A Parallel Universe Exists?

**jrandom** · 19th October 2005, 12:51

Originally Posted by Badcat

well, if you can't think why not, i'm not dropping by your place anytime soon.

well, true, I mean... my place is not the place to come bearing weapons and mouthing threats, really. not a healthy activity.

but why would you drop by with _that_ in mind?

**Badcat** · 19th October 2005, 12:55

Originally Posted by Fish

well, true, I mean... my place is not the place to come bearing weapons and mouthing threats, really. not a healthy activity.

but why would you drop by with _that_ in mind?

dude (ess) - don't get me wrong.
i'm not a violent man.
i was being flippant.
i do that.
sorry.

K

**Ghost Lemur** · 19th October 2005, 13:21

A factor which seems to be missing from this discussion is it wasn't just the dead guy there threatening him. He had two accomplices with him (who took off leaving their mate to die - nice eh?). They were convicted of (IIRC) assault, and illegally entering a property (or whatever it's called).

Personally, I think it all went as it should. I think it was right for him to be charged, I also think it was right for him to be aquitted.

As for him having time to cock the bow, it can be looked at from the otherside too. The dead guy was also given time to leave the property, instead he called the defendants bluff and payed the price.

**Lou Girardin** · 19th October 2005, 14:23

Originally Posted by Badcat

EXACTLY what i was thinking.
surely the guy doesn't leave a loaded, cocked crossbow in his house.
pretty hard to say it was "impulse" when you have to load and tension the bow first, isn't it?

Self defence as a defence does not require impulse, you just have to believe your life is threatened and defend yourself. If someone stands there swinging his nunchucks while you load and fire a crossbow, he deserves to die.
However, one report said the crossbow was loaded and hidden in a bush!

It wouldn't have been a pleasant death though, apparently he walked up the road bleeding out till he collapsed.

**judgeshock** · 19th October 2005, 14:44

Yes i think there is more to this story than we will ever know and unfortunately we only see the side the media like to portray to get there ratings up.

**Wolf** · 19th October 2005, 14:47

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

It wouldn't have been a pleasant death though, apparently he walked up the road bleeding out till he collapsed.

So he had time to contemplate his folly before he expired, then.

So far as justifiable use of deadly force goes, the deceased had made death threats and he was armed with a weapon capable of smashing someone's head into a pulp. If he was within 6.5 metres at the time he was shot, then there is every possibility he could carry out his threat in under a second and a half.

The fact that he advanced on someone carrying a lethal weapon after making threats of death is a clear case for a potentially lethal response.

**marty** · 19th October 2005, 15:04

he should have just shot him in the leg. that would have slowed him down

**Big Dave** · 19th October 2005, 15:08

Originally Posted by Badcat

dude (ess) - don't get me wrong.
i'm not a violent man.
i was being flippant.
i do that.
sorry.

K

The internet is never having to say you are sorry.

**Colapop** · 19th October 2005, 15:44

Originally Posted by judgeshock

Yes i think there is more to this story than we will ever know and unfortunately we only see the side the media like to portray to get there ratings up.

Unfortunately an all too common occurance

**El Dopa** · 19th October 2005, 18:29

Here's the version I heard.

Crossbow guy was in an on/off relationship with a woman for three year. Fairly tempestuous by all accounts.

They break up, he goes off the rails a bit, goes round her house and breaks a window, or some such fairly minor damage. She phones him up and gives him an ear bashing, asks/demands money to pay for repairs. His injured masculine pride kicks in and he tells her to come and get it if she want it that bad.

So far, so depressingly mundane.

However, instead of her turning up at his house, three of her friends (large, male) turn up at crossbow guys house, all tooled up. Croosbow guy grabs his crossbow and tells them to back off.

High testosterone levels all round, male pride threatened, no-one backs down. Result: One dead nunchuck wielder.

It's a difficult one. If it was me, I'd probably have shot the guy with few qualms. Better than being on the receiving end of a serious beating.

But then I'd be trying to live my life in such a way that i never end up in that situation.

In my opinion, he shouldn't have been done for murder, but should probably have been convicted of manslaughter (he did after all kill someone). But he had the opportunity to plead guilty to that, and gambled on being found innocent of a greater charge of murder, and won.

**onearmedbandit** · 19th October 2005, 22:49

Manslaughter is accidental death, Pender took that option away from the jury by signing a statement saying he intended to kill or discharge the weapon despite the consequences. So the jury could only decide between a conviction of murder or acquital.

Anyway, impossible for any of us to cast judgement, we're not privy to all the information.

**spudchucka** · 20th October 2005, 08:35

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

Manslaughter is accidental death, Pender took that option away from the jury by signing a statement saying he intended to kill or discharge the weapon despite the consequences. So the jury could only decide between a conviction of murder or acquital.

Anyway, impossible for any of us to cast judgement, we're not privy to all the information.

If he had made a statement saying he intended to kill the guy then he would have been convicted. For self defence to apply the persons intent could only be to use force to stop the other person from harming them. The intent is to stop the other persons actions, not to kill them. Section 48 (self defence) applies if the force used is proven to be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. If this is the case the accused can't be convicted.

**Colapop** · 20th October 2005, 08:40

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

Manslaughter is accidental death, Pender took that option away from the jury by signing a statement saying he intended to kill or discharge the weapon despite the consequences. So the jury could only decide between a conviction of murder or acquital.

Then if he signed a statement saying that doesn't prove intent, thus making it murder? He, CB (crossbvow guy) intended to harm DG (dead guy). If CB did not show intent then I would have thought that it would have to be manslaughter. Self defense is one thing, when you find an intruder with a knife and you kill him, but showing intent means it was premeditated.
But it's all done with now anyway so it's a moot point.

**Lias** · 20th October 2005, 09:25

From what I heard, those 3 guys came to the property, there was some sort of altercation outside, in which nunchuks were waved, shit was said, and crossbow guys(CG) sister was assaulted by nunchuck guy(NG). CG runs inside, grabs his crossbow, comes back outside tells NG to fuck off, NG waves his nunchuks a bit more and refuses to leave, CG shoots him.