Should the security guard be prosecuted

[Zed]

Ok, lets check the moral ground of the forum :

in the media over the last few days a security guard shot and killed a robber who bashed her with knuckle dusters. how do you guys feel? should she be charged ? is she guilty of murder ? should shhe get a medal ?

for the record : my opinion - she's not guilty of anything except doing her job.

[Ivan in Oz]

Zed,
Don't come near me.
I ride a Motorcycle,
Walkaround the place assulting people with my Knuckle dusters.
Doesn't everyone? :rolleyes:

C'Mon
Someone might say a good word for him.
Not me.

OK!!
Yes, I do ride a Motorbike.
So that brands me in some Ppls eyes.


Count
I even rode it this morning, at about Zero*C.................Brrrrrr :eek:

[craigb]

From what I read she shot him through the closed window of a car.

She claims that she doesn't remember doing it, which I suppose could be the case if you've just been bashed in the head.

I don't have enough information to make a call and I'm glad I don't have to.

Taking somebody's life is a pretty big deal even if he was scumbag.

my 0.002

[silentC]

My first response was "she did us a favour". But Craig is right, it wasn't exactly self-defence and killing someone isn't to be taken lightly, even if the guy was a scumbag.

I voted 'No' but only because I think that if you give someone a gun to carry as part of their job they shouldn't really be blamed for using it in those circumstances. There should be an inquiry and she should probably be dismissed but she should not go to jail.

[Ben from Vic.]

Taken on it's bare basics, ie. he thumped her and took the money. Then sure, he had it coming. And it's about time these crooks got what they diserve.

She was just doing her job. As you said, Zed. She was in a no win situation.
I'm sure the guy would think twice about doing it again, if he was alive.

Sad state of affairs though. Stupid sod lost his life over a few grand. :(


Ben.

Ps. If she looses her job or gets much more than a stern talking to, we need to ask why we bother about armed gaurds.

[LineLefty]

I think she should be prosecuted, but she wont be convicted.

To have a reaction like that is probably understandable, but it still wasnt self defense. The case needs to be prosecuted and taken through the court process to be analysed and argued over - not just dismissed.

[Honest Gaza]

You hang out of a train so you can spray it with paint....you deserve to get your head knocked off by a concrete pole.
You take a big knife to the beach and start flashing it around......don't complain if the coppers feel the need to "disarm" you.
You beat the **** out of someone with the element of surprise on your side....get your just rewards when they surprise you back with THEIR element of surprise.

[Eastie]

All other things aside she allegedly fired one highly effective shot as I understand. I would have unloaded on the mongrel, well actualy in the heat of everything and with the head injury it would probably have ended something like:


"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But seeing as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question:

Do I feel lucky?

Well, do ya punk?"

---------------------------------
He started it, she finished it, case closed.

[Ben from Vic.]

.44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world

Things have moved on a bit since the days of Dirty Harry.
The .44 is now about 4th most powerfull hangun in the world. Sure does have a good kick though! :eek:



Ben. :D

[Gumby]

All other things aside she allegedly fired one highly effective shot as I understand. I would have unloaded on the mongrel, well actualy in the heat of everything and with the head injury it would probably have ended something like:


"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But seeing as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question:

Do I feel lucky?

Well, do ya punk?"

---------------------------------
He started it, she finished it, case closed.

"go ahead, make my day"

[Kev Y.]

I voted NO, she was only doing her job, the crook knew the risks he had to take to do HIS job, I think this is a case the do-gooder civil libertarians will be have in a field day with!

Kev ;) :rolleyes: :cool:

[Wongo]

Zed, this is a tough one mate so I didn’t vote.

My emotion says No not guilty – he was a criminal and she got bashed :(
My heart says Yes guilty – he shouldn’t be killed by robbing $$ :(

Maybe she should speak to Danny Williams.

[Wood Borer]

I am not familiar with the incident so my comment are general.

I voted that she should be proscecuted for the simple reason it is not up to the cops to decide if someone who has taken a life should be taken to court or not.

A person has died and the person responsible is known. The person responsible allegedly intended to at least injure the deceased. It doesn't sound like an accident.

Take it to court and let the reasons for the action be heard and considered. If those reasons are sufficient to hang the person responsible or to give them a medal then so be it but at least the case was perhaps properly addressed.

What has been done is not reversible but hopefully there will be an outcome that will lead to steps taken so the same situation is less likely to happen again. If no such outcomes evolve or are weak in their content then we need to be very concerned and do something about it. Courts are there to help the community - not to make legal people wealthy.

Personally I have no time for thieves and other selfish people and they need to be stopped in their tracks. Giving cops and security guards a licence to terminate the lives of people they consider a waste of space is not a good move.

I also feel sorry for the security guard who has to live with her actions.

