Tourist in Hospital after car & caravan stolen in Halls Creek
Are We Lost said
07:27 PM Aug 23, 2025
DMaxer wrote:
......
You can still use force, not kill them if property is all that is in issue.
.......
I was referring to the wording of the clause you posted more than the words you used. But now I will refer to your words in relation to the legislation.
My reading of that clause is it only applies in circumstances of self defence. The heading alone makes that clear, as well as the content. Both (1) and (2) are specific about self defence. So if a person did not believe they needed to defend themselves, then this section is not relevant. There is nothing in there that says reasonable force to protect property is acceptable.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:28:35 PM
DMaxer said
07:47 PM Aug 23, 2025
Yes, your interpretation may be that. Unfortunately for you, that interpretation is totally incorrect. It is written in plain English. I cant be any clearer.
Is your avatar a description of being geographically lost or cerebrally?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:52:23 PM
msg said
01:37 AM Aug 24, 2025
DMaxer, I will refer you to the thread " Anyone know what happen to a GN member know as denmonkey?"
Answers like yours are exactly the reason for Landy's comment about " Your right Magnarc we are not getting many popcorn threads these days. I used to be entertained for a considerable time reading the various discussions and opinions each night, but now I have normally moved on again in a few minutes".
This forum has changed from a supportive and happy place to one of sniping at everyone to the point where no one will post for fear becoming the butt of some nasty comment.
DMaxer said
07:20 AM Aug 24, 2025
I think you will find that my original reply was to correct a comment suggesting that people are powerless to stop attacks on their person or theft or damage to their property.
Despite posting the specific legislation one poster continued to make totally baseless comments even though another poster also referred him to the legislation.
I concluded that he was just winding people up and responded accordingly.
I am sorry if I upset you.
Perhaps if some people didnt use this forum to peddle erroneous opinions then it may revert to what it once was.
Magnarc said
08:11 AM Aug 24, 2025
DMaxer wrote:
i didn't say that at all. You cannot intentionally kill them or intend serious harm. You can still use force, not kill them if property is all that is in issue.
Ever thought about a remedial reading course or a trip to Specsavers?
Just read the section, it is there in black and white.
I can feel a severe case of ilithiophobia coming on.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I note that you have used the word ilithiophobia before, does it make you feel just a tiny bit superior? Everyone has an opinion on various things and they are not always correct, but they have a right to express them in a free country. (Least it used to be, not so sure nowadays).
Your posts are based on the current laws so I bend the knee to their accuracy, but I will continue to voice my opinions right or wrong. Lighten up DMaxer and be more tolerant with those of us that you perceive to be of lesser intelligence, for without the likes of us, there would be nothing much for you to say.
PS. I sincerely hope that the ilithiophobia is not terminal.
-- Edited by Magnarc on Sunday 24th of August 2025 08:13:30 AM
rgren2 said
08:21 AM Aug 24, 2025
I had to look it up.
What does ilithiophobia mean?
A strong and persistent intolerance of stupidity
New Word Suggestion. A strong and persistent intolerance of stupidity. Additional Information. Ilithiophobia is a neologism (recently constructed word) from the greek ilithios (stupidity) and phobos (fear).
DMaxer said
11:14 AM Aug 24, 2025
You were the one that questioned why that law regarding defending yourself and property did not apply here, Magnarc and you got my answer correcting your baseless statement.
It is not just the current law, it is the law that has applied in English and then Australian law for hundreds of years.
It does not make me feel superior in the slightest but I think it is wrong if posters make ill informed statements in an attempt to promote their own views.
If I posted an incorrect statement about a subject of which I had no idea or experience I am sure that other posters would soon correct me. It does not make me feel nor do I try to act superior. It is just an area in which I have had considerable experience. Besides you and a couple of others getting their noses out of joint, I think the majority would be pleased to know of their actual rights instead of being worried that they had no legal redress if a situation arose.
