Quote:

Teens charged over machete carjackings JO SEYMOUR THREE teens, aged 16 and 17, one of whom allegedly had a machete, have been charged over two carjackings and a pursuit across Sydney’s west on Saturday. Police allege a woman was forced out of her Toyota Corolla by two males, one of whom was armed with a machete, in Montrose Rd, Abbotsford about 12.24pm. Police officers initiated a chase of the car but called it off because of the way it was being driven. About 15 minutes later, a woman and her child were allegedly threatened with a machete and had their black BMW SUV stolen in Palmer St, Guildford West. With help from Polair, the SUV was followed for three hours until it collided with another car at the intersection of the Cumberland Hwy and M4, at South Wentworthville. Police said the SUV was stopped and three teens were arrested. During a search of the car police allegedly seized a machete and hunting knife. One of the 16-year-olds was charged with two counts of assault with intent to rob in company, and two counts of taking and driving a conveyance without consent of owner and predatory driving. The second 16-year-old was charged with two counts of robbery in company and two counts of being carried in a conveyance taken without consent of owner. The 17-year-old was charged with assault with intent to rob armed with offensive weapon, and two counts of being carried in a conveyance taken without consent of owner and robbery armed with offensive weapon.

Nationality? Come come.

They're tinted.

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:31am:

Nationality? Come come. They're tinted.

Thai rent boys you pay money to arse root?

Machete - weapon of choice ....innit?

Machete Kills  ;D

---

Gordon wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:42am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 9:31am: Nationality? Come come. They're tinted. Thai rent boys you pay money to arse root?

To do a bit of stabby-stabby?

Oh no, dear. That's your Viet, remember? Who do you think Matty's referring to?

In Fort Grant they'd be hanged.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdbKHZdGcE

Probs coconuts.

I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 2:34pm:

I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that.

You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:30pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::)

Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me.

Would make an interesting court case... ::)

Gordon wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 1:49pm:

Probs coconuts.

White on the inside, eh? Or just plain tinted.

Gordon's going for the Islanders, leftards. South Pacific.

Happy talkie talkie, innit.

You?

Gnads wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:54am:

Machete - weapon of choice ....innit? Machete Kills  ;D

Gonads is going with the Latinos, leftards. He's taking the linguistic option - machete, Latino for jungle-slashing blade.

Latinos are not a race - they're a linguistic subspecies.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me.

Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here.

Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 1:46pm:

In Fort Grant they'd be hanged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdbKHZdGcE

Bobby's taking the juridico-legal angle, referring to the penalty for murder, i.e, hanging, relegating them to the realm of the criminal. KILL THEM.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:40pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:33pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me. Would make an interesting court case... ::)

Brian questions the juridico-legal as it applies to the claim of self-defence, opening the range of suspects up to Rocky, who we may reasonably assume based on previous posts to be white.

This places Brian under suspicion of Spineless Apologism for not virtue-signalling Rocky and questioning his legal defence of not being tinted and thus innocent.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:40pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:33pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me. Would make an interesting court case... ::)

Why would it be? You are allowed to kill someone that is trying to kill you, even if their intent is mainly to rob you of your vehicle.

And the other scenario would be to just deny being the person who killed the carjacker. Even security footage does not guarantee a conviction. You deny the allegation. The police have to use forensics to make a case against you. The likelihood that a magistrate would convict someone who had denied being the one to kill a carjacker would be minimal. No confession. And the fact that the hypothetical footage of someone killing a carjacker would mean that the accused would have to be found not guilty.

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:40pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:33pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me. Would make an interesting court case... ::) Brian questions the juridico-legal as it applies to the claim of self-defence, opening the range of suspects up to Rocky, who we may reasonably assume based on previous posts to be white. This places Brian under suspicion of Spineless Apologism for not virtue-signalling Rocky and questioning his legal defence of not being tinted and thus innocent.

Not being a learned person, I can only somewhat surmise what you were trying to say. Do you mean that Brian would question the legality of my assertion that it is legal to kill a carjacker armed with a deadly weapon trying to carjack someone? And the reason why Brian would question my assertion is that I am white and NOT automatically innocent of carrying out self-defence that includes homicide?

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:57pm:

Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species.

I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them.

Valkie wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 7:57am:

Quote: Teens charged over machete carjackings JO SEYMOUR THREE teens, aged 16 and 17, one of whom allegedly had a machete, have been charged over two carjackings and a pursuit across Sydney’s west on Saturday. Police allege a woman was forced out of her Toyota Corolla by two males, one of whom was armed with a machete, in Montrose Rd, Abbotsford about 12.24pm. Police officers initiated a chase of the car but called it off because of the way it was being driven. About 15 minutes later, a woman and her child were allegedly threatened with a machete and had their black BMW SUV stolen in Palmer St, Guildford West. With help from Polair, the SUV was followed for three hours until it collided with another car at the intersection of the Cumberland Hwy and M4, at South Wentworthville. Police said the SUV was stopped and three teens were arrested. During a search of the car police allegedly seized a machete and hunting knife. One of the 16-year-olds was charged with two counts of assault with intent to rob in company, and two counts of taking and driving a conveyance without consent of owner and predatory driving. The second 16-year-old was charged with two counts of robbery in company and two counts of being carried in a conveyance taken without consent of owner. The 17-year-old was charged with assault with intent to rob armed with offensive weapon, and two counts of being carried in a conveyance taken without consent of owner and robbery armed with offensive weapon.

Matty, pondering the nationality of the alleged offenders, posing a simple question about their origins and leaning on the precedent of FD: sometimes a question is just a question.

Matty carefully sidesteps any racialist accusations by framing the paradox in nationalist terminology, as opposed to race. Matty thus absolves himself of any claims of race-baiting at the outset: not racist, so unfair.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:40pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:33pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me. Would make an interesting court case... ::) Why would it be? You are allowed to kill someone that is trying to kill you, even if their intent is mainly to rob you of your vehicle.

Where is that enshrined under legislation, UnSub?  Or is that something you're allowed to do in Queensland if the other person is tinted?


Quote:

And the other scenario would be to just deny being the person who killed the carjacker. Even security footage does not guarantee a conviction. You deny the allegation. The police have to use forensics to make a case against you. The likelihood that a magistrate would convict someone who had denied being the one to kill a carjacker would be minimal. No confession. And the fact that the hypothetical footage of someone killing a carjacker would mean that the accused would have to be found not guilty.

An interesting defence.  Don't know how you'd go against the circumstantial evidence... ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:40pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:33pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me. Would make an interesting court case... ::) Brian questions the juridico-legal as it applies to the claim of self-defence, opening the range of suspects up to Rocky, who we may reasonably assume based on previous posts to be white. This places Brian under suspicion of Spineless Apologism for not virtue-signalling Rocky and questioning his legal defence of not being tinted and thus innocent. Not being a learned person, I can only somewhat surmise what you were trying to say. Do you mean that Brian would question the legality of my assertion that it is legal to kill a carjacker armed with a deadly weapon trying to carjack someone? And the reason why Brian would question my assertion is that I am white and NOT automatically innocent of carrying out self-defence that includes homicide?

You misunderstand the law, it is about reasonable force, in other words if you use force that a reasonable person could be expected to use in self defence then you are safe and probably wont be charged. If you use excessive force then say hello to jail time. Deliberately running over a person if you are not fearful of your life is not reasonable force.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them.

Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between.

You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa.

Anyone else?

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:46pm:

Gordon wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 1:49pm: Probs coconuts. White on the inside, eh? Or just plain tinted. Gordon's going for the Islanders, leftards. South Pacific. Happy talkie talkie, innit. You?

Perhaps just hairy... All those coconut fibres.

You?

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them. Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between. You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa. Anyone else?

I'm beginning to think all this tinted crap is just your projection of your own racism onto others.
Methinks the lady man doth protest too much.

rhino wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:37pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:24pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:40pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:33pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:30pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:34pm: I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that. You could be charged with "Hit and Run", though... ::) Yeah, and then claim self-defense. Or I would deny such actions being perpetrated by me. Would make an interesting court case... ::) Brian questions the juridico-legal as it applies to the claim of self-defence, opening the range of suspects up to Rocky, who we may reasonably assume based on previous posts to be white. This places Brian under suspicion of Spineless Apologism for not virtue-signalling Rocky and questioning his legal defence of not being tinted and thus innocent. Not being a learned person, I can only somewhat surmise what you were trying to say. Do you mean that Brian would question the legality of my assertion that it is legal to kill a carjacker armed with a deadly weapon trying to carjack someone? And the reason why Brian would question my assertion is that I am white and NOT automatically innocent of carrying out self-defence that includes homicide? You misunderstand the law, it is about reasonable force, in other words if you use force that a reasonable person could be expected to use in self defence then you are safe and probably wont be charged. If you use excessive force then say hello to jail time. Deliberately running over a person if you are not fearful of your life is not reasonable force.

Yes, but what if we were to apply Rocky's legal defense of hacking a planeload of deepest darkest Africans to death in order to defend his compatriots from an undisclosed country with the use, as an example, of a shovel?

What if one merely asked them nicely to dig a hole and lie down in it,  before covering them with the dust from whence they, metaphorically (and not at all racist) came?

These are not absolutes surely, but shades of grey. What if the tinted criminals under discussion, as it were, had it coming?

Thoughts?

But, but
If you hit s roo, there is no problem.

Why woukd it be a problem running over a monkey?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg

Setanta wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 7:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:42pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them. Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between. You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa. Anyone else? I'm beginning to think all this tinted crap is just your projection of your own racism onto others. Methinks the lady man doth protest too much.

Now now, Setanta, one is simply participating in a free and open debate. Matty opened it up to all, and these are fundamentally important questions as I'm sure you'll agree.

Now, you referenced the subject of faecal matter with the descriptor, if you'll permit me, of tinted. This, as we are all aware, is a racial pejorative, and one we are all familiar with on this board. It is hardly an innocent conjuncture. Any semiotic analysis must include the likelihood that you are are comparing Rocky's invading hoardes from deepest darkest Africa with human stool, and not merely waste, but rank, putrid and malodorous, nothing more than vile objects of contamination to be flushed out to sea, back to where they came from.

You will, of course, deny such attributions, but there they are, in your own words. Thoughts?

