowers the world in both value and time.

agricola
August 2, 2004, 04:50 AM
she wont get convicted of murder - but she could well be done for manslaughter, and making your first statement to the press, rather than those whose job it is to investigate the incident, is hardly likely to endear her to the courts.

I would also point out that, from her statement, she did not defend herself.

PATH
August 2, 2004, 06:01 AM
It is a shame I won't be on that jury. I would not find her guilty of a blessed thing. Half concious and she shoots the creature that has attempted to kill her. She has extensive injuries to the head which I am sure would keep anyone form thinking clearly in any case.

No. I would not vote to charge her with a single thing. I hope there are enough Aussies who still have some guts. I hope she is let go on this one!
I'll be praying for her!

feedthehogs
August 2, 2004, 08:12 AM
No one deserves to be beaten like she was.
Threat over or not this guy would have done this again to someone else.
She saved someones life down the road and should be given a medal.

Iain
August 2, 2004, 08:36 AM
The murder charge will not be upheld if the facts of the case are as above. Manslaughter may well be though, as Ag says. I doubt that though, as someone else says she had been beaten around the head savagely and will thus be able to argue, and fairly, that she was not totally rational - how could she have been?


"From what I've read, this woman's only crime was not shooting him sooner." - True, if she had shot him during the assault, or when her life was arguably in danger she would not be facing these charges.

Yowza
August 2, 2004, 08:46 AM
It seems to be taken as an assumption that the threat was over. All I can tell from the article is that the guy was sitting in the car, not driving away. How is she supposed to know he's not going to run her over or get back out and finish the job he started?

Rick

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 09:11 AM
That's totally :cuss:

Third_Rail
August 2, 2004, 09:32 AM
True, if she had shot him during the assault, or when her life was arguably in danger she would not be facing these charges.

You never know, we are talking about Australia afterall.

agricola
August 2, 2004, 11:50 AM
yowza,

It seems to be taken as an assumption that the threat was over. All I can tell from the article is that the guy was sitting in the car, not driving away. How is she supposed to know he's not going to run her over or get back out and finish the job he started?

which is one of the problems about making the first statement you have about something as serious as this to the press. dunno how it works with the US, but over here statements like that are like free hits to the prosecution. It also means that the defence wont be able to claim the media biased the jury, given that it was the defence who have been doing all the biasing.

One also wonders what on earth her lawyer is doing when he/she allows her to speak to the media, unless he/she is trying to bury the case in "positive" media stories - a tactic which is unlikely to work.

You never know, we are talking about Australia afterall.

Like the UK, our "self-defence" horror stories are, when you get down to the facts of the case, not horror stories at all. I would imagine that this woman may well get convicted of manslaughter, and six months down the line we will see "Latest Aussie Screwup" threads here - when we do, its worth noting that this is an object lesson in how not do deal with an incident of this kind, in any jurisdiction.

John Hicks
August 2, 2004, 04:24 PM
I hate to say it, but if you defend yourself with lethal force, do not talk to the cops. I repeat DO NOT TALK TO THE COPS .

Request council and call your nearest loved one to get an attorney for you. Even if you are completely justified, the statements you make can (and almost always will) be used against you.

How does this apply here? Her lawyer would have made sure the statement was simple and to the point -- emphasized the immenent danger and noted the regret for loss of life. Instead, she gave too much information and now opens the door for second guessing, by unfortunately, the prosecution.

This advice is not from me, it is from the attorney who gave a short lecture at my CCW class (mandated by VA). No matter how hard it is for you, shut up, accept the ride to the police station, and let a lawyer sort it out. That's what they do and it can be the difference between getting a medal and 5 years for manslaughter.

jh

Mk VII
August 2, 2004, 04:38 PM
On the face of it, she's toast, given that he'd stopped attacking her and was sitting in the car preparing to make his getaway. At that point it stops being self-defence and starts being revenge. Security guards have no more powers than any other citizen; police officers are in a different situation here, having a general obligation to apprehend wrongdoers. Playing cop like this can get you into big trouble.
From the sound of her reaction to it all she was in the wrong job anyway.

Butch
August 2, 2004, 04:59 PM
Yep, she beat herself up broke her own wrist fractured her own skull , just so she could shoot this little darling.
Come on this scumbag asked for a good killing & he got it.
Ever heard of Jury nulification?:rolleyes:

Mk VII
August 2, 2004, 05:45 PM
if it ever gets to court the judge would say, (if you asked him), "this is a court of law, not a court of morals. 'Deserved it' is not good enough."

