Waihopai terrorists get off

[JimO]

skyrider will be over the moon. also that cunt with the beard has his head on upside down

[Mully]

Didn't they admit it?? How do they get off if they admit it? Cos it was a "Noble thing to do"(tm)?

There's hope for Pete Bethune - except he'll be in the Japanese court system

[Naki Rat]

You've got to hand it to those guys, they used NZ law to stick it to the Yanks. Well done those men :niceone:

[SMOKEU]

They're a bunch of al-Qaeda wannabes.

[Pussy]

They're a bunch of al-Qaeda wannabes.

Which, as you well know, is referred to as "Te Qaeda" in NZ

[FJRider]

Because they "didnt know it was agains't the law "... to cut through a fence and vandalise property ...

[MisterD]

Absolutely unfuckingbelieveable...the cause damage worth millions of dollars, which my tax has to fix, admit to it and are found not guilty? How exactly does that work?

[rainman]

Because they "didnt know it was agains't the law "... to cut through a fence and vandalise property ...

No, I think they knew it was against the law, just that their action was towards the greater good - making it harder for the yanks to carry on fighting dubious wars and rendering people off to be tortured. A small wrong preventing a greater wrong being perpetrated against others. At least that's how I understood their explanation.

And yes, I think the teacher dude's head in upside down too. It's a look.... sorta quasi-Amish?

And MisterD, why should your taxes pay for the American war machine, anyway?

[Mom]

Great defense team, complacent prosecutors. For the greater good now means that you can admit you intentionally damaged someone elses property, and despite being taken before a judge and jury for committing a crime in this country, you get found not guilty.

I wont admit strong feelings either way on the political motive behind the crime, but, the fact that they got away with the damage they did amazes me. Piss poor crown prosecution.

[wbks]

And MisterD, why should your taxes pay for the American war machine, anyway?His taxes being used to fulfill NZ's obligation to work with the USA... You know better than to think NZ really is "independent", right?


Absolutely unfuckingbelieveable...the cause damage worth millions of dollars, which my tax has to fix, admit to it and are found not guilty? How exactly does that work?Pic a court case... Any case; now look at public opinion... Pick anything from a polar opposite to a piss weak excuse for "justice" and you've got a good shot of being right?

[MisterD]

And MisterD, why should your taxes pay for the American war machine, anyway?

I'd rather we didn't completely chuck away membership of the overall western security alliance thankyouverymuch. That "American war machine" guff is really tiresome...

[Skyryder]

skyrider will be over the moon.

Perhaps you will tell me why becasue I don't know. Or are you just a silly fucke r who fantaises about me in your wet dreams??


Skyryder

[JimO]

Perhaps you will tell me why becasue I don't know. Or are you just a silly fucke r who fantaises about me in your wet dreams??


Skyryder

because of your political leanings comrade

[Robert Taylor]

skyrider will be over the moon. also that cunt with the beard has his head on upside down

Im with you. Its a pity we got rid of the death penalty as all three of those morons deserve nothing less.

[SMOKEU]

Which, as you well know, is referred to as "Te Qaeda" in NZ

Now I know. I'll keep that in mind for next time.

[scumdog]

Welll.......vandals now have an 'out'!

[peasea]

Welll.......vandals now have an 'out'!

Too true. Regardless of their beliefs and however right or wrong they wrecked other people's stuff. I don't like Jap bikes so in the interests of Harley sales I can now go and burn Jappas.

Is that correct?

[oldrider]

What the bloody hell does this country have to do to get a "working" Justice system that delivers, well, "Justice"? :sick:

[peasea]

What the bloody hell does this country have to do to get a "working" Justice system that delivers, well, "Justice"? :sick:

Dunno, we've given all the muskets away.......

[Skyryder]

because of your political leanings comrade


I think you need a new outlook on life. The ERECT LOOK.

[Ixion]

I know not whether to be more surprised or pleased

[JimO]

I think you need a new outlook on life. The ERECT LOOK.

is that what you used comrade

[rainman]

That "American war machine" guff is really tiresome...

I agree, they really should stop it.

Oh wait, you meant you're happy for them to keep killing people and being very "selective" which regimes they support and which they regard as evil, you just don't want to have to THINK about it?

