The Shit Pit

well thus far I’ve learned a new acronym… TDS :rofl: :+1:

Why is everyone so fixated on Bidens feebleness, I don’t get it. What do you expect CharliXCX or something, Dua Lipa WTF. Some people have no scope.

Enough of reading another countries problems, I’m busy trying to make you fkrs food if you don’t mind. :rofl:

I see the live sheep got banned but not for 4 years, but oh they’ve just reopened export to brazil of sheep meat. Haha wtf how are they going to do that when they can not get process workers at the current abbaitiors we have already in place. They are lucky to run at 60% capacity due to only labor shortage. Another fkn dumb gov move with no forsight or solutions.

I know this as I spoke to the main Victorian CEO abattoir at a meeting. 1 problem, no solution.

Just gimme a blaster alright. Hahaha

1 Like

Been reading a lot of US stuff. Lots of arguments for and against the latest hoo ha. With congress having ultimate power over any president they have the final say in what happens.

Seems in this case Congress is making moves right now to overturn supreme courts ruling of Trump immunity.

Grab some popcorn sit back and enjoy the ride :popcorn: :+1:

A congress where democrats have the majority.

1 Like

Won’t matter as the house of representatives are Republican controlled and will block such a move.

As I said sit back and watch the show.

1 Like

No person should be above the law.
Full stop.

Even Putin is guilty of war crimes.

No one should be above the law.

1 Like

True, and is foundation of democracy. Communist leaders are above the law. Kim publicly killed a 22yo person for something I can’t remember right now.

Is that the sort of society we want to live in? I don’t and will not. We need to stand united and forget the bickering because we will get steam rolled otherwise.

NATO and the EU has an arrest warrant out for that guy for multiple war crimes. As of last year and stacking.

What’s this “castle law” that QLD is doing? The basic gist sounds good.

A mans home is his castle.
You have the right to defend your castle.

Use of force, including lethal, is allowed…

Bring it on…

Knowing they can legally get beaten, or killed, during a break in may give some kids some 2nd thoughts…

Broadly, the petition to parliament demands the implementation of Castle Law which allows the use of lethal force when defending yourself against home invasion without legal consequence. The Queensland Law Society have labelled it “state sanctioned murder”.

It’s Bob Katter’s little personal barrow… personally I think demanding the right to kill an intruder without legal consequences is a bit much. Would make more sense and probably would have a higher chance of getting up if the demand was to legalise non-lethals and less-lethals for home defence.

But being Katter, he’s got to go a step beyond reasonable. It won’t get up and while I’m all for rejigging laws to give people a reasonable chance of defending themselves, it pisses me off no end when the issue gets thrown out of contention because of the dumb-arse demands of a few dickheads.

1 Like

I think if some idiot chooses to invade your space they’ve lost the right to any legal protection.

1 Like

Nah proportional force is still the way to go. Many reasons for break-ins, don’t want kill a guy just cause he’s having a mental episode, or a junkie looking for some cash for their next fix.

Fair. My assumption is that someone of sound mind is intentionally going in, that they have given up all rights to legal protection.

1 Like

Probably better to attempt legislation, without specifying “lethal force”.

That would lead to more widespread acceptance, and the possibility of it being implemented. Use of then " reasonable force" is up for debate, on a case by case basis, to be tested in court.

Choose to keep a baseball bat near your bed?
Fair enough.
A sword / machette?
No, you were planning on using a lethal instrument.

That way, if you are surrounded by a gang, use a bat and fend them off, that should be fine. Acciddently hit their head / they fall down the stairs, dead or seriously injured…see what a jury says. I tend they would tend to favour the homeowner.

I’m all for that provision of protection, it is two sided, legally enables the home owner to defend themselves, and acts as a detterent to crims…

Also, a very bright torch, shone into someones eyes, blinds them , and greatly reduces their ability to fight…

1 Like

I do think that the laws are very limiting and are doing the exact opposite to what is intended.

Would I take a baseball bat to the scone of a machete weilding home invader to protect my family? You betchya… Do I want to end his life? No.

But by choosing that form of defence I’m increasing the risk to myself and my family due to having to get close to the intruder.

What I’d like to see is the legalisation of non-lethals like tasers or Byrna style pepperball guns, something that doesn’t require having to get up close and personal.

You hear an intruder in your house, you fire a few pepperballs into the room they’re in without even having to enter it, then beat it back to your room where you can chill and hear them coughing up a lung while you’re waiting for the rozzers to turn up.

I don’t see a problem with that. :man_shrugging:

Chuck in a flashbang for good measure.

Yes i think the idea of subduing the intruder is best but if they died in the process then you shouldn’t be liable.