- Wood Borer

[craigb]

A good reply Wood Borer, I agree with you.

I'm certainly not defending thieves either, especially not those who rob with violence, but for those who think "he got what he deserved", would you honestly feel the same way had he been your brother or your son ?

I can't see that there are any winners in this sorry story :(

[bitingmidge]

Stupid bugger shouldn't have taken knuckle dusters to a gunfight.

I didn't vote. I wasn't there and refuse to take the word of some edited report that made it to TV or press. None of us have the facts on which to base a decision, anyone who voted is doing so with a dead set Kangaroo Court mentality!

Despite the fact that his family no doubt feel differently, a violent robber has no place in our society, so our quality of life has probably gained a point or two.

On the other hand I can't see how anyone one has the right to take a life (other than in self defence perhaps) and shooting a person, because he has donged you on the head, and taken someone's money doesn't score a point on the scale of cool things to do on a winter's afternoon.

I can see no justification for guards carrying arms. If they do so there is an implication that they must be prepared to use them. Don't get upset because a guard shot someone....get upset because your kids could have been in the crossfire and it was only a bag of money the bad guy was stealing.

Have guns removed from all private security forces.

Peace and Love
P

:mad:

[silentC]

None of us have the facts on which to base a decision, anyone who voted is doing so with a dead set Kangaroo Court mentality!

Don't get carried away BM, we were asked for an opinion, not a decision. None of us is in a position to make a decision. I would hope that whoever is has access to all the facts. I'll still sleep OK tonight. ;)

[Termite]

Well he wont do it again.
Here in Sydney,the guy who was trying to run down a cop and tried to sue the cop for shooting him in the arm has just been arrested for another robbery.
I'm a Buddhist but like I said at the start, he wont do it again.
Regards
Termite

[Rowan]

can someone just clarify exactly what her job was!!!!!!!!!!!!!


was it to protect the money she was carrying or was it to kill anyone trying to steal it!!!!!!!!

While I have absolutely no simpathy for the dead person ( he chose to attack a person carrying a firearm, surely he was aware of the possible outcomes) , I am however not sure that the end justifies the means. At the time she shot him he was of no physical threat to her, he was in his car leaving. Could she have done something differently, only she will ever know because she was the only person faced with the decisions she made.

Easiest thing in the world is to sit in judgement, specially without all of the facts..................(I didnt vote)

[bitingmidge]

Don't get carried away BM, we were asked for an opinion, not a decision. None of us is in a position to make a decision. I would hope that whoever is has access to all the facts. I'll still sleep OK tonight. ;)
Sorry, didn't mean to get carried away .... just hate bad guys, people that shoot them, people that report shootings, people that ............... well actually I really hate people that keep me in meetings all morning so I can't log on here and rant occasionally!!

Why will you sleep tonight.... are you particularly busy this afternoon?

Cheers,

P

:D :D :D

[silentC]

Why will you sleep tonight.... are you particularly busy this afternoon

I've been quite busy all day as a matter of fact. There's this thread and the one on beating your children. Some other silly thing about 'woodwork', whatever that is. I don't know which way to turn I tells ya.

No need to shout Rowan... If she wasn't meant to shoot people, why did they give her a gun? Isn't that what guns are for? :confused:

[bitingmidge]

No need to shout Rowan... If she wasn't meant to shoot people, why did they give her a gun? Isn't that what guns are for? :confused:

AHH now there you go again, got me all calmed down, then pour petrol on the fire!!!

My sentiments persackly!!! WHY GIVE HER A GUN?? A LOADED GUN???

She's probably had training in how to use it too, with those targets shaped like people that Mel Gibson can shoot smilie faces on.:)

Just my OPINION you understand!!
:D :D :D

P

[Honest Gaza]

A good reply Wood Borer, I agree with you.

I'm certainly not defending thieves either, especially not those who rob with violence, but for those who think "he got what he deserved", would you honestly feel the same way had he been your brother or your son ?

I can't see that there are any winners in this sorry story :(

Yes !!!! if my Son goes out on the street and starts beating up women to steal their money....then I have failed, and he is of no use to society.

Also, there was one winner. Society.....one less dirtbag on the street.

[silentC]

My sentiments persackly!!! WHY GIVE HER A GUN?? A LOADED GUN???
That's right. This is my point. If you hand her a loaded gun, you can hardly point the finger at her when she uses it.

If someone beats the living faeces out of you with knuckle dusters and you have a gun in your pocket, what are the chances that you'll pull it out, or even use it? How many here wouldn't be enraged to the point of lashing out with what ever was to hand?

She would have been better off forgetting she had the gun. It's not her fault, I tell yah, it's the mugs that gave her the gun and showed her how to shoot it.

[craigb]

Actually, from what I read, it was her husband's security firm she was working for.

Another point, we don't know anything of what happened. We weren't there.

We don't know if knuckle dusters were used or not. How do we know that she didn't fall over and hit her head?

The answer is we don't, we're just relying on media reports.

But it doesn't matter if you're a cop or a security gaurd, if you kill someone you better be prepared to justify your actions.

I don't know why we think it's o.k. for security gaurds to carry guns.

[jackiew]

yes there should be a prosecution just to examine the facts but in the circumstances AS I HAVE HEARD REPORTED ( which may or may not equate to the facts) I wouldn't expect her to get a prison sentence.

I was surprised to learn that a security guard was carrying a gun. My son's dad drove an armoured van for a security firm in the uk and wasn't armed.

If someone whacked me over the head I would probably have had a go at them with whatever means was at my disposal.

I'm always amazed when someone who climbs over a fence into a garden where a big dog resides and has chunks taken out of them is able to sue the dog owner. Or when burglars get shot by a houseowner and sue them.

Obviously one has to be sure that the dog was genuinely locked into the garden or the house had genuinely been broken into but provided that the "victim" was trespassing I'd say they got what was coming to them ... case dismissed.

[Zed]

the knob stole a car, sat in a car park, stalked the security guard, stomped the security guard with a knuckelduster, dragged her across a car park, stole the money and was trying to get away in his stolen car when his enraged and concussed victim shot him from point blank range. justice was served as far as im concerned. frigging bleeding heart liberals! no wonder its unsafe to walk the streets with knobs like him around. a clear message should be sent to like minded knobs that if they predate they may be summarily cleansed. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Im against violence in most forms and have rarely stooped to such myself - in this instance it was deserved and timely. if they had executions in this country for rock spiders, murderers, rapists etc I would gladly put up my hand for the role of the guy who presses the button and sleep at night knowing I did a good and productive job.


good on her - she should get a medal! - bugger it - order of australia!!!!

[craigb]

frigging bleeding heart liberals!

I'm no bleeding heart liberal Zed. In fact if anything I'd say I'm to the right of centre.

Definitely to the left of Ghengis Khan though :D :D

[Rocker]

Seems to me that she made a wrong decision in the heat of the moment, in shooting to kill. But, if you attack an armed security guard, you have got to expect to have the gun used against you. I voted that she should not be prosecuted, but I think she should have tried to disable the robber by shooting at his legs and shooting his tyres out. However, it is not surprising if, after being savagely attacked, her judgement was somewhat impaired.

If you ban security guards from carrying weapons, it would just give the criminals open slather to commit armed robberies with no fear of the consequences, other than being caught, and they would be encouraged to attack unarmed security guards confident in the knowledge that they would not be risking injury or death.

The case is similar in a way to that of the British farmer who had been burgled several times and shot a burglar in his house. He got several years in jail, but won a good deal of sympathy since the police were apparently incapable of preventing him being repeatedly burgled by a gang of gypsies. That case caused considerable puzzlement in the US, where it is generally assumed that you have a perfect right to shoot anyone who is robbing you on your own property. In fact a sizeable proportion of Americans keep guns for this very purpose of defending themselves against criminals.

Rocker

[hexbaz]

The case is similar in a way to that of the British farmer who had been burgled several times and shot a burglar in his house....It does have similarities, and I am not commenting either way on the Oz case - but Mr Martin shot the burglar in the back as he was running away. This is what appeared to sway the jury - he was found not guilty of some other charges where self defense was more obvious (not that this made any difference to his sentence).

I am not taking sides here - tough call - but I think if the kid had not been shot in the back, it's possible that Mr Martin would be a free man.

Here is the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214334,00.html) written at the time of the farmer's conviction.

[bitingmidge]

Hey Zed,

the knob stole a car, sat in a car park, stalked the security guard, stomped the security guard with a knuckelduster, dragged her across a car park, stole the money and was trying to get away in his stolen car when his enraged and concussed victim shot him from point blank range

I'll bet Ray Martin told you that! Then it must be true!

What REALLY happened?

By the way...there are so many shootings there that I never take my family to the Point Blank Ranges any more, probably the most dangerous place in Australia I would guess. Must ask Ray...

P
:D :D :D

[jackiew]

an interesting advance on the the Tony Martin case is the fact that the surviving burglar has been allowed to sue Mr Martin for damages( using legal aid ) !!!

Being shot at doesn't seem to have led him ( the surviving burglar) to be a reformed character either

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/07/nfear07.xml

another shooting by an aggreived allotment holder in Ilkeston attracted a lot of publicity for a while ( for those not in the know an Allotment is a piece of land rented from the local council for the purpose of growing vegetables )

http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/Revill%20v%20%20Newbery%20doc.pdf

[hexbaz]

another shooting by an aggreived allotment holder in Ilkeston attracted a lot of publicity for a while ( for those not in the know an Allotment is a piece of land rented from the local council for the purpose of growing vegetables )

http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/Revill%20v%20%20Newbery%20doc.pdfA key part of the judge's ruling in this case, also has a bearing on the guilty verdict passed on Tony Martin:
The discharge of a shotgun towards burglars who are not displaying any intention of resorting to violence to the person is, in my judgment, out of all proportion to the threat involved, even making all due allowances for the agony of the moment, and therefore any injury sustained by such discharge cannot be said to be an integral part or a necessarily direct consequence of the burglary.Whilst this applies to both the 'allotment' case and Tony Martin (where even he admitted that the burglars were fleeing his dogs at the time he fired on them), it does not appear to apply to the Oz case - I think self defense must play a part in her defense.

[DanP]

I voted yes. I am a Police Officer and don't get me wrong, one less crook is one less crook. BUT...

She carries a gun to protect HERSELF. She does not carry a gun to protect money. The money is insured. If she'd shot the man whilst being bashed, different story, she was protecting herself from death or serious injury, fully justified grounds for shooting the assailant.

She is not, however justified in chasing down a fleeing offender and shooting him. The man was no longer a threat and as such she was not justified in killing him.

Companies like Armaguard and Chubb train their employees to allow the crook to take the money if it will prevent confrontation. Somehow these security guards can't help themselves and have to let a few zingers go.

I went to a stick up once in a shopping centre where one of the guards was shot before the offenders fled with several hundred thou. The other security guard sent one (a .357 cal round) after the crooks from behind a pinball machine without even aiming. The round travelled 300m inside a crowded shopping centre in the middle of the day, ricocheting eight times and coming to rest in the wall of a shop after passing through the open door. Maybe if some of these cowboys (girls) get in the poo they might think before they try to shoot someone.

OK, I'm done.

Dan

[Ben from Vic.]

Which brings us to another interesting fact.
If armor guards get trigger-happy, we will find the crooks will just shoot the guards, then take the money.

Problem solved.

I believe that the police in Britan don't carry firearms, for just such a reason.
If you don't have a gun, I don't need a gun.

Ben.

[hexbaz]

I believe that the police in Britan don't carry firearms, for just such a reason.Interesting that you believe that! A lot of police have guns at their disposal - my wife's brother (an ordinary policeman) has a gun in his car. OK, it's locked away generally, and he does not carry it when walking around. This is aside from 'armed response units' which get deployed in the event that someone is reportedly toting arms, and the guys constantly walking around major UK airports openly carrying automatic weaponry.

Just don't believe all you hear about British police not being armed.

[Toggy]

Gotta go along with DanP. While he was belting the crap out of her; self defence; but she chose to chase after him and zap him. Her moment of danger had passed. Was it revenge???? How bad was she concussed?????

What a sh*tfight it will turn out to be. The shrinks will probably find a new syndrome; CBOOFSG (crap belted out of female security guard) just to go along with the PMT, PND etc etc. She is responsible for her own actions; nobody else. She was the one calling the shots (pun intended).

On the other hand. One less sh*thead to to injure/harm innocent people which could have been members of your family. He also chose to do an act where he could have reasonably expected to be shot. (during; not after).

My 2 cents worth.

Ken

[Ben from Vic.]

Must have watched to many eppisodes of The Bill. :eek:

I stand corrected :D

The firearms arn't usually carried on their person are they?

Ben.

Ps. You can all relax, I only watched The Bill when my father had it on TV. He was brought up in (Nottingham) England.

[hexbaz]

The firearms arn't usually carried on their person are they?True - except in the case of those patrolling airports. They are seriously armed! They've been in the airports for some time, too - pre 9/11 for sure. Probably due to the IRA and stuff.

Nothing (much) wrong with the Bill! Not on any more though. As an aside, one of the actors in the Bill joined the police when the series finished. He was fed up with acting and assumed he had all the insight required!

[fxst]

I agree with Zed
let her go she did a service and he deserved it.
Kill em all and let God sort em out :mad:
We should have a concealed carry law in Oz too as quite a few states in the US have found crime rates go down...... mmmm which house is armed?? nah Ill try BM's place its safer.
Pete (I like red dots ...go for it) :D
This house is guarded 3 nights a week with a shotgun ....you guess which days. :eek:

[echnidna]

She shouldnt be prosecuted.
Sure she went after the bash merchant and shot him.
But she had just been seriously hurt by him so she just reacted like a normal person.

[bitingmidge]

nah Ill try BM's place its safer.

At one time our insurer was demanding that we left the till open in our shop, with a light on and $100 in it. The idea being that a thief would not do any damage looking for cash.

After losing a window and $100 three nights in a row at 3.10am they finally relented and we leave all cash in the safe....trust me I could write a book about burglars but have never had the urge to shoot one dead. Usually my urges stop at about the point where I am having their pressed and dessicated testicles framed for my pool room wall.

At home, please help yourself...it's insured and identifiable. Oh, you won't get shot, but I CAN'T guarantee that you won't get hurt (you're welcome to find out how :D), and you'll be photographed every inch of the way, with the footage stored on the web (just in case you knock off the computer!)

The place is monitored by the way, but the alarm is silent so as not to give you a fright and a sudden heart attack (so I can't get sued), and be careful that you don't cut yourself on the glass as you attempt to break OUT won't you (assuming the door locks work the way they are designed).

Cheers,

P
Why kill anyone when you can scar them for life?
:D :D :D

[DanP]

One less sh*thead to to injure/harm innocent people which could have been members of your family. He also chose to do an act where he could have reasonably expected to be shot. (during; not after).

Hear Hear.


If you don't have a gun, I don't need a gun.

I have carried a gun for the last eight years, and trusted with the decision making process involved in when to use it. In that time I have only had to draw it a couple of times and only had to decide once. My decision was that it was going to be a bad day for the crook, who was pointing a sawn off .22 at me. Luckily, for him and me and about twenty 15 year old witnesses, he did all the right things just as the hammer was about to drop.

At the time I was on foot and in plain clothes. My two off siders and I just happened across a man with a gun in the face of a kid. If I was not armed, the best I could have done is absolutely nothing.

Dan

[Honest Gaza]

She is not, however justified in chasing down a fleeing offender and shooting him. The man was no longer a threat and as such she was not justified in killing him.
Dan

No longer a threat ?????

How about the people he may kill in his attempt to flee the scene of the crime ?
How about the next person he decides to attack tomorrow ?

I know you are probably arguing from a "legal" perspective.....but don't suggest for one minute that the man was no longer a threat.

[BigPop]

No longer a threat ?????

How about the people he may kill in his attempt to flee the scene of the crime ?
How about the next person he decides to attack tomorrow ?

I know you are probably arguing from a "legal" perspective.....but don't suggest for one minute that the man was no longer a threat.

I've read this thread with interest and didn't want to get involved in the argument but now can't help myself.
Honest Gaza you must be kidding with that line of thinking. "How about the next person he decides to attack tomorrow?" Come on get real - that's as bad as saying "Well I think I'll shoot me next door neighbour cause he may bash his missus tomorrow"!!! You can't speculate on what his state of mind will be tomorrow etc.
I agree with DanP - the initial "threat" - had passed - he had dropped the bag got into his car and that's all we know.
Was he trying to start his car and drive off???
Was he trying to get a gun to shoot her???
Was he just trying to get away from a crazy woman that he had just belted the beejeezus out of and was now pointing a BIG handgun at him???
That's what we don't know and everyone is speculating on what has occurred. Everyone is going on the 'Media version' and we all know how true and exact that is.
All we know is that after the big fracas she shot him dead.
Had she done it whilst he was belting the crap out of her then it maybe a totally different story as she would've been in immediate fear of her life and then maybe acting in self defence.

Possibly she has had a 'brain explosion' - admittedly been belted and savagely bashed - and in the 'heat of the moment' thinking he was going to 'get away' decided to stop him by shooting him.
Don't forget we have had hours & days to think about this she had only a split second to act as she did.
Although I sympathise with her I still feel she had no right in shooting him in the way she did.
I don't think she has intentionally wanted to kill him but by pulling the trigger she has definitely wanted to harm him that's for sure.

I've said enough - will get off the soapbox and crawl back into my hole now. :D :D

[craigb]

I've said enough - will get off the soapbox and crawl back into my hole now. :D :D

No need to do that BigPete. I thought we were having a debate. You are as much entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

Cheers
Craig

[Rowan]

just as an aside has anyone else reading/posting here had concussion?? I copped it once playing sport and my senses were totally screwed up, I had no depth of perception!!!! People that were running 2 feet away seemed abut 20meters away and vica versa.....

Leads me to wonder

was she really concussed and aiming at his tyres OR not concussed and a great shot??????????????

[silentC]

... don't suggest for one minute that the man was no longer a threat.

I think what Dan meant was that he was no longer a threat to her. As Dan says, she is given the gun to protect herself and so should only use it in self defense, not to stop the guy from getting away. It's not her job to apprehend suspects. I happen to think in this case she was using it for an entirely different purpose: revenge.

But then as others have been at pains to point out, we don't really know what happened.

I still maintain that if you give someone a gun and they use it in the heat of the moment, you can't blame them for it.

[Zed]

I've had concussion 2wice (Tae Kwon do tournament, skiing accident) and beleive me you do loose reality a bit (its like smoking a joint, drinking 4 beers, hyperventilating then standing up rapidly...) I dont blame her at all. i pity her - she has to live with it for the rest of her life...

[craigb]

i pity her - she has to live with it for the rest of her life...

Yes.

[Eastie]

... but I think she should have tried to disable the robber by shooting at his legs and shooting his tyres out. ... RockerIt had to come up sooner or later didn't it :D :rolleyes: :D My other post was a bit of black humour pointed just at this sort of nonsense.

I didn't vote for three reasons:

although I'm sure I know what her motives where, I don't know what happened;
it sure does sound like another case of 'rent a thug' goes mad; &
a lot of people will suffer becuase of what happened.
Not too long ago a well know cricketer was killed by one of these types, albeit out of the thugs working hours. It would seem that unlike most cops who know the terms of engagement and repurcussions of getting hot headed, rent a thugs don't. I know I'm taring the whole lot with the one brush, but with so many bad apples in the cart it's hard to sell the good ones. Too many of these rent a thugs are loose cannons that can be likened to pit bulls, once provoked or looked at the wrong way they attack, often with vicious ferocity and intensity.

[outback]

I realise I'm coming in abit late on this but that's life.

The undisputed facts of this case. (lemme know if I'm wrong)

1. Thief was trying to steal money

2. Security guard (armed) hired to protect money

3. Thief flogged the living bejesus out of said guard

From this, surely the thief had ample opportunity to assess the possible risk, and possible outcomes from his actions. He decided to continue anyway.

The guard reacted on instinct, NO amount of training can prepare anyone for an incident like this.

Her instinct was to shoot him, perhaps a better persons instincts would have let him go. Hers didn't.

She shot him, that is the decision she has to live with, no diffrerent to the decision of the thief to carry out his actions, he just had longer to make up his mind.

[Honest Gaza]

[QUOTE=BigPete]I've read this thread with interest and didn't want to get involved in the argument but now can't help myself.
Honest Gaza you must be kidding with that line of thinking. "How about the next person he decides to attack tomorrow?" Come on get real - that's as bad as saying "Well I think I'll shoot me next door neighbour cause he may bash his missus tomorrow"!!! You can't speculate on what his state of mind will be tomorrow etc.

Glad to see I got you involved BigPete....and No I'm not kidding with that line of thinking.
If this man was guilty of the crime ( and that is the assumption that all of this thread is based on ), then I feel no pity for him at all. If, as others have suggested, the "facts" reported turn out to be incorrect, then this will no doubt change the view of many people, including myself.

However, my belief is that this thread has opened up discussion on how we feel about the crims being allowed to roam around unhindered. I for one, am sick of thugs that have a history of repeated offences such as the "pillar of society" that tried to run over a Police Officer and then complained that he was shot while trying to do so.

[Rocker]

Eastie,

It may be that a lot of people will suffer as a result of this thief's death; but he should have considered that before attacking an armed guard. He had presumably been planning this robbery for several days, so he had plenty of time to consider whether he wished to risk making his wife a widow and his children orphans. The guard was taken by surprise and badly beaten. The only reason that she was unable to shoot him in self defence was that his attack was sufficiently sudden and savage that she was unable to use her gun until she had recovered somewhat.

The law may prohibit retaliation once the immediate threat has passed; but I very much doubt that any jury will convict her of murder. Her judgement was obviously impaired by the bashing she had received. My sympathies lie with the guard, rather than with the relatives of the criminal who attacked her.

Rocker

[Toggy]

I'll stick my bib in again.

Eastie, the "rent a thugs" as you describe them I feel is an apt name. On the whole I think you will find that mostly they will be of a certain type of mentality/state of mind to take on this job. Sadism is probably high in their makeup as many seem to enjoy infliciting pain & suffering on lesser people. How many meek, mild mannered reporters do you find doing the job. Not many i figure. They have been getting away with this thuggery for years.
I heard that the Hookes killer fronted a commital hearing yesterday on a separate serious assault. Tells you something about his makeup. Obviously there are decent people within this field also.

Outback; I differ with your idea regarding the training. Lots of proper training should make your actions instinctive and you react as trained. I say proper training; not some speech from a gungho wanker and a dozen shots at a paper target each year. Also I have found from experience that an aggrieved female is not going to give up easily. She wants her pound of flesh and no-ones going to stop her getting it.

Rocker, I think that many peoples' sympathies will lie with the guard as they are sick & tired of this scum pushing them around. Lets face it; the Melbourne gangland murders are just that; but it is certainly weeding out lots of unsavoury characters. Live by the sword you die by it.


Ken

[TassieKiwi]

Midge and Borer have covered it pretty well. I don't reckon that the guard will sleep too well in the next few months. But, as she was armed, and as the dude smashed her with the 'duster - well I guess it just happened. My Dad worked in a prison as an Educational Officer, and met many types. One or two who had no idea of who there parents were, where they were born, what race they really belonged to - or how old they were, as there was no record of thier birth. Note that this was only in the last 15 years. No excuse, but a different world.