As far as using a term I have used in the past, so what. I am sure that a number of other posters have been afflicted by it as well after reading some of the tripe that gets posted from time to time. I am sure that they are pleased that they now know they are not alone in suffering the same phobia.
I will leave it at that.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 24th of August 2025 11:18:58 AM
BBN2 said
01:23 PM Aug 24, 2025
DMaxer wrote:
It is not just the current law, it is the law that has applied in English and then Australian law for hundreds of years.
Not quite.
The UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 inserted the word "grossly" before the word "disproportionate" in relation to the force a householder may use - this makes a world of difference if defending your home against intruders. Australian law does not afford this courtesy to people whose family are about to be raped or beaten in their own home.
Ineedabiggerboat said
01:35 PM Aug 24, 2025
The legal system is generally adversarial.
That is two or more lawyers fighting a case in a court before a judge and or jury.
Sometimes people disagree with the judge or jurys decision and go through an appeals process. Sometimes more than once.
Sometimes the appeal is successful and sometimes not.
In here, instead of being insulting, just agree to disagree.
rmoor said
07:24 PM Aug 24, 2025
There was an advert on TV tonight for a Current Affair this coming Monday night.
It showed what looked to be a really decent family living in fear of hooded criminals in their street at night.
In the local supermarket today I had one of the state's finest criminals in the line behind me with a few of his cohorts.
He would be out on, at a conservative guess around his 20th plus release from the local revolving door as it is known.
My first thought was, I wonder who is going to cop a late night break in this week?
I had a tight grip on my mobile phone and had to sneak my visa card out of view for fear of a snatch and run they are well known for.
One of his cohorts pulled a knife on a mate of ours about two months ago.
They all would have been carrying today.
His son would be due for release soon after killing two kids a few years ago.
Again, I question why we have to live in a society alongside the scum of the earth.
A Current Affair on Monday will no doubt ask the same question, but nothing ever seems to change.
Magnarc said
01:32 PM Aug 25, 2025
DMaxer, whether my opinions are right or wrong is hardly the point.
The point is that everyone has their opinions on things and they have the right to express them. It's called a forum! If you disagree then it"s your right to say so, but it does not give you the right to suggest that folks are stupid just because they do not agree with you. Those sort of comments do you no credit.
Much better to confine any browbeating of your opponents to the courthouse.
DMaxer said
01:42 PM Aug 25, 2025
When the actual legislation is shown to a person written in plain simple English and after reading it then proffer an opposing view despite the factually correct answer right in front of them.
How would you describe that opinion.
What about if a person makes statements, not gives an opinion, based on nothing but their own misinformation.
How would you describe that.
Are We Lost said
03:40 PM Aug 25, 2025
Thanks to those who picked up the ball and quite rightfully criticised DMaxer's inappropriate manner in this forum. Rather than contribute to the bickering that goes on here too much I was going to let DMaxer's insults slide. But as that part of the discussion continues and with 3 insults to zero it's time I responded.
First, I accept that the definition of self defence is different from my understanding. I had always believed that self defence referred to personal defence, and that did not extend to property. Using that interpretation of 418, 2(c), "Aperson carries out conduct in self-defence of themselves, then 2(c) would apply". So being threatened while someone wants to steal your car would give a justifiable response. Conversely, with no personal threat, 2(c) would not apply. However I accept that in fact self defence does include property protection in the definition. DMaxer could have said "I'm not sure how you are gettiing that interpretation. To me it is clear." .... or a multitude of different non insulting approaches.
When others criticised him for his manner, those criticisms went over his head or were dismissed as irrelevant. Did he really not understand, or just chose to ignore. Put less eloquently, and using some of DMaxer's words, " ... he appears to be ..... cerebally lost".
Then comes "but I think it is wrong if posters make ill informed statements in an attempt to promote their own views." But in that very same post (using almost identical words) he "made an ill informed statement in an attempt to promote his own views". BBN2 picked him up on that with a polite correction. Would DMaxer have been so polite had the error been the other way around?
