Found Deceased Australia - Samuel Thompson, 22, Albion, Qld, 7 March 2017 *Arrests* #3

[Karinna]

My friend's SIL came back from Afghanistan and was discharged from the military because of PTSD. He was badly affected by it and is very timid and frightened by loud noises

 

[SouthAussie]

What would that law be?

If a person is charged with a criminal offence while suffering from a mental illness, they may go to a special court called the Mental Health Court.

The Mental Health Court is a special hearing of the Supreme Court that makes decisions about criminal cases where the accused person may have a psychiatric disability.

This Court can decide if a person:

was of unsound mind at the time the offence was committed
is temporarily unfit for trial, or
is permanently unfit for trial.

If the Mental Health Court decides that a person was of unsound mind at the time the offence was committed or that they are permanently unfit for trial, it may make a forensic order giving authority for a person to be detained in an authorised mental health service for treatment or care ......

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find.../Offences/Criminal-offences-and-mental-health

 

[Marples]

Do they normally bring previous stuff into a trial about the accused? I didn't think they did?

A lot of times a person's criminal history may not be admitted as it could be prejudicial. But statements that talk about his character, things he did over there, they might be admissible, depending what they are and who introduces them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marples]

I didn't think PTSD is a murder defense is it?

Depends on a lot of factors. If he had PTSD, was triggered and could demonstrate a psychotic snap/event that removed him from reality etc, it's possible the defense may try it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

A lot of times a person's criminal history may not be admitted as it could be prejudicial. But statements that talk about his character, things he did over there, they might be admissible, depending what they are and who introduces them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you think of an example of this, Marples? As I struggle to see how anything either of them did prior to the alleged crime, that had nothing to do with the crime, can be entered into the trials.

Maybe into the sentencing, but not into the trials.

 

[Karinna]

I have a friend whose older brother came back from Vietnam many years ago, similarly affected.
Fortunately, these people do not tend to go on to commit murder. They struggle with their demons themselves.

Yes they do. We have a good friend in the States that went to Vietnam, and is now fighting for his life because of Agent orange. He has a form of leukemia and has to go to the Shands hospital in Gainesville FL. every two weeks for chemo, otherwise he won't make it. It's very sad.

 

[slinkyminx73]

What would that law be?

Something to do with being able to stop an act of violence if possible. Don't know off the top of my head but I think it is called something like the Good Samaritan law.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marples]

I also wonder in this case if any ptsd is mentioned as a defense, it refers to one of the perps. only, if that is even determined by an appropriate professional yet? Then the other perp. was not suffering ptsd, but yet they are both charged with the same crime, how does that work? The one not affected must of been involved in the killing too, so why didn't he intervene and try to stop the murder?

People have PTSD for varied reasons. I'm unsure if AD has been diagnosed with it, but it may not be too hard for a lot of people to accept someone who'd seen active combat in Syria would/could/may have PTSD. They may both be charged because there is evidence to support the charge: it's up to their defense to demonstrate they are not guilty by whatever means they choose. The only exception to this is that if a person has confessed to their lawyer, the lawyer can still represent them, but they cannot mount a positive defense. As for why RB didn't intervene, it's possible RB was the initiator and the scene triggered AD? Not saying that happened, saying it's a possibility. Like a hundred other possibilities. All just opinions/ideas/options at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Depends on a lot of factors. If he had PTSD, was triggered and could demonstrate a psychotic snap/event that removed him from reality etc, it's possible the defense may try it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if they will do that but time will tell. I think other factors will come into it though. AD was not the only one involved, so don't know how that will work out for him?
A psychosis is ongoing though unless treated by a psychiatrist. He would of needed to be admitted to a psyche hospital & medicated, because a psychotic break doesn't get better all by itself.

 

[Karinna]

Something to do with being able to stop an act of violence if possible. Don't know off the top of my head but I think it is called something like the Good Samaritan law.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for your reply & clarification. Yes i have heard of that law.

 

[Marples]

I don't think PTSD would even come into it. Yes, Dyball saw his friend get blown up by a mine. But it wasn't enough for him to turn into a babbling mess and be too afraid to stay in Syria and continue to do whatever he did.
He only came home because he was compelled to do so, after his arrest in Germany.
There are no landmines here, very few loud booms that echo the sounds of a landmine.

The PTSD would have to be pre-diagnosed, not post-diagnosed, to even be considered. A bit like Tosser's case.
He tried that line for a while, till it was revealed that he was not autistic ... he had OCD, he had social anxiety, he was a supreme jerk. He was not autistic.

.