Valkie wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 8:10pm:

But, but If you hit s roo, there is no problem. Why woukd it be a problem running over a monkey?

A perfectly reasonable question. Thanks, Matty, for expanding the debate.

We are all free to exterminate native vermin, it is true. Why not subhuman foreign primates?

Leftards? We haven't yet heard from you.

Gordon wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 8:27pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg

That's nice, Gordon, but can you explain the safeguards in place for such a device?

How might we protect our white kiddies, for example? The little wife? Rent-paying tenants? Useful employees? Potential clients?

Such technology has ethical implications, surely. Would you care to elaborate?

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:00pm:

Gordon wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 8:27pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg That's nice, Gordon, but can you explain the safeguards in place for such a device? How might we protect our white kiddies, for example? The little wife? Rent-paying tenants? Useful employees? Potential clients? Such technology has ethical implications, surely. Would you care to elaborate?

Meh, I think they'd all love a BBQ.

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 8:33pm:

Setanta wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 7:40pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:42pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them. Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between. You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa. Anyone else? I'm beginning to think all this [highlight]tinted crap[/highlight] is just your projection of your own racism onto others. Methinks the lady man doth protest too much. Now now, Setanta, one is simply participating in a free and open debate. Matty opened it up to all, and these are fundamentally important questions as I'm sure you'll agree. Now, you referenced the subject of faecal matter with the descriptor, if you'll permit me, of tinted. This, as we are all aware, is a racial pejorative, and one we are all familiar with on this board. It is hardly an innocent conjuncture. Any semiotic analysis must include the likelihood that you are are comparing Rocky's invading hoardes from deepest darkest Africa with human stool, and not merely waste, but rank, putrid and malodorous, nothing more than vile objects of contamination to be flushed out to sea, back to where they came from. You will, of course, deny such attributions, but there they are, in your own words. Thoughts?

Which peoples get to own tinted? The tint of red you have as a pasty Scott? Do you get to decide?

Setanta wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 9:00pm: Gordon wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 8:27pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg That's nice, Gordon, but can you explain the safeguards in place for such a device? How might we protect our white kiddies, for example? The little wife? Rent-paying tenants? Useful employees? Potential clients? Such technology has ethical implications, surely. Would you care to elaborate? Meh, I think they'd all love a BBQ.

If they're coconuts (as I suspect) it should be called a hangi.
Please try to be racially sensitive.

Gordon wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:19pm:

Setanta wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 9:12pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 9:00pm: Gordon wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 8:27pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg That's nice, Gordon, but can you explain the safeguards in place for such a device? How might we protect our white kiddies, for example? The little wife? Rent-paying tenants? Useful employees? Potential clients? Such technology has ethical implications, surely. Would you care to elaborate? Meh, I think they'd all love a BBQ. If they're coconuts (as I suspect) it should be called a hangi. Please try to be racially sensitive.

Neither X-nesians nor MEs were my first guess but then I don't live in Sydney.

Valkie wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 8:10pm:

But, but If you hit s roo, there is no problem. Why woukd it be a problem running over a monkey?

Racism 101 for all to see.   Tsk, tsk, I really do not see why you bother.  I really don't.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Wonder what racial group the perp the Grafton police are looking for over the shooting of a teenaged boy - twice in the chest... he was described as Aboriginal, tattoos including one eye drop (sign of the supremacist who reckons he's killed one race enemy)...

Couldn't be a Usual Suspect, could he?

Setanta wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 9:00pm: Gordon wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 8:27pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg That's nice, Gordon, but can you explain the safeguards in place for such a device? How might we protect our white kiddies, for example? The little wife? Rent-paying tenants? Useful employees? Potential clients? Such technology has ethical implications, surely. Would you care to elaborate? Meh, I think they'd all love a BBQ.

I hear the tinted races enjoy barbecues as much as us, Setanta. I just wonder if Gordon would enjoy the sight of the Persian Princess being electrocuted for trying to get Gordon to wind his window down to tell him to remember dinner with the Greensteins at 7pm sharp.

You?

Setanta wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 8:33pm: Setanta wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 7:40pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:42pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them. Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between. You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa. Anyone else? I'm beginning to think all this [highlight]tinted crap[/highlight] is just your projection of your own racism onto others. Methinks the lady man doth protest too much. Now now, Setanta, one is simply participating in a free and open debate. Matty opened it up to all, and these are fundamentally important questions as I'm sure you'll agree. Now, you referenced the subject of faecal matter with the descriptor, if you'll permit me, of tinted. This, as we are all aware, is a racial pejorative, and one we are all familiar with on this board. It is hardly an innocent conjuncture. Any semiotic analysis must include the likelihood that you are are comparing Rocky's invading hoardes from deepest darkest Africa with human stool, and not merely waste, but rank, putrid and malodorous, nothing more than vile objects of contamination to be flushed out to sea, back to where they came from. You will, of course, deny such attributions, but there they are, in your own words. Thoughts? Which peoples get to own tinted? The tint of red you have as a pasty Scott? Do you get to decide?

I most certainly do not. You know as well as I the answer to your question, don't be naughty.

University of Balogney. Scientific, innit.

Freud on Man's Stool, no?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Wonder what racial group the perp the Grafton police are looking for over the shooting of a teenaged boy - twice in the chest... he was described as Aboriginal, tattoos including one eye drop (sign of the supremacist who reckons he's killed one race enemy)... Couldn't be a Usual Suspect, could he?

An excellent question.

Grappler is shifting our discussion to Boongs in Grafton if you don't mind, Matty. Why, after all, should it be confined to homicidal machete-wielding suspects in Western Sydney?

We're all friends here. Let's open this one up to the Boongs.

Leftards? Any objections?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:41pm:

Valkie wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 8:10pm: But, but If you hit s roo, there is no problem. Why woukd it be a problem running over a monkey? Racism 101 for all to see.   Tsk, tsk, I really do not see why you bother.  I really don't.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Oh?

Brian doesn't know why Matty bothers, Setanta.

You?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:30pm:

Where is that enshrined under legislation, UnSub?  Or is that something you're allowed to do in Queensland if the other person is tinted?

*facepalm*

I am distracted by other things at the moment. Perhaps you can go find the legislation in regards to self-defence. If someone is trying to kill you or looks to be about to kill you, you can use deadly force. It has been about 5 years since I heard the reference of where it is in the legislation and the wording regarding what right you have to defend yourself.

And do not even bother with the "Queenslanders are racist and attack aboriginal/black people" stereotype. If anything, indigenous Australians are protected more than any other ethnic group.


Quote:

And the other scenario would be to just deny being the person who killed the carjacker. Even security footage does not guarantee a conviction. You deny the allegation. The police have to use forensics to make a case against you. The likelihood that a magistrate would convict someone who had denied being the one to kill a carjacker would be minimal. No confession. And the fact that the hypothetical footage of someone killing a carjacker would mean that the accused would have to be found not guilty.

Brian:
Quote:

An interesting defence.  Don't know how you'd go against the circumstantial evidence... ::)

So, if I (a white guy) comes up to you and starts to try to cut you open, and you (a virtue signaller) goes about trying to defend yourself, according to your own standards, I could have you done for assault because you blocked my attack? How about you just admit that deadly force can be employed in extreme situations.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:30pm: Where is that enshrined under legislation, UnSub?  Or is that something you're allowed to do in Queensland if the other person is tinted? *facepalm* I am distracted by other things at the moment. Perhaps you can go find the legislation in regards to self-defence. If someone is trying to kill you or looks to be about to kill you, you can use deadly force. It has been about 5 years since I heard the reference of where it is in the legislation and the wording regarding what right you have to defend yourself.

Rhino has already answered this for you.  Your response must be proportional to the threat that you are facing at the moment.  If you are being threatened verbally, you do not have license to defend yourself with deadly force.  If you are being threatened with say, a machete, you do.  Self-defence is not license to kill all and sundry, no matter what the circumstances are. ::)


Quote:

And do not even bother with the "Queenslanders are racist and attack aboriginal/black people" stereotype. If anything, indigenous Australians are protected more than any other ethnic group.

Are you sure of that, UnSub?


Quote:

[quote] And the other scenario would be to just deny being the person who killed the carjacker. Even security footage does not guarantee a conviction. You deny the allegation. The police have to use forensics to make a case against you. The likelihood that a magistrate would convict someone who had denied being the one to kill a carjacker would be minimal. No confession. And the fact that the hypothetical footage of someone killing a carjacker would mean that the accused would have to be found not guilty.

Brian:
Quote:

An interesting defence.  Don't know how you'd go against the circumstantial evidence... ::)

So, if I (a white guy) comes up to you and starts to try to cut you open, and you (a virtue signaller) goes about trying to defend yourself, according to your own standards, I could have you done for assault because you blocked my attack? How about you just admit that deadly force can be employed in extreme situations.[/quote]

You do understand what circumstantial evidence usually is, don't you?  It is the evidence that your crime leaves behind, often inadvertently.  It could be paint chips from your car which identify it's make and it's colour.  It might be skid marks which tell an investigator what tyres you use.  It might be blood marks on your car. ::) ::)

rhino wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:37pm:

You misunderstand the law, it is about reasonable force, in other words if you use force that a reasonable person could be expected to use in self defence then you are safe and probably wont be charged. If you use excessive force then say hello to jail time. Deliberately running over a person if you are not fearful of your life is not reasonable force.

No, I do in actuality understand the law. I understand that someone trying to kill me would be likely to end up dead by my hand. I would have to be overpowered by the assailant for me not to live through a counterattack.
It all comes down to fight or flight. Trust me, I have been in a situation where I nearly decided to use force against someone threatening to smash up my car because he could not handle being told off for his antisocial behaviour. Had I pulled up and used a weapon myself against him, there is the possibility that I could have been charged. But, the opportunity was there for me to drive off and let the teen have his little 'win'.
In a hypothetical that people jump out in front of my car and try to carjack me, with weapons in their hands: The idea of fleeing would be the first thing that I would do. And if I run over one of them and injure or kill them, then that is their own problem. Police would understand. Courts would understand. The level of force used is actually reasonable for the circumstances.

Quote:

And do not even bother with the "Queenslanders are racist and attack aboriginal/black people" stereotype. If anything, indigenous Australians are protected more than any other ethnic group.

