The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > DV & White Ribbon day – help change the debate

DV & White Ribbon day – help change the debate

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. All
The problem Toni is that one is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence; oven cleaner in spray cans is legal but if one keeps it in the bedroom then it is deemed to be for defence and is illegal.
----
Imperator,

Discussing the means which a woman may use for defence in a thread on domestic violence is entirely relevant.
We have a Government that is allegedly against domestic violence but which resolutely refuses to all potential victims any legal means of defence.
Instead of ranting make a few constructive suggestions.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 11:34:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe posters could read earlier posts.

As stated earlier, the Rosie Batty message that is so crucial that she was awarded an Order of Australia, became the domestic violence icon and guru lauded by feminist elite and media, particularly by their 'fact-checking' ABC, and was invited to address the federal Parliament, IS that:

- Sexual molestation, rape and violence at the hands of 'men' is the lot of women and girls. Every woman fearful for her life and limb. It is ENDEMIC and always increasing. It is inevitable. There is a 'rape culture'. It is 'terrorism'. 'Men' MUST swear against fulfilling their destiny, which is to dominate, control and enslave women (master-slave - feminists' Hegelian dialectic) and generally wreak mayhem where 'Wonderful', blameless, 'Earth Mother' women are concerned.

BUT, and it is a very large 'BUT',

- if the advice being tendered to government is to be believed, the State cannot protect women and girls, not back then, not now and not in the future. The State cannot protect women against the claimed tsunami of violence.

However, if a feral, always a man, invades a woman's home threatening her and in trying to defend herself she injures him even slightly, she will be interrogated by police, held and could be arrested and thrown into court where she will be required to defend herself against a REVERSED standard of proof.

Police and their Prosecutors have considerable leeway in determining what is a 'weapon' and even more leeway in limiting what is a 'reasonable' force.

Where the State obviously cannot protect a woman, it is unreasonable that where she is caused to defend herself she may be charged, required to sell her home for her defence against that reversed standard of proof and could be gaoled.

Sadly it is the criminal that the State has shown it has a duty to protect and leftists have buffed up laws to protect criminals' rights.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 12:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis, "Sorry, what's the problem here?"

The first problem is that you have not familiarised yourself with the laws and their application.

For starters, you are leading with your chin. If you ever (say) caused to defend your own life and loved ones in your home and the feral alleged he was threatened or injured in the process, your friends and acquaintances will be interrogated, your computer will certainly be taken by police and your online record will be scrutinised for any evidence that could be used to incriminate you.

Secondly (and I will leave it at that), you must be astounded that (say) Adrian Bayley's victims were apparently incapable of 'improvising a weapon when they needed one'. [Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 11:08:23 PM]

However, weapon or not is not my concern. In my posts I am only asking for all Australians to have the right to defend themselves in their own home. That the burden of proof is returned to the police and police prosecutor, where it rightfully and usually is in our system of law. It is intolerable that the victims of crime are being re-victimised by the very police and authorities who failed to protect them in the first place.

NSW is the sole jurisdiction that has changed that and thanks to the Australian Shooters and Fishers Party,

<Division 3 Self-defence
418 Self-defence—when available
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the
person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in
self-defence.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the
person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his
or her liberty or the liberty of another person, ..
..
In any criminal proceedings in which the application of this
Division is raised, the prosecution has the onus of proving,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not carry out the
conduct in self-defence.">
[excerpts from Crimes Amendment (Self-defence) Bill 2001, NSW]
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 12:57:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there IS MISE...

The first paragraph of your last thread is quite correct in law. Often well meaning advice given to women to carry a large hat pin as a defensive weapon, technically if caught using said hat pin the woman could run perilously close to being charged, particularly if the original assailant is injured by the hat pin !

I know the law's an absolute ass, and it's frightening to think that your wife, girlfriend even an elderly mother, is prohibited from carrying any object with the intent to protect themselves ? Seems to be all the crooks way when you think about it ?

I recall one of our blokes was confronted by a really curious dilemma; where an alleged 'female' assailant (who just happened to be built like the proverbial 'brick lavatory') when charged with common assault, in her defence claimed the victim became the attacker ! And had savagely 'scored' both sides of the (attackers) face with her long finger nails, thus occasioning substantially injury to her, into the bargain !

It was later contended, the original victim had used more force to defend herself, than was reasonably necessary, thus occasioning undue further injury to the alleged assailant. I'm unaware of the outcome other than it became quite 'messy' with Barrister's on both sides, earning a good quid from the proceedings ? It would've became a topic of conversation for some time to come, in many a muster room I reckon?
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 1:03:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

I'd be astounded and ashamed to hear that police ever took the side of an assailant, in circumstances where a victim is defending himself and his family in their own home. Provided the victim didn't overreact to a point where the assailant suffered serious injury or death. The average 'jack' can generally always 'tidy things up' for the victim(s)? No copper worth his salt would ever side with a crook - still in these days of political correctness and 'Dudley Do Good's' as witnesses, one can never tell eh ? As I've said previously, I'm glad I've retired.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 1:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,

As you realise, I am not criticising police in general. Like all large bodies of people the police have some who throw their weight around and would like to get their name known to the upper, political levels.

That is far more common in the cities than in country areas, where the police have to apply good judgement or not get the job done.

In NSW the changes are working and have not resulted in any problems at all. However that does not mean that victims, especially the male victims, of home invasion are not being re-victimised, and more so where the media and 'human headline' politicians become involved.

There are well-publicised, recent examples and in NSW where there is some protection.

NSW
It was only public outrage and public support that helped this unfortunate victim of a home invasion. One wrong word and it would, not could, have gaoled him. He suffered for a very long time and was subjected to the full shabby treatment at the hands of sectors of the media, the leftist commentariat, senior police and prosecutors and politicians.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/donald-brooke-to-find-out-if-he-faces-a-murder-charge-for-fatally-stabbing-a-stun-gun-wielding-intruder/story-e6freuy9-1226167931279

much later..

http://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/docs/default-source/recent-media-releases/06-12-2013-decision-in-the-matter-of-brookes-.pdf?sfvrsn=4

One can only guess what the outcome might have been if the home invasion had occurred in another State or Territory, without the NSW protections for self defence.

I am only asking for all Australians to have the right to defend themselves in their own home. That the burden of proof is returned to the police and police prosecutor, where it rightfully and usually is in our system of law.

Sadly it is the criminal that the State has shown it has a duty to protect and leftist governments have buffed up laws to protect criminals' rights.

The public just don't realise and clowns on The Box don't help. Some of these TV 'personalities' are self-styled (producer-appointed?) experts everything. Imagine how the public is constantly being misinformed by idiotic, doubtless scripted, exchanges such as this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imcn-0K-9Bs
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 3:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy