It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian dad charged with murder for battering rapist found near daughter's room

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   


A young dad in Australia has been charged with murder after he confronted a burglar inside his home. Father Benjamin Batterham, 33, discovered convicted rapist Ricky Slater, 34, near his daughter's room inside their family home in Newcastle, New South Wales, at 3.30am.

With a 32-year-old friend, Batterham confronted Slater and the resulting skirmish sent Slater to hospital where he later died of his injuries, believed to include brain damage.

Batterham also suffered facial injuries and bite marks to his body and some reports say he had to be tested for HIV. Reports that Slater suffered a broken neck have been ruled out. After Slater was taken off life support Batterham handed himself in at a police station and was charged with murder.

Australian dad charged with murder for battering rapist found near daughter's room

Stuff like this makes me very angry. The law doesn't protect people, it protects criminal. Shouldn't be if you're committing a crime and enter's someone home, you forfeit you rights? I mean, if someone breaks into my home, and if I feel afraid for my life, and accidentally kill them, why should I have to pay for that? It is so #ing BS. Stuff like this happens all the time in the US.

Who is the law really protecting...




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: reddragon2015

This is why jury trials are a necessity. As a father I would be loathe to convict someone who was protecting their child. Sometimes the letter of the law isn't justice.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: reddragon2015

That is appalling.

The law is the idiot cousin of justice, less noble, more technical, less immediate, more costly.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: reddragon2015

The law doesn't protect people, it protects criminal.


Charged with means just that, he's only been charged with murder.


Newcastle police are investigating the incident. The case has divided opinion across Australia, with most appearing to support the actions of Batterham. Celebrity lawyer Winston Terracini has been appointed to defend the husband and father, who is being held at Cessnock Correctional Centre.


The law hasn't done anything yet.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I would be loathe to convict

I simply wouldn't convict.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

Of course the law has acted.

He was charged. If the law had done nothing, then not even that much would have happened.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
They have to charge the guy because the law shouldn't be applied arbitrarily, it's up to the jury to see sense and let him off...hopefully they do.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

I certainly hope they do the right thing here, that being pay the man for the service he's done the community and give him a bloody medal.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Australias a big country should of saved himself a lot of grief and just buried the offender



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: reddragon2015
Stuff like this makes me very angry. The law doesn't protect people, it protects criminal. Shouldn't be if you're committing a crime and enter's someone home, you forfeit you rights? I mean, if someone breaks into my home, and if I feel afraid for my life, and accidentally kill them, why should I have to pay for that? It is so #ing BS. Stuff like this happens all the time in the US.

Who is the law really protecting...


Disagree, and this is going to be a very unpopular sentiment. If you beat someone, stab them, shoot them, or in any other way harm them it is your responsibility to see to it that they not only survive until a trial, but should they be found not guilty that they can carry on with life unharmed. Self defense doesn't give you the authority to take away a persons right to trial. Killing someone is not the minimum force required to subdue them.
edit on 7-4-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Killing someone is not the minimum force required to subdue them.


If they won't stop trying to kill you, it is.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
If he bruised the rapist, he would probably be accused of battery and in some countries sent to jail...

Justice sometimes, lacks justice...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

So you're a shill for the establishment? Got it


This isn't a justice system, it's a criminal system. The sad part about all this, is this is "the best system" we could come up with. Pathetic.
edit on 7-4-2016 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: reddragon2015

I'm not familiar with the Australian legal system. Do their prosecutors not have prosecutorial discretion?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra
If they won't stop trying to kill you, it is.


And you have proof that was the case? Most people are subdued with much less than being killed, even soldiers on the battlefield whose only purpose is to kill the enemy are taken out more often by harming them rather than killing them.


originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: Aazadan

So you're a shill for the establishment? Got it



I'm a shill for applying reason to a case rather than emotion?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

If you want to protect an antiquated and unlawful system, go ahead, but the evidence speaks for itself. Sadly the system is so damaged that it's possible for him to end up with life in prison, simply because some liar (lawyer) was able to persuade otherwise. I've seen so many cases where valuable evidence was thrown out and loopholes were created to allow criminals go to free and/or victims were forced to pay for their victim-hood. The system is an abomination.
edit on 7-4-2016 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
If they won't stop trying to kill you, it is.

And you have proof that was the case?

Sorry, were you referring specifically to this case? Because your wording was generalized and it sounded like you said, and I quote.



Killing someone is not the minimum force required to subdue them.



but to answer the question you posed, that's what investigation is for, isn't it?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: reddragon2015

So this guy wasn't immediately assaulting his daughter, and I assume the perpetrator wasn't wearing a "Hey look, I'm a convicted rapist" T-Shirt, could have possibly been searching for the cookie jar, it's Ok to beat him to death?
Are these opinions based on justice or the unfanthomable hatred we all share for sexual predators?.... or am I missing the point?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. -- A. Bierce



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Village Idiot

"after he confronted a burglar inside his home"

"He was inside his home.. near his daughter's room"


Survival instinct kicked in...




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join