John Hicks
August 2, 2004, 06:10 PM
Unless it was in Texas, where the judge would issue you some ammo to reimburse the expenditure. :D

But you're right, in a court of law, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven

robert sherman
August 2, 2004, 06:17 PM
I hope there's one decent juror who knows the difference between right and wrong. I also hope the civil side doesn't ruin her life. She is a hero and at the least, innocent.

Bob Sherman

Grey54956
August 2, 2004, 06:47 PM
Well, the argument for self defense could go like this:

1.) Robber obviously tried to kill her, based on the extent of her injuries.

2.) Robber gets into stolen car.

3.) Victim of savage beating interprets this as an attempt to run her over with said car, as opposed to get away.

4.) Point #3 supported by point #1. Had robber merely intended to rob her, he could have simply demanded the money using the threat of violence. However, since violent attack was committed before the robber siezed money, one could interpret his primary intention as murder, with the secondary intention of robbery. Thus:

5.) Victim shoots her attacker, who intends on making her the victim of vehicular homicide, in self-defense.



...maybe the US needs to launch a mission to free Australians from an oppressive regime.

Rebeldon
August 2, 2004, 08:23 PM
Wow...the wussy ratio is way to high is Australia! I can't believe she's being charged for murder. She should be given a freakin' medal. Australia has been feminized! When will the real men stand up?

agricola
August 3, 2004, 01:52 AM
John Hicks,

She hasnt spoke to the cops (or hadnt at the time those articles were written), those comments of hers have been freely made to the media, and in exchange for money. I gather she has done now, and has been charged and released on what sounds like a very wishy bail:

http://www.bordermail.com.au/newsflow/pageitem?page_id=771923

Grey,

again, she could have said those things but didnt and one would imagine that when she raises those things in her defence, she will be asked to account for the difference - it wont be very hard at all for the prosecutor to make her into a liar for the jury.

John Hicks
August 3, 2004, 09:08 AM
I guess my point on this story is the same as your comments to Grey:

talking to the press (especially in an emotional state -- who wouldn't be) is just as bad as talking to the cops: they are both ammo for the prosecution.

It sounds like cowardice, but hiding behind a lawyer/spokesperson may be the only way to protect yourself BECAUSE it is only the law and not right-and-wrong that matters.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse the issue, my main point was she should have shut up until the legal matters were sorted out.

jh

Jarhed
August 3, 2004, 10:43 AM
Can't imagine they could convince a jury to convict her. Ausies are not exactly French afterall. As looney as America is, I'm still glad I live here, cause this wouldn't be an issue here. Now if she was a real cop in LA or Miami, now thats another story assuming the perp is black......

Shalako
August 3, 2004, 12:55 PM
You should always flee. FLEE!! Run for your lives!!

No, wait....

Severe headwounds are often lethal. This was severe enough to fracture the skull and eye socket, aka major head trauma. The guy tried to bash her brains in for chrissakes. As far as the gal knew, she sustained a mortal wound, right?

If I sustained a mortal wound, I wouldn't just curtsey and offer my assailant a nice cup of tea....

TheEgg
August 3, 2004, 03:58 PM
Like the UK, our "self-defence" horror stories are, when you get down to the facts of the case, not horror stories at all.

Depends on your point of view ol' chap. Even after you have "edumacated" me about the facts, I still shudder at some of these cases.

The law should serve the people. What kind of service is the law doing to the people if it prosecutes and/or convicts this poor woman? Is society going to somehow be safer because she goes to jail for a few years? Whose interests will be served if she is tried/convicted? I would submit that the interests of Australia's society will be damaged in this case, not served.

The danger to society (the robber, if you can't tell) has been eliminated. Be thankful about that and let this woman go on with her life.

The propensity for courts to 'monday-morning-quarterback' events like this is sickening. There is a world of difference between having days, weeks, months to decide what one should have done, and lying on the ground, severely injured, and trying to fight for your life, with only seconds to make your move. Any court that does not try to judge from the point of view of the victim, but instead applies some sort of arbitrary legal standard, is not worth spit.

WilderBill
August 3, 2004, 10:58 PM
I think she needs to be severly repremanded ...
for failure to shot him sooner.

The police should be charged as accomplises to an armed robbery for even suggesting that an armed gaurd should not be protecting both herself and the assets she was paid to protect. :scrutiny:

Orthonym
August 4, 2004, 10:17 AM
I thought EVERYBODY had a general obligation to apprehend wrongdoers. Ya' know, Hue and Cry, etc? The guy had obviously already committed two Common Law (that is, real) felonies; attempted murder and armed robbery. The woman thought she was fixin' to die. Back when English justice was still such, before those annoying Normans arrived, no one would have complained about something like this.

agricola
August 4, 2004, 10:20 AM
orthynym,

i think if this incident had happened before the Normans had arrived they would have burnt her as a witch :P

mephisto
August 4, 2004, 12:16 PM
Whoever serves as her council needs to use the fact the she recived serious trauma to the head. It seems that there might be some permanent damage to this lady and to her brain. So if there is some long lasting damage you could only imagine that she was not in a rational state during the encounter.

