Legit use of deadly force?

Your mistaken assumptions mate

 

No, you don't. You can use the great equalizer, a gun.

You are drinking Kool Aide, if you believe that.

They were openly ridiculed as drunken no goods. From what I saw, Australian is at least twenty years behind the US in race relations.

 

If a gun is the “great equaliser” why are there not more people victimised in countries with fewer guns? If the contention is correct that only a gun will confer adequate protection then Countries like Aus,NZ, and the UK SHOULD have a proportionately higher victimisation rate than America

As for the attitude to the indigenous - see the latest post in current events - attitudes are changing

 

Different cultures.

 

In the U.S. the test is the reasonable fear of loss of life. If a jury can be convinced that the fear was reasonable, then deadly self defense is acceptable. In other words, yes, the response must be proportional to the perceived threat. In the case of Rittenhouse trial, the risk of loss of life was proven by video evidence. Not only was the threat reasonable but it was proven. I can't imagine living in a country where one was not allowed to defend his life

 

You are proposing I should just lie still while a small part of the population becomes more civilized? I don't figure I have the time to wait.

As they are everywhere. Someday, Australia might catch up with the US.

 

SIAP.
I know this isn't a poll...hint, hint, but the color of the aggressor and the victim, the circumstances of the violence and the implicit or explicit goal to collect reparations makes all the difference to some whether one should use deadly force if attacked or if one should take their punishment 'cause of their color or political beliefs.

 

Do you have not one but THREE government sponsored TV stations dedicated to multiculturalism?

it is changing rapidly - I do not know when you came or where you came to but we are changing and at the moment are pulling ahead of the USA. Cultural change does not come overnight but it does come. Before every meeting we have we must acknowledge our first nation elders and the land on which we meet, if we can we name the traditional owners by tribe/mob we do.

Australia today is not Australia of yesteryear

 

Fair question.
Personally, I think that when a person becomes physically, violently aggressive, they have also exposed themselves to the risk of harm. They make the choice to perpetrate violence, they are no longer entitled to protection from others attempting to avoid harm. They made the choice to be violent, the risk they assume comes with that. They have no valid argument against the consequence of self defense, nor any right to expect it be limited in proportion to the extent of the violence they inflict. Whatever happens to you in the process of committing a violent crime is your own fault; invited it, you deserve it.

It's simply a fact that the tolerance of violence begets more violence. Consequences have to impose a price, and one that demonstrates the choice of violence was a terrible mistake.
Consequences that happen immediately and powerfully provide the best deterrence for both the person instigating violence and others who might consider it.
You never hear of someone going out in the woods, walking up to a bear and punching him in the face. While there are bullies that would do that to people or a lot of other animals, There's a reason why they never do it to bears- and that is that they know the consequences would be immediate and unlimited. And nobody would blame the bear.....

 

Morrally I think you show your weapon need to warn the attacker that you have it and will use it if there is time. If the threat is real and continues then you can use it as a last resort. No one who can safely get out of a situation should resort to deadly force.

 

I was there around five years ago. I really doubt they have changed that much.

Since the Aborigines were there first and you took their land away, shouldn't you be giving it back or at least pay for it with interest? You need to go back where you came from.

 

What do you think Mabo was about? And how about YOUR First Nation people - going to give their land back?
All I can say is that you must have hit a mob of right wing idiots - and we have them too

 

I hit the nail on the head.

 

Which is mumbo jumbo for, "If someone kills you then you are legally allowed to take lethal action against them, maybe, but it depends on your station in life and their station in life, skin color, your political affiliation, were they homeless, plus exactly your method used to kill them and how much pain you inflicted on them." Hey -- I could be a liberal lawyer and write laws.

 

I hear all of your criticism of the US. It appears that you get pretty defensive when Australia is deservably criticized.

Let me explain something about self defense. I occasionally carry a cane. It is light weight. I doubt that it would stop someone if I hit them with it. The idea of a weapon is to stop someone, not just pi$$ them off.

 

Do you really think I couldn't get out of an attack of a kid throwing ice cream at me without violence. You're moving the goalpost and being absurd.

 

With due respect colour of the aggressor might be used go justify committing a crime or what is called a "rationalization" and "criminal defence" for being found guilty of using deadly force but whether skin colour is RELEVANT so that it can then be considered as a rationalization or defence is another story. The law is clear. Unless skin colour is relevant to the act that was committed trying to argue it justified the act is not accepted as admissable evidence to defend let alone defend successfully.

The circumstances of the violence and in particular the events leading up to, during and immediately after the event in which the act took place are analyzed to determine whether skin colour was a relevant factor and sufficient to support a defence.

To be relevant skin colour must b directly attacked to the cause of the violence in the specific event.

In law we look at the RELEVANT facts leading up to, during and immediately after the act of violence to then determine whether we believe it violated a criminal law or created a liability against the person who engaged in it to the person they injured or killed in civil law because if we allowed a general defence of simply saying one's skin colour allows them to commit a crime no one of a certain skin colour would be guilty of any crimes.

