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 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

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

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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