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


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

Sydney security fatally shoots robber. Justified or not?

The lady was far from justified. By the time she shot he was already in the car, she actively walked over there with the intention of shooting. Im not defending what he did, but if he was taken to court he would have not been sentenced to death, instead she chose to take the law into her own hands and dispense an unfair punishment.

She commited murder but I cannot see any form of legal retribution coming her way, which is wrong.
 
Originally posted by apollo
IMHO it boils down to this; two wrongs do not make a right.


spot on.
 
A wrong that goes unpunished is a wrong yet again, and as you have said, two wrongs don't make a right.

In the end, a choice was made between letting the crime go unpunished and punishing the crime by committing another. The only difference is by committing another crime to punish the first one ensures that the original perpitrator won't be able to commit another crime against an innocent law abiding citizen.

The end, justifies the means. And if anyone pipes up and says it's the polices responsibility to right the wrongs and not the victims. I point your attention to the numerous man hours and money spent of tackling those horrible drug users and ask what wrong they are righting there?
 
Originally posted by sonicnature
Well this security guard was definately not in that situation, so what makes her actions justified? Nothing whatsoever. She got punched in the head, big deal. It happens everyday.


I have to say that this is a disgusting piece of posting. Although you seem to think your morals are high on a pedastool I think your posting indicates that its is nothing but unreasoned comments. You seem to have taken snippets of information and not allowed any room for reason (right or wrong). This type of mentality in regards to any laws, legislation, offences, actions or inactions disgusts me. I do beleive that laws must exist so that the general well being of society is adhered to but I am firm beleiver that they must be guidlines with the room to cater for individual situations. But you've made your mind up and I'm not even sure if the security guard was your mother/sister/wife that you would change your opinion. I may be wrong.

Last night I had an discussion which turned into an argument with a employee. The employee decided to move to physcial handling of myself. For a split moment I considered using physcial handling back confident that I was better in both brains and brawn. But I decided not to.

It is amazing that in the heat of the moment the amount of adreniline the body releases and you quite simply can not think clearly. All I could think of in this instance was to make some personal comments and satifsy myself with physical intimidation. And thats was just arguring about someone being late. I struggled to keep my comments professional and politically correct, very aware of any consquences of any actions that I made from that point.

I wonder if anyone has recently been in a situation??? Where it seems so easy to resort to throwing a glass at a wall, breaking anything that is close to them, or even to resort pushing the person over or away or even hitting them?? Imagine arguing, and how you just cant formulate a rational thought.

Based on my own personal past experience, and tales from relatives that are in the armed forces and police - I do honestly believe that she was quite simply so angry that shooting the theif was the only option she felt was left. Regarding Apollo's comments about the time frame? Thats a super important point and i think that each situation needs to be evaluted on the individuals and the circumstances.

Regarding the social acceptance of both crimes. I am disgusted that the theif (who possibly reacted with violence due to adrenline aslo) is not not justified because of his premediated intent. The security guard - I'm sure she didnt wake up and decide she was going to shoot someone that day.
 
possibly the same reason the theif knuckle dustered her head as opposed to hitting her in the arm.
 
from todays news

s Brown suffered a fractured skull, a fractured eye socket, a fractured nose, a fractured left hand and possible brain damage when the 25-year-old grabbed her hair, king-hit her, and repeatedly pounded her to the ground.

The convicted criminal then dragged her across the bitumen toward a stolen getaway car before she could release the bag she carried containing $30,000-$50,000 in hotel takings.
 
The guy was a complete reprobate, no question. He probably had this coming, one way or another given the lifestyle he was leading however... She essentially murdered him.

She killed him when he was trying leave, and no longer threatening her. That isn't self defence, thats taking the law into ones own hands. It's also not the way security guards are trained to act when entrusted with firearms, a serious responsibility that entails a lot of accountability to the community at large.
 
The latest I've heard:-

She's told the police she is too ill and injured to be formally interviewed.But,she is apparently well enough to do a paid interview exculsively with 'Today Tonight'.

The police are NOT happy and trying to have the interview legally stopped going to air.

If this is true,this is a VERY stupid move on her part.
 
Last edited:
^^ and due to her giving interviews, the police have decided she is well enough to be interviewed and have given her until 6pm to front to the station or they will a court attendance notice for murder, based on the evidence they have been able to gather.

taken from here
 
astrosmurf said:
^^ and due to her giving interviews, the police have decided she is well enough to be interviewed and have given her until 6pm to front to the station or they will a court attendance notice for murder, based on the evidence they have been able to gather.

taken from here

Thanks for the further update astrosmurf ;) .
 
papermate said:
possibly the same reason the theif knuckle dustered her head as opposed to hitting her in the arm.

Err, if you're trying to rob someone, punching them in the arm doesn't work. On the other hand if you're trying to stop someone getting away, shooting their tyres does work. Shooting them in the head also works, but it's overkill. Your comparison is as hopeless as my sex life. Diego asked a bloody good question - 'Why didn't the bitch just shoot out the tires on the car?' I'd love to ask her that. I bet she'd then say she was scared he'd get out and try to kill her. Well, then she'd have had a damn good reason to shoot him now wouldn't she ;) Heh, more realistically, if she was concerned for her life, she wouldn't have pursued him at all...
 
apollo said:
Heh, more realistically, if she was concerned for her life, she wouldn't have pursued him at all...

I also think that if she was a concerned person per se, she wouldn't be carrying around $50,000 in hotel takings in the way she was. What kind of employer sends their staff out with that kind of money without some safer form of protection (aside a fucking firearm). Surely if they're earning that kind of money they can afford to get Chubb (or whoever the equivalent is there) to pick it up?
 