[rainman]

Welll.......vandals now have an 'out'!

No, I don't see how - the "greater good" defence can't easily apply to vandalism.

[firefighter]

Great news! Now I invite you all to break into any defence establishment in N.Z, vandalise something, and you will be fine. Plead ignorance and say it's for the greater good!

What a fucken joke this country is.

I actually hope the U.S, Aussie and the motherland turn their back on us. We deserve it after that ruling, in fact, throw us out of the god-damn commonwealth.

Jesus, what an embarrassing day to be a New Zealander. I'd be embarrassed if it was purely by dual citizenship.

Fucken hell.

[firefighter]

No, I don't see how - the "greater good" defence can't easily apply to vandalism.

Erm, it just did.

[Skyryder]

is that what you used comrade

????????????????????

Skyyrder

[McJim]

I vote we turn up at their houses and knock them down to recover our tax dollars.

[McJim]

No, I don't see how - the "greater good" defence can't easily apply to vandalism.

The greater good can't be used in this case either - they only got off coz they had a jury full of brain amputees.

[AllanB]

Welll.......vandals now have an 'out'!

There are a couple of local arse-holes I'd like to get some pay-back on. Maybe this is the legal out I need ............ it would certainly be 'for the greater good'

[peasea]

There are a couple of local arse-holes I'd like to get some pay-back on. Maybe this is the legal out I need ............ it would certainly be 'for the greater good'

Is one of them your mayor?

[wbks]

I agree, they really should stop it.

Oh wait, you meant you're happy for them to keep killing people and being very "selective" which regimes they support and which they regard as evil, you just don't want to have to THINK about it?
What's wrong with that? You're happy to live off the western spoils that the "american war machine" secures for us in the western world i.e petrol (this IS a "biker" site) but still like to play the hippy?

[MisterD]

Oh wait, you meant you're happy for them to keep killing people and being very "selective" which regimes they support and which they regard as evil, you just don't want to have to THINK about it?

No. I mean I'm happy that they're a friend and ally and that knee-jerk "America = bad" rubbish like we get from the likes of these twats and Keith Locke really should be called for the bullshit that it is.

[Bald Eagle]

Yet again the legal profession have made fools of the rest of us. If it wasn't such a tragic failure of common sense it would be hilarious. I sense a Tui billboard in this.

[rainman]

Erm, it just did.


I vote we turn up at their houses and knock them down to recover our tax dollars.

Um, you guys aren't very bright this morning, are you? Perhaps there may be some subtleties to this case that are escaping you.
Consider the following: "we broke a law to protect plastic to uphold a law to protect human life."


What's wrong with that? You're happy to live off the western spoils that the "american war machine" secures for us in the western world i.e petrol (this IS a "biker" site) but still like to play the hippy?

"What's wrong with that?" Jeez, your mommy brought you up wrong! Killing people for their oil is bad, mmmkay?

Actually, I'm not happy to live off the "western spoils of war", and am happy to take my share of the medicine required during the necessary adaptation that will (inevitably) happen. I spend a bit of my time actively working towards this. There is a better way than the American Nightmare.

Actually, I don't think I am a hippie, either. I don't do drugs, listen to more than just crazy psychedelic music, and have quite a boring sex life by comparison to the 60's. And I don't think you can be a hippie and have a mortgage. So if you're quite finished trying to discredit me perhaps you could argue the point?

[boostin]

There was no 'greater good' defense pleaded as far as I am aware, nor any ignorance of the law.

It was more than likely the defence from s48 of the Crimes Act, Self-defence and defence of another - Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[firefighter]

Um, you guys aren't very bright this morning, are you? Perhaps there may be some subtleties to this case that are escaping you.
Consider the following: "we broke a law to protect plastic to uphold a law to protect human life."

What a load of crap. Your as bad as my Auntie thinking that the Navy "brain washed" me during my basic training because my opinion is different to hers.

Whether you think the war was over oil or not, that is not the debate, those domes are not helping kill people, all this has done is set a precedent for more retards who believe and absorb all the conspiracy theory shit to vandalise more property.

