Woman Shoots Armed Robber After Beating, Charged With Murder

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

They are not there to make calls on questions of fact but merely to put things before juries.

Come on now. Are you trying to tell me that attorneys on either side of the fence don't make judgments about their cases and are neutral in their presentation to juries?

[mikkey 0]

Quote

I'll ask again. Knowing what you know about this, if it were someone you cared about, would you advocate charging them with murder.

WTF - have you been drinking too much coffee? Based on the law of the country she has to be charged. Read the posts before going mental. I said that and said it is up to the courts to determine the facts and if she should be convicted and if convicted which penalty.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 2,106]

Last I heard they still have jury trials in Oz. Whether it was murder is a question for the jury. As far as I can see the prosecutor is just doing his (or her) job as required by the law. We know that the law is an ass (Dickens), which is why juries exist.

1000 years of English common law, inherited by Oz and the USA, has established the presumption of innocence until a jury decides otherwise. Maybe the most important contribution the British made to the World (well, excluding fish & chips).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Does Australia not have prosecutorial discretion?

[mr2mk1g 10]

No, you know they’re not neutral, I never said they were. Under the adversarial system the US inherited from us each attorney’s job is to present the facts as best fits their side of the argument. If you want a system where the attorney’s are neutral try mainland Europe.

You know all this - that once the jury has heard both partisan sides they then decide which facts they believe the most and give their verdict accordingly.

Prosecutors are under a duty to put possible crimes before the courts and to put all the facts before the jury that tend to show the accused is guilty. If they don’t put those facts forward then no one will and no one will ever get convicted. That's how the system works. It doesn't matter if it's my mum or a hardened con - all the facts have to be put in order for the jury to decide - NOT the prosecutor alone.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Does Australia not have prosecutorial discretion?

Yes - the crown prosecutors are able to decline to prosecute a case where it is not in the public interest to do so. It is not very often used as prosecutors are not judge and jury - it's not their decision to make. It usually happens when someone's about to die and thus there's no real point in trying them as they'll only die 3 months into the sentance at best anyway.

This would not appear to be one of those situations as there looks like there is a significant dispute as to the facts of where, when and how she shot the guy.

[PhillyKev 0]

If prosecutorial discretion is as rarely exercised as you're portraying, then I can understand why she's being charged. But are you telling me that prosecutors rarely ever DON'T prosecute EVERY person who is accused of a crime? Seems there'd be a very very back logged legal system if that were the case. I'm sure they make judgments all of the time that there is not enough evidence to continue with a prosecution. My guess is they're pursuing this case for political reasons.

[Ron 10]

Quote

He obviously is a criminal, but according to witness she shooted when he wasn´t threatening her life

For what its worth.

That fucker deserved what he got.

He beat a woman for money and did quite a lot of damage to her.

She was beaten and in my opinion totaly JUSTIFIED in killing him.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Seems there'd be a very very back logged legal system if that were the case

hehehe - you don't know the half of it. Hell yes there is a backlogged legal system, why do you think it takes a year or more for a big case to come to trial.

Quote

I'm sure they make judgments all of the time that there is not enough evidence to continue with a prosecution.

Yes they make judgement calls based on the quality or quantity of evidence. But these are essentially tactical decisions that there simply isn’t enough evidence to have any hope of securing a conviction.

But try to see the distinction between that kind of decision, and the kind the kind that would be involved in a claim of self-defence. In this in this instance there is oodles of evidence, all that is required is for someone to make up their mind what that evidence means – guilty or not guilty. That’s simply not the prosecutor job; it’s the jury’s.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Does Australia not have prosecutorial discretion?

System is somewhat different from the US (and don't ask me for details - I am not an expert).

At this stage she is charged by the police. The system in regard to prosecution is different I think. First step is is to charge, then there is a court hearing where a judge looks at all the facts gathered and then decides if there is enough evidence to proceed to a full trial (AFAIK). When somebody shoots another person in this way they always would be initially charged. Does not mean it goes to trial.

Here is an article:

Quote

Sydney guard to face murder charge

Sydney security guard Karen Brown will face court next month charged with murdering a man outside a hotel in the city's south-west last week.

Investigators served Brown, 42, with a court attendence notice when she arrived for a police interview this afternoon.

It is alleged that she shot and killed a man who attacked and robbed her of the takings of a hotel in Moorebank.

The notice requires her to answer the murder charge at Liverpool Local Court in mid-September.

