Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 80001	2007-06-08 07:19:00	Police charges dismissed	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
557180	2007-06-09 06:57:00	Some live in the land of Nod,other in the land of If,other in the land of facts. Sorry about that here mistake.	Cicero (40)
557181	2007-06-09 07:01:00	"Hang on a minute mate, while I go and get a pistol from that locked cabinet over there, then hang on a bit longer while I go and get some ammunition from that locked drawer back there, then just a bit more while I load the magazine. Right, I'm ready now to shoot you in self defence before you try to decapitate me". Were all the weapons and ammo locked in some fashion. What happens if the next raid is a bunch of gang members with guns? Asked if the shop had an alarm linked to the police, the owner thought that might be a good idea. Maybe they need a few ideas.	PaulD (232)
557182	2007-06-09 07:36:00	Want would have been the outcome I wonder if someone else other the shop owner, got hold the LOADED weapon under the counter. Therefore I feel there is a case for careless use at least. I am very much aware of states of weapon readiness, it was part previous job. my :2cents: from what info i've seen the gun wasn't kept loaded. it was kept semi ready ie in a postion where its quick to load. the farmer case was no different, there is proberly not one farm house that dosn't have a loaded mag ready or ammo in a handy location. 2ndly there has been no mention that any gun was left unsupervised. for anyone to gain acccess to that gun they would have had to go through the personal first. it is legal for a gunshop to have guns on/under/in the counter/shop provided the weapon is under supervision. remember the big difference in this case is its a gunshop not a liquor store. in my veiw its totally resonable for joe public to exspect a gun shop to have guns and ammo advailable.	tweak'e (69)
557183	2007-06-09 07:58:00	Also, from what I know about the law, you are likely to receive harsher penalty for goig to a gun cabinet, getting a gun, loading it and shooting someone (even in defence) than happening to have the gun nearby for a legitimate purpose and using it by way of opportunity. This is because the former requires premeditated thought that you are going to get a deadly weapon for the purpose of shooting someone vs having it at hand and acting on instinct.	echothreezero (6612)
557184	2007-06-09 08:18:00	which is why we aren't meant to keep them loaded, ie to stop us shooting without thinking. not that i don't agree with the shooters actions, but he was breaking the law. it's the job of the police to charge and the job of the courts to decide whether or not he was justifed in his actions. for once the system seems to have worked	motorbyclist (188)
557185	2007-06-09 08:33:00	braking which law? its not illegal to have a firearm for the purposes of self defence . nor is it illegal for him to posses a pistol in a gun shop, which is why they only charged him with " possession of a pistol for unlawful purposes" . is it unlawfull to have a gun sitting next to you? it was a BS charge to keep the lawyers happy .	tweak'e (69)
557186	2007-06-09 08:41:00	from what info i've seen the gun wasn't kept loaded. The news item I heard said different Thats is want I based my comments on. The only unsafe thing about guns, is the people that use them	beama (111)
557187	2007-06-09 08:59:00	braking which law? its not illegal to have a firearm for the purposes of self defence . nor is it illegal for him to posses a pistol in a gun shop, which is why they only charged him with " possession of a pistol for unlawful purposes" . is it unlawfull to have a gun sitting next to you? it was a BS charge to keep the lawyers happy . Right . The illogicality of the crown case is that it was ok to shoot in self defence, but it wasn't ok to have a gun handy (in a gun shop) that either was loaded, or else was able to be very quickly set ready to fire .	Terry Porritt (14)
557188	2007-06-09 09:32:00	If you look at the Crimes Act, it might just be the case that the police had no options other than to lay the charges. The only real "option" they may have had was to ensure insufficient evidence was available so the natural justice would be done, which we may just have observed. By far the real travesty here is the Civil Rights lawyer that now suggests that the machete weiding "target" had the absolute right to not be shot. I take it that you noted the date on the alleged offence was wrong therefore whatever happend did NOT happen on the day the Police allege it took place. And the shop was not open that day. "Natural Justice" should be swift and speedy and I question why it took close to 12 months to get to depositions let alone a trial. About time the law makers {Parliament} get it right. About time we sorted the Police and the various Courts we have. Bring back the Privy Council too. If I was Arthur Alan Thomas, David Bain, Lindy Chamberlain, Ellis, Scott Wilson to name a few whom have been worried before and two of which still are I have to question the system. We have Laws, Bylaws, Amendments to laws, Amendments to amendments, Defences built in, and no repeal of outdated laws very often. I would not be at all suprised if we still had a law that said, "A man must run in front of a motor vehicle waving a flag." There was a law like that when we had cars driven by steam. For me the Police needed to prove "intent". Why was the handgun where it was? Why was it accessible? If I had been Mr Carvell and been confronted I may have fired a warning shot. Through the machete carrying persons head....................	Sweep (90)
557189	2007-06-09 09:38:00	The news item I heard said different Thats is want I based my comments on. The only unsafe thing about guns, is the people that use them from what i understand it was in semi ready, you only have to bang in the mag and pull the slide to load. some peole (media) call that "loaded". its not hard to have a gun in a cabniet, whip it out and load a round in it. most homes have the guns and ammo sitting side by side. while you can have guns for self protection, its almost impossible to do so without breaking other rules eg storage. ie you can't store a shutgun under the bed without breaking the storage rules. you can't have a gun in a gas station without breaking "Carrying or possessing a firearm without lawful, proper and sufficient purpose." you can't claim you where hunting in a gas station ! gunshops are a bit different as you are allowed to have guns out of storage inside the shop. the police simply can't prove that having a pistol in a gunshop is without "lawful, proper and sufficient purpose" otherwise every single gunshop or dealer would be breaking the law.	tweak'e (69)
1 2 3 4