Man killed in Sydney over water use

Thumper 1 November 2007 36

Although this happened in Sydney I believe it has implications for Canberra given our ongoing water restrictions.

How many readers have found themselves in a threatening position over water and water use?

Condolences to the family.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to Man killed in Sydney over water use
Ingeegoodbee Ingeegoodbee 8:21 pm 02 Nov 07

aa, the spastic lttle prick has apparently appeared in court charged with murder. Of course these are police – (generically but increadibly accurately) the same dumb bunch plods that also thought Haneef was really a terrorist. He’ll probably get off with a parking fine.

aa aa 2:39 pm 02 Nov 07

I don’t know about you guys, but if someone sprayed me with a hose, I’d hit them. BUT I won’t kick them once they were down.

I think people are confusing murder with manslaughter. Murder should be when it’s pre-meditated or planned or intended, while a situation like this is manslaughter.

Ari Ari 11:15 am 02 Nov 07

No violence involved, but I did post a personal experience on this topic back in January.

I just read the thread again and note that Thumper warned of potential violence way back then.

Ingeegoodbee Ingeegoodbee 9:47 am 02 Nov 07

Getting back to the topic – which was: has anyone been on the butt end of water restriction rage here in Canberra?

I get a few dirty looks when I wash the mud off the Rangie – but usually only from those who cant work out what the fire-fighting pump is being used for!

justbands justbands 8:55 am 02 Nov 07

> I doubt a splash of water and a few choice words would be sufficient to demonstrate provocation to assault

That IS assault itself, isn’t it? Still, kicking the old bloke to death is all sorts of wrong.

astrojax astrojax 5:10 pm 01 Nov 07

latest guff on the lam is the defendant was on some serious medication for pain and depression, so mebbe there’s more here than we can know through the media – but then again, on that point, d’uh… s’always the case.

anyway, it won’t be murder – likely death occasioned by recklessness, or some such. and further diminished by mental [in]capacity, i’d rekkun…

Jazz Jazz 4:58 pm 01 Nov 07

I didnt have to read very far down the article to find out about Mr Munter’s chronic back pain. I must admit that I’m surprised that a man with chronic back pain is able to beat another guy to death.

I swear, every time i see reported coverage there is some medically extenuating circumstance that the assailant wheels out as an excuse for their behaviour. We see it in our local courts all the time too.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 3:50 pm 01 Nov 07

i expect to be murdered someday by somebody who is anti-smoking. Or by someone who doesn’t like my public ranting about the nessecity for politness in crowded public areas. I only ever water my garden with beer dregs so I am pretty confident I will never be killed for that.. because no one ever stands up for beer dregs. (although the more I think about it the more I am starting to think it may well be a great new passion of mine)

caf caf 3:19 pm 01 Nov 07

The context is that you can be convicted of murder without it being proven that you intended the death of the victim, as long as it is proven that you showed reckless indifference as to whether or not your actions would result in their death.

Lord Mælinar Lord Mælinar 3:08 pm 01 Nov 07

fnaah – that’s for a court to decide. I would consider that the level of the punishment would be weighted by the staggering ineptitude you speak of – not only for the protection of the public, but also the protection of the assaulter.

caf – I’m unsure of what ‘reckless indifference’ is, would an analogy be that had the off-duty police officer informed the assailant that he was infact a police officer, and then in an act of ‘reckless indifference’ he continues assaulting the victim again ?

I’m taking it that the intention of RI is that somebody is doing something blatantly contradictory to an authority.

Speeding is ‘reckless indifference’ to the road rules ?

caf caf 2:35 pm 01 Nov 07

Not necessarily true, there is also the possibility of showing “reckless indifference”.

fnaah fnaah 2:35 pm 01 Nov 07

Fair point, LM. Interesting question, then – should the punishment fit the crime, or should the punishment fit the staggering ineptitude of this person’s ability to act in a civilised manner?

Lord Mælinar Lord Mælinar 1:45 pm 01 Nov 07

Somebody might have to explain this definition of watersports as it seems to be outside any dictionary reference.

Lets just remember there are people of different cultural backgrounds here, who may not be aware of common bogan vernacular.

Yes, that was an insult.

On the assault, I didn’t say it was an appropriate level response to the provocation, I just said that he was provoked.

I still think that a prosecution will have to work harder to prove that this guy intended to murder the victim than the defence will have to work to prove that this guy didn’t intend to do it.

It helps their side that this guy was a meataxe, and continued a sustained assault, but all the defence needs to respond with is to link this guys misinterpretation of provocation with his misinterpretation of an appropriate level of force to cause sufficient doubt about his actual intent.

If he didn’t intend to murder the victim, the case is manslaughter, not murder.

pierce pierce 1:34 pm 01 Nov 07

How come they never show the watersport events in the Olympics coverage?

VYBerlinaV8 VYBerlinaV8 1:32 pm 01 Nov 07

“/me sprays VYBerlinaV8 with my hose”

Maybe this is why a google ad for gay massage appeared on the page…

Watch out pal – I’m wearing a white shirt!

Mr Evil Mr Evil 1:28 pm 01 Nov 07

Spraying the old guy’s lawn with Roundup would have been much easier and much more satisfying.

fnaah fnaah 12:43 pm 01 Nov 07

Lord M – the article states the alleged assailant “attacked Mr Proctor, punched him, pushed him to the ground and then kicked him”, so it’s a bit more callous than a quick punch in the face.

Aside from that, provocation with the damp end of a garden hose *still* doesn’t justify physical violence in retaliation, unless somehow the sprayee was allergic to water, or something. His retaliation was an order of magnitude greater than the provocation.

You just can’t let people do stuff like that. 🙁

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 12:36 pm 01 Nov 07

Pandy wins 1-0, Lord Maelinar is displayed as without clue.

Ingeegoodbee Ingeegoodbee 12:35 pm 01 Nov 07

LM, how’d you know I was wearing a red shirt today? Demonstrating provocation may be one thing, but using it as a defence to assault is another.

By way of example, a guy I went to uni with was taunted in a bar and had a beer tipped over his head – he finally lost it and broke the guys nose. He was convicted of ausault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Magistrate basically said the provocation he’d experienced was not sufficient to warrant hios response and that he should have just walked away … I guess legal types could argue the point all day, but the way I read it, when this guy coped a spray and was told to F_ck off he should have taken the advice on face value instead of proving how much of a tool he was. I hope he gets a bit of time sharing a cell with “Bubba” to contemplate his stupidity.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 12:30 pm 01 Nov 07

Watersports – that’s Gold!

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter


Search across the site