Investigators are this afternoon questioning Brown at an undisclosed police station.

She had previously given her account of the shooting to two media outlets but not to investigators.

NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney says the matter should now be handled through the court system.

"There is much rumour and speculation, gossip and innuendo and it is really frankly time that the gossip, rumour and innuendo was put aside," he said.

"We need to allow police to look at the facts as we have been able to gather them, both forensically and through other witnesses."

The court hearing above would not be the final trial I think (only if she pleads guilty).AFAIK.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

You don't understand my reasons at all. Because that statement has nothing to do with it.

Yes it does. If it was a petite woman beating a 6 foot tall man, you wouldn´t be overreacting.

Quote

Split open your skull and let me know. Tell you what, slam your self in the face with a tire iron a few times and then complete a book of logic puzzles. Post the results.

A)she didn´t split open her skull
B)To complete a book of logic is totally different (much harder) than to determine wether you are in danger or not.
C) someone with her skull slpit open cannot stand up and walk towards a person, draw a gun, aim and blow his head up. (if she can, she can also run away or take cover or something else)

Quote

It is a valid question for someone who hasn't just had their head cracked open. That matter is fact. There is only one undeniable, undefensible action in this story that led to this man's death, and that was his choice to attack this woman.

You take a security guard job, you have a gun, you are paid for it, therefore you are responsible for your actions. period. What about if she had missed (likely since as you said had the skull split open) and had killed an innocent person? Wouldn´t she be responsible for her actions? what about if that inocent person was your fiancee? Wouldn´t you want to charge her with murder. What about if it was your pregnant wife. A judge will take into consideration that the person she killed was not innocent at all.
NOTE: I am not talking wether he deserveed it or not.

Quote

I guess they don't have a right to remain silent over there?

You forfeit your right to remain silent the very moment that you speak about it for money on a TV. By the way, if you remain silent you don´t get charged?

Edited for spelling

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

He obviously is a criminal, but according to witness she shooted when he wasn´t threatening her life

For what its worth.

That fucker deserved what he got.

He beat a woman for money and did quite a lot of damage to her.

She was beaten and in my opinion totaly JUSTIFIED in killing him.

Interesting. So people who attack other people and take money should be sentenced to death? Alternatively, if you get robbed and bashed you have the right to kill the robber? Sounds like the type of system you guys had in the early days in the "Wild West" - thought you had progressed from that.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Don't think for a second that it doesn't happen right here in the USA. I did some work in the women's prison here in Arkansas, and it's amazing how many are there for "crimes" commited secondary to defending themselves against an abusive partner. One woman I knew had her skull fractured by her husband's baseball bat, but since her knife was "more deadly" she went to prison.

linz

I worked in a maximum security prison for several years. Every inmate there was either completely innocent, just trying to defend themselves or attacked while trying to do charitable work for Mother Theresa. They are know as 'cons' for more than one reason.

Damn near everybody who is new to prison work falls for these stories ...I did. Pull the files, read the transcripts. The facts surrounding their crimes never jive with the con.

Part of it is self delusion, most of it is conning the naive do-gooder into writing letters for the parole board.

Michael

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Yes it does. If it was a petite woman beating a 6 foot tall man, you wouldn´t be overreacting.

I don't think I'm over reacting, I'm stating my principles, that someone who was put in this situation against their will shouldn't be charged with murder. She didn't go looking to shoot someone, he went looking to rob and beat someone.

Quote

A)she didn´t split open her skull
B)To complete a book of logic is totally different (much harder) than to determine wether you are in danger or not.
C) someone with her skull slpit open cannot stand up and walk towards a person, draw a gun, aim and blow his head up. (if she can, she can also run away or take cover or something else)

A) no, HE split open her skull. Is the fact that she had a fractured skull in dispute?
B) Have you ever had to do a threat assessment when making the wrong choice could cost you your life? If not, your statement is based on conjecture.
C) Have you had your skull split open? If not your statement is based on conjecture.

The rest of your comments are about hypothetical situations that should be addressed if they had occured, but they didn't so they are moot.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

A) no, HE split open her skull. Is the fact that she had a fractured skull in dispute?

Yes. Read the posts. The claims of the extend of her injuries has not been confirmed.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

That fucker deserved what he got.

Agreed

Quote

He beat a woman for money and did quite a lot of damage to her.

Undeniable

Quote

She was beaten and in my opinion totaly JUSTIFIED in killing him.