Leftards?

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them. Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between. You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa. Anyone else?

If a group of bikini-clad blonde models ran up to my car and stopped me and smashed away at my car with deadly weapons in some weird attempt at a carjacking, I would want to get the hell out of there. If one of them went under the car and died from my getaway, then that is their own problem. The same rules apply no matter who is involved.

I could only imagine that a group of Bongolandanese armed with machetes attempting to carjack me would be just a bunch of parasites that need to be eradicated. So, no loss there. But, I bet the death of some blonde models trying to rob me whilst they are armed with firearms, might get some community sympathy if one of them died in my getaway.

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 8:33pm:

Now now, Setanta, one is simply participating in a free and open debate. Matty opened it up to all, and these are fundamentally important questions as I'm sure you'll agree. Now, you referenced the subject of faecal matter with the descriptor, if you'll permit me, of tinted. This, as we are all aware, is a racial pejorative, and one we are all familiar with on this board. It is hardly an innocent conjuncture. Any semiotic analysis must include the likelihood that you are are comparing Rocky's invading hoardes from deepest darkest Africa with human stool, and not merely waste, but rank, putrid and malodorous, nothing more than vile objects of contamination to be flushed out to sea, back to where they came from. You will, of course, deny such attributions, but there they are, in your own words. Thoughts?

Actually, I made no reference to the "deepest, darkest Africa", implying black people. I said that it does not matter where the people come from. They get the same treatment, if they attack me. The use of force reasonable to defend oneself from harm.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:26pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:37pm: You misunderstand the law, it is about reasonable force, in other words if you use force that a reasonable person could be expected to use in self defence then you are safe and probably wont be charged. If you use excessive force then say hello to jail time. Deliberately running over a person if you are not fearful of your life is not reasonable force. No, I do in actuality understand the law. I understand that someone trying to kill me would be likely to end up dead by my hand. I would have to be overpowered by the assailant for me not to live through a counterattack. It all comes down to fight or flight. Trust me, I have been in a situation where I nearly decided to use force against someone threatening to smash up my car because he could not handle being told off for his antisocial behaviour. Had I pulled up and used a weapon myself against him, there is the possibility that I could have been charged. But, the opportunity was there for me to drive off and let the teen have his little 'win'. In a hypothetical that people jump out in front of my car and try to carjack me, with weapons in their hands: The idea of fleeing would be the first thing that I would do. And if I run over one of them and injure or kill them, then that is their own problem. Police would understand. Courts would understand. The level of force used is actually reasonable for the circumstances.

What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. 

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:26pm:

Rhino has already answered this for you.  Your response must be proportional to the threat that you are facing at the moment.  If you are being threatened verbally, you do not have license to defend yourself with deadly force.  If you are being threatened with say, a machete, you do.  Self-defence is not license to kill all and sundry, no matter what the circumstances are. ::)

rhino has inadvertently (methinks) agreed with my idea of what circumstances would allow me to kill someone during a carjacking. The situation posed in this topic is one where the assailants are armed with machetes and trying to steal a vehicle of which you are in charge. If the situation allows a person to drive off at high speed to safety, then that is the first consideration. If the assailants are surrounding the car and trying to get into the car, and jumps onto the bonnet of the car, I would not be surprised if the car driver drives off far enough to get away from the rest, and then gives the person on the bonnet a chance to get off the bonnet and get away from the car before the driver can continue to flee.


Quote:

And do not even bother with the "Queenslanders are racist and attack aboriginal/black people" stereotype. If anything, indigenous Australians are protected more than any other ethnic group.

Brian:
Quote:

Are you sure of that, UnSub?

Oh FFS, Brian. I belong to a Facebook Crime Watch group that shows video footage of people breaking into homes and businesses stealing things. The number of times I see footage of indigenous people involved, they make up the majority of offenders. The Qld Police website has photos of people who police "are seeking assistance" in finding. Most of the photographs show people who are indigenous. If you have done volunteer work at the QPS, like I have, I had found that the identity stops are of indigenous people. And if you keep an eye open late at night, you usually see a disproportionate number of indigenous people roaming the streets -- not that they are not allowed to do that.

But, when you see a disproportionate number of indigenous people in court and then they get a slap on the wrist as punishment for assaults and robberies, it is not surprising that indigenous people are considered protected by the magistrates.

Brian:
Quote:

You do understand what circumstantial evidence usually is, don't you?  It is the evidence that your crime leaves behind, often inadvertently.  It could be paint chips from your car which identify it's make and it's colour.  It might be skid marks which tell an investigator what tyres you use.  It might be blood marks on your car. ::) ::)

Quote:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances which can be relied upon not as proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence. It differs from direct evidence, which tends to prove a fact directly: typically, when the witness testifies about something which that witness personally saw, or heard. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are to be considered. To bring in a verdict of guilty based entirely or substantially upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that guilt should not only be a rational inference but also that it should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances. If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. This follows from the requirement that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Source: https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/86048/sd-bb-48-circumstantial-evidence.pdf

Reasonable doubt would mean that the prosecution failed to establish guilt for the accused. Amazingly, even the most thorough forensic investigations could not bring about a guilty verdict in a situation where someone inadvertently kills an armed carjacker during fleeing from a deadly situation. You could have security footage. You could have people identifying who you are. You could have those paint chips, dented car body, smashed windscreen, etc. The very fact that someone gets attacked is more than enough of a legal defence to flee the situation, even to the point that you can kill someone doing so.

What is next on your agenda? Perhaps you are one of those people that blame rape victims for getting raped. You seem to want to defend carjackers.

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:29pm:

Quote: And do not even bother with the "Queenslanders are racist and attack aboriginal/black people" stereotype. If anything, indigenous Australians are protected more than any other ethnic group. Leftards?

United Nations pressure on Australia to do more to protect first nations people, I would surmise. Frickin' useless organisation, these days.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:35pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:42pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them. Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between. You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa. Anyone else? If a group of bikini-clad blonde models ran up to my car and stopped me and smashed away at my car with deadly weapons in some weird attempt at a carjacking, I would want to get the hell out of there. If one of them went under the car and died from my getaway, then that is their own problem. The same rules apply no matter who is involved. I could only imagine that a group of Bongolandanese armed with machetes attempting to carjack me would be just a bunch of parasites that need to be eradicated. So, no loss there. But, I bet the death of some blonde models trying to rob me whilst they are armed with firearms, might get some community sympathy if one of them died in my getaway.

Bikini-clad models are white, dear, we all know that.

If you have anything against being attacked by ones in burqas, kindly declare your bias.

We're all friends here, no?

rhino wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:48pm:

What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence.

I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life. That would not be justifiable. I am talking in terms of someone using a deadly weapon with the intent on harming me in the pursuit of trying to rob me of my car.

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 11:25pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:35pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:42pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:27pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Rocky's playing it safe. He's going with everybody but he: them - as in we don't want them here. Not racist. They're an inferior meta-species. I would not care if they are born in the same country as me, or they came off the most recent plane trip from Africa. If someone was going to try to kill me, I would kill them. Thank you, Rocky. You have highlighted a dichotomy between having a birthplace of the same white country as you and that of deepest darkest Africa. One might envisage a spectrum ranging from pure white on the one hand and deviously tinted on the other, with varying degrees of innocence and guilt in between. You might kill, as it were, but this is mitigated by your self-defence, defending those born in the same country as you, for example, from invasion by those on a recent plane from Africa. Anyone else? If a group of bikini-clad blonde models ran up to my car and stopped me and smashed away at my car with deadly weapons in some weird attempt at a carjacking, I would want to get the hell out of there. If one of them went under the car and died from my getaway, then that is their own problem. The same rules apply no matter who is involved. I could only imagine that a group of Bongolandanese armed with machetes attempting to carjack me would be just a bunch of parasites that need to be eradicated. So, no loss there. But, I bet the death of some blonde models trying to rob me whilst they are armed with firearms, might get some community sympathy if one of them died in my getaway. Bikini-clad models are white, dear, we all know that. If you have anything against being attacked by ones in burqas, kindly declare your bias. We're all friends here, no?

Bullshit:-

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/african-american-bikini-model-poses-bathing-suit-city-background-54641612.jpg

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:08pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 9:53pm: Wonder what racial group the perp the Grafton police are looking for over the shooting of a teenaged boy - twice in the chest... he was described as Aboriginal, tattoos including one eye drop (sign of the supremacist who reckons he's killed one race enemy)... Couldn't be a Usual Suspect, could he? An excellent question. Grappler is shifting our discussion to Boongs in Grafton if you don't mind, Matty. Why, after all, should it be confined to homicidal machete-wielding suspects in Western Sydney? We're all friends here. Let's open this one up to the Boongs. Leftards? Any objections?

Well..... Sallows are massively over-represented in the crime statistics...

Now this one is inciting a riot - and accessory to rape with the eyes:-

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/39/36/d6/3936d6675a6abf835ead0554a0263846.jpg

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 11:25pm:

Bikini-clad models are white, dear, we all know that. If you have anything against being attacked by ones in burqas, kindly declare your bias. We're all friends here, no?

Well, I got caught up in an incident where an ex-girlfriend ran me down with a vehicle in retaliation for something that was alleged against me regarding a close friend. I would probably suspect that her white, GenX Aussie background would probably put her as a more likely contender for violence against men than what a burqa-wearing Muslim woman could achieve.

We do not expect sexy women to carjack guys in their forties of their meagre vehicle costing no more than $10,000 at the time of purchase. But, it is not beyond the plausibility that white women can carjack people. It is more likely that someone looking to rebirth a car to be able to fund a drug habit would be a likely contender to violent carjack some motorist.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 11:11pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:26pm: Rhino has already answered this for you.  Your response must be proportional to the threat that you are facing at the moment.  If you are being threatened verbally, you do not have license to defend yourself with deadly force.  If you are being threatened with say, a machete, you do.  Self-defence is not license to kill all and sundry, no matter what the circumstances are. ::) rhino has inadvertently (methinks) agreed with my idea of what circumstances would allow me to kill someone during a carjacking. The situation posed in this topic is one where the assailants are armed with machetes and trying to steal a vehicle of which you are in charge. If the situation allows a person to drive off at high speed to safety, then that is the first consideration. If the assailants are surrounding the car and trying to get into the car, and jumps onto the bonnet of the car, I would not be surprised if the car driver drives off far enough to get away from the rest, and then gives the person on the bonnet a chance to get off the bonnet and get away from the car before the driver can continue to flee. Quote: And do not even bother with the "Queenslanders are racist and attack aboriginal/black people" stereotype. If anything, indigenous Australians are protected more than any other ethnic group. Brian: [quote]Are you sure of that, UnSub?