There is an old proverb that is relevant here: If three people tell you youre sick, its time to lie down.
Maybe DMaxer should realise that multiple people have pointed out an unsatisfactory manner on this thread alone. Maybe it's time to lie down.
I usually aim to avoid such negativity, preferring to ignore rather than argue, so I won't be engaging in further discussion of this issue. I wonder if DMaxer will be man enough to drop this now as I had intended to ... but then he kept going.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Tuesday 26th of August 2025 11:51:15 AM
PeterInSa said
06:25 PM Aug 25, 2025
I think I could have a Probem if someone was tinkering with my/wifes car at 2am.
I could shout out "Hey get out of here"
And if they turn and confront me a 70+ year old, who is not as fit as he use to be.....
I could get my "Wasp Jet" and spray out to 6m into their eyes.
Causing them to be blind for a short period of time, then in due course they would sue me, or walk onto the road get hit by a car then sue me.
Or, I could take a photo of the visitors and walk inside and call the police who most likely will arrive after the vehicle/or gear has been stolen.
-- Edited by PeterInSa on Monday 25th of August 2025 06:26:09 PM
rmoor said
06:44 PM Aug 25, 2025
I think A Current Affair on TV at 7 pm tonight will display parallel of many of our beliefs.
It is titled - Wolves at the Door.
In the shorts was a pleasant young lady. Her family living in fear.
I watched a late night show last night on John Earnest Cribb.
Kidnapped a 39 year old mother and her two kids after a petty robbery gone wrong in the 70s.
Indecently assaulted her, then stabbed her 13 times, the 4 year old boy twice and the 10 year old girl had to watch all that and then he stabbed her 6 times.
He and Munday escaped a mental institution circa Newcastle, kidnapped two young girls.
Held them for 32 hours and both were indecently assaulted.
I have an opinion, my own opinion. the Gallows for the first major offence.
Our ridiculous court system then punished the family of the dead woman and her two lovely kids with a sentence appeal available to Cribb every three years.
It damaged the mental state of those family members left in sorrow for years.
Also the lives of those poor two young girls kidnapped while Cribb and Munday were on the run.
Their lives changed forever as well.
I have suffered as a victim of several minor and major offences and many friends have suffered criminal crap too.
I am sorry, well, should I apologise for my harsh opinion?
I still reckon, three strikes and they are out.
Why should innocent people keep having to suffer this awful level of scumbags.
At the end of the day, as Jack Nicholas said in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - some machines are just broken......
dogbox said
08:08 AM Aug 26, 2025
it would appear that we mear mortals that whatch the news and live in the burbs have different view on how the justice system works than the people who work in the sysstem
rgren2 said
09:03 AM Aug 26, 2025
dogbox wrote:
it would appear that we mear mortals that whatch the news and live in the burbs have different view on how the justice system works than the people who work in the sysstem
Pretty much the same with most professions.
Brianvicki said
09:35 AM Aug 26, 2025
Protecting property is not worth losing your mind or personal injury over..
The real problem is, unfortunately for this site, there are hardly any decent articles being posted, e.g. I asked a question about adding to my awning on a poptop, zero interest, a few years ago I would have received a few comments, are there many members using this site anymore The articles getting most interest seems to be the bickering ones that get off the main subject e,g, this one, not much from the original post. How is the guy?
-- Edited by Brianvicki on Tuesday 26th of August 2025 09:37:02 AM
DMaxer said
12:27 PM Aug 26, 2025
Sorry to ruin another story rmoor but Cribb did not get to appeal his sentence every three years at all. He, like all prisoners, may apply for parole every three years which he did a couple of times and it was refused. He was sentenced to three life sentences plus a further 45 years for further offences and was never released and died in gaol.
William Monday was sentenced to about 170 years in total, his last offence being the murder of a fellow prisoners for which he received a further life sentence. He also died in gaol.
Instead of criticising me you blokes should say thanks for the education I give you and the polite way I correct your misinformation.