[Pete J]

Well I don't know all the facts and neither does the media or probably anyone else at this point. I votes yes as I think the system can sort out the facts and come to a well-considered conclusion. (Well mostly anyway!) Its a bit tricky to work out how much of a physical assault can be done to someone before they are entitled to kill their assailant afterwards in the heat of the moment or for revenge. An interesting question is - Why did she shoot him -was she not thinking straight, was he attempting to do something further, was she just in a rage - who knows?

All my sympathies are with the guard, but that doesn't mean guards should feel they have licence to kill if provoked, even very severely, if it is not in self defence.

[craigb]

Just as an update on this story, there was an article in the Sunday paper today about how she'd sold her story to A Current Affair for the quoted sum of $100,000.

The cops are p1ssed with her because at the time she was giving the interview she'd told the cops that she was too sick to be interviewed by them.

Apparently they are considering legal action to prevent the story going to air.

AFAIK, she still hasn't talked to the cops.

Actually it wasn't A curent Affair but Today Tonight. Doesn't make any difference though

[hexbaz]

AFAIK, she still hasn't talked to the cops.... In which case she deserves to be prosecuted. Such arrogance! I hope they throw the book at her.

[craigb]

... In which case she deserves to be prosecuted. Such arrogance! I hope they throw the book at her.

Well on the ABC (like your BBC) news tonight, the cops were saying that if she didn't front to talk to them tonight, she'd be charged with murder.

They are going to seek an injuction preventing her story going to air.

[DanP]

...she'd sold her story to A Current Affair for the quoted sum of $100,000.

...she was too sick to be interviewed...


Raises a few questions doesn't it??

Dan

[Honest Gaza]

Raises a few questions doesn't it??

Dan

Yes....but it also raises a few dollars to pay for her legal defence.

[DanP]

This whole thing is fast becoming a circus. If the story goes to air then it may prejudice a trial in her favour. Does OJ Simpson ring a bell. To me, whether she is guilty or not, she is showing utter contempt for the legal system.

[silentC]

Have to agree with you there Dan. But why don't they just arrest her? Surely if you are going to charge someone with murder you have to take them into custody, or am I missing something?

[BigPop]

The only reasons I can see are :-
If she is arrested then charged she would then be bailed to a date some days/weeks ahead and the court case could take some considerable time to commence.
If they get a Court Summons then she would have to appear before a magistrate and then the matter would become 'sub judice' which would/could prevent the interview from being aired tonight.

[Honest Gaza]

Some further thoughts to provoke discussion.

Do the Police want her arrested today because she did something wrong....or do they want her arrested today so that the television interview cannot be shown ?

Also, one would hope that any jury member who may be sitting in judgement 2 months down the track, would take notice of arguments presented to them at the trial, rather than base their decision on a 10 min television interview.

My point ???? I won't be watching the televison interview because I have to wash my hair or pick my teeth or something. But if I did......I am sure that it would not pre-determine my thinking, during a trial.

[silentC]

We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read.
Mark Twain

[bitingmidge]

This whole thing is fast becoming a circus. If the story goes to air then it may prejudice a trial in her favour. Does OJ Simpson ring a bell. To me, whether she is guilty or not, she is showing utter contempt for the legal system.

Is she the one showing contempt, or the grubs in the media who are manipulating her, the "story" etc etc? She is no doubt in shock, in fear of her future and probably taking advice from those signing the cheques (as well as a few who will receive the proceeds), all in all not thinking too straight I reckon.....

This time it's Channel 7, but not so long ago Channel 9 tried to take out an injunction to allow them to air stuff in the Falconio case that the JUDGE (what would he know?) thought would be best kept under wraps. Of course Channel 9 was acting in the PUBLIC interest apparently.

Until the media start REPORTING rather than surmising, manipulating and generally inventing stories, and until stories like this are not aired until AFTER the outcome of any case, this little piece of the public has no interest.

All we should know at the moment is "A security guard who shot and fatally wounded an attacker has been charged with murder. A full report will be published after the outcome of the trial has been decided."

We'd save lots of trees that way too.

Cheers,

p

[Gumby]

Now that she's being paid to go on TV, the credibility factor has hit zero on the scale. I had sympathy but if she profits from it she loses me.

[Honest Gaza]

Let me preface this by saying that this is what I heard on the radio ( up to you to judge on it's merits ).

Her mother was talking on the radio and said that all actions the girl has taken has been under guidance from legal counsel. Her televison interview is to fund the lawyers ( the only real winners from this )...not to gain profit for herself.

[silentC]

Until the media start REPORTING rather than surmising, manipulating and generally inventing stories
In a perfect world...