Oh FFS, Brian. I belong to a Facebook Crime Watch group that shows video footage of people breaking into homes and businesses stealing things. The number of times I see footage of indigenous people involved, they make up the majority of offenders. The Qld Police website has photos of people who police "are seeking assistance" in finding. Most of the photographs show people who are indigenous. If you have done volunteer work at the QPS, like I have, I had found that the identity stops are of indigenous people. And if you keep an eye open late at night, you usually see a disproportionate number of indigenous people roaming the streets -- not that they are not allowed to do that.

But, when you see a disproportionate number of indigenous people in court and then they get a slap on the wrist as punishment for assaults and robberies, it is not surprising that indigenous people are considered protected by the magistrates.

Brian:
Quote:

You do understand what circumstantial evidence usually is, don't you?  It is the evidence that your crime leaves behind, often inadvertently.  It could be paint chips from your car which identify it's make and it's colour.  It might be skid marks which tell an investigator what tyres you use.  It might be blood marks on your car. ::) ::)

Quote:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances which can be relied upon not as proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence. It differs from direct evidence, which tends to prove a fact directly: typically, when the witness testifies about something which that witness personally saw, or heard. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are to be considered. To bring in a verdict of guilty based entirely or substantially upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that guilt should not only be a rational inference but also that it should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances. If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. This follows from the requirement that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Source: https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/86048/sd-bb-48-circumstantial-evidence.pdf

Reasonable doubt would mean that the prosecution failed to establish guilt for the accused. Amazingly, even the most thorough forensic investigations could not bring about a guilty verdict in a situation where someone inadvertently kills an armed carjacker during fleeing from a deadly situation. You could have security footage. You could have people identifying who you are. You could have those paint chips, dented car body, smashed windscreen, etc. The very fact that someone gets attacked is more than enough of a legal defence to flee the situation, even to the point that you can kill someone doing so.

What is next on your agenda? Perhaps you are one of those people that blame rape victims for getting raped. You seem to want to defend carjackers.[/quote]

Am I?  Where have I done that?  I have merely warned you that your response must be proportional to the threat that you face, nothing more.  If I am defending anybody, I am defending you, warning you that you do not have a licence to kill all and sundry.  You seem to see what I am saying, in warning, is a personal attack on you.  I wonder why?   ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 11:30pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:48pm: What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life.

True. It was Gordon who said that.

Or Matty. I forget the details.

EVISCERATE THEM.

Karnal wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 12:41am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 11:30pm: rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:48pm: What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life. True. It was Gordon who said that. Or Matty. I forget the details. EVISCERATE THEM.

Gordon or Valkie? What's the difference?

They all look the same to me.

mothra wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 12:47am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 12:41am: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 11:30pm: rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:48pm: What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life. True. It was Gordon who said that. Or Matty. I forget the details. EVISCERATE THEM. Gordon or Valkie? What's the difference? They all look the same to me.

Now now, Mother, we're curious. We're keen to debate and discuss and ponder this enigmatic paradox.

I wonder what nationality they were.

Karnal wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 1:38am:

mothra wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 12:47am: Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 12:41am: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 11:30pm: rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:48pm: What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life. True. It was Gordon who said that. Or Matty. I forget the details. EVISCERATE THEM. Gordon or Valkie? What's the difference? They all look the same to me. Now now, Mother, we're curious. We're keen to debate and discuss and ponder this enigmatic paradox. I wonder what nationality they were.

Karnal, it's not about nationality, it's about culture. I simply find the incoherent babble that is Gordon and Valkie kinda buzzes as an unpleasant drone, indistinguishable for much of the other bullshit on here.

I find their culture repugnant and consider mine superior. I think they should be sent to Manus Island and replaced with all the refugees there, especially the terrorists and their anchor babies.


Cultural Marxism, innit. It's why i vote Greens.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 12:40am:

What is next on your agenda? Perhaps you are one of those people that blame rape victims for getting raped. You seem to want to defend carjackers.

Am I?  Where have I done that?  I have merely warned you that your response must be proportional to the threat that you face, nothing more.  If I am defending anybody, I am defending you, warning you that you do not have a licence to kill all and sundry.  You seem to see what I am saying, in warning, is a personal attack on you.  I wonder why?   ::) ::)[/quote]

Probably because of the overuse of eye-rolling emojis and the need to question my allegations in an entertain-the-idea way.

I do not claim that I have a licence to kill all and sundry. I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose.

Karnal wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 12:41am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 11:30pm: rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:48pm: What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life. True. It was Gordon who said that. Or Matty. I forget the details. EVISCERATE THEM.

Someone wrote the other day in another topic attributing what I wrote to someone else. So, I would not be surprised. But I am surprised by how poorly I have written recently.

CESTERATE THEM!

mothra wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 2:00am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:38am: mothra wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 12:47am: Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 12:41am: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 11:30pm: rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:48pm: What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life. True. It was Gordon who said that. Or Matty. I forget the details. EVISCERATE THEM. Gordon or Valkie? What's the difference? They all look the same to me. Now now, Mother, we're curious. We're keen to debate and discuss and ponder this enigmatic paradox. I wonder what nationality they were. Karnal, it's not about nationality, it's about culture. I simply find the incoherent babble that is Gordon and Valkie kinda buzzes as an unpleasant drone, indistinguishable for much of the other bullshit on here. I find their culture repugnant and consider mine superior. I think they should be sent to Manus Island and replaced with all the refugees there, especially the terrorists and their anchor babies. Cultural Marxism, innit. It's why i vote Greens.

A yes - Culture!!  Everyone considers their culture superior to all others, but only White Men can have that turned into Supremacism at the drop of a word... to suit some Cultural Marxist running an agenda like they would run some slave ship...

All other Cultures are squeaky clean innocent of any possible wrongdoing for the simple reason that Critical Race Theory says they are Oppressed, and therefore not responsible for their own actions and lifestyle.... NO other Culture is supremacist, since Old White Men hold all the privilege, so The Good Word goes...  ::)  ::)   ::)

The machete's home of choice is The Philippines

- so I'd say the most likely culprits are disgruntled mail-order brides

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 2:28am:

I do not claim that I have a licence to kill all and sundry. I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose.

You wouldn't be facing any car thief, unless you visited Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane.  It seems primarily a capital city offence, perhaps because the thieves usually target high-end cars.  I am sure there such cars in the country/regional areas but they are fewer and farther apart.  If you hit and killed someone, the Police would view it very seriously.  You would be expected to report to the nearest police station.  Failure to do so would end up with you likely to be charged with "Hit and Run" driving.  Whether that would stand in court would depend on your lawyer. 

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 2:28am:

the-idea way. I do not claim that I have a licence to kill all and sundry. I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose.

You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property.

Townsville's joy riding car thief population is pretty solid....

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:18am:

You wouldn't be facing any car thief, unless you visited Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane.  It seems primarily a capital city offence, perhaps because the thieves usually target high-end cars.  I am sure there such cars in the country/regional areas but they are fewer and farther apart.  If you hit and killed someone, the Police would view it very seriously.  You would be expected to report to the nearest police station.  Failure to do so would end up with you likely to be charged with "Hit and Run" driving.  Whether that would stand in court would depend on your lawyer.

*I* would not have to face any car thieves due to the quality of my 12-year-old car. But, if it came down to my life at stake, killing someone accidentally whilst I fled for my life would not lead me to face gaol time. And I would report to the police as soon as feasibly possible. Either after I get over the shock. Or whenever it is reasonably safe to do so.

The outcry from the public would lead the magistrate to make a judgement that I did what I did in self-defence.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:33am:

You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property.

I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice.

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 1:46pm: In Fort Grant they'd be hanged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdbKHZdGcE Bobby's taking the juridico-legal angle, referring to the penalty for murder, i.e, hanging, relegating them to the realm of the criminal. KILL THEM.

Hang the bastards and hang em high.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:35am:

Townsville's joy riding car thief population is pretty solid....

Car thefts around Rockhampton have taken a massive upswing in the last 6 months. Police scanners are reporting more car thefts of recent than in the last 2 years that I have been listening.

mothra wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 2:00am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:38am: mothra wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 12:47am: Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 12:41am: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 11:30pm: rhino wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 10:48pm: What im saying is that you actually might have to justify  it in a court of law, killing someone when your own life is not at immediate threat would get you a jail sentence. Batterham got away with it eventually, which I agree with, but thats beside the point. He also got imprisoned and had a protracted legal battle to prove his innocence. I was not trying to imply that I would line someone up and run them over if they lobbed a rock at my car, and tried to justify my actions with the technicality of someone using a weapon to threaten my life. True. It was Gordon who said that. Or Matty. I forget the details. EVISCERATE THEM. Gordon or Valkie? What's the difference? They all look the same to me. Now now, Mother, we're curious. We're keen to debate and discuss and ponder this enigmatic paradox. I wonder what nationality they were. Karnal, it's not about nationality, it's about culture. I simply find the incoherent babble that is Gordon and Valkie kinda buzzes as an unpleasant drone, indistinguishable for much of the other bullshit on here. I find their culture repugnant and consider mine superior. I think they should be sent to Manus Island and replaced with all the refugees there, especially the terrorists and their anchor babies. Cultural Marxism, innit. It's why i vote Greens.

Mother, that's terrible! The old boy has instructed us all on the merits of Christian civilisation. Have you not heard?

Cultural Marxism's forbidden. Actually, I've one ever heard Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones use this term, so it may not even exist, but I'm sure it's despicable.

Reinstate the white Australia policy.

And make it retrospectively inclusive of those already here.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 1:05pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:33am: You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property. I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice.

you must be dizzy with all those spins and turns you keep doing.

They can't say because it would be racist ?

