Man cleared 'self-defence' shooting (Australia)

[DW98]

This is an absolute joke. I'm all for self-defence, but this was murder. You can shoot an unarmed person who's running away, including twice to the head when they're down, but if you shoot or use what's deemed unreasonable force on a home invader, you will lose your firearms and likely be charged.

I used to live pretty closed to where it happened, but moved out as the area is a sh!thole.

Killer's in clear

A MAN captured on CCTV footage shooting his de facto wife in the head has been found not guilty of her murder.Phillip Bracken, 45, wept quietly as a nine woman and three man jury accepted his claim of self-defence and acquitted him of the murder of partner Helen Curtis, 58. Bracken shot her outside a house in Clive St, West Footscray street in November 2012.

The court was told Curtis had regularly beaten and abused her partner of four years before the shooting.Ms Curtis had been seen yelling at Mr Bracken’s father before Mr Bracken shot her twice in the head at close range.

“This is an extraordinary case, and an extraordinary situation,” said Ruth Shann, Bracken’s lawyer.The killing was captured on CCTV, and showed Bracken chasing Ms Curtis before shooting her at least five times, twice in the head Despite the CCTV footage Bracken pleaded not guilty, saying he killed her in self-defence after years of abuse.

Ms Shann pleaded with the jury and asked them to consider what would happened if their genders were reversed and she had killed him after an abusive relationship.

“In general in situations of family violence we are biased towards the woman and again the man, and that is normal and probably right because as we heard… statistically overwhelmingly the majority of cases are a male perpetrator and a female victim,” Ms Shann said..

Ms Shann said Bracken was forced to shoot the woman he loved.“We have a right to defend ourselves against the threat of lethal force, and every single one of us has the right to defend someone that we love from the threat of lethal force,” Ms Shann said.

But Ms Curtis’s daughters were devastated by the verdict “Every one, fights everyone has relationships. Justice wasn’t served for our mum, he gets to walk free and we have to live with it for the rest of our lives,” said daughter Jaimi-Leigh Meilak.

At the time of the shooting the media said she'd been shot at least 10 times, not five; not sure what's the truth there.

Shann said Bracken was forced to shoot the woman he loved.“We have a right to defend ourselves against the threat of lethal force, and every single one of us has the right to defend someone that we love from the threat of lethal force,” Ms Shann said.

No, we don't. If we did homeowners would be able to own firearms for self-defence and not have to fear defending themselves.

Thoughts?

 

[SFCRetired]

Either there is something we have not been told or this guy just got away with murder. I can see someone, male or female, being abused to the point that they snap and kill in self-defense or even retaliation, but I cannot see where anyone is justified in chasing down and executing someone in cold blood. That is what I am getting from reading the article; that he chased her and then shot her in the head.

Either he has got the best lawyer I've ever heard of or the prosecutor was worse than the two in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

The other possibility, which I overlooked when I originally posted, is that the law in Australia is radically different from what it is here.

 

[DW98]

Either there is something we have not been told or this guy just got away with murder. I can see someone, male or female, being abused to the point that they snap and kill in self-defense or even retaliation, but I cannot see where anyone is justified in chasing down and executing someone in cold blood. That is what I am getting from reading the article; that he chased her and then shot her in the head.

Either he has got the best lawyer I've ever heard of or the prosecutor was worse than the two in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

The other possibility, which I overlooked when I originally posted, is that the law in Australia is radically different from what it is here.

I've heard stories that this guy isn't the victim he's made out to be in the article. No idea if they're true or not.

I forgot to mention that the woman came with the gun in her car (a .308 semi-auto apparently), but he went and got it then shot her.

Unless I'm very misinformed there's no law that says you can kill someone just because they've harmed you in the past. We aren't even allowed to use firearms against home invaders, except in extreme circumstances.