Runner. Arthur N has given a discription of autism, and I myself have worked with Autistic students, whom also suffered with hearing impairment.

We do not know the full details of this appalling tragedy, and for you to classify the victim as a deviant, not only degrades yourself by your selective indifference to humanity. It also demeans your so called religous faith!

I completely agree with this article, but I do think it's high time the gay male community dispensed with 'beats' in public places.

They developed when there were few other opportunities for gay men to....well, you know, but in 2008, with many venues set up for this very purpose, to continue to use public places like toilet blocks is kind of disgusting.

It also feeds into the homophobic nonsense runner is so infamous for.

From the evidence both men went there together, consumed more alcohol together. The younger of the two had the knife, maybe his intention was to have M2M sex. We can`t get the other participants side of it, he is dead.Only violent people carry knives, that`s why it is illegal.

How would this read with a slightly different context and a rewording

"The particular legal defence employed in this case is called the Religious Advance Defence (or the RAD). Surfacing in Australian criminal jurisdictions in the early 1990s, the basic premise of the RAD is that if a religious man makes an unwanted theological advance towards an athiest man, he is “provoking” that man. So, should a athiest man respond by killing that religious man, the RAD can be engaged to have the charges reduced from murder to manslaughter."

Nope that still looks like murder.

R0bert

david f, are you serious?

ALL
runner ignores that 18 is the age of Majority (Legally a man not Boy). i.e. he can go to war, he can drink, he can drive a car, he can vote on who runs this country surely we can expect him to be accountable for his actions i.e. Killing a human.

If they had been drinking together and had gone to the toilet together. It strikes me that as odd that the younger DIDN’T figure that the other was gay. In which case the knife presence presents problems.

A possible option is that either one or both were street people then the knife as protection maybe explained.

What isn't known is what (if any) medical/psychiatric conditions (addictions etc) does the defendant have?
Without the afore mentioned conditions one must then examine the alleged naivety of the young man in both the orientation of the deceased and the nature toilet. Any doubt about the naivety must then make the defendants cast doubt on the defence.

If the younger man as claimed naively went into the beat as claimed and was propositioned, touched attacked etc then the presence of the knife and what it may indicate is the issue. Either:
- The younger was expecting trouble
-or has a violent Personality and had an ulterior motive (2008 version of Poofter bashing).
- The elder had the knife and was the aggressor and had been stabbed in a struggle. In which case ‘self defence’ would have been appropriate.

This leads me to my favoured scenario in which the 18yo was attacked an in the struggle the he got control of the knife and repeatedly stabbed the older. THEN 'HAD' may have been his best defence option.
I’m curious why reasonable force (or lack there of) wasn’t an issue or discarded?

But we don’t know.

Sleuthing aside I agree the whole HAD defence is BS. Not only for its gender bias but for the simple factor that it justifies the lack of personal responsibility (killing) on a basis of a religiously initiated irrational fear. What’s next? Justification for killing Muslims?