From my point of view, she should not be justified for what has happend even tho that guy was in the wrong as well, but she took a life, that could of been prevented if she had make another different choice...
 
"I looked up through a bloody haze," Ms Brown said. "I did not know where I was or exactly what had happened to me. All I knew was that blood was pouring into my eyes and my head was throbbing." - The Sunday Telegraph

so after not knowing where she was or what had just happened to her she decided for no reason to walk up to a completely random car and shoot the occupant inside ?

she really is in it.
 
Diego did ask a good question, and I'll guarantee that the theifs )family) case will be based on this rational. What else do they have to go on? Everything else he did was wrong. He wanted to rob, and he robbed. He was armed, prepared for confict and he got it.

What did the guard do wrong? She retaliated with an amount of force that will probably be considered excessive. Perhaps its poor training. If everybody expects any security guard to be perfect in all situations and have textbook reactions then thats an unrealisitic expecation. Therefore we have to judge the situation on its indviduals and circumstances.

Originally posted by apollo
Err, if you're trying to rob someone, punching them in the arm doesn't work. On the other hand if you're trying to stop someone getting away, shooting their tyres does work. Shooting them in the head also works, but it's overkill. Your comparison is as hopeless as my sex life.



I understand that it looks like the comparison is between apples and oranges. But thats if you look at the situation only taking into account the physcial aspects and hindsight rationalisation. In regards to stopping the person getting away that may have been one of the reasons that the guard discharged the firearm, but im sure that the primary reason was because there were overwhelming feelings of rage.

the comparison is about the state of mind and the ability to rationalise the most appropiate course of action.. The comparison was meant to illustrate that the theif may in the heat of the moment a person may take actions which in hindsight are percieved as too aggressive. Specifically perhaps the theif did not intend to fracture the skull. Perhaps the theif did not intend to meet such resistance.
However I think the fact that HE PREMEDIATED THE ROBBERY and the fact that HE HAD KNUCKLE DUSTERS overides any sort of concession that he did not intend to cause such harm.

How many people here would NOT feel like taking excessive force onto a person if they were bashed? I think that the percentage would be minimal.

Remeber there are 2 points of dicussion here.

1. the reasoned/unreason action of shooting the theif.
2. the consequences of the reasoned/unreason action of shooting the theif.

point number 1. can be debated reasoned in my opinion.

point number 2. is up to the general public (ie police/courts/jury) to decide what sort of consequenses are suitable. This is probably more important because i think analysis of point number 2 addresses issues such as security proceedures (ie. cash collection at inconsistant times, single person guards in relation to cash amount collections. From point number 2 we are probably able to take further precautions to ensure that suituaitions like this do not occur again.
 
Last edited:
You cannot argue point 1 as being reasonable, unless you subscribe to the notion that security guards or police should not be held to higher standards than those expected to engage in criminal behaviour, which of course they are. The fact that we FEEL like killing someone after grevious harm and wrong has been committed upon us does not make it morally or legally right. There is no right of 'retaliation,' it doesn't exist. Punishment is not up to induviduals, its mandated by the state via due process, and it also never involves death.

Point one can ONLY be concevably be valid based upon some notion of diminished responsibility when considering the mental state she was in when committing the crime. However, assuming she was still able to think enough to get up, chase him to his car, draw a gun and shoot him... One has to think she knew what she was doing.
 
Originally posted by -Thoth
You cannot argue point 1 as being reasonable,


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.

Originally posted by -Thoth
However, assuming she was still able to think enough to get up, chase him to his car, draw a gun and shoot him... One has to think she knew what she was doing.


/\/\ I dont entirely agree with this point. But thats because I'm assuming that her state of mind was not able to rationalise the situation. I have to agree that my whole case of argument for point number is based on this. I think it would take an extraodinary person not to have a altered state of mind after receiving the physcially assualt that she did.

Look at this way.

Scenario One: theif robs hotel, runs out past security guard without incident. the security guard would proably not shoot the theif at point blank range. (If they did, then I would agree with all of the posts about excessive force/unjustified etc..). The security guard has not been put in a position or had their state of mind altered to such a state that they have diminished responsiblity. If in this situation a security guard had dimished responsiblity I would once again agree that they should receive severe consequence because they should not be in a security position.

Scenario Two: (exactly what happened). The difference is what the theif severely assaulted the security guard. The result is shooting of the theif.


But I have to emphasise that that a contrary argument to her knowing what she was doing and being responsible for her actions is based on exactly what you said Thoth, dimished responsibility. I do honestly beleive on the information provided that her state of mind is in favour that her sense of respobsibily WAS diminished. Now I understand and firmly beleive that diminished responsibilty should not be used as an excuse/justifcation for actions - however i do think that it provides an explaination escpecially considering the cirucumstances.

Originally posted by -Thoth
unless you subscribe to the notion that security guards or police should not be held to higher standards than those expected to engage in criminal behaviour, which of course they are.


agreed. On these issues I think that it takes situations like this to identify the standards of proceedures of security and police forces. not only does this include conduct and behaviour relating to response in violent situations, but also preventative measures to ensure that such violent situations do not occur.
 
Last edited:
*sigh* - the above point splits the responisbily argument between the employer and the guard. where do we draw the line? I'm not sure. Im positive my personal values and ethics are not immoral or socially agressive.

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. I feel disheartened that people feel such a need persecute the unfortuate security guard in order to emphasise societys standards and values. There has to be a different approach.
 
Top