Skin colour may go to proving the state of mind of the attacker, i.e., in a race attach, but it goes to their state of criminal intent and chances are there would be other circumstantial evidence as well to prove guilt.

From a self defence perspective, if you want to defend yourself, even if it is a race attack against you in the moment because of your visible minority apprearance the law says you can defend yourself but reasonably so.

So if I call you a n.... word, you can't just pull out your gun and shoot me dead. Spit on you and push you or punch you when calling you the n word, now you can use reasonable force to push me back and might even be excused for breaking my nose or even killing me if your self defence can be shown to be reflex.

But if I spit at you and call you the n word but am 10 feet away from you and you pull out a gun and shoot me dead, no matter how stupid or hateful I was the law does not say you were allowed to kill me.

Reasonable force to defend does not depend on skin colour but the degree of the violence in the moment.

Your statement might invite an interpretation where using race could be simply a rationalization for committing a crime and not be actually rated to any discrimination, i.e., no you can not drive through a red light, then when stopped by police for doing that argue, you were stopped because you were black. No you were stopped for going through the red light.

You have to look at the circumstance of each case not the skin colour dettached from the circumstances and it has to be a direct attachment to the act being questioned to be relevant to determining criminal liability.

I think some people want the law to be colour preferential in certain instances for things unrelated to the crime to give the accused a get out of jail card.

Judges do have discretion on sentencing to consider mitigating factors such as mental illness, drug addiction, domestic violence, first time offence, level of intelligence, degree of violence or harm cause, acts of remorse and apology.

 

Absolutely well put.

The way I try to live my life is this... Bottom line I give others courtesy and respect. The most basic aspect of that is keeping my hands to myself.

At a bare minimum, everyone in society owes that much to everyone else.

Granddaddy said you mess "you with the bull you get the horn"

 

Well you can hit me once if I'm still standing and I'll probably do just that but by God you better not draw your fist back again.

 

Political arguments to defend breaking an existing law, appeal to idealistic people. They believe if a law is unfair, break it to force change. That is a political argument and sometimes referred to as an "activist" approach.

From a strictly legal perspective, with no political considerations, rule of law says, if you do not like a law, elect members to change that law. Change the law using the legal procedures to change laws, which means lobbying or petitioning your elected member to change the law.

If you want to break a law to change it because you think there is no other way to get that change done,then the courts decide whether to enforce the law you broke.

If you were just able to break any law you did not like that would not work.

Sometimes implementing changes is difficult, complex, so there is a temptation to use emotions to scream through the changes. Well think about it. Whether you are Black Lives Matter or Trump Patriots, your violence leads you to the exact same place, violence and instability not stable consensual changes for the better.

We live today with people feeling things are their "legal right". That's just another word for self entitlement. Its another way of saying, some people have been brought up to believe they should get what they want without going through a period of difficulty and conflicts to resolve first to achieve that thing they want.

So they have a tantrum when they do not get what they want and call their tantrum a patriotic action or demonstration.

Either way people scream, break things, hurt and cause violence, property damage, injury and death.

Trying to encourage people to sit and talk and reason things out aint so easy. There is a temptation when someone is having a tantrum to smack them one in the head. Obviously that will not work.

So I would suggest child psychology 101. Establish limitations through consistent measures. Do not say one thing but do another. Explain the negative consequences to an action and be prepared to draw and enforce the rule but controlling the reaction to strain out the anger in the reaction.

So when I deal with Trump vigilantes on this forum or extremist woke people on the other side, I am tempted to tell them both to phack off. Instead I go watch the old debate tape between Gore Vidal and William F Buckley then the debate between Buckley and Baldwin. Then I watch how Bugs Bunny deals with the Martian or Aylmer Fudd or Monty Python or Sinbad.

 

Fatback, it is almost impossible to give a straight black and white answer. The reason for that is that what must be judged is whether your fear of your attacker was reasonable and whether the use of deadly force was necessary. There are factors that weigh into that judgement, and some people in this thread have already touched on some of them.

- How old is the suspect?
- How old is the victim?
- How big and strong is the suspect?
- How big and strong is the victim?
- What genders are the suspect and victim?
- Is the assault continuing, or is the suspect running away or backing away?
- Is their enough time to draw your weapon, point it, and warn the suspect? Or is their only time to draw and shoot?
- Did you provoke the assault or not?
- How severe was the assault against you? Was it an open handed slap, a push, or was it a vicious punch or kick?
- How many attackers are there?

All of these things factor in, and they may be different from case to case.

If you present a scenario with all of these factors covered, I could give you a straight answer.

 

I know what the law is but certain individuals (not me) wish to temper judgement and 'punishment' based on a person's skin color and political beliefs.

 

Because the question raised in this thread pertained to use of 'deadly force' and there's not too many things that are more deadly than a gun. If I didn't have a gun and I felt my life was in danger my next choice would be his eye socket.

 

Yep, fingers wrapped on sides of head and thumbs inserted in eyes gets 'em up off of you muy pronto... been there, DONE that.