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

[orangelo]

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]

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]

Maybe she had incredible community support but the criminals in charge still wanted to imprison her for murder.

 

[Rockrivr1]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

 

[Phetro]

Oops--didn't realize this was older until I read the last post! Very glad she was acquitted though!

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

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]

guards

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I met an Aussie tourist in SF

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

 

[carebear]

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" 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]

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]

She was found innocent.

This was posted up @ Kim duToit's site:

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

 

[hso]

nevermind

 

[carebear]

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]

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]

"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]

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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"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.")