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

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

Sydney security fatally shoots robber. Justified or not?

I'd like to empahise that i used the word reasonable, not justified. Actions are consequences of previous actions. Therefore the action of the guard can be reasoned. Point 1 is not about being right or wrong. Nobody is denying that the guard shot the theif. Its about WHY it happened. Thats why I have split the 2 points. Point 2 is about justification for the action that has happened. Sorry if that was unclear.

I understand what you are getting at, but I still disagree. To imply an act is reasonable is to say that it is a lucid, commonsense and thought out act. I don't think her actions can be justified in this regard. Reasonable people do not (in the eyes of the law) kill people in anything other than self defence. If they do, they are guilty of conciously committing a criminal act and are liable for punishment.
Also, being angry etc isnt a particularly good defence. As humans, we are expected to be held accountable despite our emotions, as they are our responsibility. We can get a little leniency during sentancing for crimes on the basis of emotions (ie, crimes of passion may be punished less than cold premeditated crimes) however, they are still largely irrelevant from a culpability point of view.

To prove she had some form of diminshed responsibility one would have to demonstrate that the attack directly left her in an unsound state of mind, to the point whereby she was not able to evaluate her actions or tell right from wrong. This would be pretty difficult to prove, because going to the effort of actually killing a person something very few people would take lightly in even serious circumstances where a person is not directly threatening them.
 
From this point i'm assuming that you beleive and that you believe that a reasonable jury would believe that the secuirty was guard did not have an altered state of mind or any have any form of deminished responsbility as a result of the attack?

Originally posted by -Thoth
....some form of diminshed responsibility .....


Originally posted by -Thoth
....to the point whereby she was not able to evaluate her actions or tell right from wrong.


these points contradict. The first half says there is a ambigious matter of degree. the second point indicates that there is a black and white line which has a definate side of being in control and not being in control.

which is it?

Why does the fact that she is able get up and shoot the theif mean she has a non-deminished responsibility?

Is it impossible, or even improbable that the shooting was caused by adreneline and a extraodinary moment of rage/anger?
 
Last edited:
I just heard on the radio this morning that the security guard is evading the police - anyone else heard this?

Police are enraged because she was "too distressed" to be interviewed by them, but was apparently was okay enough to speak to the Sunday Herald Sun and appear on tonight's edition of Today Tonight (presumably for cash). :\
 
It's said she was paid up to $100,000 for her story. She's not evading police (in a fashion), there was a meeting scheduled for 11AM tomorrow. After the media stuff, police wanted to put forward the meeting date (like to *NOW*) but Karen Brown's (the security guard) lawyer stated they are meeting with the original agreed date/time.

It's all becoming a farce now.
 
shes prolly gonna need the $100,000 to pay her legal bills.

i think the time frame is important, i think she would have been justified to shoot him straight away if he was beating the crap out of her...? but i spose if someone had just beaten the crap out of me i would want to shoot them as well..........
 
Is it impossible, or even improbable that the shooting was caused by adreneline and a extraodinary moment of rage/anger?

None of those (adrenalin, rage, anger) constitutes diminished responsibility.
 
papermate said:
But i cant help but feel frustrated towards people who focus more on how wrong the situation is and blaming someone who was unintentionally put in a difficult situation.
Click to expand...

nobody forced her to choose a line of employment that may at times place her in extremely dangerous situations. i am sure she was aware of the possibility of such an event occurring just as most people would be. taking this into consideration, it is fair to say some responsibility should fall back onto an industry that quite often employs people with unsuitable psychological and physical traits and provides them with training many deem inadequate to deal with such situations.
 
Guard to appear on murder charge
August 2, 2004

A SYDNEY security guard who shot dead a robber last week would appear in court next month to face a charge of murder, police said.

NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney said Karen Brown had been handed a court attendance notice to face the murder charge on September 13 at Liverpool Local Court. He said she was being interviewed by detectives.

"She is in receipt of a court attendance notice which requires her to appear at Liverpool court," Commissioner Moroney said.

"The court attendance notice is akin to a summons ... legal proceedings are now underway."

Ms Brown shot dead William Aquilina, 25, after he assaulted her and robbed her of a bag of money outside the Moorebank Hotel in Sydney's south-west last Monday. Mr Moroney said Ms Brown was still with police and was "assisting officers with their inquiries".

Police were angered after Ms Brown was paid $100,000 to give a television interview about the shooting with Channel 7's Today Tonight program, due to air tonight.

Mr Moroney urged the network to tread carefully over the planned broadcast, but confirmed police would not attempt to block the program.

"What's required now is caution," Mr Moroney said.

