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

[Don Gwinn]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

 

[PATH]

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]

I'd give her a medal.

 

[Sheldon J]

I'd give her a medal.

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

 

[White Horseradish]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Don't visit Australia?

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]

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]

The Prosecutor

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Uniformed guard

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]

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