1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Murder in defense is still murder?

3K views 48 replies 23 participants last post by  dsk 
#1 ·
Father wakes up and a creepy chomo is in his little girls bedroom. No guns in Australia, so father kills chomo with his bare hands. Father gets charged with murder? What did the Aussies expect this guy to do? Go back to bed?

Actually, I'm really not surprised, given it happened in Austalia. Compared to that place, we still have it pretty good I reckon. Thats doesn't mean we should let our guard up though, else we might become the next Liberal Utopia.

http://madworldnews.com/dad-jail-daughter-bedroom/
 
#2 ·
I guess if that happened in my house, and I lived in Australia, they might have had a hard time finding the body after the incident, and I would have kept quiet about my uninvited "houseguest". If they ever found out, I guess the result wouldn't be any different, but going clandestine might be the answer.
 
#4 ·
Dodgy news source -- heavy on the editorializing, and other outlets aren't reporting that the perp was found in the daughter's room but instead in the hallway stealing a purse.

Anyway, the decedent sounds like a low-life and no real loss to the world, but...don't chase intruders out of your home and down the street -- you know, after the threat is stopped, like most self-defense laws stipulate -- then strangle them and you won't be charged with murder.

Homeowner's actions are understandable in the volatility of the situation, and I don't want to see him do time (which most local watchers of the story don't think he will), but from a home and self-defense perspective he screwed up big time.
 
#6 ·
#9 ·
Convicted child rapist broke into dudes house and ran out with a purse.
I think most of us would have given chase too.
That piece of crap's mother needs to STFU. Just got out of jail and 'was looking forward to being with his kids again.' ? Is that after he robbed a few houses or what? His kids are better off he's dead. He was a CHILD RAPIST.
Seems like the homeowner had a good amount of bruising on him too.
Not guilty as far as I'm concerned. Kharma well served. Hope he goes free.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Nobody here is crying for the guy, trust me. But the law is the law. Once the threat to your own life and safety has subsided and the perp has disengaged it then becomes vigilantism at best if you chase after him. Killing him or beating the living ---t out of him simply because you think he's a worthless piece of garbage isn't going to end well for you. Had Slater just tried to rape Batterham's wife or daughter the "reasonable man" defense might work, for witnessing such a thing would likely tip anybody over the edge and make them want to kill the son of a b!tch. But it turns out he was just a burglar and a thief, and chasing him down and killing him over mere property is what has gotten Batterham into trouble.

This is something that's very important for us gun carriers to consider. Our "license to kill" is similar to that of the police, except that unlike them we're not obligated nor authorized to engage lawbreakers if they're not directly threatening us. But just as a cop can't chase down and beat up or kill a purse snatcher neither can we. Like I said though, nobody here is upset that the dude is dead and in the end he chose the path he took knowing that some day it might catch up with him. As for Mr. Batterham hopefully the jury will be lenient, although I can't see him getting off completely scot-free. If nothing else it's going to cost him a lot in legal fees, especially if the scumbag's mother sues which you can pretty much bet your butt she will.
 
#11 ·
Nobody here is crying for the guy, trust me. But the law is the law. Once the threat to your own life and safety has subsided and the perp has disengaged it then becomes vigilantism at best if you chase after him. Killing him or beating the living ---t out of him simply because you think he's a worthless piece of garbage isn't going to end well for you. Had Slater just tried to rape Batterham's wife or daughter the "reasonable man" defense might work, for witnessing such a thing would likely tip anybody over the edge and make them want to kill the son of a b!tch. But it turns out he was just a burglar and a thief, and chasing him down and killing him over mere property is what has gotten Batterham into trouble.

This is something that's very important for us gun carriers to consider. Our "license to kill" is similar to that of the police, except that unlike them we're not obligated nor authorized to engage lawbreakers if they're not directly threatening us. Just as a cop can't chase down and beat up or kill a purse snatcher neither can we. Like I said though, nobody here is upset that the dude is dead and in the end he chose the path he took knowing that some day it might catch up with him. As for Mr. Batterham hopefully the jury will be lenient, although I can't see him getting off completely scot-free. If nothing else it's going to cost him a lot in legal fees, especially if the scumbag's mother sues which you can pretty much bet your butt she will.
Reasonable common sense. Thank you.

I sympathize with your perspective and opinion.
 
#12 ·
"Murder" is generally intentional and unlawful homicide. Usually (at least in the US) homicide in the reasonable defence of self or others is considered justified and lawful, and therefore not "murder".

DSK is correct; this guy was way outside of the realm of "self defense"... even in the most friendly judicial environment, he'd be in trouble...
 
#13 ·
In other words murdering people for committing crimes.

Is generally frowned upon, and certainly with good reason. Whatever the media wing dings want to spin on it is inconsequential in consideration of actual events. Actual events are of consequence, media spin or hype not so much.
 
#18 ·
I don't know how it applies in Australia, but here in the USA murder is defined as killing someone with malicious intent. Manslaughter is defined as killing someone as a result of your reckless disregard for human life. Homicide simply means you killed a person, and it is then considered either justifiable homicide or unjustifiable homicide. If the latter it becomes either murder or manslaughter depending on circumstances. Justifiable homicide is the acknowledgement that you killed someone, but the circumstances allowed it.
 
#20 ·
He's charged with murder. Have you guys already convicted him without trial??
The homeowner had every right to chase a person who just burglarized his home and fled it. Once caught up to who knows what happened but it seems as if you all are assuming the homeowner attacked and killed the robber for no reason? Since we are speculating why not go with good guy catches up to bad guy and seeing as how bad guy recently got out of jail and obviously would not have wanted to go back he attacked the good guy/homeowner?
DSK look at the guys injuries in the link you posted. Sure looks to me like he took a beating. Self defense at that point could definitely be argued.
Guy robs your house and flees, you follow him and catch up, he certainly didn't turn around and say 'ok you got me, I'll go quietly.' Probably tried to beat his way free.
 
#21 ·
Once a criminal flees, particularly one that has done nothing violent, one has NO lawful right to use force or violence of any kind to detain him... from the instant the criminal flees, the "victim" becomes the criminal aggressors, and voluntarily forfits any claim of SD... at that point, he's initiating the violent confrontation, and liable for the results... its like a dog chasing a car- not a clue what to do if he catches it... the right of SD ends the INSTANT the BG calls it quits and breaks contact.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, thats codified law in most of the US. Act outside those constraints, and one deserves whatever one gets...
 
#27 ·
And if it goes too far...

Any use of deadly force during a citizens arrest that does not comply with the applicable state law could result in manslaughter or murder charges against the arresting individual, as well as a wrongful death lawsuit from the family of the suspected criminal.

Tort Liability
In addition to wrongful death lawsuits, a citizens arrest has the potential to expose individuals to other kinds of tort liability if the arrest was not justified. If a person does not comply with the laws requirements when making the arrest, the arrestee could allege a number of offenses in a personal injury lawsuit, including the aforementioned wrongful death, false imprisonment and assault and battery.

Conclusion
Every individual is empowered to arrest wrongdoers in certain circumstances, but individuals looking to make a citizens arrest act at their own risk. Not only is the act of apprehending a criminal inherently dangerous, but failure to meet the legal requirements for a citizens arrest could have devastating consequences for the person making the arrest.
For any number of reasons, chasing after a lawbreaker intent on apprehending him is a bad idea unless you're a cop. Mr. Batterham didn't even use a gun and yet he's still in serious legal trouble because his actions resulted in a scuffle that cost the perp his life, and it wasn't necessary.
 
#32 ·
And if it goes too far...



For any number of reasons, chasing after a lawbreaker intent on apprehending him is a bad idea unless you're a cop. Mr. Batterham didn't even use a gun and yet he's still in serious legal trouble because his actions resulted in a scuffle that cost the perp his life, and it wasn't necessary.
This was sort of what I was getting at with posting this article. Is he in trouble because of What you say, or is it because it happened in Australia? I guess it depends on which account is true. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the article that isn't written on madworldnews.com. Either way, as a nation run by liberals, and there are lots of them lately, we all know that Australia is going to take the side of the criminal. Since after all, it's not his fault, he's simply a product of society, therefore it's societies fault.
 
#29 ·
There are often two types of thinking involved in a situation like this. There is the emotional response, and there is the legal response.

The emotional response is just that. It is colored completely by emotion and is based on what is felt to be "right", what is "wrong", and generally concludes with "how things ought to be".

The legal response is pretty much emotionally sterile. It is based on a set of established facts, or elements, and how they apply to the raw unvarnished facts of the incident. It has written, established standards of what is "right" and is "wrong" and cares little for "how things ought to be" beyond what is written, and how these written facts have been interpreted by reasonable people in the past.

It is the emotional response that often gets people involved in these situations, and often colors people's judgement after the incident has been disposed of legally.

It is the legal response that matters, and often causes defendants to wish that they had considered the legal ramifications of their actions more, and the emotional ones less.

In short, you will be judged based on how the elements of your actions are interpreted under the law. Very little consideration will be given to how you, your friends, your family, or the public feel about what you did. The sole exception being whether you can make a convincing case that you legitimately felt that your life, or the life of someone else was in immediate jeopardy. That will probably be the only time your feelings will matter, so you better not blow that part. If he had to chase this guy down to choke him out, he badly blew that part. No other feelings that he, you, I, or the cosmos has had, have, or will have are going to matter. All of his actions will be examined under the sterile lamp of the law, and a decision rendered based on that sterile examination.

Of course things do not always work that way in real life. The OJ case comes to mind. But it is the way that things are supposed to work, and in most cases, probably will.
 
#41 ·
Here in Italy the defence should always be proportional to the offence, so at least in theory if a robber breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife, if you shoot him you're bound to be charged of homicide... :mad:

In these days there is plenty of political debate on this issue, as the percentage of crimes has probably increased during the last decade, so some say that "self defence" should always be legitimate, legal, whereas others say that self defence should be legal only if you've got to defend yourself inside your home and at night... :scratch:

I still think that the world is going topsy turry!
 
#42 ·
The scumbag KNEW the chance he was taking when he "woke up on the wrong side of the bed" that morning and did the deed. Am I sorry? Hell no....but We the People still have to follow the rules of engagement, even in our own homes. Castle Doctrines are a good thing.
 
#49 ·
I really hope that some of you guys keep the phone number of a competent attorney in your wallets, because it sounds like you're gonna need him someday. Once again I suggest watching the Mas Ayoob video I linked to earlier, and don't question what he says unless you're an attorney yourself and truly know that he's wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top