• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A PERSON'S "right to remain silent" after being arrested will be abolished.

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'm more disturbed by the poll results than I am at the article. That even one person would consider this a "good" idea is deplorable.

This will sound harsh, but it's my firm conviction after studying rights issues in both England and Australia: That 51% of Australians thought it was a good idea reveals one of the principle reasons the Austrailian government is free to walk all over the civil rights of its citizens: The citizens are inviting their own abuse.

Let's hope and pray our American citizenry never becomes so brainwashed as to sit still for such abuses of our civil rights.

Three-hundred and some years since the Star Chamber was abolished. Centuries of blood--including the head of Saint Thomas More--to win respect for the right to silence, and some thugs in Australia want to undermine it all and head us back towards barbarism.

You mean moronic thugs, don't you? Although I sincerely hope they're reading this, if they're as moronic as they appear to be, they won't understand a word of it.
 
Last edited:

Haz.

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
1,226
Location
I come from a land downunder.
Bligh considers firearm law revamp after Gold Coast shootings.

SSAA E -alert, recieved this afternoon.
"Shootings prompt criticism of firearm laws
Firearm laws in Queensland are in question following three shootings on the Gold Coast in recent days.

The Queensland Government is the target of criticism amid claims current firearm laws are not strict enough. Premier Anna Bligh has said she will consider changing firearm laws following a full investigation into the shootings.

SSAA National is encouraging members to vote on the poll located to the right of the news story and answer the question “Should we have stricter gun controls in Australia?”

Members can also choose to have their say on the issue online, or by writing a letter to the editor.

According to Australian Institute of Criminology researchers Jack Dearden and Warwick Jones “more than 93 per cent of firearms used in homicides in 2006-07 were unlicensed and unregistered”.

Of the estimated 760,000 licensed firearms owners in Australia, about 700 report firearm robberies each year. This is a miniscule percentage (0.09%) of firearms that potentially enter the illegal market in this manner.

It is the criminals and their use of illegal firearms that are the problem, not licensed, law-abiding firearm owners."
.


Anyone following the thread on these boards, "Who Needs a Gun in Australia" will know how bad things are Down Under regarding the illegal use of firearms by criminals ever increasing since the Gun Ban. Every so often a politician will ruffel their feathers and cry for a tightening of already the tightest gun laws in the western world.

Heres an example. So far the poll included shows an 80% swing against the governments suggestion re the revamp of firearms laws. In the Have your say colums people are also voicing their opinions, that the government should consentrate on the criminals and leave law abiding sporting shooters alone. An interesting read. Vote in the poll as well.

Poll included in article:
Should we have stricter gun control in Australia?

Results so far,

YES . . . 13%
NO . . . 87%

The people are finally waking up. . . . Haz.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/07/275261_gold-coast-news.html

Bligh considers firearm law revamp
Sue Lappeman | December 7th, 2010

Related Links
Pictures: Bundall Road shooting
THE shootings on the Gold Coast could spark another round of bitter public debate over gun control with Premier Anna Bligh vowing to tighten firearm laws if necessary.

Ms Bligh yesterday said she had been shocked by the shootings because they were so unusual.

She said police were throwing everything at the investigation and if they found laws needed to be changed, they would be.

"Here in Queensland we have some of the toughest gun laws in Australia but if in this investigation we find anything that suggests we should be revisiting them then we won't hesitate," she said.

"This sort of lawlessness has no place in a civilised society.

Have your say on the feedback form below
Third shooting on Gold Coast
Sniper victim just a `normal guy
Rooftop sniper at Surfers; shooting on M1
Pictures: Surfers sniper
Pictures: Bundall Road shooting

"These events at the Gold Coast are frankly just shocking. There is no place for them in Australia and they are shocking precisely because they are extreme and unusual."

The Opposition seized on the shootings to launch an attack on the Bligh Government over police numbers, claiming Gold Coasters were right to be concerned about going out at night and the tourism industry would suffer.

LNP police spokesman and Noosa MP Glen Elmes said there had been increasingly violent incidents on the Gold Coast's tourist strip.

"The shootings over the past few days are very disturbing, and come on top of the string of violent crime fuelled by alcohol and drugs that occurs in party precincts," he said.

"The Gold Coast community is rightly extremely concerned about leaving their homes at night at the moment and the shootings could have a detrimental effect on the tourism industry which is already struggling."

