Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 14.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

lol good luck with that whole not going to jail reasonable force argument Ben

i almost guarantee if you shiv someone who is stealing your car that wouldn't count as reasonable force hence you loose and we visit you in the big house

and if it really was a "shiv" that would show prior intent to do somebody harm and you may end up on murder but probably dropped to manslaughter with a good QC

a) being on someone elses property is a caveat in itself

b) a flathead screwdriver, conveniently placed in a cars garage, makes a very good shiv. and theres no way in hell you can prove 'murder' when someone unknown to you comes to your own house, with intent to steal. manslaughter, sure. murder no.

c) reasonable force depends on one thing - the amount of fear you have for your own life - which nobody can argue otherwise. I suggest you both look at the wording of the law on this matter. Its pretty biased towards the home owner. Remember, this came about after a man killed a kid who broke into his place and faced a manslaughter conviction. The public outrage alone is what forced rann to implement those home invasion laws.

d) if eugene mcgee can get off with a good lawyer, after running a bloke down, and then lying to the crown, then anyone who kills a man on his own land in defence of his own property, will most certainly get off. on this case, public opinion will be on the side of the defendant.

e) a good lawyer is worth more than words alone. i could point to many other cases than mcgee.

I find it very ironic that some of the very people who say that justice is never served, or that the system is completely biased towards repeat offenders, are now saying that a custodial sentence is inevitable in these circumstances. It is not. Defence of ones property is the same as defence of ones own person, and this isnt my opinion, it just happens to be written down in black and white. You guys better make your mind up whether or not the justice system works or not. If you think it works, quit bitching when someone gets off. The circumstances of each and every case are complex and that is why we have informed magistrates and judges to keep society working, and with the exception of a few fringe cases, the judicial system works perfectly. All it takes is the media in this state (which we know to be biased) to amp up any issue they feel is necessary to sell some more copies, or get more ratings...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_%28Australia%29 is a good start, but if you're interested in common law then a visit to the state library would be on the agenda, as the books that contain the statutes are very big and heavy.

-D

Edit for the lazy ;

Under South Australian law, the general defence appears in s15(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) for defending a person's life, and s15A(1) for defending property, subject to a hybrid test, i.e. the defendant honestly believed the threat to be imminent and made an objectively reasonable and proportionate response to the circumstances as the accused subjectively perceived them.

And that, my friends, is why lawyers exist.

oh sorry wiki's say's so, so it must be true

you do make good argument for the amount of danger you perceive yourself to be in

well it might come from wiki, but it does refer to our actual, bona fide liber legis, but i guess thats beyond your comprehension

nice work trying to discredit that information too on the basis that it links to something innocuous...if you think a wiki is wrong, do some research and check the edit log... *sigh*

newtons law says that every action results in an equal and opposite reaction.

try this on for size

a) perpetrator comes into property owners yard, attempts to abscond with

b) victim (by definition the recipient of hostile actions from a perpetrator) confronts perpetrator

a) perpetrator is confronted, available decisions are fight or flee (most will flee)

b) if perpetrator decides to fight, on hostile ground, against one who is defending their own property, then perp. is capable of any hostile action

Also, in all legal statutes, the home of a person is sacrosanct, which is why warrants are required for property searches.

Illegal searches are the bane of any law enforcement agency, because it means tonnes of paperwork, depositions, court dates and hearings, and this costs them a LOT. I only quote that fact to reinforce the fact that the home is protected by an entire subset of laws.

-D

c) reasonable force depends on one thing - the amount of fear you have for your own life - which nobody can argue otherwise. I suggest you both look at the wording of the law on this matter. Its pretty biased towards the home owner. Remember, this came about after a man killed a kid who broke into his place and faced a manslaughter conviction. The public outrage alone is what forced rann to implement those home invasion laws.

I find it very ironic that some of the very people who say that justice is never served, or that the system is completely biased towards repeat offenders, are now saying that a custodial sentence is inevitable in these circumstances. It is not. Defence of ones property is the same as defence of ones own person, and this isnt my opinion, it just happens to be written down in black and white. You guys better make your mind up whether or not the justice system works or not. If you think it works, quit bitching when someone gets off. The circumstances of each and every case are complex and that is why we have informed magistrates and judges to keep society working, and with the exception of a few fringe cases, the judicial system works perfectly. All it takes is the media in this state (which we know to be biased) to amp up any issue they feel is necessary to sell some more copies, or get more ratings...

no probs with the other stuff Ben but the invasion laws came about not because of the kid that was killed (although that incident may have helped) but because of an 81 year old woman who had a home invasion and led a massive protest in front of parliament house with a petitions holding 1000's of signatures on it.....her name was Ivey and is no longer with us.

And the home invasion law applies to someone inside your house at an unreasonable hour where you are allowed to perceive a life threatening situation (unlike before where equal or lesser force was the go) and therefore put the guy out of his misery.....the home invasion laws do not cover your property in your yard or shed, equal or lesser force applies here and I don't care what wiki says.

Edit for the lazy ;

Under South Australian law, the general defence appears in a nissan s15(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) for defending a person's life, and s15A(1) for defending property, subject to a hybrid test, i.e. the defendant honestly believed the threat to be imminent and made an objectively reasonable and proportionate response to the circumstances as the accused subjectively perceived them.

And that, my friends, is why lawyers exist.

couldnt read it all, was a bit boring but i had to edit this

bbbbaaaaahhhhhaaaaaa

no probs with the other stuff Ben but the invasion laws came about not because of the kid that was killed (although that incident may have helped) but because of an 81 year old woman who had a home invasion and led a massive protest in front of parliament house with a petitions holding 1000's of signatures on it.....her name was Ivey and is no longer with us.

And the home invasion law applies to someone inside your house at an unreasonable hour where you are allowed to perceive a life threatening situation (unlike before where equal or lesser force was the go) and therefore put the guy out of his misery.....the home invasion laws do not cover your property in your yard or shed, equal or lesser force applies here and I don't care what wiki says.

Thats fine Pete. You'll notice the wiki refers to the guidelines of criminal law, which existed before Mike Rann was ever in government. It is a general guideline for all Magistrates. The home invasion law is a subset of these which seeks define a very narrow qualifying category (as you rightly pointed out), however that does not change the fact that such things are weighed up by a magistrate and they almost unerringly favor the defendant (when the defendant is the home owner, defender, ie not the assailant - defendant being a relative term from case to case)

-D

and you know why Ben? (re the last part of your paragraph) cause our prisons are full and they don't get rehabilitated in there anyway, so judges do everything in their power to keep the crooks out......ship em to Christmas Island I reckon :D

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...