Mk VII
August 4, 2004, 02:09 PM
I thought EVERYBODY had a general obligation to apprehend wrongdoers.
Might have been the case before the general establishment of police forces in the 1850s. Since then justice systems have become sharply skewed towards letting the police take care of enforcement

wizard of oz
August 4, 2006, 12:25 PM
Aquitted by jury today.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/im-glad-its-over-robbers-killer-freed/2006/08/04/1154198328984.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20023564-2702,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20022118-661,00.html

"Outside the court, the Crown prosecutor, Paul Conlon, SC, said he was not disappointed by the verdict." :) Thank God for the common sense of the average person.

TexasRifleman
August 4, 2006, 12:28 PM
Thank God for the common sense of the average person.

Wow. Now if we could just have common sense from the average prosecutor.

Zundfolge
August 4, 2006, 12:32 PM
Yes this type of nonsense is coming soon to your hometown if it has not all ready.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, thats why more states are passing "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws and we're down to only TWO states that completely ban CCW.


Just because Austrailia, England (and for that matter California) are going to hell in a handbasked doesn't mean the rest of the States are headed that way too.

orangelo
August 4, 2006, 12:34 PM
Australia is a nation of criminals, founded by criminals, and now as we can see still ruled by criminals.

What can you expect of a nation founded by english rejects? Take the british subject mindset and then add criminal tendencies and populate a whole country with em, that's what you get. The particularly ruthless criminals rise to the top and take positions of power and charge people with murder for protecting themselves or their property.

At least some of the regular people there still have a little sense left in them.

wizard of oz
August 4, 2006, 12:41 PM
:confused: I don't think you read the articles. This decision was good news for us law enforcement/security types here. There was incredible community support for this woman.

I must say that I object to all Australians being labelled as a criminals ! (Another name for my blocklist)

orangelo
August 4, 2006, 12:45 PM
Maybe she had incredible community support but the criminals in charge still wanted to imprison her for murder.

Rockrivr1
August 4, 2006, 12:48 PM
They had to aquite her. If they didn't they might as well put up a sign declaring open season on any security guard protecting something valuable. Attacks like this would skyrocket.

Thefabulousfink
August 4, 2006, 01:33 PM
From her account in the article I would make these two assumptions:

1. To the outside observer it would look like the threat of violence had stoped and she was not LEGALLY justified in shooting the BG. However, given the extent to which she was beaten, the severity of her injuries, and the fact that she was dragged halfway to the car before the BG released her, it would be difficult if not impossible for her to tell if the threat to her life had ended.

2. I agree with John Hicks, the first person she should have talked to was her lawyer (barister) and after that, the police. Going straight to the media, I fear will only hurt her case.

Creeping Incrementalism
August 4, 2006, 01:43 PM
"Even the prosecutor was not disappointed"? Were the DA (or, the Australian equivalent) and the mugger's dad the ones hoping for conviction? Maybe the explanation is the prosecutor knew never had a chance of conviction with such a BS case.

Also, that's either luck or excellent shooting, getting a headshot after being hit in the head yourself that hard.

Going straight to the media, I fear will only hurt her case.


Generally that's sound advice, but in a case like this where everyone and his dog would call it a righteous shooting, I think there's an exception. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet she only did so on the advice of her lawyer.

carebear
August 4, 2006, 01:55 PM
I'm glad it's over: robber's killer freed

Guard not guilty in shooting

Bashed guard thanks jury

These are the headlines from each of the news links on the aquittal. Nice the way the first (Sydney Morning Herald) prioritizes who was the "victim".

She got off essentially by claiming she shot him unconsciously in reaction. Neatly sidestepping the "anger or revenge" portion of the charge. The defense rested, more or less, on a "temporary insanity" claim bolstered by experts.

That is hardly a win for self-defense theory or jurisprudence. Remember Mireles killed Platt by staggering up to the car, barely conscious, AFTER Platt was back in the car trying to leave, no longer an active threat to him or any of the other agents. He could have just crawled for help as well. Must have been a "autonomic response" on his part.

After all, maybe the poor dear Platt would have, as I'm sure the yob in Oz would have, had a change of heart a few blocks away and sworn off trying to kill people forever. But instead they were both savagely, vengefully cut down in their prime. And they both probably liked puppys to boot. :barf:

Phetro
August 4, 2006, 01:57 PM
Oops--didn't realize this was older until I read the last post! Very glad she was acquitted though!