Unless you're privvy to more info from there than I ever was whilst I served in the defence force, which I highly doubt, then I assure you it's all a load of shit, and some fuckwitt hippys (ffs did you see them?!) did some serious acts vandalism over something they could only presume, from their whacked out naiive perceptions of what's going on.

They are probably the same people calling us babykillers as we did our class 2 and 4 licence in the Unimogs and 2228's in Nelson. Like I said, naiive retards.

[rainman]

No. I mean I'm happy that they're a friend and ally and that knee-jerk "America = bad" rubbish like we get from the likes of these twats and Keith Locke really should be called for the bullshit that it is.

Agree, "America=Bad" is an oversimplification, but so is "America=Good". Maybe if they behaved themselves, it would be different, eh? The fuckers are always off picking fights they should just stay out of (and conveniently staying blind to a few that, by their standards, they should get involved in). They've barely not been fighting a war somewhere since the end of WWII.

And I still don't see why my taxes (and yours) should prop up their dodgy spying in support of their dodgy wars.

[Okey Dokey]

I hope there is a good write-up in the paper explaining the verdict. I am really suprised by it. Do you think that the judges instructions to the jury help lead or guide them towards their verdict? or was the defense team fantastic/ prosecution useless? I'm just wondering.

[firefighter]

Agree, "America=Bad" is an oversimplification, but so is "America=Good". Maybe if they behaved themselves, it would be different, eh? The fuckers are always off picking fights they should just stay out of (and conveniently staying blind to a few that, by their standards, they should get involved in). They've barely not been fighting a war somewhere since the end of WWII

True. However what was done, is what should have been done by the U.N as soon as it was discovered that Adolf Hitler was back in the form of Saddam Hussein. Same shit, different man. Do'nt forget about all that genocide.

It should have been led by the U.N, removed the animal, then reconstruction. Unfortunately all the U.N are capable of doing is writing a stern letter, or disapproving an action at a meeting. The yanks just went the wrong way about it.

[portokiwi]

This just proves to me how bad the system realy is...... I am still stunned.
It dosnt matter what the place was but the fact they were cought and they admitted to doing the crime, Cost the tax payer has to pay $$$$$$$$ to replace dome, and the system lets them off.
This is just crazy.
Hang on our taxes are going up.... Petrol is going up.... Regos are going up......
Why dosnt my pay lol.

[oldrider]

This is fast becoming one sick twisted society! :confused:

It reminds me of the rabbit plague in New Zealand! :yes:

An irrelevant pest, harmless and tolerated at first but then assuming proportions capable of destroying the country! :shifty:

What began with Quixote like "innocence", :innocent: if not soon checked, could be running the country! :shit:

They are even openly evident among us on this forum! :sick:

[Blackbird]

No. I mean I'm happy that they're a friend and ally and that knee-jerk "America = bad" rubbish like we get from the likes of these twats and Keith Locke really should be called for the bullshit that it is.

It doesn't take much effort to look back to the 70's and 80's to see the political leanings of Locke and more than a few others from that party. Less "Green", more "Red". Greens are a good vehicle for pushing Socialist ideals.

[pete376403]

True. However what was done, is what should have been done by the U.N as soon as it was discovered that Adolf Hitler was back in the form of Saddam Hussein. Same shit, different man. Do'nt forget about all that genocide.

It should have been led by the U.N, removed the animal, then reconstruction. Unfortunately all the U.N are capable of doing is writing a stern letter, or disapproving an action at a meeting. The yanks just went the wrong way about it.

Going off on a tangent here, but right up to the point of invading Kuwait (which was done with the full knowlege and apparent agreement of the US ambassador to Iraq), Saddam, although acknowleged as a Bad Guy, was Americas Bad Guy, so therefore nothing the UN wanted to do would have ever got passed becuase the US would Veto it. Once he moved on Kuwait, everything changed and the US and its allies moved in. THey perhaps should have gone all the way to Baghdad instead of halting at the Kuwait border but Bush 1 had a lot more smarts than Bush 2 and realised that taking out Saddam would only make the Iranians stronger (which it has).
There's a huge pile of history that tends to get ignored. Also, "all that genocide" - reputedly between 50, 000 and 100,000 kurds gassed (incidentally using US supplied chemicals and delivery mechanisms) - the Lancet estimates over 650,000 Iraqis of all flavours have died since the invasion of 2003. So who's genocidal now?