Now you are talking about execution and no self defense. Let´s suppose it was execution. Execution is not legal. Where do we draw the line where you have to obey the law and where you can decide justice for yourself?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

A) no, HE split open her skull. Is the fact that she had a fractured skull in dispute?

Yes. Read the posts. The claims of the extend of her injuries has not been confirmed.

Ok...read it three times to make sure I didn't miss something. Was there a comment there about her injuries?

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A) no, HE split open her skull. Is the fact that she had a fractured skull in dispute?

Yes. Read the posts. The claims of the extend of her injuries has not been confirmed.

Ok...read it three times to make sure I didn't miss something. Was there a comment there about her injuries?

Hmmm, here some samples from posts of mine:

Quote

I saw some of her TV interview and she did not look that badly injured. The brain damage thing could be spin from her defence. There is footage from the crime scene (TV news crew so probably an hour after the event) where she is walking calmly around the crime scene with a towl wrapped around the head. So don't know how serious her injuries really are.

Quote

I do not know the exact nature of her injuries. I have seen her give a TV interview within 48 hours of the shooting and she had some facial injuries but did however not "look" like it was as bad as you describe. If she had a fractured skull she probably would be in hospital.

Quote

You are assuming things. Have you seen pics of her? Have you seen the TV interview? She had stitches in her face and some colouring around the eyes. No "split open skull". Are you basing your posts on one tabloid article?

Quote

NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney says the matter should now be handled through the court system.

"There is much rumour and speculation, gossip and innuendo and it is really frankly time that the gossip, rumour and innuendo was put aside," he said.

"We need to allow police to look at the facts as we have been able to gather them, both forensically and through other witnesses."

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Guys, you’re not gonna be able to win a shouting match over what her injuries were. Yes, she REPORTEDLY had a fractured skull – that could be a very minor injury or a very serious injury. Posters to a message board can not tell how severe it was because they are not doctors who have had the opportunity to examine her.

Quit arguing a point you neither of you can win.

[PhillyKev 0]

Well, you've proven that YOU haven't personally confirmed her injuries.

[mr2mk1g 10]

He's also pointed out that what most people would initially assume to be a very serious and possibly life threatening injury (fractured skull) could in fact be quite minor.

They can be - a hair line fracture - still a "fracture" but can be caused by only a minor impact. A fracture of the orbital floor (eye socket - recieved by many if not most recipients of a black eye) is still a fracture of the skull.

The term in itself is virtually meaninless...

My point is, none of us know how serious her injuries were... we are not going to be able to make judgement calls on her actions because we can't guage how badly effected she was by her injuries.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Interesting. So people who attack other people and take money should be sentenced to death? Alternatively, if you get robbed and bashed you have the right to kill the robber?

He was not sentanced to death. He was killed while in the act of a violent crime by the victim of that crime.

If it had been a cop he had beaten and the cop had fired...Would that change your mind?

I don't really care. He was a bad guy that beat a person for money. If he did it in this case, I would bet he had done it before, and I would also bet he would do it again.

Now he will not do it again.

Criminals that are violent deserve violence. Its the only thing they understand.

Quote

Sounds like the type of system you guys had in the early days in the "Wild West" - thought you had progressed from that.

And lets not forget that Austrailia was started as a prison colony filled with violent criminals....I would have thought you would have progressd from that.

Criminals have very few rights in my mind.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Well, you've proven that YOU haven't personally confirmed her injuries.

Nobody independently has confirmed the extend of the injuries.

I have seen TV coverage of her (that is more then you have) and told you that IMO she did not look like somebody with "a split open skull". Also mentioned that we need to await the findings of the investigation.

Now cut down on that coffee intake.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Ron 10]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That fucker deserved what he got.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


He beat a woman for money and did quite a lot of damage to her.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Undeniable

So far so good.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


She was beaten and in my opinion totaly JUSTIFIED in killing him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you are talking about execution and no self defense. Let´s suppose it was execution. Execution is not legal. Where do we draw the line where you have to obey the law and where you can decide justice for yourself?

It was not an execution. She did not wake up and carry out a sentance of death.

She in a state of shock after having been beaten and having her skull cracked by a CRIMINAL with prior violent arrests shot and killed a CRIMINAL that had just beaten the hell out of her.

Good for her, he got what he deserved

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mikkey 0]

Quote

And lets not forget that Austrailia was started as a prison colony filled with violent criminals....I would have thought you would have progressd from that.

We have - that is why you are not allowed to kill people except in self-defence.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.