Valkie wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 3:52pm:

Reinstate the white Australia policy. And make it retrospectively inclusive of those already here.

that would see you booted out. Scum isn't white

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 5:25pm:

Valkie wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 3:52pm: Reinstate the white Australia policy. And make it retrospectively inclusive of those already here. that would see you booted out. Scum isn't white

That's true, JS. It's a distinct shade of Matty.

glideslope wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 4:53pm:

They can't say because it would be racist ?

Let's see, killing a planeload of deepest darkest Africans to defend Whitey. Is that racist?

Leftards, you've been quiet. What say you?

Not you, Mother, you're a Cultural Marxist who votes Green. I believe they're Spineless Apologists - or possibly racist, so unfair.

They're the type who support Darkie to steal our rock. Worse - they're sexists.

Oh my, whatever happened to our once proud country?

Welcome to the board, Glideslope. You're not Matty, are you?

Thanks Karmal, no I am not Matty, but I must say I like this forum

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 4:16pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:33am: You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property. I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice. you must be dizzy with all those spins and turns you keep doing.

I took a tumble the other week and got a little concussed. But that was then. Not now. You were trying to start an argument with me. The reality is that you agree with me. And you do not like it.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 8:07pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 4:16pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:33am: You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property. I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice. you must be dizzy with all those spins and turns you keep doing. I took a tumble the other week and got a little concussed. But that was then. Not now. You were trying to start an argument with me. The reality is that you agree with me. And you do not like it.

Im not agreeing with you, Im  informing you of the legal implications you twit. And every time it has been shown that your actions would have the consequences of landing you in jail you changed your story.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 1:05pm:

I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property.

yes you did, right here


UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 2:28am:

I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose.

glideslope wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 7:36pm:

Thanks Karmal, no I am not Matty, but I must say I like this forum

Ah. Aussie?

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 8:10pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:07pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 4:16pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:33am: You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property. I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice. you must be dizzy with all those spins and turns you keep doing. I took a tumble the other week and got a little concussed. But that was then. Not now. You were trying to start an argument with me. The reality is that you agree with me. And you do not like it. Im not agreeing with you, Im  informing you of the legal implications you twit. And every time it has been shown that your actions would have the consequences of landing you in jail you changed your story.

rhino, I read the section regarding how far you can go with reasonable force. I read this 5 years ago. That issue of reasonable force came into effect when I was challenged by some meth addict at a restaurant who thought her right to grab hold of me to ignore her was more important than my right to shrug her off me. She tried the soccer dive to try and exaggerate the force of me shrugging her away.

The police saw the restaurant's video footage. They agree with me that they had no issue with me. And it was her 'husband' who tried the flick on me to try and provoke a fight, was what nearly had me smacking the guy around. Only the restaurant manager got in the way telling me that she does not want a fight happening in her store.

I am already well aware of my rights and responsibilities in terms of self-defence and how much force I can use in a legal defence. Someone armed with a deadly weapon can get killed by the victim, with the victim legally able to claim self-defence. But they cannot do so if the assailant is not armed. Read up on the legislation regarding self-defence. Because, I do not think you know what you are talking about, rhino.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 8:14pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property.  yes you did, right here UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 2:28am:   I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose.

You seemed to miss the part where I said "Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice". If the choice was available where I could flee from a fight with an armed robber, I would take the opportunity to flee. But, if someone got killed trying to rob me using a deadly weapon, that is not my problem.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 8:59pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:14pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property.  yes you did, right here UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 2:28am:   I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose. You seemed to miss the part where I said "Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice". If the choice was available where I could flee from a fight with an armed robber, I would take the opportunity to flee. But, if someone got killed trying to rob me using a deadly weapon, that is not my problem.

True, if a deepest darkest African slipped on a banana peel trying to invade the country from whence you came, that would be on them.

But what if you shot the plane down in self-defence? That would be a different matter altogether, yes?

These are ethical questions. Matty is right to ponder. I wonder what nationality they were?

Anyone else?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 8:59pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:14pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property.  yes you did, right here UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 2:28am:   I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose. You seemed to miss the part where I said "Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice". If the choice was available where I could flee from a fight with an armed robber, I would take the opportunity to flee. But, if someone got killed trying to rob me using a deadly weapon, that is not my problem.

Yes it is. You dont seem to get this. You seem to be quite a bit thicker than the average crim.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 8:57pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:10pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:07pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 4:16pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:33am: You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property. I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice. you must be dizzy with all those spins and turns you keep doing. I took a tumble the other week and got a little concussed. But that was then. Not now. You were trying to start an argument with me. The reality is that you agree with me. And you do not like it. Im not agreeing with you, Im  informing you of the legal implications you twit. And every time it has been shown that your actions would have the consequences of landing you in jail you changed your story. rhino, I read the section regarding how far you can go with reasonable force. I read this 5 years ago. That issue of reasonable force came into effect when I was challenged by some meth addict at a restaurant who thought her right to grab hold of me to ignore her was more important than my right to shrug her off me. She tried the soccer dive to try and exaggerate the force of me shrugging her away. The police saw the restaurant's video footage. They agree with me that they had no issue with me. And it was her 'husband' who tried the flick on me to try and provoke a fight, was what nearly had me smacking the guy around. Only the restaurant manager got in the way telling me that she does not want a fight happening in her store. I am already well aware of my rights and responsibilities in terms of self-defence and how much force I can use in a legal defence. Someone armed with a deadly weapon can get killed by the victim, with the victim legally able to claim self-defence. But they cannot do so if the assailant is not armed. Read up on the legislation regarding self-defence. Because, I do not think you know what you are talking about, rhino.

I dont need to "read up on the legislation regarding self defence" dikhed. I was trained in use of force and the legal implications every  6 months for 25 years, dikhed.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:18pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:59pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:14pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property.  yes you did, right here UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 2:28am:   I am claiming, as was my initial post on this topic, that I would have the right to run someone down if I was getting carjacked. Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice. And if the person died as a result of me fleeing from them, it might be paint off my car. But it would not be skin off my nose. You seemed to miss the part where I said "Running someone down would be a last resort and something I would do only if I had no choice". If the choice was available where I could flee from a fight with an armed robber, I would take the opportunity to flee. But, if someone got killed trying to rob me using a deadly weapon, that is not my problem. Yes it is. You dont seem to get this. You seem to be quite a bit thicker than the average crim.

Quote:

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault 271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault (1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm. (2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for the person to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous bodily harm.

source: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s271.html

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:21pm:

I dont need to "read up on the legislation regarding self defence" dikhed. I was trained in use of force and the legal implications every  6 months for 25 years, dikhed.

If you are trained in the use of force and the legal implications every 6 months for the last 25 years, dickhead, then you should have no trouble understanding the law of section 271 of the criminal code. Until that part gets rescinded from the law, you can use deadly force in cases where no other choice is necessary, dickhead.

I would like to know how you would go up against an armed person intent on killing you. If you defend yourself to the best of your ability using reasonable force, and the guy ends up dying from your counter, you are not going to be held legally accountable. And forensics would save your butt in a matter of it having to go to court.

Exactly what I stated, reasonable force.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:34pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:21pm: I dont need to "read up on the legislation regarding self defence" dikhed. I was trained in use of force and the legal implications every  6 months for 25 years, dikhed. If you are trained in the use of force and the legal implications every 6 months for the last 25 years, dickhead, then you should have no trouble understanding the law of section 271 of the criminal code. Until that part gets rescinded from the law, you can use deadly force in cases where no other choice is necessary, dickhead. I would like to know how you would go up against an armed person intent on killing you. If you defend yourself to the best of your ability using reasonable force, and the guy ends up dying from your counter, you are not going to be held legally accountable. And forensics would save your butt in a matter of it having to go to court.

My first mistake was engaging with you. Phuk you are a fool, I can see that part of it is the schizophrenia and I should be more tolerant, but that doesnt make it any less painful. Maybe you should adjust your Risperdal or something

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:35pm:

Exactly what I stated, reasonable force.

Are you smelling burnt toast or something?? I made it abundantly clear that killing someone would be a last resort in a confrontation.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:39pm:

My first mistake was engaging with you.

Your first mistake was to reveal 25 years of reinforced education on the topic of self-defence. And then you said that people would be in trouble if they killed someone in self-defence, even if they had a clear legal reason of self-defence.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:42pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:39pm: My first mistake was engaging with you. Your first mistake was to reveal 25 years of reinforced education on the topic of self-defence. And then you said that people would be in trouble if they killed someone in self-defence, even if they had a clear legal reason of self-defence.

I didnt claim anything of the kind, just p1ss off you stupid twat.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 2:34pm:

I do not care how cheap or expensive my car is during a carjacking. If someone tried to carjack me whilst they held a machete, I would run them over and only concern myself with the damage caused to my vehicle in fleeing from them. The police cannot charge someone with murder for something like that.

Just to recap my initial post on this topic.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:43pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:42pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:39pm: My first mistake was engaging with you. Your first mistake was to reveal 25 years of reinforced education on the topic of self-defence. And then you said that people would be in trouble if they killed someone in self-defence, even if they had a clear legal reason of self-defence. I didnt claim anything of the kind, just p1ss off you stupid twat.

I do not think I need to worry about that, seeing as you are too much of a pussy to claim any self-defence against me.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:39pm:

My first mistake was engaging with you. Phuk you are a fool, I can see that part of it is the schizophrenia and I should be more tolerant, but that doesnt make it any less painful. Maybe you should adjust your Risperdal or something

I kind of wonder why you are on the forum at all. You have a chip on your shoulder and would take any opportunity to pick a fight, even with people who agree with you. You basically have surrendered the argument in my favour. I have the right to defend myself. And I have the right to kill someone, in a situation where I do not have any other option in defending myself.

You are a professional annoying idiot. And I would add, the biggest example of the Dunning Kruger effect I have ever come across.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:49pm:

You are a professional annoying idiot.

I think I have proven you to be the recalcitrant around here.

Thank you, rhino, for the subject matter. Unfortunately, for you, your argument that I am an example of someone with a personality consistent Dunning Kruger effect.

