Monday, August 02, 2004

Australian nanny state-ism?

Let's see, we have ...

1. A security guard licensed to carry a pistol, who is ...

2. Supposed to protect US $21,000 at a hotel from ...

3. An armed robber who who inflicts on her " a fractured skull, a broken nose and left hand, and possible brain damage ," so . . .

4. She shoots him (and there is no such thing as "shoot to wound" when your life is on the line), he dies, and . . . .

5. She is charged with murder.

Pretty soon I'm going to start sounding like Kim du Toit, if this keeps up. I'm glad that I live in a state where what should be the common-law right to self defense is written into the statutes.

Any Australian readers care to elucidate?

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps the police have more information about the case than can be gleaned from a couple of sketchy media reports. Other media reports claim that the guard shot the criminal as he was leaving, not when her life was in danger; she also failed to cooperate with police, selling her story to the media instead. I don't know nor particularly care whether she deserves to be charged; this is a matter for the courts to judge, not the media and not bloggers armed with an absolute minimum of facts.

- Kate in Sydney korman@spamcop.net

11:25 PM  
Blogger Chas S. Clifton said...

All I can say is that I reviewed as many Australian news accounts as I could find. If you see an update, let me know. Meanwhile, if someone fractures your skull and then turns his back, does that mean he is might not return? As for selling her story (tsk tsk), I imagine that she will have a few medical bills (and physical rehabilitation) beyond what insurance will cover.

7:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home