Oh, I don't say he has PTSD. I'm saying a skilled argument could be made for him exhibiting the signs etc. Wouldn't necessarily have to be the landmine sound. Could be any number of things: smells, sounds, people who look a certain way. Possibly heightened if he was substance affected? Not saying it's true, just saying they might try it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Something to do with being able to stop an act of violence if possible. Don't know off the top of my head but I think it is called something like the Good Samaritan law.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the Good Samaritan Law is purely for rendering emergency medical assistance and something goes wrong. If you acted in good faith, you cannot be held liable.

https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/good-samaritan-legislation-and-scope-of-practice/

 

[SouthAussie]

Oh, I don't say he has PTSD. I'm saying a skilled argument could be made for him exhibiting the signs etc. Wouldn't necessarily have to be the landmine sound. Could be any number of things: smells, sounds, people who look a certain way. Possibly heightened if he was substance affected? Not saying it's true, just saying they might try it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, well, if they try it he'll be off to Mental Health Court .... if a judge buys it.
He will ultimately get a prison or a mental health facility, if he is guilty of murdering Sam. I'm not sure which one would be worse.
So I guess they'll think about that one very carefully ... if they have evidence of a pre-diagnosis of any mental incapacity.

 

[Karinna]

I think the Good Samaritan Law is purely for rendering emergency medical assistance and something goes wrong. If you acted in good faith, you cannot be held liable.

https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/good-samaritan-legislation-and-scope-of-practice/

Yes, i can remember a little bit of a discussion about it in regard to Tostee, when he didn't even call for an ambulance when Warriena fell from his balcony,

 

[MsAnais]

I don't know if they will do that but time will tell. I think other factors will come into it though. AD was not the only one involved, so don't know how that will work out for him?
A psychosis is ongoing though unless treated by a psychiatrist. He would of needed to be admitted to a psyche hospital & medicated, because a psychotic break doesn't get better all by itself.

Not all psychosis is ongoing. Some psychosis resolves of it's own accord...brief psychotic disorder, by it's very definition, goes away by itself.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001529.htm

 

[Marples]

Can you think of an example of this, Marples? As I struggle to see how anything either of them did prior to the alleged crime, that had nothing to do with the crime, can be entered into the trials.

Maybe into the sentencing, but not into the trials.

Because we don't know that he hasn't been diagnosed with PTSD formally. And if he has, you'd have to think they're going to run that if the evidence is strong for the murder. Take the Yes he did it but here's why, road?

If his defense in any way use his experience in Syria, you'd have to think the prosecution isn't going to just let the jury hear about how traumatized he is from possibly seeing people die? They would try and turn that around into demonstrating the violence he's committed/comfort with extreme violence rather than the violence he's seen and how it's affected him, I'd imagine?

I wonder about other things too. For example, what if ST was subjected to some sort of torture that was, say, documented as being common amongst or specific to, the YPG etc (Not saying YPG torture people), you would think they would try and introduce his history with them as having access to that training/information? Much like people in certain professions have access to specialized equipment used in a murder?

I'd think both their histories, could be a factor at sentencing. Agree there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Not all psychosis is ongoing. Some psychosis resolves of it's own accord...brief psychotic disorder, by it's very definition, goes away by itself.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001529.htm

So not really a full blown mental illness/condition then? And once he murdered ST he got better and over it?

 

[SouthAussie]

Because we don't know that he hasn't been diagnosed with PTSD formally. And if he has, you'd have to think they're going to run that if the evidence is strong for the murder. Take the Yes he did it but here's why, road?

If his defense in any way use his experience in Syria, you'd have to think the prosecution isn't going to just let the jury hear about how traumatized he is from possibly seeing people die? They would try and turn that around into demonstrating the violence he's committed/comfort with extreme violence rather than the violence he's seen and how it's affected him, I'd imagine?

I wonder about other things too. For example, what if ST was subjected to some sort of torture that was, say, documented as being common amongst or specific to, the YPG etc (Not saying YPG torture people), you would think they would try and introduce his history with them as having access to that training/information? Much like people in certain professions have access to specialized equipment used in a murder?

I'd think both their histories, could be a factor at sentencing. Agree there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see what you are saying, but by the info I linked earlier, I do not believe it could even get that far ... to be mentioned in court as a defence or influence of any type.

To me, it seems that he would be put before the Mental Health Court before that could happen. :dunno:

 

[MsAnais]

So not really a full blown mental illness/condition then?

No offence Karinna, but I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about psychotic disorders. I feel it will derail the thread.

I was just responding to your assertion that no psychosis resolves without meds since it is incorrect. (drug-induced psychosis also does, as does psychosis related to post-natal depression, amongst others).

But as I say, none of this is related to this case so I don't want to go veering off into it.:seeya:

 

[Marples]

I think the Good Samaritan Law is purely for rendering emergency medical assistance and something goes wrong. If you acted in good faith, you cannot be held liable.

https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/good-samaritan-legislation-and-scope-of-practice/

That's correct South Aussie. Amendments were made a while back to remove liability, hopeful it would encourage good Samaritans to help.

It's my understanding if you witness a crime, you are encouraged to report it. Not required to intervene. Of course if you're participating, that's not the same thing at all. But if you witness violent crime, I believe people are encouraged, but not required to report it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk