The Forum > General Discussion > Doing the right thing?
Doing the right thing?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
-
- All
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 28 September 2017 12:20:32 PM
| |
All very well, Steele, but what would you have done?
Remember it's 18 ks to town, and the character at your door has a knife and a hunk of wood. Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 September 2017 12:46:08 PM
| |
Add that the offender had youth, flexibility and initiative on his side and easy hostages to take and threaten/molest.
High probability too and it was proved to be, that the offender had experience and mental preparation - because it is known he had already committed a serious offence and could have a record of offending. Intending offenders do go to 'school', they talk through tactics with experienced thugs. It is very different for the victims, whose innocence and vulnerability should be obvious. The biggest problem being that ordinary citizens are in a state of shock and fear as they should be, that is perfectly normal. The offender capitalises on that and the control of the victims is already on his mind, first priority and guess how that might be done. However in this case one of the intended victims had a deterrent that instantly flipped the balance of power. If only Jill Maegher had something or someone to defend her. Foxy might say how her vaunted expertise in dealing with offenders (and not reporting them!) could have helped that dear lost soul, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/jill-meagher-killer-adrian-bayley-stabbed-in-jail/news-story/70fd9af38fdfea3aebbdc1addb21d9a4 Posted by leoj, Thursday, 28 September 2017 1:36:46 PM
| |
this guy seems more worthy of Australian of the Year than some of the other activist.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 September 2017 1:48:48 PM
| |
Dear Is Mise,
I'm not sure what you mean but if I found a teenager at my back door at 3 in the morning and I was able to ascertain nefarious intent then I would certainly demand an explanation, block entry to the house and attempt to call the police. Hopefully i would have enough control to only escalate if really necessary. I don't imagine a scenario where I would be driving the intruder in my car but I accept that Mr Dunstan may well have felt this to be an appropriate act. News just in my friend yet another child has been shot in the face in NSW incidentally with the same caliber weapon employed by Mr Dunstan. How many aussie kids have to die or be injured before you support toughening gun handling laws rather than loosening them? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/12-year-old-boy-accidenatlly-shot/8995242 Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 28 September 2017 1:59:51 PM
| |
Steele,
What I mean is; what would you do? The shooting in the face has nothing to do with the topic and you don't know if I favour loosening the laws. There was a recent topic on that subject where I challenged anyone to shew there had been any such loosening, I don't remember your input. Meanwhile in the Vic Parliament, a petition: "The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the ongoing increase of violent crime in Victoria and the inability of law-abiding citizens to adequately protect themselves against violent crime. Repeated incidents of violent home invasions, armed robberies, carjackings and now armed gangs attacking Victorians and their businesses have highlighted the need for self-defence reform. We point also to the recent example of Victoria Police Senior Constable Daniel Yeoman, who was nearly killed by a criminal in a violent home invasion. He was not able to defend himself adequately because Victorian law trusts him to carry non-lethal self-defence tools while employed as a Police Officer, but also prohibits him from carrying them off-duty and out of uniform. Furthermore, the recent example of Albury, NSW farmer David Dunstan having his firearms removed by police because he used them in defence of his family on his rural property against an armed criminal, further highlights the inadequacy and unfortunate regressive nature of self-defence laws in Australia. While citizens in Victoria are currently afforded the right to self-defence under section 462a of the Crimes Act 1958, this right to self-defence is essentially meaningless when the same citizens are denied access to the practical means to self-defence. The fact that non-lethal self-defence items remain illegal in Victoria is irrational, particularly given the fact that criminals perpetrating violent home invasions and armed robberies in Victoria are already armed in spite of the law. The right to preserve one’s life is the most basic human right of all. Victoria prides itself on being a “progressive” state; however, its policy towards self-defence and the right to preserve life is unfortunately severely regressive." https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/index.php?option=com_rsform&view=rsform&formId=74&Itemid=1054&petition_id=48 It's gettin' bigger! Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 September 2017 2:43:10 PM
|
We do not know the full circumstances faced by Mr Dunstan but I have certainly faced a drug affected individual.
My guess is the teenager was probably searching for an easy score and was looking for an empty house to burgle. I'm assuming he was compliant enough once confronted that Mr Dunstan felt he could safely drive him toward the police station. There is no indication the knife was used to threaten Mr Dunstan but it may have been evident.
My brother is an ex-copper and I have seen him talk someone into sitting quietly for the police to arrive, a skill I recognise I have not got.
Mr Dunstan's actions resulted in no deaths or injuries and as pilots have want to say any landing you walk away from is a good landing.
This could have had a very different outcome judging by the gung-ho, trigger happy, chest beating attitudes by some of the posters here. How very American of them.