Creeping Incrementalism
August 4, 2006, 02:10 PM
Remember Mireles killed Platt by staggering up to the car, barely conscious, AFTER Platt was back in the car trying to leave, no longer an active threat to him or any of the other agents.

Someone previously mentioned the law is different for sworn law enforcement in this matter.

unspellable
August 4, 2006, 02:43 PM
I'm not saying this is the law by any stretch, but it should be.

If there is a uniformed guard openly carrying a weapon there should be an a priori presumption that the guard has the weapon to defend what ever is guarded. It follows that the guard should be allowed the use of lethal force to prevent the loss of the guarded object even if there is no threat to the guard's own life.

In other words, if you try to heist an armed guard, you should d**n well expect getting your a*s shot off to be a hazard that goes with the job.

carebear
August 4, 2006, 02:48 PM
I'm aware of the legal differences in the US.

There is a moral and ethical component that laws should be careful not to hinder. The victim or anyone else hunting the guy down a week later is revenge. Chasing his car down the street and catching him at a light and putting one in his cranium is revenge.

The victim immediately staggering a few feet to an unmoving car to apprehend him from leaving the scene of a brutal felony (no chance of mistaken ID, no question the crime was committed) and using a proportionate level of force (deadly) that happened to result in death is in no way "vengeance", it is a practical and reasonable response.

The law as written left no wiggle room for such a reasonable explanation of her actions given the totality of the circumstances. She instead had to claim to be mentally deficient to be aquitted. That's bad law.

GhostRider66
August 4, 2006, 02:57 PM
Aggravating to be sure but I notice that we have not heard from the "nothing-that-they-can-steal-is-worth-a-human-life" crowd here. Heck, there's even a Sticky about that under Tactics. Interesting perspective but despite the beating, the person was just fleeing with a paltry sum of money so by the stated logic, the security guard did not act appropriately. In fact, it could be said that she acted out of petty vengeance. This will probably be my last post here but my feeling on it has been: The TV or stereo may not be worth a human life but if this person is allowed to escape, he or she may kill or severely injure someone the next time. These criminals are rabid animals. No more, no less. You and I may not think it's apt justice to have one of them die for a petty crime but life and reality are a bit harsher than that. And that is exactly how it ought to be.

Mk VII
August 4, 2006, 03:14 PM
The TV or stereo may not be worth a human life but if this person is allowed to escape, he or she may kill or severely injure someone the next time.

That is not her concern. Making it her concern moves her from the theatre of 'self-defence against an immediate threat to one's life' to the theatre of 'playing cop'

Baba Louie
August 4, 2006, 03:19 PM
Australia is a nation of criminals, founded by criminals, and now as we can see still ruled by criminals.A lot like America in that regards, neh? And that's a good thing methinks. Well, except for being ruled by criminals... but you're only as strong as your enemies...
If there is a uniformed guard openly carrying a weapon there should be an a priori presumption that the guard has the weapon to defend what ever is guarded.I guess I'll take the position that GhostRider66 speaks so eloquently of... she, as an armed guard, carried a gun to protect and defend her life, not to protect, how did you put it Ghost, oh yeah, a paltry sum of money, and she put her skill and used her weapon to good effect while on near blind staggering autopilot. Quite a woman.
Glad her predecessors were convicts (maybe they were, maybe they weren't).
Glad the jury found her not guilty.
Too bad (for he and his family) her assailant chose his line of work and her as a victim that day in 2004.
Here's to hoping she lives happily ever after and writes a zillion dollar book/screenplay about the ordeal.

gunsmith
August 4, 2006, 03:45 PM
when I was an armed guard for the cable cars, she told me she thought it was murder because the bad guy had left the scene and was no longer beating anyone up....She asked me when am I allowed to shoot people & I told her
"oh, when I'm in a bad mood or have a hangover"
She decided to take the bus instead:cool:

carebear
August 4, 2006, 03:56 PM
MK VII,

This case aside, since I think it's pretty clear cut a self-defense issue not a "playing cops" one.

I assume there's no remaining legal ability for a private citizen to even attempt to make a citizen's arrest of a known felon using reasonable force in Australia?

It isn't "playing cops and robbers" :rolleyes: its good old English Common Law, the moral duty of a citizen in any culture, and enshrined in statute in many parts of the US.

Looking at it from that perspective (citizen's arrest) instead of a "self defense" one, the question before the jury should then have been to simply decide the reasonability of the force used in making the arrest given the totality of the circumstances.

