Thread: Should the security guard be prosecuted

Originally Posted by Gazza

... 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.

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...

Originally Posted by Zed

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by Rocker

... but I think she should have tried to disable the robber by shooting at his legs and shooting his tyres out. ... Rocker

It had to come up sooner or later didn't it My other post was a bit of black humour pointed just at this sort of nonsense.

I didn't vote for three reasons:

1. although I'm sure I know what her motives where, I don't know what happened;
2. it sure does sound like another case of 'rent a thug' goes mad; &
3. 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.

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.

[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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by craigb

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.

Originally Posted by hexbaz

... 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.

Originally Posted by craigb

...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