• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Sydney security fatally shoots robber. Justified or not?

^^ In relation to that, we make 90% of our decisions based on emotion and then justify these decisions with logic. In your example it'd be a totally emotional response then afterwards your mind would be doing some intense justifying so you don't feel wrong for doing it. After all, killing someone is not very consistent with most peoples character and more than likely the only time we would do it is in a case of severe emotional influence.

Adikkal
 
I think she was justified, in the fact that she was just beaten senseless with a pair of knuckle dusters, so she stumbles up to the car and fired.

However, having said that. I dont think she was justified for that reason. She walked up to the car and basically executed him.

If I was in her shoes, I would probably have done the same thing. The anger and pain that would have risen from being belted would make tip the scales in my opinion.

I dont think she deserves to be charged with murder, but neither does she deserve a frigging medal. She should be held accountable for her actions though. Thrid degree manslaughter, or whatever that slap on the wrist is called. When you cause the death of another person, but its *almost* justifiable. I cant remember the terminology.


On another note. If she gets off scot free, I dont think it will "Drive down armed robbery" like someone said in a local paper. Personally, if I were an armed robber, and I knew, in the back of my mind that this security guard is going to shoot me with no legal reprucussions; I'd make sure they didnt. And there would be a rise in security guard deaths during armed robberies.
 
Great to know we have all these emotionally unstable potential murders on bluelight ;)

/me hopes none of you have guns

I dunno.. I just always feel bad when one of these small-time crims gets fucking KILLED over something like assualt and robbery.. is this really justice? I consider a few years in the slammer more then enough..
 
it's not worth it anyway, all moneys are insured for this sort of protection and killing someone IMO, isn't worth any amount of money - but I feel no sympathy for this guy. Rather I feel sorry for the lady, who will have to deal the rest of her life knowing she has killed someone else for a very stupid reason (a small amount of money)

I hope she doesn't get into trouble, even though she wasn't in immediate danger - who was to say this guy wouldn't of gone 5 meters down the road and ran over a little kid? would it be justified then?
 
just to add to that, what the hell has the world come to that guys have to beat the shit out of a woman with knuckledusters? this is really a sad time indeed....
 
Heh, I was talking to this copper once and she said back in the 80's (when chivalry was still alive), she was in a pub brawl and this big 6'5 guy turns around and swings at her, then he realises the officer is a women and pulls his arm back inches away from hitting her face, and says "sorry ma'am i didn't realise you were a women".
 
keystroke said:
just to add to that, what the hell has the world come to that guys have to beat the shit out of a woman with knuckledusters? this is really a sad time indeed....
Click to expand...

Man what's the difference? He just wanted the money, he woulda gone after it whether it was a man or a women taking the weekly cash from the register. If a guy killed him I think alot of these responces would be different.
 
^ even beating ANYONE with knuckledusters is absolutely disgusting IMO, these scumbags should just go and get a god damn job....
 
I would say the security guard did what was needed, If i got hit in the head multiple times with a knuckle duster, I would want to take out the enemy as well, Have you ever thought this lady might have head damage for the rest of her life?
 
keystroke said:
^ even beating ANYONE with knuckledusters is absolutely disgusting IMO
Click to expand...

The guy was trying to rob her, not touch her up. Overkill is necessary. I'm not defending him, but you also have to see it from his perspective. You cant dance up to someone and ask for the money. You've got to:

1) Be hard
2) Be fast
3) Not get shot in the head

Guess which one he failed to acheive. :p
 
I thought seeing it from his perspective would be more along the lines of...I'm a slack, scum sucking piece of shit who would rather inflict physical harm on another human being for money which I have not earned, are not entitled to and don't deserve rather than get a job and work hard for my money like 99% of the rest of the population. Hey look a female security guard! Great now I get to rob someone and bash a woman...could it get any better than...*BLAM!*.....
 
At least the thief won't ever be able to thieve again and the community is safe.

If the security goes through the court system, the courts are likely to asses her as no threat to the community given the nature of the incident and jail time will serve no purpose. I think the public will be on her side and am sure it is not the first time he has done a robbery. If scum wanna steal then they know they are taking the risk of being caught, injured or killed. A good crook is a dead crook.
 
not to bring this into the topic, but does anyone know what race the robber was ? was he an aussie ?

just curious, is all...
 
baps said:
At least the thief won't ever be able to thieve again and the community is safe.
Click to expand...


But,I'm sure there are plenty more out there that will do similar things.Except some may make sure they kill the person they are robbing.

Personally,for society I feel it has to be looked at why people do these things.Prevention is the key.NOT to apease the criminals,but for everyone elses benefit.

The guy was a white anglo-saxon Australian too ;) .
 
Christian Soldier said:
He was an aussie and he was also addicted to meth and weed..
Click to expand...


do you happen to know if drugs were found on the scene or on his person at the time of the incident?
 
silvia saint said:
true, true.

i am no expert on the subject but i was under the impression that if someone is attacking you, the law allows you to defend yourself by using a weapon as long as the weapon is not more than one step up the order.

for example... a) fist -> knife. b) knife -> gun.

then again, if you are licensed to carry a firearm for your profession, you are probably allowed to use it against a water pistol. ;)

law students ?
Click to expand...

I spent about 30 minutes today discussing this with two law students from Sydney Uni:

If someone attacks you, you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself... You can't stab them if they push you over, you know what I mean. We all agreed that during the attack shooting him would have been perfectly justifiable. But that's the problem.

These two students said they reakon she'll be up for man slaughter, if not murder. Yes, she was savagely beaten... But the threat was over. He was leaving the scene, and she exacted revenge. Going on the reports we have, there was no defense involved - there was nothing to defend herself against. It's going to look awful for her in court, because aside from possible psychological issues (e.g. psychosis), there is no justification other than anger. Frankly I think her reaction is completely understandable, but that doesn't make it ok.

A lot of people here have voiced support for her actions. I've got a question. How long after a crime is it ok to shoot the perpitrator?

If you think you can answer that, think again. These law students asked me that one, and no matter what I gave back, they provided solid evidence that after a crime has been committed, attacking the perpitrator is a new crime you're commiting yourself.

Anyway, that was the results of our discussion.

IMHO it boils down to this; two wrongs do not make a right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top