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: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
You aren't allowed to kill people because they wronged you.




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
SELF DEFENSE/DEFENSE OF OTHERS.

AND ANYONE IN AUSTRALIA THAT DOES NOT SHOW UP TO EITHER SUPPORT HIM OR BREAK HIM OUT IF AN ILLEGAL ROGUE JUDGE COMMITS THE CRIME OF IMPRISONING HIM, IS A TRAITOR TO THEIR FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND NATION.


edit on 8-4-2016 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra
Charged with means just that, he's only been charged with murder.

The law hasn't done anything yet.


Wrong.

By allowing this to go to court, the law has said that there appears to be sufficient evidence to pursue the charges in a court of law, which could lead to a conviction. At least, that's how it works in the U.S., where a Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to take something to court.

Also, at least in the U.S., a district attorney would have had to believe that there was enough evidence under the letter of the law to indict the individual.

So, see, the law has done plenty so far--just because the trial isn't over doesn't mean that "the law" has done nothing. If this were just based on the arrest, it would say something similar to "being held on suspicion of murder." But it doesn't--it says that he is charged with murder, which means just that.

The fact that it has made it this far is appalling, as the dude has plenty of physical injuries to show that it wasn't a one-sided, planned killing. My prediction is that this case will go nowhere, but the fact that it even went somewhere is disgusting. I'd have shot the bastard, aiming center mass, and making sure that he was down.

Don't f**k with a man's family.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
You aren't allowed to kill people because they wronged you.


Depends on where you live and how they wronged you.

You can't get flicked in the ear and then kill that person--anywhere, for any reason.

I can, however, use deadly force against someone who invades my home and I find in my daughter's room, because whether or not he was touching her, I have legitimate grounds to fear for her safety (and mine, upon making myself known).

Your comment is naïve and wrong. At least where I live.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
You aren't allowed to kill people because they wronged you.


A felon who is tresspassing in your house near your child is a major THREAT.

Now there are 2 points here:

1. Self Defense and Defense of others: ALWAYS LEGAL AND NO KARMA COSMICALLY! CHRIST AND APOSTLES CARRIED SWORDS FOR DEFENSE!

Also, SERVE AND PROTECT.

Any agent of darkness that abuses power to try and take these rights from you is ROGUE and must be stopped.

First you go the normal route of negotiation and support for what is right and if that fails, you do the right thing and stop the corruption any means necessary.

1.2.3's A.B.C's of life that I knew since birth and spoke up about all my life!

2. If the rapist has already touched your child, and the beating him to within an inch of his life or crossing over is seen as retaliation rather than self defense, but the people doing it are related to the victim,

THEN THIS IS HEAT OF PASSION AND FALLS WITHIN THE NORMAL EXPECTATIONS OF HOW HUMANS BEHAVE.

LAW IS ABOUT THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEHAVIOR.

THIS SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN TO TRIAL AND AT WORST HE MAY NEED LOTS OF COUNSELING FOR THE HORROR AND TRAUMA HE WENT THROUGH.

ANY OTHER APPLICATION OF LAW IS ILLEGAL.
edit on 8-4-2016 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Did the father know that the dead man had priors ?

There was no rape. No abuse. ( according to news stories on my local TV.)

The full and factual series of events need to be explored to the max.

Meanwhile we must consider the murder charge.
This is not a throw away line ...

A solid reason is required.

If you read my earlier post, you can see where there could be justification for the charges.

🤐



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




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


I don't know about you, but I don't think I would have control to "gauge my force" if I found a man in my house at all let alone approaching a child's room. it is act, react at that point and protect is what we do it is our home!
edit on 8-4-2016 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Village Idiot




Are these opinions based on justice or the unfanthomable hatred we all share for sexual predators?


You can't fathom the hatred toward child rapist?

edit on 8-4-2016 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Timely
This is not as cut and dried as some might think.
The emergency 000 call was recorded and he was heard screaming " i am going to kill you!" .
The dead man was killed on the street, not inside the house.

The dead mans family claim that he was attending a party at the house.

I also heard that police were in attendace and the man refused an order to desist the attack.

There was also talk of there being two men involved in the beating.

I do condone the right to protect your home and family, however we need to hear the full and truthful series of events to be able to decide.


That right there takes the story out of the realms of finding a criminal in your house and doing the right thing.

Seems in this case the law may not be an ass after all.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Unless the beating was done in self-defence, then it is not necessarily just. People just hear the words "sex offender" and lose their ability to apply logic and reason. Just breaking into somebody's home is illegal and unacceptable, but it does not mean you gain an automatic licence to kill the perpetrator — at least not in Australia.



How can you feel safe? What if it were your home, you find someone in the dark hall, what do you do? Ask if they want the money or did they come to gut your wife and kids? It is my belief that any who are not so scared they collapse will grab the guy and start beating not knowing how he is armed or anything about him calls for beating until he is senseless otherwise you might try to find something to bind him, when? While you hold onto him to make sure he doesn't pull a knife or gun?

People are not being realistic you'all seen too many movies! Unless you have found a stranger in your home with all of the unanswered questions and no time to think, I suggest you ask someone who has been there.

Whole Families have been killed because the responsible parties didn't think they should uses excessive violence but go along with the intruder. The law should explicitly state that you the burglar take your own life in your own hands if you enter another person's home illegally regardless of why. That way we all know where we stand.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Village Idiot

There are a lot of assumptions here... or should we beat every burgular to death...... just in case.


Yes. We should. Thieves and murderers and rapists, there's little difference. People who claim otherwise are dishonest.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
You aren't allowed to kill people because they wronged you.

There is a difference between "wronged you" and "broke into your house"/"raped your kid"/"beat your wife".
Not saying those things happened in this case, but if you're generalizing, so will I.

And for the record...in many countries it IS legal to kill if someone "wrongs" you...ie self defense.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
So if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them dead then its defensive,
if you beat them to death then its murder?

Can a legal rep or lawyer explain this to me?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Aazadan




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


I don't know about you, but I don't think I would have control to "gauge my force" if I found a man in my house at all let alone approaching a child's room. it is act, react at that point and protect is what we do it is our home!


Then perhaps you're not personally responsible enough to have a child. You don't have the right to take the law into your own hands. If there's an immediate threat you can stop it, but the moment that threat has passed no more force is justified, and medical aid should be rendered. If you find a rapist in your childs room and you shoot them, your #1 priority from that moment on is the rapists life. That's the price of using lethal force to stop the threat. If you can't handle that, then get a taser instead. If they die, you should probably go down for murder. If it's something less like someone is just being an ordinary burglar, you should definitely go down for murder, especially if they turned out to be unarmed.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




Then perhaps you're not personally responsible enough to have a child.


I feel the same of you.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
This guy should be hailed as a Hero instead of a criminal. This guy is the real victim and now He has to live with the fact that He has killed someone.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I think the short of it is that getting killed is an occupational hazard for criminals.

The CS is dead because of his own proclivities. No sympathies here.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
This being Australia, I don't have much hope for this guy - it seems like criminals rights are more respected than normal, law abiding citizens (even more so than in the US)

That being said, going just by the excerpt you provided, it looks like this guy rounded up a buddy and simply beat the holy hell out of this guy. Not that he likely deserved any better, but this probably wouldn't even fly in the US. He might not be charged with murder, maybe more along the lines of involuntary manslaughter - but still.

Just ridiculous. It's obvious this guy was in the house unlawfully, and that he also attacked the home owner - but like I said, I (unfortunately) don't have a lot of hope.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Aazadan




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


I don't know about you, but I don't think I would have control to "gauge my force" if I found a man in my house at all let alone approaching a child's room. it is act, react at that point and protect is what we do it is our home!


Then perhaps you're not personally responsible enough to have a child. You don't have the right to take the law into your own hands. If there's an immediate threat you can stop it, but the moment that threat has passed no more force is justified, and medical aid should be rendered. If you find a rapist in your childs room and you shoot them, your #1 priority from that moment on is the rapists life. That's the price of using lethal force to stop the threat. If you can't handle that, then get a taser instead. If they die, you should probably go down for murder. If it's something less like someone is just being an ordinary burglar, you should definitely go down for murder, especially if they turned out to be unarmed.



And you are the exact problem the historical downward trend of crime is on the rise in many locations throughout the US and Europe.

No, a person does not have an obligation to "render" medical aid - call an ambulance sure, but if I shoot someone, I'm not going to approach them - why would you get in physical proximity? What if they have a weapon? What if they are feigning injury and have a plan to lunge at you if you get close? That is a pretty asinine statement to say the least.

I'm not going to get into a long drawn out debate with you because it seems like your mind is set anyway, but suffice to say, your blanket and very narrow mind-set of a statement "if they turn out to be unarmed you should definitely be charged with murder" is ridiculous. If it's dark in your home, you hear a window break and see a dark figure in your door way - you should (and thankfully in many place still today in the US) be ok to fire. You never know if someone has a hidden weapon, you rarely know if only one person is involved - and you very rarely know their true intentions. Your once again, limited mindset of "they are just a simple burglar" is ridiculous to say the least. You are placing even more of a burden on a victim of a crime in addition to the burdens and disadvantages they are under in this scenario. First, their private home has been broken into and that persons personal space has been utterly violated - second, you NEVER know if burglary is the only motive, and it is ignorant and dangerous to assume someone who has broken into your house ONLY wants to rob you. It's also dangerous and ignorant to assume that the burglar isn't willing to hurt that person in an attempt to eliminate witnesses.

So, by all means, if someone breaks into your house, let them have the run of the place and give them a cup of tea - but don't you dare try to take away my ability to protect me and mine because of your misplaced sense of Hippie Love the World Progressive BS.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join