Tony Bev said
01:17 PM Aug 26, 2025
DMaxer wrote:
Instead of criticising me you blokes should say thanks for the education I give you and the polite way I correct your misinformation.
Thanks for the information you give to this forum, DMaxer. I for one, appreciate it.
I think that I stand in the middle of the road, on legal arguments, as I doubt if the Pope or the Chief of police, actually know my name
My gut feeling is that, if I am physically able, I will most certainly protect my property, and the property of others, from thieves
DMaxer said
01:31 PM Aug 26, 2025
Thanks TB. For your kind words. Just a final thought to ponder. Some people want gaols and institutions to be more nasty and horrible just like they used to be. Think of some of the real hell holes like Parramatta, Grafton and Long Bay. Add YASMAR and Mt Penang. They were all either closed or restructured 25 years ago. Before that we had graduates like Payne, Percy, Cribb, Munday, Skaf, Anita Cobbys killers, Janice Baldwins killers, the chief suspect in Beaumont children disappearance, the suspect in Wanda Beach murders, Virginia Morse murderers Crump and Baker. That is just a few. Thankfully we dont have offending like that on the same scale today. Why is that? Perhaps we dont turn twisted people into sociopaths in our institutions so frequently these days There are still bad ones, nothing like that lot though.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 26th of August 2025 01:45:38 PM
Ineedabiggerboat said
02:12 PM Aug 26, 2025
You mean like the child mollester who caused 2000 children to be tested for STDs of the guy that killed the pregnant woman, decapitated her boyfriend and stuck his head on a stick?
Your responses are quoting laws but everything needs go be tested in a court of law.
In your case, the negative responses you received seemed go be more about your bedside manner.
DMaxer said
02:35 PM Aug 26, 2025
Thank you for your kind words. I think I said there are still bad ones.
I am intrigued. If something is written in plain English in legislation how is that tested. What do you say. Well Your Honour, I know the law says this but I like my version much better as it suits my opinions. Que?
Ineedabiggerboat said
03:42 PM Aug 26, 2025
Yes, laws need to be interpreted. Written laws are often general or abstract to cover a range of situations, but real-world cases can be complex, ambiguous, or unforeseen. Interpretation bridges the gap between the laws text and its application, ensuring it aligns with intent, context, and fairness.
Courts, judges, and legal professionals interpret laws by analyzing the text, legislative intent, precedent, and societal context. For example, constitutional phrases like equal protection or freedom of speech require interpretation to address modern issues like digital privacy or hate speech. Without interpretation, laws could become rigid, outdated, or misapplied.
However, interpretation isnt without issues. Different judges or legal traditions (e.g., originalism vs. living constitutionalism) can lead to conflicting outcomes, raising debates about consistency or bias. Still, interpretation is essential for laws to function practically and justly in a dynamic world.
Ineedabiggerboat said
04:00 PM Aug 26, 2025
Just to be clear.
Heres how Australian courts instruct juries on reasonable force in home intruder or self-defence cases. The instructions are meant to guide jurors on applying the law to the facts.
Jury Instructions on Reasonable Force
1. The Core Questions
Judges typically ask the jury to consider:
1. Honest belief:
Did the accused genuinely believe that force was necessary to defend themselves, someone else, or property?
Example instruction: You must consider what the accused honestly thought at the time of the incident.
2. Reasonable in the circumstances:
Would a reasonable person, placed in the same situation, consider the level of force necessary?
Key: The force must be proportionate to the threat.
3. Immediate necessity:
Was the force used only for as long as needed to repel the threat?
Force used after the danger passes is usually considered excessive.
2. Factors Courts Ask Juries to Consider
The nature of the threat (armed/unarmed, aggressive/passive).
The timing and duration of the force used.
Whether the accused had an opportunity to retreat or escape safely.
The physical disparity between the accused and intruder (size, strength).
Any mistaken belief about the threat a reasonable mistake can still justify force.
3. Example from NSW Jury Direction
A judge may say something like:
You must ask yourself:
1. Did the accused honestly believe that it was necessary to use the force?
2. Was the force used reasonable in proportion to the threat perceived?
3. Could the accused have avoided using that force without endangering themselves?
You should consider the circumstances as they appeared to the accused at that time, not with the advantage of hindsight.
4. What the Jury Decides
The jury weighs evidence, including:
Witness testimony,
CCTV footage,
Expert opinions (forensic or psychological),
The accuseds own account.
They must determine whether the accuseds actions fall within the scope of reasonable force.
5. Practical Implications
The law protects honest, proportionate reactions to genuine threats.
Juries are instructed to consider stress, fear, and split-second decision-making.
But excessive force or attacks after the threat ends are criminal, even if the initial threat justified some defensive action.
Ineedabiggerboat said
04:22 PM Aug 26, 2025
Finally, you used the letters Que at the end of your post.
Maybe you meant QED which applies to mine lol
rmoor said
04:34 PM Aug 26, 2025
Sorry to ruin another story rmoor but Cribb did not get to appeal his sentence every three years at all. He, like all prisoners, may apply for parole every three years which he did a couple of times and it was refused.
Whether it was parole or severity of sentence, nit-picking, I dont really give a rats.
All I gleaned from it was a fair dinkum, highly religious law-abiding family were tormented beyond belief by a ridiculous legal system that was then changed due to a white knight lady allegedly getting changes due to the torment this family had to suffer years after the vicious murders.
Sorry, I find I can consistently disagree with all of your seemingly biased opinions and statements.
DMaxer, you consistently defend criminals and appear completely oblivious to the suffering of innocent people?
Thankfully we dont have offending like that on the same scale today.
Really??
I thinkIneedabiggerboat shot that weak argument down in flames?
You mean like the child mollester who caused 2000 children to be tested for STDs of the guy that killed the pregnant woman, decapitated her boyfriend and stuck his head on a stick? Your responses are quoting laws but everything needs go be tested in a court of law. In your case, the negative responses you received seemed go be more about your bedside manner.
What about the constant machete attacks in Victoria, the stabbing murder of a grandmother in Queensland as they stole her car.
Maybe the ones you refer to dont necessarily always hit the news. A few weeks ago locally an alleged p*d*f*le was allegedly beheaded and had Other parts of his anatomy removed and nothing in detail has come out in the public about that murder. That one occurred about 1.5 KM from us. maybe you just dont hear about them all.
rmoor said
06:54 PM Aug 26, 2025
Seems my fears posted on here a few days re: Sovereign Citizens was accurate.
The sad loss through the murder of two policemen today near Bright in Victoria is a tragic sign of our times.
Sadly one of them was only a week away from retirement.
I love my retirement days after 50 years of hard labour.
It is sad this bloke cannot enjoy his life's rewards.
Sadly the other copper was in his 30's. This is wrong.
On TV last night they reported in 2024 18,000 cars were stolen in Victoria.
It is now currently up to 25,000 in Victoria with another four months for the perpetrators and repeat offenders to increase that figure.
I still reckon those apprehended stealing cars or their parents if they still back and support the ferals they bred should kick the can for the victims.
A minimum of $25,000 in compensation or more if the victims are out of pocket tens of thousands if the perpetrators can be identified and charged.
The inconvenience, time without a vehicle, the stress and fear, insurance excess and cost of acquiring a new vehicle should all be paid as compensation.
Take it out of their dole in instalments for the term of their natural lives or if the parents don't disown the idiots prior, then they can kick the can.
It is time the law looked to protect and compensate victims, then it might be a deterrent for these low life scumbags.
DMaxer said
03:58 PM Aug 27, 2025
I am very relieved that you and a few others here disagree with all my comments rmoor.
i think it is rather odd that several of you want to attack me personally when I offer an opinion supported by facts and legislation yet get all hot and bothered when I question the comprehension of others who state their views as factual when really they are just misguided, factually lacking opinions Or some ridiculous view they heard on talk back radio.