You, on the other hand, seem to have had a really easy time growing up and getting employed and then doing your hard work in mines or whatever jobs you have had. I actually believe that I would be able to do 60 hours a week each week and have a life lived constructively without considerably more hassle than required. But, that is how things worked out for me. And because I have resolved my problems in the last 12 years, save for the idiot junkies hassling me more than 5 years ago, I do not have to concern myself with feeling superior or having abilities greater than what I have.

Too much personal information, gentlemen.  I'd suggest we call it quits at this point.

Let your views speak for themselves....

Yeah, I reckon I wasted 10 minutes of potential reading time writing too much.

rhino wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:21pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:57pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:10pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 8:07pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 4:16pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:33am: You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property. I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice. you must be dizzy with all those spins and turns you keep doing. I took a tumble the other week and got a little concussed. But that was then. Not now. You were trying to start an argument with me. The reality is that you agree with me. And you do not like it. Im not agreeing with you, Im  informing you of the legal implications you twit. And every time it has been shown that your actions would have the consequences of landing you in jail you changed your story. rhino, I read the section regarding how far you can go with reasonable force. I read this 5 years ago. That issue of reasonable force came into effect when I was challenged by some meth addict at a restaurant who thought her right to grab hold of me to ignore her was more important than my right to shrug her off me. She tried the soccer dive to try and exaggerate the force of me shrugging her away. The police saw the restaurant's video footage. They agree with me that they had no issue with me. And it was her 'husband' who tried the flick on me to try and provoke a fight, was what nearly had me smacking the guy around. Only the restaurant manager got in the way telling me that she does not want a fight happening in her store. I am already well aware of my rights and responsibilities in terms of self-defence and how much force I can use in a legal defence. Someone armed with a deadly weapon can get killed by the victim, with the victim legally able to claim self-defence. But they cannot do so if the assailant is not armed. Read up on the legislation regarding self-defence. Because, I do not think you know what you are talking about, rhino. I dont need to "read up on the legislation regarding self defence" dikhed. I was trained in use of force and the legal implications every  6 months for 25 years, dikhed.

That's Rhino, of all people, leftards.

Every six months for 25 years, innit.

Dickheads?

I got the lesson on self-defence legislation in one go. Rhino needed 50 lessons, and he still does not understand the legislation.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:19pm:

I got the lesson on self-defence legislation in one go. Rhino needed 50 lessons, and he still does not understand the legislation.

Rhino's just hurt, Rocky, we get that.

He spent 25 years being a cop. What to do?

A cop? He is not bright enough to be a cop.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:27pm:

A cop? He is not bright enough to be a cop.

He's cunning.

You don't need to be bright.

I could imagine rhino in a gun battle flipping through the legislation on what his rights are about whether to shoot back or not. And then he resolves that he has to get in touch with the feelings of the gunman and other such drivel.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:30pm:

I could imagine rhino in a gun battle flipping through the legislation on what his rights are about whether to shoot back or not. And then he resolves that he has to get in touch with the feelings of the gunman and other such drivel.

Don't underestimate him. Like I said, he's rat-cunning.

He likes to virtue-signal as much as the next guy, but he's no idealogue.

He just throws a tanty every now and then. Put it down to nerves.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/l0MYKjjSQKdkApWIU/giphy.gif

Karnal wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:28pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:27pm: A cop? He is not bright enough to be a cop. He's cunning. You don't need to be bright.

Cunning like Baldrick.

Let's face it, Rhino is just a garden variety thug who comes here to bully other posters into accepting his self-proclaimed superior experience and intellect.

He gets off putting other people down. Fortunately, he's vastly overestimated himself. Just wait for him to come undone. He always does.

Still think the declaration that the second listed definition in a dictionary under a word has nothing to do with the word in question. That was a corker. And he kept defending it for months. Classic.

Oh, I think I see various facets to rhino - just like most other users here..... and I hesitate to judge anyone conclusively on what they post here.

Words and often dialectic use of words can be so different from place to place that they mean totally different things... Frank in New York is Earnest in Detroit... feminist in one city is held in high regard, in another only given any regard by someone high on something.....

We need to look at all viewpoints and simply judge the issues presented, not necessarily the way they are presented.  Many, MANY years ago I voiced the view that it mattered not how a man said what he had to say, but what he said.

You get that a lot........ it's called basic leadership of disparate social groups.....

Jesus.

mothra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:36am:

Jesus.

About as much as we could expect...... move on......

"that... call you hear... is.. to the trained ear... the call of the Baffled User .... a precious and rare bird.... who only comes out... when everyone is agreeing with her ........ the Pauline Hanson.... of the internet discussion world......  I'm Avid Dattenborough, and good night..."

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

mothra wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:36am: Jesus. About as much as we could expect...... move on......

Is this your great leadership skills at play?

mothra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:46am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:43am: mothra wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:36am: Jesus. About as much as we could expect...... move on...... Is this your great leadership skills at play?

Indeed - I heard you clearly.........

"that... call you hear... is.. to the trained ear... the call of the Baffled User .... a precious and rare bird.... who only comes out... when everyone is agreeing with her ........ the Pauline Hanson.... of the internet discussion world......  I'm Avid Dattenborough, and good night..."

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:47am:

mothra wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:46am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:43am: mothra wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:36am: Jesus. About as much as we could expect...... move on...... Is this your great leadership skills at play? Indeed - I heard you clearly.........

Yet proved only to be a cause of mirth.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 9:37am:

The machete's home of choice is The Philippines - so I'd say the most likely culprits are disgruntled mail-order brides

And in Africa ... it's called a Panga over there.

If read the reports of religious/ethnic strife/attacks in troubled countries over there the weapon of choice & the injuries or deaths are from the use of Panga machetes.

They are a damned sight longer than machetes sold in Australia.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:35am:

Townsville's joy riding car thief population is pretty solid....

Yes Brian is still speaking through his southern gate.

There were 4 young teenagers(3 girls & a boy) arrested in Cairns on Monday for home invasion, bashing a woman in her 70's and stealing her car.

a 15 year old girl on the same charges as a 13 year old boy gets bail but the boy does not????

Same sort of shyte that is plaguing Townsville is going on in Cairns .... & here in my region on the Fraser Coast to a lesser degree.


Quote:

A 13-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl have both been charged with enter dwelling with intent, assault occasioning bodily harm, serious assault of a person over 60, armed robbery and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The 13-year-old boy was refused bail, while the 15-year-old girl was granted bail. Both are scheduled to appear in Cairns Children's Court. Two additional teenage girls, one 13 and the other 14, continue to assist police with inquiries.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/two-queensland-teenagers-charged-after-alleged-assault-of-elderly-cairns-woman/37cafc12-486a-4726-8884-5f800a0df1ac

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 8:07pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 4:16pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 1:05pm: rhino wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:33am: You would be in jail. You dont have the right to harm someone to protect property. I was not claiming that I would be hurting someone to protect my property. I mean in terms of facing someone with a machete. I could kill the person if I had no other choice. you must be dizzy with all those spins and turns you keep doing. I took a tumble the other week and got a little concussed. But that was then. Not now. You were trying to start an argument with me. The reality is that you agree with me. And you do not like it.

Pissed again?

mothra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:19am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:28pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:27pm: A cop? He is not bright enough to be a cop. He's cunning. You don't need to be bright. Cunning like Baldrick. Let's face it, Rhino is just a garden variety thug who comes here to bully other posters into accepting his self-proclaimed superior experience and intellect. He gets off putting other people down. Fortunately, he's vastly overestimated himself. Just wait for him to come undone. He always does. Still think the declaration that the second listed definition in a dictionary under a word has nothing to do with the word in question. That was a corker. And he kept defending it for months. Classic.

;D Rich coming from you.

mothra wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:19am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:28pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:27pm: A cop? He is not bright enough to be a cop. He's cunning. You don't need to be bright. Cunning like Baldrick. Let's face it, Rhino is just a garden variety thug who comes here to bully other posters into accepting his self-proclaimed superior experience and intellect. He gets off putting other people down. Fortunately, he's vastly overestimated himself. Just wait for him to come undone. He always does. Still think the declaration that the second listed definition in a dictionary under a word has nothing to do with the word in question. That was a corker. And he kept defending it for months. Classic.

Going to issue the "find my clit" challenge again?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 11:30pm:

I could imagine rhino in a gun battle flipping through the legislation on what his rights are about whether to shoot back or not. And then he resolves that he has to get in touch with the feelings of the gunman and other such drivel.

You imagine, I dont. Thats the difference. And its primarily why you and people like Mothra are losers, you need to start accepting that some people know and have experienced things you havent and stop reacting emotionally   when confronted with knowledge you havent experienced, you wont progress in life till you do.

Gnads wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 9:16am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:37am: The machete's home of choice is The Philippines - so I'd say the most likely culprits are disgruntled mail-order brides And in Africa ... it's called a Panga over there. If read the reports of religious/ethnic strife/attacks in troubled countries over there the weapon of choice & the injuries or deaths are from the use of Panga machetes. They are a damned sight longer than machetes sold in Australia.

Right. So we've got Tree Monkeys and deepest darkest Africans. Pangas.

Anyone else?

Matty? You've been quiet. Would you like to blame any nationality in particular?

Karnal wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 10:44am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 9:16am: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:37am: The machete's home of choice is The Philippines - so I'd say the most likely culprits are disgruntled mail-order brides And in Africa ... it's called a Panga over there. If read the reports of religious/ethnic strife/attacks in troubled countries over there the weapon of choice & the injuries or deaths are from the use of Panga machetes. They are a damned sight longer than machetes sold in Australia. Right. So we've got Tree Monkeys and deepest darkest Africans. Pangas. Anyone else? Matty? You've been quiet. Would you like to blame any nationality in particular?

Irrelevant twaddle

consistent I suppose

maybe you'd be OK with a Panga up you ... yes?

Jonesy reckons they don't like it up 'em ... you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhWlAKdlQp4&ab_channel=PhilipVye

Gnads wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 11:00am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:44am: Gnads wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 9:16am: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:37am: The machete's home of choice is The Philippines - so I'd say the most likely culprits are disgruntled mail-order brides And in Africa ... it's called a Panga over there. If read the reports of religious/ethnic strife/attacks in troubled countries over there the weapon of choice & the injuries or deaths are from the use of Panga machetes. They are a damned sight longer than machetes sold in Australia. Right. So we've got Tree Monkeys and deepest darkest Africans. Pangas. Anyone else? Matty? You've been quiet. Would you like to blame any nationality in particular? Irrelevant twaddle consistent I suppose maybe you'd be OK with a Panga up you ... yes? Jonesy reckons they don't like it up 'em ... you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejmFSN2qBG0&ab_channel=Myvideouploadsuploads

Hard to say, Gonads. Do you know what you are, dear?

