a man comes home from work and finds his wife naked under a guy in the back yard. He's pissed that she is cheating on him. She starts screaming rape. He realizes his error and pulls out a gun. The other guy starts running away and the husband shoots and kills him.

The man is the wife's lover. She wasn't being raped. Should the husband go to jail or should the wife for the lover's death?

Ooh. Tough one.

I'd say the husband for acting rashly and taking the law into his own hands. The alleged rapist was leaving the scene and was therefore no longer a threat. The husband should have called the police.

what about the wife? She got caught with her boyfriend, not a rapist. Would the husband have done what he did if she hadn't yelled rape?

Both.
The husband for the murder and the wife for adultery and "dood door shuld" (Dutch legal term, meaning 'death by blame').

adultery isn't a crime in the US. You can sue for alienation of affection, but you can't be arrested for it.

adultery isn't a crime in the US. You can sue for alienation of affection, but you can't be arrested for it.

Hmm ok.
Any idea what the English term for "dood door schuld" is ?

what about the wife? She got caught with her boyfriend, not a rapist. Would the husband have done what he did if she hadn't yelled rape?
Probably. She's a skanky whore and he probably would have shot her anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441428/

here in the US, she goes to jail and the husband walks. I was surprised he isn't looking at jail for shooting a man driving away, but things are different in TX.

Neither of them should go to Jail. The husband thought his wife was being raped and so did what anybody would do. After all, the guy was on his property raping his wife. I believe the law states that it is ok to use deadly force to protect oneself and ones family. He did nothing wrong
The wife on the other hand, while she may be a lying slut, didn't break the law in any way.
Although I do think adultery should be a crime punishable by law.

I can't understand them letting him walk even if they find the wife partly, or even mainly, to blame. Those wacky Texans.

The husband would be convicted of manslaughter over here. He'd be doing at least a 3-spot.
Wifey would also probably not get a murder but a manslaughter rap, 'coz of the reasonable doubt that she didn't intend the victim's death. Actually, this would probably be the case even if an independent witness testified to hearing a woman shouting "shoot him!", or "kill him!".

Hubby would also have a big problem with the illegal handgun, that he happened to have on him (presumably fully loaded).

Manslaughter wouldn't stand in the UK, it would be murder. The kind of man who carries a handgun with him and can pull it that fast and drop a man without questioning is not exactly blameless when you weigh it up. He is guilty of murder since rapist or not the man doesn't have the right to kill the someone, and it's a bit hot headed to kill someone without any evidence.

Wouldn't a UK trial look at "diminished responsibility", or the temporary insanity clause? Replace "handgun" with "crowbar", or "hunting rifle".

"A bit hot headed"?

Depending on his solicitor he might get off with it. Some solicitors here are far from ethical and will get anyone off.

...The kind of man who carries a handgun with him and can pull it that fast and drop a man without questioning is not exactly blameless when you weigh it up. ...

A high percentage of Texans, both male and female, carry guns. Its legal to do so since most of them have a license. And considering the husband wasn't charged for the weapon, I'm guessing he had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

I'm guessing he had a license to carry a concealed weapon.You only get a licence here for a handgun if you're a cop or a member of a private gun club - even then, actually carrying around a loaded weapon is an offense, unless you're a cop on duty or a member of a tactical squad, or on army training, or out hunting (that's with a rifle).
But "in public, or a public area", you get busted, cuffed and stuffed.

IOW owning guns isn't illegal, for joe public, but loading them and carrying them around is.

Shooting a fleeing (and in this instance presumably naked and therefore unarmed) man in the back is murder plain and simple.

If he's on top of your wife, and you are standing and armed you have plenty of opportunity to restrain the perp (if indeed he is one) until authorities arrive and sort things out

Are you actually American Orleander? I have noticed you spell a lot of words the Brit way (ie. humour not humor, and use S in place of Z). I could be wrong since I am not American and don't know whether it is not uncommon to use GB english in the states sometimes, just made me wonder.

An as many others have stated including me it's still murder ["shooting a fleeing (and in this instance presumably naked and therefore unarmed) man in the back is murder plain and simple" synth] whether or not his weapon was legal.

Manslaughter wouldn't stand in the UK, it would be murder. The kind of man who carries a handgun with him and can pull it that fast and drop a man without questioning is not exactly blameless when you weigh it up. He is guilty of murder since rapist or not the man doesn't have the right to kill the someone, and it's a bit hot headed to kill someone without any evidence.

