Yep, you are right 'Mitri...but unfortunately I think the overshadowing thing will be the fact that she was hit by a few pellets, rather than the fact that she was breaking the law by being where she was, when she was...it's not right, but I reckon that is what will happen.

It would be great if the various hunting organisations got their heads together and pushed for legal action being taken against her for her actions. I reckon the one that has a great chance of nailing her financially is the guy that pulled the trigger. He could, or should, sue her for mental anguish, anziety, depression and anything else that can arise from the fact that he hit her...then down the track, do her for PTSD. It would be great if he ended up owning everything that is hers...now and in the future...and the organising body of the protest.

Cheers, Vince

+1 to what Vince say.

I agree the sh1tforbrain should pay for the accident, and compensation to the boy for his mental anguish!

Just watching cnn news and they bought up about the gal getting shot in the face and now there saying that the boy did not do the shooting!!

Boy Denies Shooting Lady

Realistically, I suppose we won't actually know who fired the shot till the court case is over. However, this does alter the fact that the tree hugger was breaking the law in being where she was, when she was...and this should be an overriding factor.

Although it depends on the situation. I mean, if she was hiding then jumped up as the shot was fired...she deserves everything she got and more...but if she was plainly visible before the shot was fired, then maybe there are some questions to be answered. Whichever way it happened...she should not have been there and is at fault.

Cheers, Vince

For all we know, that moron could have shot herself trying to blame the legitimate shooters.

Maybe she or her mates did.. someone got to be a martyr ya know.

You know Gelan...I was thinking that she was sitting just under the water with a snorkel and duck decoy on her head. Again, that would not surprise me in the least mate.

Cheers, Vince

Is there no squadron of killing ducks that shoots back or drop bombs in cangoroo-country? I thought you had all kind of strange creatures, are they sure the ducks didn't shoot? And look at the colour of that hat, who's most visible will likely get the first hit...

Aloy, you mean duffy on spinach?

.. I can hear hitchcock movie music in the background..

I think the ones you are referring to are Gadaffi Ducks....

Aloysius wrote:

Is there no squadron of killing ducks that shoots back or drop bombs in cangoroo-country? I thought you had all kind of strange creatures, are they sure the ducks didn't shoot? And look at the colour of that hat, who's most visible will likely get the first hit...

Hey Mike, at least they were using steel shot.
Don't know about the rest of you out there, but lead is virtually banned for wildfowl over here.
If the tree hugger is anything like we have, they are usually, mid 30's lesbians and spongers on the government and tax payer. Still, hope she recovers and realises not to trespass, but will probably become a bunny hugging martyr
Sorry if this sounds a bit OTT, but were sick of them over here

How many protesters were there? and how many rounds of shotshells?
It seems to me that the trespassers would have been criminals legally removed from participating in a felony without so much as an apology for the use of the powder it would take to complete the task......
Reasonable force under the conditions of the incident.

Vince wrote:

Yep, you are right 'Mitri...but unfortunately I think the overshadowing thing will be the fact that she was hit by a few pellets, rather than the fact that she was breaking the law by being where she was, when she was...it's not right, but I reckon that is what will happen. It would be great if the various hunting organisations got their heads together and pushed for legal action being taken against her for her actions. I reckon the one that has a great chance of nailing her financially is the guy that pulled the trigger. He could, or should, sue her for mental anguish, anziety, depression and anything else that can arise from the fact that he hit her...then down the track, do her for PTSD. It would be great if he ended up owning everything that is hers...now and in the future...and the organising body of the protest. Cheers, Vince

You are spot on there Vince with the liability being on her part and also on the prganizing body of the protest. Here in Canada there is also the offence under the Canadian Criminal Code for " counselling offence" which has penalities in some cases surpassing those of the the parent offence. I personally would always look to laying the information for ALL of the subsequent offences if I had a real winner of a suspect. I should imagine that in OZ that the national criminal code would be very similiar.

The Aussie Criminal Code is based on the English system...however, I have never really been driven enough to study it to any depth or great detail...that plus only those that have studied law could even come close to understanding the books.

One can only hope that the hunting/shooting organisations decided to follow it up for the sake of the shooter.

Wiersay wrote:

Don't know about the rest of you out there, but lead is virtually banned for wildfowl over here. If the tree hugger is anything like we have, they are usually, mid 30's lesbians and spongers on the government and tax payer. Still, hope she recovers and realises not to trespass, but will probably become a bunny hugging martyr Sorry if this sounds a bit OTT, but were sick of them over here

No different here mate, she will be a martyr at least within the bunny huggin', tree huggin' rent a crowd circles. Any reasonable minded person would find them to be annoying, and those of us that have to suffer the results of their bleating and crying are totally sick of them as well mate.

Cheers, Vince

I find it astonishing Vince that no one has told you about our legal system.
There is only one thing you need to know.
"British Law is the best that money can buy"
or he who has the most money wins.

tikkat3 wrote:

I find it astonishing Vince that no one has told you about our legal system. There is only one thing you need to know. "British Law is the best that money can buy" or he who has the most money wins.

Oh I know that side of things Tiks...have maybe seen it in action...but I'm admitting nothing.

You are totally correct about he who has the most money wins...that is how big business wins...they just keep you in Court until you run out of funds to fight.

Cheers, Vince