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

I don't know much about Australian law, but in the US there is such a thing as "Jury Nullification". I'm pretty sure the same thing exists in Australia if I'm not mistaken. Here's hoping the jury will have the sense to return this father to his family.

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.

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.

a reply to: Timely

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.

There is way more to this story than what the media has ran with, it is most certainly not as cut and dry as claimed and as the story unfolds it looks a lot like alcohol and tempers were major players.....

a reply to: reddragon2015

He was charged correctly - it's the outcome of the charges that is at issue. In other words, let's hope he's not convicted.

ETA: and, as I read more of this, if I may amend my earlier statement with...

..."if he was actually acting to defend his daughter and not just on a drunken rage fest where the beating wasn't justified or appropriate. "

As Metallicus started early on in the thread, this is why the jury system is so important. We (well, the eventual jury) need to get the whole story, and hopefully justice will prevail, whatever that outcome may be.

No pity here. Another criminal bites the dust.

Justice served. Swiftly.

Well, THIS law is certainly an ass, isn't it?

If you don't want to get killed, don't break into people's houses while their kids are asleep there.

Simple.


Little scrote had it coming and imo the cops have let themselves down badly here.

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.

This is not justice at all.

A man's role in life is to defend his family and this father was protecting his daughter. Sure killing the guy was extreme, but he died of a broken neck, so there was a fight and it got out of hand.

I would give the guy manslaughter with a suspended sentence (no jail time)

originally posted by: Substracto
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...

How do we know for sure the perpetrator was intentionally near the child's room, did he know the family personally, did he know who slept were.
There are a lot of assumptions here... or should we beat every burgular to death...... just in case.
Were do we draw the line when it comes to this "Survival instinct"

a reply to: reddragon2015

As much as these deeds are bad they are also very sad for all involved.

Sometimes we blokes hurt those we love as much as those we have a sudden emotional hate for at the time.

While fear of how good at violence the other bloke might be, may have played a role in extend of the assault, sometimes self control and talking are very valuable skills.

Pretty much everywhere has a 'reasonable' to its use of force, even in the most gun happy place in the US tripping over a shoelace and placing a hand on someones lawn would not be acceptable to come out and pump someone full of lead and as such you'd expect them to pay the price.

Part of the legal system is not just punishment but being seen to be done in full public view and thus we can see that the system works.

It will never help if theres been a few beers sunk etc and thus we pass the case onto the judges who we hope will find the right choice and if the kid was in danger then fine but if it was a drunk bloke looking for the toilet and picked the wrong door by accident and thus a scream from the kid in surprise and then a parent going overboard will be different.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I don't know much about Australian law, but in the US there is such a thing as "Jury Nullification". I'm pretty sure the same thing exists in Australia if I'm not mistaken. Here's hoping the jury will have the sense to return this father to his family.

Contrary to popular belief "jury nullification", which was initially brought over from English common law, is not valid in the US. That pesky Federal Constitution and all those State constitutions take precedence.

That's before we get to the due process violations.

a reply to: Village Idiot

Respectfully if someone unlawfully enters your residence the question of how far from the child's room and what was his intent should not be a factor.



The Irony abounds...

a reply to: Village Idiot

Im just reading what it says on the news.


Good question! If you were surprised by someone inside your house, you have to evaluate the treath, Im not saying he should have killed the guy, but some people if they feel threatned thats what they will do. You might not be able to focus, and think clearly, adrenaline kicks in and you lose it, it happens to some people.

a reply to: reddragon2015

I'd have done the same thing ( regarding the beating), but to the law's credit, defense of your home and loved ones vs murder are two different things right.

There's the idea of suitable or reasonable amount of force. Did I read that right and see that it was two guys who gave him a beating?

I'd have put the charge at man slaughter really and let the man plead out with community service and probation.

That's just me though.

~Tenth

Whoever wrote this :

Killing someone is a crime. The laws are here to punish crime. Self defence with murdering someone should be a crime.

I see no problem here.

a reply to: reddragon2015

I guess you missed out on this part:

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.

This has JUST HAPPENED. Whenever someone is beaten to death, there HAS TO BE a murder investigation.

You do understand that our societies are built on laws and justice right? The investigation has barely even started, and yet you're suggesting the investigation should just be ignored and the facts surrounding this should all be manufactured to suit the circumstances.

He'll be let off, he'll get a slap on the wrist and let go. It's inconvenient that he's going to have to wait for JUSTICE to be served, but that's the price you pay when you kill someone - even if you were absolutely right to defend your home and your family.

The legal, investigative and judicial process HAS TO BE FOLLOWED here whether you like it or not, and that means the Police and the courts need to go through the motions to ESTABLISH WHAT HAPPENED to cause the death of someone in such a way.

He will not be convicted, they are just following procedure to ensure that legal and judicial process is completed.

Oh, and edited to add, he had no idea who this man was, so the fact that he was a convicted rapist only serves to show that he was right to want to protect his daughter. The fact remains that he beat someone to death for trespassing - that's ALL HE KNEW AT THAT TIME.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
I'd have put the charge at man slaughter really and let the man plead out with community service and probation.

This has only just happened, the date of the piece is the 6th April.
People seem to be believing that a case like this should be solved through assumption rather than investigation, and justice should be delivered by the local police officer rather than a court or judge.

Then again, most posters here are American, and they mostly seem to think that all Police officers are Judge Dredd and that all that legal system is nothing more than a pesky inconvenience.

Frontier justice should be punishable. I dont think its right to kill someone. . . maybe 100 years ago but arent we smarter now? Or it is still acceptable to help killers if they are "good"

I understand if iy was unintentional but .. this guy...

a reply to: Rocker2013

This has only just happened, the date of the piece is the 6th April.

Initial charges are often dropped down in plea bargains, that's what I was suggesting.

Then again, most posters here are American, and they mostly seem to think that all Police officers are Judge Dredd and that all that legal system is nothing more than a pesky inconvenience.

You done?

I get that you're trying to make a point, and that you're correct regarding this is a new story and what the father knew at the time is he had a trespasser, not a child rapist.

So do most people who can think critically and there's plenty of that to go around here.

~Tenth