Without evidence :bugeye:

Isn't seeing someone balls deep inside your wife while she screams "RAPE" evidence enough???

I know if I caught someone raping my wife, he be taking a dirt nap! I'm sorry, but I'd shoot first and question later. I wouldn't give the mother fucker a chance to get away.
Shit even if it wasn't rape and some dude was just pokin my wife, he'd be a bloody mess when I'm done with him.

Are you actually American Orleander? I have noticed you spell a lot of words the Brit way (ie. humour not humor, and use S in place of Z). I could be wrong since I am not American and don't know whether it is not uncommon to use GB english in the states sometimes, just made me wonder.....

my dad was from Scotland and he helped me with my spelling as a kid. He also made a HUGE fuss with the teachers if my spelling was considered wrong. They let it go and I kept spelling his way. :o
But yeah, I'm and American spelling like a Scot.

...I know if I caught someone raping my wife, he be taking a dirt nap! I'm sorry, but I'd shoot first and question later. I wouldn't give the mother fucker a chance to get away......

and lots of juries would agree with you. I do. And the court system where he is from did as well.

Good! I don't think he did anything wrong at all. He was under he impression that his wife was being raped. And that she was being raped on his and her property.

But in the UK it would be murder and since firearms here are illegal, carrying one on your person is not permitted (even police don't except armed response and the like, even then there is a lot of paperwork and laws involved over shooting someone when on duty for armed response). Just because their wife got raped wouldn't be a valid reason.

What about the farmer who was done for shooting a burglar with his shotgun (smoothbore licence is a little different especially for a farmer). He had been burgled more than once by the same guy and on top of shooting him was even sued by the mans family for loss of earnings since burglary was the families income.

Orleander in your senaro both would be guilty of at least manslaughter because the husband fired when he was runing away (though also there would be fire arms charges).

HOWEVER if he was on top of her and she screamed rape he would PROBABLY be let off for self defence (though he would be investigated incase he knew or whatever).

She on the other hand would be guilty of negligent homicide or reckless actions occasioning death.

If the story is true, "crime of pashion" is a legal deffense for the guy and the punishment is usually mild. BUT! How do we know they didn't make the thing up? There is no evidence the wife yelled, "I am being raped!", right?

If the guy goes to jail, he should sue his wife...

One flaw I can spot in the story is: rapists don't generally go to the trouble of getting naked.
If you see a naked man having sex, and the woman is your wife, the initial conclusion would be the most probable, and I think you'd need an exceptional lawyer to argue otherwise.

Huh. Manslaughter. for the Man. The woman while not entirely blameless, Will have to suffer the shame, unless you can get her for negligence or lying. But last I checked, those weren't really set up for adultery.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441428/

here in the US, she goes to jail and the husband walks. I was surprised he isn't looking at jail for shooting a man driving away, but things are different in TX.That's what I was going to say. The man really thought his wife was being rapped and he thought he was doing the right thing. Isn't it legal to shoot a criminal while he is in your house?

Why sell hand-guns for protection if they are not meant to be used to shoot someone???

Manslaughter wouldn't stand in the UK, it would be murder. The kind of man who carries a handgun with him and can pull it that fast and drop a man without questioning is not exactly blameless when you weigh it up. He is guilty of murder since rapist or not the man doesn't have the right to kill the someone, and it's a bit hot headed to kill someone without any evidence.

Any evidence? He cuaght the man on top of his wife and the woman was screaming rape as soon as she saw her husband. The man may have thought he was acting in self defence, or may have even attempted a citizen arrest (which is all the police do in America). Now I do admit thatshooting in the back might be questionable, but we do not have all the facts at all. For all we know the lover could have been running in the direction of the gunrack. That would be unquestionably self defense as there is reason to believe the man would commit more violence.

TW under british and australian law (and i asume the other commonwealth nations like NZ and canada) there is no such thing as a citizans arest. It falls under the crime (and the civil tort as well) of false inprisionment. Self defence however does exist but the action MUST be the min amount of force NESSARY to stop harm. So if he is running away you cant shoot him. Thats besides the fact that carrying a loaded weapon is a crime. Now if he had hit him while aparently raping his wife with a rolling pin and killed the guy that WOULD be self defence but in this case its either manslaughter or murder because the "offender was fleeing"

The details of this story are questionable.

The tryst apparently happened in the dead guy's car. It's not clear whether the shots were fired into the car while the woman was still in the car or not. It's not even clear when she started crying rape. This article (http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/613399.html) says that the woman's story is that she didn't cry rape until after the guy had been shot and she thought she would be next.