If that optional tack for the defense to have taken as an affirmative defense is missing, there is another gaping hole in the law.

Again, bad law.

The problem here isn't the cops or the prosecutors or even a stupid AG, it's all of the above being hampered by poorly conceived and written criminal codes. All of the government actors are more or less trapped by the law as written into acting a certain way and informing the jury to only consider certain things. Which leaves those being tried with a suite of poor and worse options from which to choose their active defense.

jondar
August 4, 2006, 04:37 PM
About four years ago, a frail 70 something year old man checked into a local motel by himself. He had apparently been noticed by a young thug and his female companion. Tbe thug followed the man to his room, knocked on the door and when the man opened the door he was punched in the face and knocked down, Unbeknownst to the thug, the man was carrying and had a permit from another state. He drew and dispatched the thug with three shots. When the thug's female companion was questioned, she, apparently in a rage that her paramour was no more, said he had only gone to the man's room to buy drugs as the man had agreed to sell to them. It took only fifteen minutes for the police to determine this was a case of robbery, and when confronted, the girl broke down and confessed they were trying to rob the man. So it may be a case of rage against the one that killed their relative that prompts survivors to come up with these ridiculous statements.

geekWithA.45
August 4, 2006, 04:57 PM
This was posted up @ Kim duToit's site:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/04/1154198328984.html

hso
August 4, 2006, 05:08 PM
nevermind

carebear
August 4, 2006, 05:08 PM
geekwitha.45,

Didja catch how? Basically, she got off on being temporarily insane (mentally incapacitated) from the beating and acting "autonomically".

Not for being right or wrong for shooting the guy. The self-defense issue wasn't even addressed.

Hutch
August 4, 2006, 05:33 PM
From Mk VII That is not her concern Yes, it is. She had the means to end his murderous rampage, and should be regarded as a hero for doing so. This was not revenge, this was an act of protection for society. I thought y'all Brits were real keen on that... you know, doing your bit an all. She should not have to buy her own pint for the rest of her life.

JohnBT
August 4, 2006, 07:35 PM
"Interesting perspective but despite the beating, the person was just fleeing with a paltry sum of money so by the stated logic, the security guard did not act appropriately."
___________________________________________________________

I disagree. He scambled her brains so she gets a pass. You beat somebody in the head hard enough to break bones you ARE going to give them a concussion if not a more serious traumatic brain injury and you become responsible if they turn on you or if they wander out into traffic and are killed.

Having worked with individuals with head injuries for more than 30 years I'll summarize my experience by saying that a head injury can produce quite unpredictable behavior - especially at the time of the injury if it doesn't kill them or knock them cold.

So, he busted her head in a couple of places and she fought back even though she was out on her feet and probably couldn't have recited the alphabet or her best friend's phone number. If he didn't want to take the chance she'd fight back when injured he shouldn't have hit her in the head. Maybe he should have tried something safer - like shoplifting.

John

halfmile
August 4, 2006, 08:38 PM
Drag him out of the car and state he was attacking.

Shouldn't be a problem. too bad in this ultra left world we have to think about covering our butt that way.

HM

Hawkmoon
August 4, 2006, 09:32 PM
Someone should muzzle those people. Yeah, I suppose that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, but the Founding Fathers obviously overlooked the codicile requiring people who exercise their 1st Amendment rights to engage the brain before putting the mouth in gear.
I disagree.

I firmly believed that the Founding Fathers fully intended for stupid people to be afforded every opportunity to publicly display their stupidity, for all the world to see.

Hawkmoon
August 4, 2006, 09:46 PM
"Outside the court, the Crown prosecutor, Paul Conlon, SC, said he was not disappointed by the verdict."
Anybody got an e-mail address for Mr. Crown Prosecutor Conlon? What an idjit. If the bloody fool was not disappointed she was acquitted, and if as in another story he feels sympathy for her -- they why 'n 'ell did he persecute her? (Note: Yes, I bloody well can spell "prosecute," and if he didn't believe in what he was doing, then what he was doing was "persecuting," not "prosecuting.")

Don Gwinn
August 4, 2006, 09:58 PM
That is not her concern. Making it her concern moves her from the theatre of 'self-defence against an immediate threat to one's life' to the theatre of 'playing cop'

I realize you may just be trying to show us how your legal system would see it, but what a truly frightening point of view.

Here's a felon who just tried his level best to kill me. By some miracle, he failed, and I stand here armed while he's escaping to continue his career of trying to kill people. But it's not my concern, so I'd better start tending to my wounds and dial 911.


You know, I had a small house fire last summer. I used my garden hose to control it until the firemen arrived. They did not chastise me for "playing firefighter."

cngerms
August 5, 2006, 01:56 AM
Outside the court, the Crown prosecutor, Paul Conlon, SC, said he was not disappointed by the verdict. = I actually did vote FOR the $87 billion before I voted AGAINST it. Sound familiar?

Anybody got an e-mail address for Mr. Crown Prosecutor Conlon? What an idjit. If the bloody fool was not disappointed she was acquitted, and if as in another story he feels sympathy for her -- they why 'n 'ell did he persecute her? (Note: Yes, I bloody well can spell "prosecute," and if he didn't believe in what he was doing, then what he was doing was "persecuting," not "prosecuting.") I guess he was trying her just for prosecutorial practice. Maybe his murder quota was low for this fiscal year. "Hey, what's a blackmark on my resume. I gotta get my numbers up."

mindwip
August 5, 2006, 03:49 AM
Thats sick just sick, i always love it when i hear just run away, run away to the cops, run away, yeah as she is being draged sure she can run,:banghead:

Drizzt
August 5, 2006, 09:00 AM
You know, I had a small house fire last summer. I used my garden hose to control it until the firemen arrived. They did not chastise me for "playing firefighter."

I like that one..... :cool:

PATH
August 5, 2006, 11:47 AM
The Doctor said she was lucid yet did not find that she had broken bones in her face and a concussion?

I am glad she was acquitted. Personally I'd pin a medal on her.

enfield
August 5, 2006, 07:07 PM
I'd give her a medal.

Sheldon J
August 5, 2006, 08:40 PM
I'd give her a medal.

and a reward for offing a true POS and threat to society.:neener:
These people are insane and should be in an instution for the criminal act of adding to her grief and duress.:barf:

White Horseradish
August 6, 2006, 12:06 AM
Good for her that she got acquitted. Still, I find that Agricola is quite right in saying that this is NOT the way to handle oneself after a defensive shooting. Keeping one's mouth shut is a good idea, and that means not publishing your story in the papers until the case is decided. This could have gone very wrong...

mountainclmbr
August 6, 2006, 12:46 AM
Leftists will usually side with evil. I don't know if this is the case here, but I would bet on it if it is legal in their state.

justashooter
August 6, 2006, 01:39 AM
seems that the attacker had placed the shooter in his car after commiting a "heinous crime against the body". in this event, her life is still evidently in danger. in this event she is validated in using "reasonable force" to save her own life.

i call this a good shoot.

bumm
August 6, 2006, 12:55 PM
I remembered this case, and read the thread to see why it hadn't been locked as a "revived old thread." I couldn't BELIEVE that this case was still dragging on! To think that this poor woman was put through two years of legal hell by her own government is astounding! Criminals on the street I can understand. For elected officials to perpetrate an assault like this is incredible.
I've always wanted to see Australia. The hell if I'm ever going there.
Marty

Art Eatman
August 6, 2006, 01:35 PM
This whole deal shows the fuzzy-brained idiocy of Governments:

The woman's duty was to protect the money. The government had authorized her to use deadly force as part of her duty--or she could not, legally, have had the firearm. If she was not to use it, why was she authorized to have it?

She was attacked and rendered partially helpless by a perp who was willing to kill. She recovered sufficiently to fulfill her obllgation to her duty as a security officer. She used the only means possible, which coincidently removed further threat to anybody else who might attempt to recover the money--which includes other law-enforcement personnel.

Who but one who is seriously intellectually challenged could regard her action as "revenge" or "retaliation", as was charged to the jury?

Pardon me. I gotta go "barf". Count me as another non-tourist to "down under".

Art

Don Gwinn
August 6, 2006, 11:50 PM
I'll certainly agree with Agricola here. There's no good reason to go out to the media instead of talking to the police. If your lawyer says not to talk to the police, that's one thing--but if your lawyer says "Let's go talk to this newspaper instead" alarm bells should go off.

I doubt that was her lawyer's idea, though.

Firethorn
August 7, 2006, 07:32 AM
Bumm, welcome to the truth of legal action in most of the world. It takes months/years to do anything.

Truth be told, I don't really mind if lethal self defense cases go before the prosecuter or grand jury. After all, somebody is dead, even if they turn out to be a goblin who attacked the 'wrong' person.

Still, money can be saved if the police present the evidence to the prosecuter and the prosecuter decides 'welp, it's an easy self defense case for the defense, I'm not going to waste my budget trying to prosecute', or better yet: 'it's an obvious case of self defense to me, so I'm going to serve the law and justice best by not prosecuting.'

unspellable
August 7, 2006, 09:01 AM
I don't see much point in boycotting Australia over this since we have the same sort of crap right here in the good ole USA

Erebus
August 7, 2006, 09:28 AM
The convicted criminal then dragged her across the bitumen towards a stolen getaway car before she could release a bag containing between $30,000 and $50,000 in hotel takings.
I ain't waiting to find out if he dragged me out there to run me over.

