My thread in memory of Aiia Maasarwe and many others.

There was a woman who murdered her husband but got off as she had endured years of abuse. Yes we could all think of a dozen solutions other than murder.

Can you let me know the full name of this case so as I can discuss it....

 

NT had mandatory sentencing. That is the three strikes you’re out. That found a poor homeless man gaoled for 15years for stealing food. Not hundreds of dollars’ worth, just a packet of biscuits. No, that is seriously wrong.
Can you let me now the full name of this case so as I can discuss it...

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/woman-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-abusive-partner/8057910

 

This accused was found not guilty of manslaughter and not guilty of murder due to her defense of self defense......
There is a difference between pleading self defense and a submission by a lawyer of mitigating
circumstances. You have deliberately misquoted this case to mislead everyone.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-of-her-longterm-partner-20161125-gsx9qy.html

 

No it must have been the wrong case, I will get back to you .

 

Was that a quick step...or a back step....quick quick slow...quick quick slow.....
You do know the difference between mitigation and defense, right...tell me you know the difference......

 

OK forget it, you are right, I am sick of your arrogance. I will leave you arguing with your mate you deserve each other

 

Suits me, youve never agreed with anything Ive posted.....

 

Sorry but I have lots of times. Especially the coming financial storm.

Apparently only when they agree with you.

It's called, having a closed mind.

Oh and according to the IMF in the Financial Review we are not the only ones. Let me know if you decide to get off that high horse.

 

Come in spinner....god youre a sook.....

 

So I point out your error then I am a sook. Even the terminology reminds me of my grandchildren. Mummy billy beat me in marbles.

I did note you edited your quote of what was posted .

 

I thought you were leaving...no..you keep posting to have the last say...youre the child...
Taking your marbles and going home......pft...

 

Err hope you don’t mind but will cut you off here.

Much of what you posted is not theft but proceeds of theft. Splitting hairs but the point is that the legal system does not differentiate on the basis of severity…

Ok. I am not sure why you chose ME to post this too, maybe you want to find some common ground. IT appears you have.

Your murderer, If you read the judgement you will find she was found to have murdered her husband but due to extenuating circumstances she was found not to be culpable for the act. Again, nit picking but it is important to understand , the legal system in Australia does not set precedence on charges to the value of the crime, it sets judgements and sentences on the value of the crime.

Ergo, when charged with a crime it is not determined if the crime is felony or misdemeanour. That is determined by law makers based entirely on the subjective matter as to detriment to the community. Such as the current ACT laws of possession of cannabis and cultivation. Two plants is considered a misdemeanour so fine is issues. Should the plaintiff decide it was not they could then move it to court and risk the higher sentence…

Now, I know, the second seems little contradictory to the point I make but in this area it is long winded to explain if you don’t have the concept already. Should you want to really discuss it wait for the thread on this point I will try to join if you ask.

Most of all, I am not really sure if your serious about this issue of Death in DV. But since the 80’s people have been working very, very hard on the very point you just raised about the failure of the system to address the mitigating circumstances of women protecting (or thinking they are protecting) their children and lastly themselves. I am not sure about now but as late as 2005 women were still in gaol serving long sentences for a crime I believe should never have been given over Domestic violence, a scourge on Australia’s claim of humanity…

However, my point of mandatory sentencing didn’t work before and doesn’t work now. I do believe the idea of having each case considered on its merits as far better, but I too feel tougher sentencing is needed and judges with balls that will sentence and support sentencing of others…

 

Sorry, no don't have it. Turned up in communications about the law at the time. I was shocked but never thought I would need to use the info... Somebody else might have it, but even so you should find several examples in searches about it.

 

What does this sentence mean...a plaintiff is involved in a civil case....there are no plaintiffs in criminal proceedings....

 

I see...so youre making an assertion, but cant prove it......

 

The only one that is the proceeds of theft is receiving.

If someone breaks into a house and steals something it's burglary, they are charged with burglary and it has a sentence in legislation.

If two people break into a home and force the occupants to hand over money or goods , it's aggravated burglary. They are charged with aggravated burglary and it has a sentence.

I won't go into the types of robbery.

Theft is not just theft

 

Well, no she was acquitted of the charges of murder and manslaughter after only 20 minutes of determination by the jury. Extenuating circumstances didnt come into it at all...she was acquitted due to her defense of self defense....

 

Which sentence are you asking about??? The possession case??? The plaintiff is the party that brings the case. In criminal proceedings the plaintiff is the officers of the court who presents the case on behalf of the victim. There are always plaintiffs and defendants in court procedures. It is a stable of Australian legal system.

You seem to be confused about what the Plaintiff actually means, maybe??? So here are some more synonyms that will lead you in the right direction

Plaintiff—accuser Petitioner Claimant Appellant

 

A civil case is not a broken law. If someone owes you money you take them to court.
If they stole the money or committed a fraud, they are crimes. The police will charge them and the police take them to court.

Not paying someone back is itself not a crime.

 

Offenders are usually charged with burglary if its at nite and bes for offences during the day...
Break and enter occurs when any part of the offenders person is proven to have been within the premises...even just a hand through the window.....although this offence would be attempt break and enter or housebreaking implements in possession...depending on the evidence on hand....

 

Correct..hence my curiosity over the use of the word "plaintiff" in a paragraph/sentence referring to
criminal proceedings...

 

Oh, now I see, it wasn’t about mandatory sentencing but trying to look smart. So take the point I freely give it to you, not really interested in discussing pedantics with you.


Not really interested in you trying to appear like you have some conviction, clearly just another example...

 

Err again, somebody brings a criminal procedure and somebody fights it. In a criminal case or civil matter or any other form of legal action you can think of the Plaintiff is the party that brings it the defendant is obvious. There is always a plaintiff and a defendant. Seems stupid to question the terminology when you want to discuss the legal side...