You're curious. You came to this thread to ponder the nationality of the alleged assailants, and you're now imagining the pleasure of anal insertion.

Whilst we may be no closer to solving Matty's conundrum, we can at least express our latent sexual desires, no?

Gnads wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 9:25am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:35am: Townsville's joy riding car thief population is pretty solid.... Yes Brian is still speaking through his southern gate. There were 4 young teenagers(3 girls & a boy) arrested in Cairns on Monday for home invasion

You do realise there is a world of difference between aggravated burglary and car hi-jacking?  Tsk, tsk, another Racist attempt to broaden the debate. ::) ::)

Karnal wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 11:10am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:00am: Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:44am: Gnads wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 9:16am: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 9:37am: The machete's home of choice is The Philippines - so I'd say the most likely culprits are disgruntled mail-order brides And in Africa ... it's called a Panga over there. If read the reports of religious/ethnic strife/attacks in troubled countries over there the weapon of choice & the injuries or deaths are from the use of Panga machetes. They are a damned sight longer than machetes sold in Australia. Right. So we've got Tree Monkeys and deepest darkest Africans. Pangas. Anyone else? Matty? You've been quiet. Would you like to blame any nationality in particular? Irrelevant twaddle consistent I suppose maybe you'd be OK with a Panga up you ... yes? Jonesy reckons they don't like it up 'em ... you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejmFSN2qBG0&ab_channel=Myvideouploadsuploads Hard to say, Gonads. Do you know what you are, dear? You're curious. You came to this thread to ponder the nationality of the alleged assailants, and you're now imagining the pleasure of anal insertion. Whilst we may be no closer to solving Matty's conundrum, we can at least express our latent sexual desires, no?

Not as latent as yours ey?

No curiosity of sexual pleasure for me... too old for that .... just a thought about some people really needing something jammed up 'em so they remember some reality.

You keep dreaming ...dreamtime is a thing .. No?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 2:04pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 9:25am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:35am: Townsville's joy riding car thief population is pretty solid.... Yes Brian is still speaking through his southern gate. There were 4 young teenagers(3 girls & a boy) arrested in Cairns on Monday for home invasion You do realise there is a world of difference between aggravated burglary and car hi-jacking?  Tsk, tsk, another Racist attempt to broaden the debate. ::) ::)

Sorry ... there's no difference

both are robbery with violence.

Pull that inflated head out of your arse.

Aggravated burglary isnt robbery with violence, It basically means the person was on the premises when it was burgled (the media hypes this up as "home invasions") or the offender was armed on premises.

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 5:57pm:

Aggravated burglary isnt robbery with violence, It basically means the person was on the premises when it was burgled (the media hypes this up as "home invasions") or the offender was armed on premises.

And when they bash the person on the premises to get what they want after they've answered the door.

The perpetrators knowing full well some one is home?

The home wasn't burgled ... the owner was enticed to answer the door so they could bash her, steal her purse & motor vehicle.

So if there's a knock on the door, and I answer and some gang forces its way in, and I do not stop them - implying consent - that is not a home invasion?

Gnads wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:13pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 5:57pm: Aggravated burglary isnt robbery with violence, It basically means the person was on the premises when it was burgled (the media hypes this up as "home invasions") or the offender was armed on premises. And when they bash the person on the premises to get what they want after they've answered the door. The perpetrators knowing full well some one is home?

If armed with a weapon, 3 separate offences I can think of,   1. Armed robbery. 2 Aggravated burglary 3. Aggravated assault- number of different charges under this category.
Armed robbery being the most serious charge followed by aggravated assault (while armed with a weapon).   
Most offenders in general get charged with multiple crimes at once.


[/quote]

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:16pm:

So if there's a knock on the door, and I answer and some gang forces its way in, and I do not stop them - implying consent - that is not a home invasion?

Aggravated burglary because you are on premises, if they push past you or use threatening language then its assault as well. If any of them are carrying a weapon then its aggravated assault (other circumstances also),  If they threaten you with a weapon in order to steal from you then its also armed robbery. Another charge common in these types of circumstances would be deprivation of liberty.

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:49pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:16pm: So if there's a knock on the door, and I answer and some gang forces its way in, and I do not stop them - implying consent - that is not a home invasion? Aggravated burglary because you are on premises, if they push past you or use threatening language then its assault as well. If any of them are carrying a weapon then its aggravated assault (other circumstances also),  If they threaten you with a weapon in order to steal from you then its also armed robbery. Another charge common in these types of circumstances would be deprivation of liberty.

She was bashed not verballed.

Gnads wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 7:21pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:49pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:16pm: So if there's a knock on the door, and I answer and some gang forces its way in, and I do not stop them - implying consent - that is not a home invasion? Aggravated burglary because you are on premises, if they push past you or use threatening language then its assault as well. If any of them are carrying a weapon then its aggravated assault (other circumstances also),  If they threaten you with a weapon in order to steal from you then its also armed robbery. Another charge common in these types of circumstances would be deprivation of liberty. She was bashed not verballed.

? Ok.

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:49pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:16pm: So if there's a knock on the door, and I answer and some gang forces its way in, and I do not stop them - implying consent - that is not a home invasion? Aggravated burglary because you are on premises, if they push past you or use threatening language then its assault as well. If any of them are carrying a weapon then its aggravated assault (other circumstances also),  If they threaten you with a weapon in order to steal from you then its also armed robbery. Another charge common in these types of circumstances would be deprivation of liberty.

Who pays to clean up the blood and eviscera from their bellies being opened up?

oooh,Valkies here to tell us all how tough he is.

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:10pm:

oooh,Valkies here to tell us all how tough he is.

Now now, perhaps Valkie just doesn't want to clean up the blood and eviscera from their bellies, have you thought of that?

Not all of us keep gloves and a shovel in the ute, you know. Not all of us have qualifications in forensic cleaning.

You?

EnoonmaI

Valkie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 7:45pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:49pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:16pm: So if there's a knock on the door, and I answer and some gang forces its way in, and I do not stop them - implying consent - that is not a home invasion? Aggravated burglary because you are on premises, if they push past you or use threatening language then its assault as well. If any of them are carrying a weapon then its aggravated assault (other circumstances also),  If they threaten you with a weapon in order to steal from you then its also armed robbery. Another charge common in these types of circumstances would be deprivation of liberty. Who pays to clean up the blood and eviscera from their bellies being opened up?

Opening their bellies is a part of Zulu culture...Duzzen Madda!

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:49pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:16pm: So if there's a knock on the door, and I answer and some gang forces its way in, and I do not stop them - implying consent - that is not a home invasion? Aggravated burglary because you are on premises, if they push past you or use threatening language then its assault as well. If any of them are carrying a weapon then its aggravated assault (other circumstances also),  If they threaten you with a weapon in order to steal from you then its also armed robbery. Another charge common in these types of circumstances would be deprivation of liberty.

Thank you - that is a great help when they have used those weapons.... I'm so relieved that the law protects my rights so well......

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:10pm:

oooh,Valkies here to tell us all how tough he is.

Sad tiny man at it again.

You use a butter knife because you are afraid of sharp edges?

Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore.

It's gone past that.

Gnads wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 9:28am:

Pissed again?

People can actually have a tumble without being inebriated. That afternoon incident turned out to be a matter of I should have been paying more attention to where I was walking near a slippery concrete edge.

rhino wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 10:39am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 13th, 2021 at 11:30pm: I could imagine rhino in a gun battle flipping through the legislation on what his rights are about whether to shoot back or not. And then he resolves that he has to get in touch with the feelings of the gunman and other such drivel. You imagine, I dont. Thats the difference. And its primarily why you and people like Mothra are losers, you need to start accepting that some people know and have experienced things you havent and stop reacting emotionally   when confronted with knowledge you havent experienced, you wont progress in life till you do.

You can't imagine flipping through the legislation on what the gunman's rights are in terms of your capacity to shoot back? The whole side of my argument is in the context of "heat of the moment" situations. If someone was trying to do me harm, I would flee the situation, as my first option.

And you are calling mothra and myself losers for telling people like you off for your arrogance. I have actually been through my pain and suffering in a week than you have had in your entire life. I do not know what your life has been like. But I would bet that the entire suffering you have experienced would only amount to less than a week's worth of what I have gone through. And you calling me a loser seems to show me that you have not been anywhere near what I have been through, or understood that I have resolved most of the issues to allow me the opportunity to post on ozpolitics. Heck, if I did try the "Netflix and junk food" thing, I probably would not be able to do that, if I was still a "loser".

The cards are laid down here, rhino. You obviously have no idea about my life, as I do not know much about yours. I have lived through more drama and problems in my 20s and 30s than you could ever consider acceptable in your life. And you have enough spare time in your life to post 6 posts a day and hit the gym for hours on end after doing 50+ hours a week at work. You work hard, rhino. But, your life is not difficult.

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 8:14am:

Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that.

Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 1:30pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 9:28am: Pissed again? People can actually have a tumble without being inebriated. That afternoon incident turned out to be a matter of I should have been paying more attention to where I was walking near a slippery concrete edge.

Pissed an' broke?  Had a car like that once...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j4YZKmjPng

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 1:48pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s.

And this is exactly the issue that is not being addresed.

This poor dear's vehicle has been abused, possibly even destroyed by these thieves.
Her insurance, will not cover the full cost of replacement and will probably write off the car should the damage be even 1/2 of the vehicles book price.

This will mean she will have to either find several thousand dollars or make do with a cheaper second hand car.
Whereas her old vehicle could have lasted her for the remainder of her life.

The criminals, will get off with a slap on the wrist for destroying this poor dear's life.

This is the true hidden cost to the victims.
Innocent victims who are punished for simply being victims.

Criminals should be made to foot the bill to repair or replace that stolen or damaged from the victims.
This would be true justice.
But the courts and the grubberment just want their cut, the fines, they don't care a figs arse about the victims.

this is why I refuse to be a victim.
I'm happy to pay someone to take it out of the criminals hide if I cant get it any other way.

Until justice makes its way back into the legal system
I'm all for vigilantism.

Valkie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 3:03pm:

Until justice makes its way back into the legal system I'm all for vigilantism.

Well, that is the thing about people like rhino. They want to keep the adults out of the prisons because they are only "just" in their adulthood as 18 years olds. The "softly, softly" approach will end up having people take the law into their own hands.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 1:48pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s.

QLD police use digital radio since 2014, scanner cant pick that up. You must have had a flashback and gone back in time.

Valkie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 3:03pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. And this is exactly the issue that is not being addresed. This poor dear's vehicle has been abused, possibly even destroyed by these thieves. Her insurance, will not cover the full cost of replacement and will probably write off the car should the damage be even 1/2 of the vehicles book price. This will mean she will have to either find several thousand dollars or make do with a cheaper second hand car. Whereas her old vehicle could have lasted her for the remainder of her life. The criminals, will get off with a slap on the wrist for destroying this poor dear's life. This is the true hidden cost to the victims. Innocent victims who are punished for simply being victims. Criminals should be made to foot the bill to repair or replace that stolen or damaged from the victims. This would be true justice. But the courts and the grubberment just want their cut, the fines, they don't care a figs arse about the victims. this is why I refuse to be a victim. I'm happy to pay someone to take it out of the criminals hide if I cant get it any other way. Until justice makes its way back into the legal system I'm all for vigilantism.

Do you know what you are, Matty?

You're a survivor.

So unfair, no?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 3:41pm:

Valkie wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 3:03pm: Until justice makes its way back into the legal system I'm all for vigilantism. Well, that is the thing about people like rhino. They want to keep the adults out of the prisons because they are only "just" in their adulthood as 18 years olds. The "softly, softly" approach will end up having people take the law into their own hands.

Exactly. Look at Gotham City before Commissioner Gordon got control of the streets again.

He didn't do it alone either. He needed the support of wealthy industrialists/crime-fighting caped crusaders.

You know, like Matty.

Karnal wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 4:12pm:

Valkie wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 3:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. And this is exactly the issue that is not being addresed. This poor dear's vehicle has been abused, possibly even destroyed by these thieves. Her insurance, will not cover the full cost of replacement and will probably write off the car should the damage be even 1/2 of the vehicles book price. This will mean she will have to either find several thousand dollars or make do with a cheaper second hand car. Whereas her old vehicle could have lasted her for the remainder of her life. The criminals, will get off with a slap on the wrist for destroying this poor dear's life. This is the true hidden cost to the victims. Innocent victims who are punished for simply being victims. Criminals should be made to foot the bill to repair or replace that stolen or damaged from the victims. This would be true justice. But the courts and the grubberment just want their cut, the fines, they don't care a figs arse about the victims. this is why I refuse to be a victim. I'm happy to pay someone to take it out of the criminals hide if I cant get it any other way. Until justice makes its way back into the legal system I'm all for vigilantism. Do you know what you are, Matty? You're a survivor. So unfair, no?

No, he's a Troll.  Trolls are full of bullshit.  Trolls lie.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7647/qK1OdI.jpg

rhino wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 3:48pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. QLD police use digital radio since 2014, scanner cant pick that up. You must have had a flashback and gone back in time.

Oh, I will chalk that one up to rhino being more informed than me on that issue. Well done, rhino.

A bunch of semantics. But a valid criticism. Even that last sentence of his.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 3:48pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. QLD police use digital radio since 2014, scanner cant pick that up. You must have had a flashback and gone back in time. Oh, I will chalk that one up to rhino being more informed than me on that issue. Well done, rhino. A bunch of semantics. But a valid criticism. Even that last sentence of his.

So you told a fib?

Gnads wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 5:21pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 4:40pm: rhino wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 3:48pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. QLD police use digital radio since 2014, scanner cant pick that up. You must have had a flashback and gone back in time. Oh, I will chalk that one up to rhino being more informed than me on that issue. Well done, rhino. A bunch of semantics. But a valid criticism. Even that last sentence of his. So you told a fib?

No, he left out the bit where they're Boongs.

Happy now?

Gnads wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 5:21pm:

So you told a fib?

I am schizophrenic. And therefore I can make more mistakes than the general public. Sometimes my schizophrenia can work in my favour. Other times, my schizophrenia works against me. On this occasion, I made a mistake of calling the digital radio for police broadcasts a "police scanner". Lots of times, I can get flustered not being able to figure out the right words for things.

The thing that rhino pointed out was the "you must have had a flashback and gone back in time". That is precisely one of the features of my schizophrenia. When it gets bad, I could have the impression that I live in the wrong year. It happened this morning (Friday morning) when I got up and went to have a shower, I found my novel sitting on the bench of the sink. I could not figure out for the life of me how that book got there. Later on, I could not find my work uniform. A thought came to my head that it was ghosts. But, I was not crazy enough to entertain it much further.

I might have to buy a packet of risperidone before the year is out and give myself another several years of clear headedness.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 12:30am:

Gnads wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 5:21pm: So you told a fib? I am schizophrenic. And therefore I can make more mistakes than the general public. Sometimes my schizophrenia can work in my favour. Other times, my schizophrenia works against me. On this occasion, I made a mistake of calling the digital radio for police broadcasts a "police scanner".

Are you claiming you are in in possession of an actual police radio or base station? Because thats the only way you can hear the digital broadcasts.

I used to have a scanner and access to all codes.... great when you wanted to avoid a difficult situation developing... and just get on with your job......................................

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 4:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 4:12pm: Valkie wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 3:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. And this is exactly the issue that is not being addresed. This poor dear's vehicle has been abused, possibly even destroyed by these thieves. Her insurance, will not cover the full cost of replacement and will probably write off the car should the damage be even 1/2 of the vehicles book price. This will mean she will have to either find several thousand dollars or make do with a cheaper second hand car. Whereas her old vehicle could have lasted her for the remainder of her life. The criminals, will get off with a slap on the wrist for destroying this poor dear's life. This is the true hidden cost to the victims. Innocent victims who are punished for simply being victims. Criminals should be made to foot the bill to repair or replace that stolen or damaged from the victims. This would be true justice. But the courts and the grubberment just want their cut, the fines, they don't care a figs arse about the victims. this is why I refuse to be a victim. I'm happy to pay someone to take it out of the criminals hide if I cant get it any other way. Until justice makes its way back into the legal system I'm all for vigilantism. Do you know what you are, Matty? You're a survivor. So unfair, no? No, he's a Troll.  Trolls are full of bullshit.  Trolls lie.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7647/qK1OdI.jpg

You aught to know bwyannnnnnnnnn.

You are the biggest troll on this forum.
Never anything to add unless its insults or derogatory remarks about everyone else.

You consider your retarded little thoughts as gospel
You however put all your eggs in the wrong basket with Pascoe the liar, stuffed you didnt it?

Learn to accept that you are an idiot and life will be so much easier for you.

Karnal wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 6:03pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 5:21pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 4:40pm: rhino wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 3:48pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. QLD police use digital radio since 2014, scanner cant pick that up. You must have had a flashback and gone back in time. Oh, I will chalk that one up to rhino being more informed than me on that issue. Well done, rhino. A bunch of semantics. But a valid criticism. Even that last sentence of his. So you told a fib? No, he left out the bit where they're Boongs. Happy now?

The question wasn't related to whether or not they were Aboriginal.

It was about lying that he'd used a Police scanner the night before to listen to the incident unfold.

Avez-vous eu trop d'orifice de loyer garçon?

rhino wrote on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 12:48am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 17th, 2021 at 12:30am: Gnads wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 5:21pm: So you told a fib? I am schizophrenic. And therefore I can make more mistakes than the general public. Sometimes my schizophrenia can work in my favour. Other times, my schizophrenia works against me. On this occasion, I made a mistake of calling the digital radio for police broadcasts a "police scanner". Are you claiming you are in in possession of an actual police radio or base station? Because thats the only way you can hear the digital broadcasts.

No. I made the mistake of saying that the broadcastify website gave police scanner broadcasts.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 12:33pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 17th, 2021 at 12:48am: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 17th, 2021 at 12:30am: Gnads wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 5:21pm: So you told a fib? I am schizophrenic. And therefore I can make more mistakes than the general public. Sometimes my schizophrenia can work in my favour. Other times, my schizophrenia works against me. On this occasion, I made a mistake of calling the digital radio for police broadcasts a "police scanner". Are you claiming you are in in possession of an actual police radio or base station? Because thats the only way you can hear the digital broadcasts. No. I made the mistake of saying that the broadcastify website gave police scanner broadcasts.

An easy mistake to make, dear. Rather than listening in on a police scanner, you read the story on the internet.

We've all done it.

Gnads wrote on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 6:03pm: Gnads wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 5:21pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 4:40pm: rhino wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 3:48pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 1:48pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2021 at 8:14am: Thi has just gone beyond funny and has landed back in pathetic. It's not even able to be laughed at anymore. It's gone past that. Last night, I listened to a police scanner of some lady's car being stolen by a bunch of youths from Mount Morgan and driven around Gracemere. The youths did an evade of a police intercept. Police had to do a chase throughout the town before the car was dumped. The victim was a lady was in her 70s. QLD police use digital radio since 2014, scanner cant pick that up. You must have had a flashback and gone back in time. Oh, I will chalk that one up to rhino being more informed than me on that issue. Well done, rhino. A bunch of semantics. But a valid criticism. Even that last sentence of his. So you told a fib? No, he left out the bit where they're Boongs. Happy now? The question wasn't related to whether or not they were Aboriginal. It was about lying that he'd used a Police scanner the night before to listen to the incident unfold. Avez-vous eu trop d'orifice de loyer garçon?

How could a question not be related to a criminal's race? Have you gone mad?

You might as well say Whitey did it and it's all good.

You might as well tell the government to let them all in.

You might as well say we should keep funding health care for Boongs and other primitive, endangered species.

In fact, you might as well throw in the towel now and join the race-traitors and spineless apologists.

PATHETIC.