Unfortunately, the media is doing what any good business would do. They identify their market and then go for it. It's the same as the fast food argument. If people didn't buy the by the bucket load, there'd be no money in it.

You can't blame 'the media' for giving the public what they want. There may be a few principled individuals around who don't read it, and a hell of a lot more who read it but take it with a grain of salt; but the greatest number by far are the ones who read it, believe it, love it, and beg for more... They're the ones who buy the papers, watch the shows, and buy the junk food that they see advertised in the breaks.

If you want to cast blame, the government seems like a good place to start. They're the ones who can legislate to prevent this sort of thing. But then that would upset one of their biggest mates, wouldn't it?

[bitingmidge]

If you want to cast blame, the government seems like a good place to start. They're the ones who can legislate to prevent this sort of thing. But then that would upset one of their biggest mates, wouldn't it?

Got that in one....so what about the opposition?

:D :D :D

P

[silentC]

They don't want to upset him either... ;)

[Rocker]

Silent,

If you think our media are bad, just take a look at the American media, who endlessly speculate about murder cases before they come to trial, so that it is virtually inconceivable that an unprejudiced jury can be empanelled in a high-profile case. Also, in the US, there is no prohibition on jury members talking to the press about what went on in the jury room. So, in such cases, the media continually second-guess the verdict.

I lived in America for four years during the seond Clinton term, and the three topics that dominated the news for months or years in that period were Monica Lewinsky, Jon-Benet Ramsey, and O. J. Simpson. Australia would only be mentioned if someone had been eaten by a crocodile or shark. It is hardly surprising that Americans are so woefully ignorant of world affairs, since topics of real importance are rarely mentioned there by the media.

Rocker
.

[Sturdee]

Yes....but it also raises a few dollars to pay for her legal defence.

Having been paid that obscene amount of money stops her being eligible for legal aid and if she is convicted of a crime ( whether it is murder or manslaughter ) she is guilty of profiting of her crime and will have to forfeit that money.

This could be a case of loose/loose. Stupid in my opinion.


Peter.

[Eastie]

I’ve finally worked out what it was all about, and here (with the help of pictures) I've re-enacted the events:<O:p</O:p


http://www.ubeaut.biz/realmad.gif

http://www.ubeaut.biz/bash.gif

http://www.ubeaut.biz/shot.gif
<O:p</O:p

And, after the event
http://www.ubeaut.biz/uhoh.gif

http://www.ubeaut.biz/idea.gif

http://www.ubeaut.biz/phone.gif<O:p</O:p

[Honest Gaza]

Personally, I've aired my views, read other people's views, engaged in counter arguments and realised we all think differently. We all have opinions and these are neither right or wrong....just opinions.

Me, I'm prepared to move on now.

[Gumby]

I agree with Gazza except that opinions which differ from mine are wrong. ;)

[silentC]

Sorry Gumby, but I have to disagree with you there....

[Ben from Vic.]

I believe that Eastie is right on the mark. :D

[Kris.Parker1]

The fact that she shot at the alleged offender after he had started to leave (considering she was not in any sort of danger at that time) constitues murder in my books. Lets let the justice system (i know its not that crash hot) do it's job. Self defence is only valid until the point the threat is either neutralised (during the attack) or goes away.

Cheers

Kris

[electricmonk]

Also Im sick at the moment so bear with me if this sounds a little incoherant. Well I am a Security Officer as well, I voted "Yes" as stated before, the fact is she was not in danger when she shot him, the fact she didn't front up when requested to the Police and the Fact that she received money for an interview. I have a huge problem with the way she acted. However I am still undecided as to a murder or manslaughter charge. Hell I work in an environment where we are always coming up against gangs either doing graffiti of trying to break in. We have no backup and yes I have been attacked a few times. I do think the papers made it a little sensational as it may take two weeks to get a gun licence for a security guard..but they also have to regularly front up to a shooting range and show they are still competent. In fact the regulations here in SA mean that a security guard practices firing their side arm more than the police. The thing is a security guard can have a gun, which by it's nature is a tool that can easily kill someone, while we are not allowed to have capsicum spray or "stun guns" which while they hurt like buggery have far lesser risk of killing anyone..

[gemi_babe]

I voted YES, she should be prosecuted, maybe not goal time but she should be made accountable for her actions. When I first heard of it on the news, I thought bout bloody time someone is fighting back but after seeing her interview, she is a shocking liar and why couldn't she talk to the cops after? She could sit down with her friend and have a smoke. Not at all the actions of someone in shock.

I didn't see her as being BASHED. I was bashed at 16 and came out far worse then she was. The deceased ran off to the car, which gave her enough time to regroup herself, and get on the chase, which I would think would let you rationalise and say, ok, get a description of the car etc. Not, lets shoot this bastard.