"In any of these legal proceedings ... speculation in relation to this event or any event is not helpful with respect to the cause of the prosecution or the cause of the defendant."

Police were grateful that Ms Brown had attended the police station earlier than had been planned, the commissioner said.

Her lawyers had previously said she would only talk to police at 11am (AEST) tomorrow as agreed last week.

Mr Moroney expressed concern at the actions of some media outlets since the incident last Monday.

"I'm satisfied that (my detectives) have been extremely reciprocal with requests to assist Ms Brown and I'm extremely disappointed more than anything else at the way in which some media outlets have approached this whole issue."

There was no longer a need to pursue an injunction to prevent tonight's program going to air, as Ms Brown was effectively charged, he said.

Ms Brown would remain free and not subject to bail conditions until she was required to appear at Liverpool Local Court next month, he said.
Click to expand...
 
Diminished Responsibility

This is also a partial defence reducing murder to manslaughter. This defence is made out when at the time of the act the accused's capacity to understand events, or to judge whether the person's actions were right or wrong, or to control themself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition. Further, that the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter.


/\/\ - Thoth I know you said that anger/rage/adreneline don't consitiute diminsished responsibility, but those emotions are products of an unstable mind. I think its unreasonable not to consider this.

Why does the guard being bashed not fall into this category?? How can you say that her state of mind was not altered? I cant beleive people think that after the injuries sustained that the guard would be in a normal state of mind??The period of time must surely be short enough to warrant this. As Apollo said before the time period is important. The guard did NOT premediate the attack. Its not like she went home, picked up a gun, drove to find the theif and then shoot him. I beleive in THAT situation diminished responibilty would be difficult to proove.

I think we may be arguing about 2 different points here. 1.The reason for the actions and 2. the consequences of those actions. I do agree that the consequences are inherity related to the reason though. Importantly the consequences of the actions must be relevant to the reason for the actions.

I do think they must be address seperatly I also think that yourself (Thoth) and myself are intent on proven specific parts of the case without all of the available information which is probably unsuitable. It's probably also obvious that we feel that our points of view are reasoned, justified. Its obvious that I am placing support on the guards side more than anything else. But again I dont see how anyone can deny that the guard had an altered state of mind, therefore a case for diminished responsiblity.



SivliaSaint I agree with your comments 100%. And my comments were that this should be the case. The industry and companies should be looked at by all relevant authorites. In this case I can see no need the amount of media focus on the actual security. However again, I do see a need for focus on proceedures.
 
Last edited:
^^
Being bashed might. Diminished responsibility however is generally only used in cases whereby there is a serious underlying psychiatric disorder. Being angry/in a rage/adrenalin etc, like you say IS NOT the same. These are not regarded as any kind of valid excuse to kill someone, nor should they be. You can't shoot your wife and her lover after you find them fucking in your bed and then claim 'diminished responsibility' because you were seriously angry and acting out of control. Diminished responsibility isn't just an 'altered state of mind,' otherwise everybody would use it as a defence.
 
I agree with -Thoth. If she had killed him during the initial struggle she would be fine, but the fact that she used lethal force after the act nullifies a self defence argument. She killed the guy because she wanted to (you don't shoot anybody point blank unless you want to kill them simple), a fact which i think she now realises hence the remorse (if i was more cynical i'd say she staged it). If she shot him in the leg that would be justify her argument that she was just trying to stop the robbery. It's a tough situation i feel very little sympathy for the robber and think she should receive the minimal punishment allowable, but in the end some responsibility for what has happened lies with her.
 
shes prolly gonna need the $100,000 to pay her legal bills.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I was thinking but now the Police have seized the money. She really is just digging a deeper hole for herself. If you believe that you have acted in a just manner and the cops want to talk to you, why would you pussyfoot around them?
 
I would guess she has some major anger issues and acted in blind rage. Someone stealing her earnings might constitute her going Dirty Harry style and shooting out the cars tyres then directing the theif at gunpoint to lie down on the ground etc. Complete self-defence or the defence or another persons life, yeh ok, maybe...

I think this was a pretty silly topic to raise, of course shes a loony and murdered him.
 
A SYDNEY security guard was today formally charged with murder during a court hearing over the shooting death of a would-be robber.

Karen Brown, 40, of Rooty Hill, made a brief appearance this morning in Liverpool Local Court.

She was charged with one count of murder.

Her bail was formally dispensed with and she remained free until her next court appearance on October 27.

Ms Brown, flanked by her husband and two lawyers, was not required to enter a plea.

The security guard allegedly shot and killed William Aquilina, 25, moments after he attacked her with a knuckleduster and stole a bag of cash outside a Sydney pub in July.


from http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10750530%5E1702,00.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top