Outside the court, the Crown prosecutor, Paul Conlon, SC, said he was not disappointed by the verdict
This tells me he knew he wasn't going to win and put her through it anyway.

I don't think deadly force is justified to protect possessions no matter the value. Weapons that can be turned on you are an exception.

I think the comments about Australia being a nation of criminals was inappropriate to The High Road.

Going to the press before talking to police was foolish. Shoot, get lawyer, talk to police. sign book deal, get Angelina Jolie to play you in movie adaption for assured success. This would have been what I would have done if I were her.

Father Knows Best
August 7, 2006, 11:25 AM
Outside the court, the Crown prosecutor, Paul Conlon, SC, said he was not disappointed by the verdict.

This happens a lot more than you might realize. It is sometimes very difficult to be a prosecutor. The prosecutor supposedly represents the State or the People. His or her job is to diligently pursue their interests. Unfortunately, those interests may often be unclear. It becomes a political determination. If there are vocal elements of the community on both sides of the debate, then the safest route for the prosecutor is to bring the charges and let a jury decide. In addition, prosecutor's offices are usually made up of LOTS of assistant prosecutors. Each one has to try the cases they are given. In this case, Mr. Conlon may well have had personal sympathy for the defendant, but he had to do his job and represent his client to the best of his ability. He would be subject to disbarment if he did not.

I know quite a few prosecutors. They've all had to take cases in which they secretly hoped the defendant would walk. In most of them, they were successful in convincing higher ups to dismiss, or to offer pleas for greatly reduced charges.

Carl N. Brown
August 7, 2006, 01:17 PM
August 1st, 2004, 03:02 PM # 1
Woman security guard nearly beayen to death, shoots robber.
August 1st, 2004, 03:08 PM # 2
Victim charged with murder of robber.

August 4th, 2006, 12:25 PM # 48
Finally, victom axquited of murder.

Following a self-defense shooting, you do not make lengthy
statements to the police and especially not to the press.

Sheriff "Buster" Brown pointed out to me that if you are
honestly in fear of your life, the adrenaline fight-or-flight
syndrome is going to change your perception of time
"it all happened in slow motion like a dream" and your
recall is going to be out-of-sync: you will flash over
important details, recall them later and end up on the
witness stand sounding like a liar. Let your lawyer
talk to the press and to the police.

Why that woman's lawyer ley her talk to the press is the
most puzzling aspect for me: she had suspected brain
damage, but the lawyer did not have that excuse.
The press are not going to report accurately: they
sell papers with sensationalism. Talking to reporters
in that situation is like donating rope to a lynch mob.

GhostRider66
August 7, 2006, 02:25 PM
The woman's duty was to protect the money. The government had authorized her to use deadly force as part of her duty--or she could not, legally, have had the firearm. If she was not to use it, why was she authorized to have it?

What still bothers me is that her actions were in contradiction with the definitions of proper use of deadly force given in this Sticky:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205304

Specifically:

These are the Strategies and Tactics forum's rules for employment of deadly force:

Deadly force will only be used to prevent the immediate use of force that could cause death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.

She did exactly what we are told not to advise or advocate yet most of us agree that given the situation, she acted appropriately. And that seems to be the trouble. Most situations in life don't meet the criteria for an orderly, legally-sound decision to be made.

ccw9mm
August 7, 2006, 02:39 PM
What still bothers me is that her actions were in contradiction with the definitions of proper use of deadly force ...
Hm. Reading the original post it's hard to undertstand just what degree of damage she had a "duty" to sustain, if getting her head kicked in, face broken and related damage wasn't sufficient. Any more delay, or any less force, and she might well not have been able to defend herself or been killed. Hence, the concepts of Castle Doctrine, no-duty-to-retreat and other sane provisions we're seeing more of.

carebear
August 7, 2006, 02:57 PM
The reason we talk about "immediate" threats is to prevent folks using the "he was a threat yesterday" or "he may be a threat tomorrow" justifications for killing someone, or to go a-huntin' for the man who done shot my pa.

The problem is that, contextually and reasonably, "immediate" doesn't mean "this very second", it means "in the present time and place". The absolute second an armed robber turns to (perhaps) run away doesn't end the threat. The robber being 20-30 feet (2-3) seconds away and still running, with no attempt to re-engage, might.