Do some of you really believe that victims will cope and recover faster if the person gaoled for the offending is regularly bashed?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Wednesday 27th of August 2025 04:39:02 PM
I was referring to the wording of the clause you posted more than the words you used. But now I will refer to your words in relation to the legislation.
My reading of that clause is it only applies in circumstances of self defence. The heading alone makes that clear, as well as the content. Both (1) and (2) are specific about self defence. So if a person did not believe they needed to defend themselves, then this section is not relevant. There is nothing in there that says reasonable force to protect property is acceptable.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:28:35 PM
Yes, your interpretation may be that. Unfortunately for you, that interpretation is totally incorrect. It is written in plain English. I cant be any clearer.
Is your avatar a description of being geographically lost or cerebrally?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Saturday 23rd of August 2025 07:52:23 PM
Answers like yours are exactly the reason for Landy's comment about " Your right Magnarc we are not getting many popcorn threads these days. I used to be entertained for a considerable time reading the various discussions and opinions each night, but now I have normally moved on again in a few minutes".
This forum has changed from a supportive and happy place to one of sniping at everyone to the point where no one will post for fear becoming the butt of some nasty comment.
-- Edited by Magnarc on Sunday 24th of August 2025 08:13:30 AM
What does ilithiophobia mean?
A strong and persistent intolerance of stupidity
New Word Suggestion. A strong and persistent intolerance of stupidity. Additional Information. Ilithiophobia is a neologism (recently constructed word) from the greek ilithios (stupidity) and phobos (fear).
You were the one that questioned why that law regarding defending yourself and property did not apply here, Magnarc and you got my answer correcting your baseless statement.
It is not just the current law, it is the law that has applied in English and then Australian law for hundreds of years.
It does not make me feel superior in the slightest but I think it is wrong if posters make ill informed statements in an attempt to promote their own views.
If I posted an incorrect statement about a subject of which I had no idea or experience I am sure that other posters would soon correct me. It does not make me feel nor do I try to act superior. It is just an area in which I have had considerable experience. Besides you and a couple of others getting their noses out of joint, I think the majority would be pleased to know of their actual rights instead of being worried that they had no legal redress if a situation arose.
As far as using a term I have used in the past, so what. I am sure that a number of other posters have been afflicted by it as well after reading some of the tripe that gets posted from time to time. I am sure that they are pleased that they now know they are not alone in suffering the same phobia.
I will leave it at that.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 24th of August 2025 11:18:58 AM
Not quite.
The UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 inserted the word "grossly" before the word "disproportionate" in relation to the force a householder may use - this makes a world of difference if defending your home against intruders. Australian law does not afford this courtesy to people whose family are about to be raped or beaten in their own home.
It showed what looked to be a really decent family living in fear of hooded criminals in their street at night.
In the local supermarket today I had one of the state's finest criminals in the line behind me with a few of his cohorts.
He would be out on, at a conservative guess around his 20th plus release from the local revolving door as it is known.
My first thought was, I wonder who is going to cop a late night break in this week?
I had a tight grip on my mobile phone and had to sneak my visa card out of view for fear of a snatch and run they are well known for.
One of his cohorts pulled a knife on a mate of ours about two months ago.
They all would have been carrying today.
His son would be due for release soon after killing two kids a few years ago.
Again, I question why we have to live in a society alongside the scum of the earth.
A Current Affair on Monday will no doubt ask the same question, but nothing ever seems to change.
DMaxer, whether my opinions are right or wrong is hardly the point.
The point is that everyone has their opinions on things and they have the right to express them. It's called a forum! If you disagree then it"s your right to say so, but it does not give you the right to suggest that folks are stupid just because they do not agree with you. Those sort of comments do you no credit.
Much better to confine any browbeating of your opponents to the courthouse.
Thanks to those who picked up the ball and quite rightfully criticised DMaxer's inappropriate manner in this forum. Rather than contribute to the bickering that goes on here too much I was going to let DMaxer's insults slide. But as that part of the discussion continues and with 3 insults to zero it's time I responded.
First, I accept that the definition of self defence is different from my understanding. I had always believed that self defence referred to personal defence, and that did not extend to property. Using that interpretation of 418, 2(c), "A person carries out conduct in self-defence of themselves, then 2(c) would apply". So being threatened while someone wants to steal your car would give a justifiable response. Conversely, with no personal threat, 2(c) would not apply. However I accept that in fact self defence does include property protection in the definition. DMaxer could have said "I'm not sure how you are gettiing that interpretation. To me it is clear." .... or a multitude of different non insulting approaches.
When others criticised him for his manner, those criticisms went over his head or were dismissed as irrelevant. Did he really not understand, or just chose to ignore. Put less eloquently, and using some of DMaxer's words, " ... he appears to be ..... cerebally lost".
Then comes "but I think it is wrong if posters make ill informed statements in an attempt to promote their own views." But in that very same post (using almost identical words) he "made an ill informed statement in an attempt to promote his own views". BBN2 picked him up on that with a polite correction. Would DMaxer have been so polite had the error been the other way around?
There is an old proverb that is relevant here: If three people tell you youre sick, its time to lie down.
Maybe DMaxer should realise that multiple people have pointed out an unsatisfactory manner on this thread alone. Maybe it's time to lie down.
I usually aim to avoid such negativity, preferring to ignore rather than argue, so I won't be engaging in further discussion of this issue. I wonder if DMaxer will be man enough to drop this now as I had intended to ... but then he kept going.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Tuesday 26th of August 2025 11:51:15 AM
I think I could have a Probem if someone was tinkering with my/wifes car at 2am.
I could shout out "Hey get out of here"
And if they turn and confront me a 70+ year old, who is not as fit as he use to be.....
I could get my "Wasp Jet" and spray out to 6m into their eyes.
Causing them to be blind for a short period of time, then in due course they would sue me, or walk onto the road get hit by a car then sue me.
Or, I could take a photo of the visitors and walk inside and call the police who most likely will arrive after the vehicle/or gear has been stolen.
-- Edited by PeterInSa on Monday 25th of August 2025 06:26:09 PM
It is titled - Wolves at the Door.
In the shorts was a pleasant young lady. Her family living in fear.
I watched a late night show last night on John Earnest Cribb.
Kidnapped a 39 year old mother and her two kids after a petty robbery gone wrong in the 70s.
Indecently assaulted her, then stabbed her 13 times, the 4 year old boy twice and the 10 year old girl had to watch all that and then he stabbed her 6 times.
He and Munday escaped a mental institution circa Newcastle, kidnapped two young girls.
Held them for 32 hours and both were indecently assaulted.
I have an opinion, my own opinion. the Gallows for the first major offence.
Our ridiculous court system then punished the family of the dead woman and her two lovely kids with a sentence appeal available to Cribb every three years.
It damaged the mental state of those family members left in sorrow for years.
Also the lives of those poor two young girls kidnapped while Cribb and Munday were on the run.
Their lives changed forever as well.
I have suffered as a victim of several minor and major offences and many friends have suffered criminal crap too.
I am sorry, well, should I apologise for my harsh opinion?
I still reckon, three strikes and they are out.
Why should innocent people keep having to suffer this awful level of scumbags.
At the end of the day, as Jack Nicholas said in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - some machines are just broken......
Pretty much the same with most professions.
Protecting property is not worth losing your mind or personal injury over..
The real problem is, unfortunately for this site, there are hardly any decent articles being posted, e.g. I asked a question about adding to my awning on a poptop, zero interest, a few years ago I would have received a few comments, are there many members using this site anymore
The articles getting most interest seems to be the bickering ones that get off the main subject e,g, this one, not much from the original post. How is the guy?
-- Edited by Brianvicki on Tuesday 26th of August 2025 09:37:02 AM
Thanks for the information you give to this forum, DMaxer. I for one, appreciate it.
I think that I stand in the middle of the road, on legal arguments, as I doubt if the Pope or the Chief of police, actually know my name
My gut feeling is that, if I am physically able, I will most certainly protect my property, and the property of others, from thieves
Thanks TB. For your kind words. Just a final thought to ponder. Some people want gaols and institutions to be more nasty and horrible just like they used to be. Think of some of the real hell holes like Parramatta, Grafton and Long Bay. Add YASMAR and Mt Penang. They were all either closed or restructured 25 years ago. Before that we had graduates like Payne, Percy, Cribb, Munday, Skaf, Anita Cobbys killers, Janice Baldwins killers, the chief suspect in Beaumont children disappearance, the suspect in Wanda Beach murders, Virginia Morse murderers Crump and Baker. That is just a few. Thankfully we dont have offending like that on the same scale today. Why is that? Perhaps we dont turn twisted people into sociopaths in our institutions so frequently these days There are still bad ones, nothing like that lot though.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 26th of August 2025 01:45:38 PM
Whether it was parole or severity of sentence, nit-picking, I dont really give a rats.
All I gleaned from it was a fair dinkum, highly religious law-abiding family were tormented beyond belief by a ridiculous legal system that was then changed due to a white knight lady allegedly getting changes due to the torment this family had to suffer years after the vicious murders.
Sorry, I find I can consistently disagree with all of your seemingly biased opinions and statements.
DMaxer, you consistently defend criminals and appear completely oblivious to the suffering of innocent people?
Thankfully we dont have offending like that on the same scale today.
Really??
I thinkIneedabiggerboat shot that weak argument down in flames?
You mean like the child mollester who caused 2000 children to be tested for STDs of the guy that killed the pregnant woman, decapitated her boyfriend and stuck his head on a stick? Your responses are quoting laws but everything needs go be tested in a court of law. In your case, the negative responses you received seemed go be more about your bedside manner.
What about the constant machete attacks in Victoria, the stabbing murder of a grandmother in Queensland as they stole her car.
Maybe the ones you refer to dont necessarily always hit the news. A few weeks ago locally an alleged p*d*f*le was allegedly beheaded and had Other parts of his anatomy removed and nothing in detail has come out in the public about that murder. That one occurred about 1.5 KM from us. maybe you just dont hear about them all.
The sad loss through the murder of two policemen today near Bright in Victoria is a tragic sign of our times.
Sadly one of them was only a week away from retirement.
I love my retirement days after 50 years of hard labour.
It is sad this bloke cannot enjoy his life's rewards.
Sadly the other copper was in his 30's. This is wrong.
On TV last night they reported in 2024 18,000 cars were stolen in Victoria.
It is now currently up to 25,000 in Victoria with another four months for the perpetrators and repeat offenders to increase that figure.
I still reckon those apprehended stealing cars or their parents if they still back and support the ferals they bred should kick the can for the victims.
A minimum of $25,000 in compensation or more if the victims are out of pocket tens of thousands if the perpetrators can be identified and charged.
The inconvenience, time without a vehicle, the stress and fear, insurance excess and cost of acquiring a new vehicle should all be paid as compensation.
Take it out of their dole in instalments for the term of their natural lives or if the parents don't disown the idiots prior, then they can kick the can.
It is time the law looked to protect and compensate victims, then it might be a deterrent for these low life scumbags.
I am very relieved that you and a few others here disagree with all my comments rmoor.
i think it is rather odd that several of you want to attack me personally when I offer an opinion supported by facts and legislation yet get all hot and bothered when I question the comprehension of others who state their views as factual when really they are just misguided, factually lacking opinions Or some ridiculous view they heard on talk back radio.
Do some of you really believe that victims will cope and recover faster if the person gaoled for the offending is regularly bashed?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Wednesday 27th of August 2025 04:39:02 PM