Australian woman acquitted of murder in "sniper" style killing

[ElTacoGrande]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...itted-of-murder/2006/03/03/1141191853998.html

Complex issues in this type of case. Also it's interesting to see in the context of Oz' recent gun control laws.

 

[Stebalo]

So let me get this straight...It's damn near illegal to own a gun in Australia but not to commit premeditated murder with one?

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

While it was premeditated. It was not premeditated murder. It was a preemptive strike!

If it was just the lovely lady, she could have walked. While to many women in her situation, "just walking" doesn't seem like an option, but it was. But her kids were involved. If she walks, he can dangle their offspring as a weapon. I wasn't at the trial, so I don't know, but it sounds like kill or be killed. Chances are I would have acquitted, given just this snipet of details from the case.

Granted, looking at this from the perspective of Australia's ideas of gun ownership, I would say the idiots from the gun control groups will point to this man as an example of why the proles shouldn't have guns, and pass right over the fact that this woman's only chance was the equalizer of a good rifle.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

So let me get this straight...It's damn near illegal to own a gun in Australia but not to commit premeditated murder with one?

Yeah, isn't that strange? I'm 99% certain that she would be charged and convicted of Murder 1 in the US, with special circumstances thrown in (lying in wait, use of a firearm) and she would probably be eligible for a ride on Old Sparky.

It sounds like a lot of the abuse she suffered was psychological pain because the guy was a jerk ("You can't have sugar in your tea!"). But in the US that wouldn't do her much good in getting away with murder. I think here she would have a defence if there was serious physical abuse, serious and documented death threats, trips to the ER with injuries, that kind of thing. But just 'cause the guy's a jerk and is mean to her and maybe pushes her around? That's not a "get away with murder" card, not in the US.

Whatever, it is STRANGE. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe she just had a fantasticly good lawyer and the prosecutor bungled it and the jury pool has its own randomness.

Edited to add: As always in these situations, we don't know the full reasoning behind the jury's decision unless we had seen everything the jury had seen, so anything I say about it is just my speculation and thoughts. Maybe if I had seen everything the jury had seen and understood it within the context, I would have come to the same conclusion. And cultural context is important. For example I heard that in Australia, turning a glass upside down and placing it on the bar is a challenge to fight anyone in the bar (don't know if it's true). In the US no meaning would be attached to that act, but it has a lot of meaning in the Australian context. Threats work the same way. Maybe some of his actions had meaning in the context that the jury saw them in that we can't see.

 

[Rockstar]

This is really simple; no point in "overthinking" this one. The same airheaded Australian "subjects" who ban guns are the same airheaaded Australian "subjects" who sit on juries and wouldn't know murder from a 'roo's hiney.

 

[LAR-15]

Sounds like a good shoot and I bet she would get off in certain areas of the US.

A woman once ambushed her abusive boyfriend, shot him several times and got off that I know of.

 

[gunsmith]

she could have gotten a divorce

she didn't have to stay, he was trying to help her not gain weight thats why he suggested that she not use sugar in her coffee, I wish my dad had me do push up's when I was a kid, I would be better off.
bottom line for me is the dead guy isn't here to defend himself.
the anti gun zealots are also misanthropes to boot.
If a guy in oz shot his abusive wife I will bet a months pay he would get prison.
they are not even allowed to fly the Australian flag on beaches down there because it might upset thugs from other countries.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Hard to say based on one report, but it seems like the mythical Texas "he needed killin'" defense is appropriate to this case.

 

[El Tejon]

Agreed, it appears the "he had it coming" defense was successful.

Remember this is the media and the rarely get anything right. Wait and see.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There is no "he needed killin'" defense in Texas per se. In Texas and several other states, however, abused spouses and children of abusers have killed their abusers and the juries convinced that such acts were justified to preclude almost certain future harm, or that the killings were misguided self defense actions and the living spouse or child convicted of a lessor crime such as aggrevated assault.

The Menendez brothers tried such a defense in California and failed miserably, in large part due to the fact that they didn't have any real evidence of being abused.

 

[Don Gwinn]

It's hard to know anything useful from one press report, but after reading the article, I find it pretty disingenuous of some of you to try to reduce the alleged "abuse" to "well, he didn't let her have sugar in her tea." Read the entire article and see what was actually alleged before making silly statements like that. There was serious sexual abuse alleged.
In particular, one poster claims to know that the husband was "just trying to help her lose weight." I'd love to know how you know that. I suppose you're a family friend, right? Was the painful sexual punishment a loving weight-loss technique as well?


In any case, this is all as alleged. I have to say it's a little scary sometimes how easy it seems to be for a woman to allege abuse and get away with what would otherwise be considered murder. But I wasn't in the jury room and don't know what they considered.

Finally, there's this to consider, with the usual caveat about trusting media reports:
The defense attorney claimed that the prosecutors had to disprove that she was acting in self defense OR under provocation. Does that mean that there is a level of provocation under Australian law that would excuse shooting someone from a blind with premeditation? Or is that attorney just talking?

 

[Biker]

Well, one thing for sure. The dead guy didn't get a chance to defend himself in the courtroom.
Biker

 

[Michael Courtney]

There are some legal subtleties here regarding the distinction between laws that require the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt and laws that require the defense to prove self-defense by the perpnderance of the evidence (the affirmative defense). It appears that this case was an acquittal due to the requirement that the prosecution disprove the self-defense claim. In a jurusdiction that required definitive proof of self-defense, the verdict would have probably been a conviction.

However, we need to separate the alledged spousal abuse claims from justified use of lethal force in self-defense. Most spousal abuse, unless life threatening, does not justify the use of deadly force, however otherwise repugnant it is. One wonders how much actual evidence this woman was able to present in support of her claims of abuse.

But this case is not about guns or abuse so much as it is about whether the burden of proof is with the prosecution or the defense.

Michael Courtney

 

[c_yeager]

It's hard to know anything useful from one press report, but after reading the article, I find it pretty disingenuous of some of you to try to reduce the alleged "abuse" to "well, he didn't let her have sugar in her tea." Read the entire article and see what was actually alleged before making silly statements like that. There was serious sexual abuse alleged.

For one thing the past behavior of the victim has no bearing on wether or not it was a justified shoot.

More importantly this womans defense hinges on the fact that the other side of the story is pushing up daisies. Basically this is a case were a murderer gets off because she killed the only witness who could counter her "justification". I'm sorry, but a person should not be able to put forth a defense that is helped along along by the very crime they are being charged with. This is no different than a rapist being accquited because he killed the victim.

 

[Spiphel Rike]

I'm also a little worried by the jury's decision here. In a country where "self defence is not a reason to own a firearm" a person can be acquitted of murder even though they ambushed their victim :banghead:

Sadly, a bloke doing the same sort of thing to an abusive female would get him put in jail forever. The legal system over here is pretty bad, since this isn't the only time gender has radically changed how "justice" was meted out.

 

[FRIENDLY]

battered wife mess

there have been a number of cases around the world of battered wife syndrome.The man is shot finally when the wife believes she is going to die if she does not stop the man.It has happened in the USA as well and as to Australian gun laws we can still own single shot rifles, bolt action magazine rifles and such just not semi auto shotguns,rifles and handguns.