It's murky.

Anyway, the shooter was charged with murder. The charges were dropped but I can't find details of why.
The woman was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter and is reported to be facing between two and twenty years in prison.

This is actually a 'win-win' situation. Had the wife didn't yell being raped,
perhaps the man will shot them both and he himself goes to jail ...

A bit more reading indicates that the grand jury refused to indict the shooter. In other words, a panel of 23 citizens of Texas decided that the man had no case to answer - that there was no point in sending him to trial.

pete that always makes me feel nervious that its up to citizens in the US if someone is charged or not rather than a procicuter and judge who deal in the LAW rather than emotion.

Take a case that was on the practice where a guy fired a wome because she was muslim, the defence lawyer made out that it was understandable because of 11/9 and the jury found against the plaintif. However the law was clear that it was a case of discrimintation and so the judge set aside the verdict and awarded damages. Now if you have to get a "jury" to decide if something can even go to trial what emotive cases arnt being herd?

Yep. The US is the only country that still has a grand jury system, I think, although it's not used in all (or even most?) states. Hopefully, its on its way to extinction.

unfortuantly i wonder how many times the police and procicuters office have spent endless hours investigating and organising a case of say gay bashing (in texes for example) only to have a grand jury of bigots ignore the evidence and not send the case to trial. It really worries me

TW under british and australian law (and i asume the other commonwealth nations like NZ and canada) there is no such thing as a citizans arest. It falls under the crime (and the civil tort as well) of false inprisionment. Self defence however does exist but the action MUST be the min amount of force NESSARY to stop harm. So if he is running away you cant shoot him. Thats besides the fact that carrying a loaded weapon is a crime. Now if he had hit him while aparently raping his wife with a rolling pin and killed the guy that WOULD be self defence but in this case its either manslaughter or murder because the "offender was fleeing"

And one wonders why the violent crime in those countries is on the rise.

It always amazes me that people willingly give governments absolute authority over every aspect of their lives. I know the USA is hardly perfect, but at least here there is a semblance that the government is servant of the people and not vice versa.

as i said you can do what is nessary to stop a crime including locking a person in a basement until the cops arive but you cant "arest" someone fleeing. Only the police can do that and you cant "arest" someone who you saw shoplifting from your store a week ago. Only the police can arest someone, you can only do what is nessary to stop a crime IN PROGRESS.

The US is MUCH less than perfect with a murder rate per capita higher than iraq i would guess.

Oh and a last point, if the goverment was a servent to the people in the US it would provide the services you NEED like free universal health care rather than waisting the WHOLE budget on an inept defence force (in there budgiting abilities anyway). Also if the US goverment was a servent to her people you wouldnt be seeing the fear of the goverment that most yanks show

a man comes home from work and finds his wife naked under a guy in the back yard. He's pissed that she is cheating on him. She starts screaming rape. He realizes his error and pulls out a gun. The other guy starts running away and the husband shoots and kills him.

The man is the wife's lover. She wasn't being raped. Should the husband go to jail or should the wife for the lover's death?

I want to know who fucks someone in their backyard? Esp when cheating. Wife should simply be shot and pissed on in this case...

It wasn't actually in the back yard.
It was in the driveway, in the lover's truck.

as i said you can do what is nessary to stop a crime including locking a person in a basement until the cops arive but you cant "arest" someone fleeing. Only the police can do that and you cant "arest" someone who you saw shoplifting from your store a week ago. Only the police can arest someone, you can only do what is nessary to stop a crime IN PROGRESS.

That is the difference between a free country and a police state. here the police actually do not have any rights the citizenry do not. If we were so inclined we could petiotn a judge for a search warrant. We'd be unlikely to get one, but the possibility is there. We can use citizen arrest to apprehend a criminal in progress of a crime, even if they are fleeing, as well as known fugitives. Finally we can demand charges be pressed when we are wronged and in some cases we can press charges on anothers behalf.

Now like i said it is not perfect, but I prefer to have a system where it encouraged that I defend myself. After all the police usually only respond after the crime has been commited.

The US is MUCH less than perfect with a murder rate per capita higher than iraq i would guess.

Murder is not the only violent crime , my friend. However ours is lower than Iraq currently. And Our crime rate keeps going down nationwide as more areas repeal unconstitional gun laws and allow citizens to defend themselves. Unlike Great Britian, Canada, and Australia whose violent and nonviolent crime have been growing since the loss of the ability to bear arms.

Oh and a last point, if the goverment was a servent to the people in the US it would provide the services you NEED like free universal health care rather than waisting the WHOLE budget on an inept defence force (in there budgiting abilities anyway). Also if the US goverment was a servent to her people you wouldnt be seeing the fear of the goverment that most yanks show

Hey, most of the voters and taxpayers here do not want a welfare state. Universal healthcare is a crutch that limits creativity in the medical profession. I would much rather see a system that gives us a basic coverage but still allows people to pay if they want experimental or slightly better service. Gives the best of both worlds.

I agree the military budget is out of hand, but mostly becuase of how defense contractors sell us items we don't need or want and pad the bill on other thing. However most yanks do not fear their government, they are leery of them the same way one would be leery of a tiger kept as a pet.





In the case above the man was probably absolved becuase not only was he assuming the naked man was raping his wife, he was assuming the naked man had intended to kidnap and kill her. After all why be in the car when the house is not that far away. His intention may also have been to disable rather than to kill. Meanwhile his wife added fuel to the fire by crying rape after the man dismounted. She might as well have pulled the trigger herself.

In the case above the man was probably absolved becuase not only was he assuming the naked man was raping his wife, he was assuming the naked man had intended to kidnap and kill her. After all why be in the car when the house is not that far away. His intention may also have been to disable rather than to kill. Meanwhile his wife added fuel to the fire by crying rape after the man dismounted. She might as well have pulled the trigger herself.

Actually, it's pretty unclear whether the man was naked or not. Also, he apparently had a pretty good idea beforehand what was going on (due to a phone conversation with his daughter) - he didn't come upon the scene unawares.

Either way, the case should have gone to trial.

i agree she was in the wrong. However if he didnt have a loaded gun the man would never have died at all. A punch to the nose will disable rather than kill as will a punch under the ribs, once she was free from the "atacker" going inside and calling the police would be a start.

Oh and im glad i live in a sociaty that arests those who carry offencive weaponry, as an ambo the less situations i go into where guns and knives are a threat the better. As for proicuting offences yourself you can tenchnically, though the atorny general can denie you the right because if you lose then double jepody is still atached (if the DPP wants to proicute a case its better that HE does than joe blow)

More gun owners will be killed by there OWN guns than have to defend themselves with them. That god that the guns and knives are off the streets in England and Australia

I agree pete, the risk that it was a set up is just to great for it NOT to go to trial

TW under british and australian law (and i asume the other commonwealth nations like NZ and canada) there is no such thing as a citizans arest.

False.

a man comes home from work and finds his wife naked under a guy in the back yard. He's pissed that she is cheating on him. She starts screaming rape. He realizes his error and pulls out a gun. The other guy starts running away and the husband shoots and kills him.

The man is the wife's lover. She wasn't being raped. Should the husband go to jail or should the wife for the lover's death?


He should have shot them both and plead that he thought they were burglers trying to rob his home!;)

Neither of them should go to Jail. The husband thought his wife was being raped and so did what anybody would do. After all, the guy was on his property raping his wife. I believe the law states that it is ok to use deadly force to protect oneself and ones family. He did nothing wrong
The wife on the other hand, while she may be a lying slut, didn't break the law in any way.
Although I do think adultery should be a crime punishable by law.
The wife is responsible for that guy's death. She cried rape, the husband thought he was defending his wife from a rapist.

I want to know who fucks someone in their backyard? Esp when cheating. Wife should simply be shot and pissed on in this case...
That's a good point. Why the hell were they having sex in the guy's car in the woman's driveway? WTF? You're in a car, drive over to his place. Or a motel, or at least out to the woods.

“ Originally Posted by nietzschefan
I want to know who fucks someone in their backyard? Esp when cheating. Wife should simply be shot and pissed on in this case... ”

" Originally Posted by madanthonywayne
That's a good point. Why the hell were they having sex in the guy's car in the woman's driveway? WTF? You're in a car, drive over to his place. Or a motel, or at least out to the woods.


Good points! WTF??? First of all you are cheating in your own driveway? Even if your husband didn't catch you, what about your NEIGHBOURS????? If you have nosy neighbours like me they hear and see all. You are just asking to get caught.

Good points! WTF??? First of all you are cheating in your own driveway? Even if your husband didn't catch you, what about your NEIGHBOURS????? If you have nosy neighbours like me they hear and see all. You are just asking to get caught.
Isn't that exactly what I was saying?

Isn't that exactly what I was saying?

Yes, and I totally agree with both you and Nietzche! I don't feel sorry for such morons.

a man comes home from work and finds his wife naked under a guy in the back yard. He's pissed that she is cheating on him. She starts screaming rape. He realizes his error and pulls out a gun. The other guy starts running away and the husband shoots and kills him.

The man is the wife's lover. She wasn't being raped. Should the husband go to jail or should the wife for the lover's death?

??? Why didn't he do it with his bare hands? Using a gun is too easy!

That's a good point. Why the hell were they having sex in the guy's car in the woman's driveway? WTF? You're in a car, drive over to his place. Or a motel, or at least out to the woods.

Well, I doubt they expected him home so soon. Maybe they had been drinking. And some people get off on risky sex. :shrug: Lots of people have sex in public places.
But I agree. I've never understood how anyone could get caught having sex in their own home in their own bed.

If he was fleeing then he would be done for in court. My dads neighbour got done for some form of assault because 2 people broke into his house. One managed to get away but mike and his son caught the other guy outside, took him inside the house and hit him (not major but they kick the shit out of him). He was charged because he was fleeing, they stopped him leaving, took him back inside, restrained him against his will and assaulted him.

Citizens arrest would be messy here and the police don't like it. You can be done for using unreasonable force, restraining them against their will in the wrong way etc. Now if you politely asked someone to wait while you called the police and used correct level of force then you might be ok. Still citizens arrest is very gray area here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6323391.stm

creep, i have herd lots of cases of even security guards at shopping centers charged for detaining shopplifters because to restrict the freedom of another person is something only the police and the courts can do. I know this law quite well because its also the law that you get charged with if you force treatment on someone

What the husband did was legal. Was it ethical?

creep, i have herd lots of cases of even security guards at shopping centers charged for detaining shopplifters because to restrict the freedom of another person is something only the police and the courts can do. I know this law quite well because its also the law that you get charged with if you force treatment on someone

Yeah, here in the US, you would have a very hard time convicting anyone of detaining a rapist, especially one caught in the act.

creep, i have herd lots of cases of even security guards at shopping centers charged for detaining shopplifters because to restrict the freedom of another person is something only the police and the courts can do. I know this law quite well because its also the law that you get charged with if you force treatment on someone

You heard wrong.

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/victims/citizens_powers_of_arrest.html

A friend of a friend doing law mentioned citizen's arrest to me, although I had quite a laugh because detaining a suspected criminal is sort of pointless when you don't own a fucking gun.

a) that only deals with shoplifting and nothing else (read it again)
b) that is ONLY aplicable in the ACT (you do realise you picked the smallest juristiction in the country dont you?)

He should have shot them both and plead that he thought they were burglers trying to rob his home!;)

If he killed both of them he would stand a better chance of 'getting off' if he told the truth.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion

i agree she was in the wrong. However if he didnt have a loaded gun the man would never have died at all. A punch to the nose will disable rather than kill as will a punch under the ribs, once she was free from the "atacker" going inside and calling the police would be a start.

People have died of a five mile an hour soft ball hitting them in the exact wrong case. Necks have been broken by falling as little as four feet. You cannot guaratee the man woyuld be alive. There is the chance it had been a serial rapist/killer. Punching one of those is quick way to be added to the list of victims.

Oh and im glad i live in a sociaty that arests those who carry offencive weaponry, as an ambo the less situations i go into where guns and knives are a threat the better. As for proicuting offences yourself you can tenchnically, though the atorny general can denie you the right because if you lose then double jepody is still atached (if the DPP wants to proicute a case its better that HE does than joe blow)

Well, i am glad you are happy you live there. And i fervently hope that you never come to rue that very happiness some day. Still does not change the fact that your country has gone from much less criome per capita than the US to the same level. unfortunately ours is dropping and yours rising.....

More gun owners will be killed by there OWN guns than have to defend themselves with them. That god that the guns and knives are off the streets in England and Australia

Oh, I see you ascribe to the theory that only people who have shot is self defense have defended themselves with a gun. I could explain how generally incorrect this is but it would probably be wasted effort. Suffice it to say, that merely carrying a gun is statistically safer than not.

People have died of a five mile an hour soft ball hitting them in the exact wrong case. Necks have been broken by falling as little as four feet. You cannot guaratee the man woyuld be alive. There is the chance it had been a serial rapist/killer. Punching one of those is quick way to be added to the list of victims.



Well, i am glad you are happy you live there. And i fervently hope that you never come to rue that very happiness some day. Still does not change the fact that your country has gone from much less criome per capita than the US to the same level. unfortunately ours is dropping and yours rising.....



Oh, I see you ascribe to the theory that only people who have shot is self defense have defended themselves with a gun. I could explain how generally incorrect this is but it would probably be wasted effort. Suffice it to say, that merely carrying a gun is statistically safer than not.

um owning a gun makes you more likely to die or have some one die.

um owning a gun makes you more likely to die or have some one die.

Not true. Many people carry a guin and have never even fired it to deter crime. You'd be surprised how quickly someon decides to just leave alone if they even see a suspicious lump. Gun Control advocates like to use the lines like the one above to scare people into disarming the average citizen. What they fail to realize is that an unarmed population is easy prey for those would do so.

the crime rates in australia are MUCH lower for all but petty crimes. Yes shop lifting is on the rise due to economic circumstances and unfortunatly traffic offences are back up again which is a major problem but orgnised crime is down since parana was formed and the murder rate is about 300 per year

Not true. Many people carry a guin and have never even fired it to deter crime. You'd be surprised how quickly someon decides to just leave alone if they even see a suspicious lump. Gun Control advocates like to use the lines like the one above to scare people into disarming the average citizen. What they fail to realize is that an unarmed population is easy prey for those would do so.

yes it is true numerous reports have reached that conclusion.

the crime rates in australia are MUCH lower for all but petty crimes. Yes shop lifting is on the rise due to economic circumstances and unfortunatly traffic offences are back up again which is a major problem but orgnised crime is down since parana was formed and the murder rate is about 300 per year

Much lower totals than the US, yes, I agree, however the per capita is about the same. It used to be much lower but since the ban on firearms has climbed. It might be on a slight decline at the moment, but still up form before the ban.

actually no, the per capita amounts are lower as well

Edit to add: the only thing that went up post howards gun laws was an small increase in knife crimes because guns went readly avilable. That has gone down again with stricter knife controls and better siezure rates by coustems. You need to rember that some crime does fluturate dependent on coustoms efforts because we live on an island. Things need to be either manifactured here or imported by ship or plane because there is no land to walk over.

Asguard, i am curious to know where does the illegal contraband come from that fllood's Australia? That is even if it is a problem.

I mean drugs and guns mostly.

yes it is true numerous reports have reached that conclusion.

No, numerous gun control advocates have preached this. Reports are actually completely contradictory. But I never ascribed gun control advocates with common sense or truthfulness. they fail to realize that they absolutely do not have the right to limit other peoples rights. If they don;t want to carry a gun, that is fine, but they should not be allowed to tell me I can't.

actually no, the per capita amounts are lower as well.

Lower than before the ban, or just a few points lower than the US currently? Your missing the point. You went from ridiculously low crime rate with high profile to a much higher crime rate, with a lower profuile. Meanwhile the US has gone from a much higher crime rate to a lower one. Australia may be lower than the US, but it is not by much if at all. Which is a huge change form before your gun ban when you were MUCH lower.

depends on the product, anphetamines tend to be manifactured here with raw chemicals illegally imported or sorced from corupt police. Weed is grown here, the largest portion being people growing indervidual plants. Cochaine and heroin are imported which is why the street value for these drugs flutuates so much (as heoin prices went up the ice epidemic started)

As for guns and knives they are generally imported, i dont know of any manifacturing plants in australia.

This was why the painters and dockers union was so dominated by organised crime until it was outlawed. Purana did a great job at cleaning up the organised crime but its coustoms who have the biggest job in dealing with these sorts of crimes and they rely to some exstent on luck as do the importers

No, numerous gun control advocates have preached this. Reports are actually completely contradictory. But I never ascribed gun control advocates with common sense or truthfulness. they fail to realize that they absolutely do not have the right to limit other peoples rights. If they don;t want to carry a gun, that is fine, but they should not be allowed to tell me I can't.

i have never ascribed anyone you off handly generalizes a group of people as being intelligent. and why is it that gun ownership is the only right conservatives give a fuck about. And common sense would dictate that the closer in proximty your are to greater concentrations of a said weapon the more likely you are to be harmed by said weapon. And most gun control advocates don't want to keep guns away from law abiding people they want to make sure the nuts don't get them.

Explain this from your own government.

And don't give me malarky about just more friendly police taking statements, if that was true the US would be staying even and the other country would still have been below it if they had lower crime rates.


Trends in recorded violent crime in England and Wales, the United States, Canada, and Australia, rate per 100,000 persons, 1962-2004
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.gif
Note: Violent crime comprises homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery. Time periods charted reflect the availability of consistent, nationwide data for each country

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/01/2151925.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A

Ok this (if it works) is from the ABS, take a look at the murder rate per capita especially.

i have never ascribed anyone you off handly generalizes a group of people as being intelligent. and why is it that gun ownership is the only right conservatives give a fuck about. And common sense would dictate that the closer in proximty your are to greater concentrations of a said weapon the more likely you are to be harmed by said weapon. And most gun control advocates don't want to keep guns away from law abiding people they want to make sure the nuts don't get them.

Actually i am concerned with all rights. Freedom of Speach, Freedom of Religion, Freedom form unwarranted serches and so on. However I realize, as a rational human being, that without some way to check the governments power that they mean squat. I also realize the most qualified person to protect you in a time of danger, is yourself. Police only respond if you can signal them and there is ALWAYS a delay.

Also gun control laws only keep guns out the hands of law abiding citizens. 99% of the time a criminal or nut gets his gun illegally, off the street. There is no background check at the back end of Fast Eddies van.

Finally if more of our society was armed, there actually would be a lot less violence. What idiot is going to risk his life mugging some little old lady if they think she might have a snubnose .38? Sure murders will still happen, but honestly guns are such a minor percentage it's not even funny.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A

Ok this (if it works) is from the ABS, take a look at the murder rate per capita especially.

Murder rate has nothing to do with guns most of the time. And Australia's murder rate has not actually dropped or raised enough to make a statistacl difference. However Murder is not the only crime in anation. Your Assaults doubled in just a short time after the gun ban and have satyued high.

DAM IT
Ok here is the link
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/ECFAF68AB75AE9E3CA256DEA00053A5A

The murder rate per capita out of interest has fallen across from 97 to 2002 from 1.7 to 1.6

As for your graph it shows nothing because it doesnt show what it actually represents

Assult rates ok then, if you look at the link i gave you, you will see yes assults are rising but robbery is falling so what does that tell you?

Could it be the rise in assult rates is actually a reflection of the increased reporting of domestic vilonce?

Assult can be alot of things including forced medical treatment so an increase in the raw data for assult rates actually says nothing

oh and last but not least


Between 1993 and 2002 the proportion of murders, attempted murders and robberies involving the use of a weapon decreased (graph 11.12). The proportion of murders involving the use of a weapon peaked in 1996 at 78% while the proportion of attempted murders involving the use of a weapon peaked in 1997 at 87%.

The proportion of robberies where a weapon was used has fluctuated from 36% in 1994 and 1995 to 46% in 1998. Since 1998, this proportion has declined to 37%. For those robberies that involved the use of a weapon, the proportion of offences involving firearms decreased from 37% in 1993 to 15% in 2002.


http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/95553f4ed9b60a374a2568030012e707/ecfaf68ab75ae9e3ca256dea00053a5a/Body/3.3C32!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

a) that only deals with shoplifting and nothing else (read it again)


Are you an imbecile? From the link I just posted:

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/victims/citizens_powers_of_arrest.html


What exactly is a citizen's arrest?
A citizen's arrest is when you, as someone who is not a duly sworn police officer, detains a person because you believe on reasonable grounds that the other person is committing or has just committed an offence (for example, theft, assault, criminal damage).



b) that is ONLY aplicable in the ACT (you do realise you picked the smallest juristiction in the country dont you?)

But wait, didn't you previously claim that Australia didn't allow for citizen's arrest, full stop? :shrug:

And...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#Australia


Citizen's arrest laws by country

[edit] Australia
The power to arrest is granted by both Federal and State legislation, however the exact power granted differs depending on jurisdiction. The power to arrest for a Federal offence is granted by s.3Z of the Crimes Act 1914.[1] Under the Act, a person who is not a police constable may, without warrant, arrest another person if they believe on reasonable grounds that:

the other person is committing or has just committed an indictable offence; and proceedings by summons against the other person would not: ensure the appearance of the person before a court in respect of the offence; prevent a repetition or continuation of the offence or the commission of another offence; prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of evidence relating to the offence; prevent harassment of, or interference with, a person who may be required to give evidence in proceedings in respect of the offence; prevent the fabrication of evidence in respect of the offence; or would not preserve the safety or welfare of the person.
A person who arrests another person must, as soon as practicable after the arrest, arrange for the other person, and any property found on the other person, to be delivered into the custody of a constable.

I don't care that technically you can make a citizens arrest in the UK, I wouldn't try it since there is so much you can be sued for that isn't text book as is the case in most countries the law is not black and white. If the person you make the arrest on gets a bastard of a solicitor or lawyer (there is one in my city who is notorious for getting people off for anything) then you are done for. I have a few friends who are ex coppers and when ever they see trouble they never make citizens arrest or try restraining someone, it's just not worth it.

Most people call the police and let them deal with it, if it's a situation that needs immediate intervention they won't do a by the book citizen arrest for fear of repercussions. If it needs intervention there is other options. For instance if I was witness to a rape in progress calling the police would be second action I took since it needs immediate action. First I would use appropriate force (maybe a little more I admit), I am not violent at all usually but in this case I would probably beat the shit out of them enough to stop them going anywhere. Then I would call the police and go as they were arriving giving no name on the phone etc or lie and say I am calling as witnessed a man stop a rape etc etc.

Obviously I would have to act especially in immediate risk cases and couldn't ignore crimes that are serious but citizen arrest wouldn't work. Too many people get done for so little force, and short of asking someone to co-operate. The police don't like vigilante behaviour and it poses risk to person who intervenes too (granted I am bigger than most but still), they are pissy enough with plastic coppers like BTP and specials (and even OSD who are their own!) nevermind citizens acting like police with no training.

Neither of them should go to Jail. The husband thought his wife was being raped and so did what anybody would do. After all, the guy was on his property raping his wife. I believe the law states that it is ok to use deadly force to protect oneself and ones family. He did nothing wrong.It is in fact illegal for a civilian to use deadly force against someone who is running away. Self defense must be against imminent harm, not against harm that has already happened. Nonetheless, in many jurisdictions, particularly small towns where not many officials are involved in the investigation and rules can be circumvented, they might not prosecute the husband... IF it had been an actual case of rape.The wife on the other hand, while she may be a lying slut, didn't break the law in any way.She committed fraud, which is a crime, and as a result someone died. By the intricacies of American law, that makes her guilty of at least manslaughter and possibly murder. She lied to her husband in order to influence him to behave in a way she expected would be advantageous to her: that is a textbook definition of fraud. She simply wanted him to not punish her for adultery. Unfortunately she did not expect him to react by killing her boyfriend. Nonetheless even though the outcome was unexpected, a death occurred in the course of the commission of the crime of fraud, therefore she is guilty of her boyfriend's death.

The authorities are not as likely to overlook that. They're going to want to prosecute the wife, but in the process they can't help revealing the fact that it was the husband who actually shot the victim. It's possible that both will be prosecuted. It's anybody's guess whether they will be convicted. If the victim has a family who pursues the case, they're going to keep pushing until someone is punished for his death. Or in Texas, they might just show up with their own guns and shoot both of them. :)Although I do think adultery should be a crime punishable by law.You sound like someone who was cheated on. I was too. Someone seduced my wife, and they ran off together. It took me years to get over wishing that adultery was a crime in my state, preferably a capital crime. Eventually I had to accept the fact that the reason she cheated on me is that I was an asshole.

Wow, you're fucking pussy whipped, Fraggle. Society has done its job in making you feel like the typical male villian.

If your spouse is an asshole, either get counselling or divorce them. Don't cheat on them behind their back, and then run out of them unexpectedly.

It is doubtful that this scenario would take place. One time i had a stalker (female) so i went to the police and he said 'so what is the problem?' i said idont want to have sex with her no more' he said 'what are you gay?'

i sat there and cried, how can people be so cruel?

...I was too. Someone seduced my wife, and they ran off together. ....

sorry fraggle, but I'm happy you moved on. Is she still with him? Did you ever catch them together?

i do have to agree with the above FR. There is no excuse for cheating and though i don't believe it should be an offence i wish i could have sued for the psychological harm it caused.

Here you can. Its called 'alienation of affection'
I think there is a thread here somewhere about that.

How long ago was this case?

because the case in question was mentioned in last week's SVU which suggests it was a fairly long time ago, as it would have had to already go through the courts before TV shows could use it and then the apeals and then production and US viewing and FINALLY ontoAustralian TV

The wife went to jail a few weeks ago. But the boyfriend was killed in 2006

If I judged such a situation, I'd give 25 years prison to the wife and 40 for the husband. A: She should know her husband well enough that yelling rape is NOT a wise choice B: He should be civilized enough not to pull a gun

Wha?? His wife was being raped! Should be have said "oh, gotta go call the cops. I'll be right back honey"