The Sa Wasteland

[Madaz]

im sure Bubba would let him out so long as she's done the dishes first

[Dohmar]

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.

[Madaz]

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

[craig R33]

lol talk about paranoia

[Madaz]

who ya gunna call

[craig R33]

i said paranoia not paranormal ya douche!!!

[Madaz]

still i think he needs ghostbusters might get the heebie jeebies out of him

[Dohmar]

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

[Damo_R34]

its cold out tonight.

[Madaz]

its cold out tonight.

[Damo_R34]

If i was freezing to death in the middle of the arctic (floating on an object of course) and someone offered me a snuggie, id f**king strangle them with it.

[MissR34]

lol

[SLED]

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.

[craig R33]

anyone know where i can get 2p1s stickers from?

[DIOR 33]

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

[Madaz]

prolly NS Craig

[Dohmar]

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

[Weezy]

anyone know where i can get 2p1s stickers from?

eBay brother!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SHOCKER-2-i...sQ5fAccessories

Similar to the one I'm repping on my rear window

[Dohmar]

look who is gonna be back on the streets of adelaide next week.......

That looks dope.... I reckon it could use a shopping list tho (cmon do it!)

-D

[SLED]

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