Your Say
"Legal firearm ownership should be a completely separate argument to the illegal acquisition and use of firearms. Tougher penalties for illegal activity makes perfect sense. Making legal ownership more restrictive does not, given that we already have comprehensive licencing and registration laws. Many innocent people have been harmed as a result of illegal vehicle use, yet there is no outcry to ban the use of vehicles by licenced drivers. So why link legal gun ownership to illegal gun crime?"
Craig

But Police Minister Neil Roberts said crime rates across a range of categories had decreased over the past 12 months and police numbers had increased.

"Obviously these three incidents are of grave concern and police are throwing tremendous resources into resolving these as quickly as possible," he said.

"In terms of the Gold Coast generally, the recent statistical review showed there was reductions in crime rates across a range of categories, from break and enters to assaults.

"Police are obviously very concerned about these incidents and we are really calling for people with any information, no matter how small, to provide that information to police either directly or through Crimestoppers on 1300 333 000."
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Anyone following the thread on these boards, "Who Needs a Gun in Australia" will know how bad things are Down Under regarding the illegal use of firearms by criminals ever increasing since the Gun Ban.

That's what happens when a government bans guns. The law-abiding citizens obey the law. The criminals do not, and instead use it to their advantage.

Every so often a politician will ruffel their feathers and cry for a tightening of already the tightest gun laws in the western world.

We have a word for those sort of knuckleheards here in the U.S. It's a seven-letter word, beginning with "dumb..." but for propriety's sake I can't mention the last three letters here.

Poll included in article: Should we have stricter gun control in Australia?

Results so far,

YES . . . 13%
NO . . . 87%

The people are finally waking up.

About time!

Send as many of them as you can this (attached). They might wake up just a little bit further. Every little bit helps to secure the inalienable civil rights naturally due every one of us on this planet.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I've wanted to visit Australia for a number of years now, but if this goes through, I will not venture down under.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Innocent until proven guilty

An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

[video=youtube;i8z7NC5sgik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;08fZQWjDVKE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related[/video]
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Remaining silent or invoking the 5th is already used against you here in the states. Ever read your police report after doing so? They have many "boilerplate" labels for you, that incriminates you in the eyes of court and jury.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Ya mean that whole "hindering the investigation", "obstruction", "obstinate" and that whole "took a belligerent stance in regards to our questioning" thing?

Agreed completely. Some seem to almost hate the citizenry being acquainted with their legal rights. It's so much easier to get things done when you're dealing with a public that doesn't know the rules. I'd say that is an Extremely good reason for using 'boilerplate' in return, "AIFTG" establishes without question what Tier encounter you are having. Any officer who attempts to sidestep answering that question is trying to avoid admitting what his level of authority is.

Really, if an officer Has the authority, would he be reticent about admitting it?
 
Last edited:

emsjeep

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
210
Location
NY-CT
Invocation of your constitutional rights is not probative of guilt, any attorney worth anything can make a mountain of an issue out of this, the case law is voluminous and unequivocal.
 

Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
154
Location
Fairfield County, CT
I didn't see this thread until now. Wow, this is insanity. Gee, I'm sorry if my remaining silent makes your job harder. The whole point of this is that the evidence must speak for itself (including witnesses).

Abolishing the right to not inadvertently incriminate yourself opens up all kinds of abuse beyond what I can imagine (and I can imagine a lot). I can't believe people would actually vote that this would be a good thing. I guess sometimes it all sounds good until you are the one being thrown into jail for mentioning something minor that you may have not known was illegal (possessing a recently caught lobster tail with the head/body missing, that sort of thing). There are so many laws on the books that you can pretty much be slapped with anything once you are on the perceived wrong side of the law...
 
M

McX

Guest
My right to remain silent abolished?! so be it then, but i am an alien national, i only speak Klingon, may i have a translator provided for me?
 
Last edited:

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
It seems that most of the later posters to this thread have not taken the time to read the original post and do not realize that Haz is in Australia and is talking about courts and police in Australia.:banghead::banghead::cuss::cuss:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It seems that most of the later posters to this thread have not taken the time to read the original post and do not realize that Haz is in Australia and is talking about courts and police in Australia.:banghead::banghead::cuss::cuss:

And some of realize that and pointed out how it already happens here in this country.
 
M

McX

Guest
And some of realize that and pointed out how it already happens here in this country.

Coming soon to a country near you! everybody smiling now that the US has signed a deal with Canada to use each other's troops, on each other' soil, in the event of civil unrest?.............great............ay! Foreign troops that dont know squat about our Constitution, and our rights..............ay.
 
Top