We should always look at the totality of the circumstance and the overall time involved of a deadly force situation. By getting too precious about what constitutes an "immediate" threat we can make the use of deadly force a practical, justifiable impossibility. Many prosecutors unfortunately don't seem to need any help with that.

example:

"So the robber's gun, at the moment you drew and fired, was not pointed directly at you and in fact the robber was looking away?"

"Well, yes, I had thrown my wallet down to distract him so I could draw to defend myself."

"Defend yourself Mr. bear? Don't you mean so you could execute this alleged robber, when he had in fact turned away and was no longer an immediate threat? Why, even if he had become aware of your ambush and fired back, by your own words his gun was not pointed at you and thus you were at no immediate risk."

Joe7cri
August 7, 2006, 03:07 PM
I understand why you shouldn't go the press after a self defense shooting, but I think it may have helped her.

You are better off providing the press with your side of the story, and your details of what happened before the DA can talk with the press. This can help sway public opinion to your side before the DA comes out with a statement that you are being charged with murder for shooting a robber who did not have a firearm, while he was fleeing the scene and conveniently forgetting to mention that he almost beat you to death.

orionengnr
August 7, 2006, 06:27 PM
Two frickin' years, almost to the day.

Talk about the wheels of justice turning slowly. Was she in custody the whole time? If so, I hope she sues the powdered wigs off of those fools.

unspellable
August 8, 2006, 10:04 AM
It still seems to me there should be a distinction between a uniformed guard who is carrying openly and an ordinary civilian. The whole point of the guard is to protect the money. Since the guard is uniformed and carrying openly any would be robber is forewarned and proceeds at his own risk. If the guard cannot protect the money then why have a guard? It would make more sense to have the money secretly carried by a non-uniformed individual.

wizard of oz
August 12, 2006, 09:39 PM
No, she was not uniformed and was carrying concealed with a permit. It is likely that the robber didn't realize she was armed. Of course she wasn't in custody for those 2 years before the trial. There were many fund raisers to help with her legal fees. I won't bother explaining the law in this state, but the prosecutor had little option but to charge her. Every ordinary citizen I have spoken to was disgusted at her treatment by the authorities and agree that she should be given a medal. The jury's decision obviously reflected this. The defense team obviously used the 'automatism' approach as the easiest and surest route to her acquittal.

No reason not to visit Australia - among the safest and most pro-US country in the world. (and we speak the same language - sort of) Where else is there a rifle range in a location like this within 20 minutes drive of the CBD ? http://www.randwickcitytourism.com.au/sights/anzac.htm

Kevlarman
February 6, 2007, 11:32 AM
Not really meaning to revive this thread, but how come nobody told me there was a rifle range right outside of the CBD? I spent 3 weeks in Oz in December without a gun fix! :neener:

scurtis_34471
February 6, 2007, 12:33 PM
I don't know about other states, but citizens in Florida can use deadly force to stop a felony in progress. The guy was still on the scene with the money. That makes it a robbery in progress. If that happened here, I seriously doubt there would have been a prosecution. Add to that the fact that he beat her senseless and though she was down for the count and you have a situation where she had a legitimate concern he would try to run her down on the way out. Either way, I don't see a Florida prosecuter going after her. If this happened in a Blue state, all bets are off.

AJAX22
February 6, 2007, 01:00 PM
"They're saying he's a rotten dangerous criminal and he's not. He's lovable," he said.

A rabid dog can still be 'lovable' but that doesn't mean you can't take ol yeller out behind the barn and inject lead into his cranium.

Carl N. Brown
February 13, 2007, 04:34 PM
One, knuckle duster is a prohibited weapon under Tennessee's
going armed statute and would not gain you any brownie points
against a victim defending herself with a pistol with a legal permit.
That said, the victim-defender would still probably be charged with
voluntary manslaughter, which would usually not be adjudicated
until at least the grand jury level.

How the heck the FBI shows ~170 justifiable homicides per year
from uniform crine reports (which do not reflect adjudication) is
a mystery. Gary Kleck estimated under 3,000 justifiable homicides
by shooting after adjudication. Marvin Wolfgang wrote that when
where such statistics were kept, 20 to 30 percent were eventually
adjudicated justifiable.

Most US justifiable homicides appear to be charged initially as
voluntary manslaughter.

PILMAN
February 13, 2007, 04:47 PM
This is really sad that the womans being brought up on murder charges, disgusts me.

PinoyInFL
February 13, 2007, 05:36 PM
The lady was found not guilty!

http://www.peterclack.com.au/view_article.php?id=18&PHPSESSID=ddec31d353d032072e525e57cce889bb

- oops, should've checked in the previous pages. Sorry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why I killed the robber (have to read this to believe it)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!