Anyway, back to Waiohopi.

[oldrider]

A New Zealand equivalent of this perhaps! :yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24gDcvp9Agw&feature=related

[MisterD]

...and the scariest bit:

Mr Leason, who works in a primary school, said he would "absolutely" be bringing the issue up in the classroom.
"It's not just teaching ABC and 1, 2, 3 ... it's about nurturing human beings and helping them develop attitudes of compassion."

We let idiots like this near the minds of our children?!

[Mully]

Mr Whale Oil thinks he has a new defense for his trial now;

http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2010/03/17/i-have-a-new-defense/

[MisterD]

Mr Whale Oil thinks he has a new defense for his trial now;

http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2010/03/17/i-have-a-new-defense/

He's only up in front of a mag though, not a jury...

[mashman]

Mr Leason, who works in a primary school, said he would "absolutely" be bringing the issue up in the classroom.
"It's not just teaching ABC and 1, 2, 3 ... it's about nurturing human beings and helping them develop attitudes of compassion."


I think he's right! maybe not the subject matter however... The vandals should have been prosecuted for something

Question: Do "defence" buildings have insurers? if not, that's the only way how I can see how the tax-payer would end up paying for the vandalism...

Pah! Iraq... to me it pales to Zimbabwe... but does anyone do anything about the "cleansing" going on over there? have they ever? wonder why...

[MisterD]

have they ever? wonder why...

Because the Arabs / Persians have shown an ability to actually organise a piss-up in a brewery, whereas in Zim you'd be wasting your time taking power from one lot of useless Africans and giving it to another?

[mashman]

Because the Arabs / Persians have shown an ability to actually organise a piss-up in a brewery, whereas in Zim you'd be wasting your time taking power from one lot of useless Africans and giving it to another?

I thought the whole idea was to stop dictators killing their people?

[MisterD]

I thought the whole idea was to stop dictators killing their people?

Yes but that requires giving the dictator's power to people capable of running a democracy...exhibit A: South Africa. I rest my case.

[mashman]

Yes but that requires giving the dictator's power to people capable of running a democracy...exhibit A: South Africa. I rest my case.

Fair enough... let them die then... must be their own fault...

[SPman]

They were aquitted, by a jury of their peers......

Great!

I'm glad!

[avgas]

Oi the lot of you!
Step back a bit an look at the broader perspective.
Found not guilty - they go home, we look bad.
Found guilty - given full punishment of law, which is a small fine and some PD.......we look bad
Our courts suck, we have always looked bad.
I mean in jail right now is a chinese guy that put his misses in the boot, dropped the daughter in aus and then moved to US........he was caught, brought back here and now had 3 meals and sky tv......
either way
We look bad

[rainman]

What a load of crap.
...those domes are not helping kill people...
...I assure you it's all a load of shit...


Ooh I feel much better now that you have assured me. Thanks for clearing that up for me. It's good to have someone here who even knows what happens with data gathered by a secret spy base.


Greens are a good vehicle for pushing Socialist ideals.

You say that like it's a bad thing.


Going off on a tangent here, ...So who's genocidal now?

What he said.


Because the Arabs / Persians have shown an ability to actually organise a piss-up in a brewery, whereas in Zim you'd be wasting your time taking power from one lot of useless Africans and giving it to another?

Nice. Racist too, I see.

[MisterD]

Nice. Racist too, I see.

...and you can cite a example of even borderline efficient and effective government in sub-saharan Africa can you?

This is why people get so shitty about PC nonsense, you can't even state facts without some "ist" being thrown around...

[Ferkletastic]

Godwins law by page 3. Awesome.

Next somebody will claim that Saddam and Al qeada were buddies.

[Skyryder]

Bloody hell the way some are going on this issue defies belief. So some misguided cretins destroyed some expensive fabric and jury of our fellow countrymen let them off. Yep that's right a jury found them not guilty. Some of you need to be grateful that we still have jury's of our peers.

http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2010/mar/02/1351

There's worse places than here.


skyryder

[pete376403]

Pah! Iraq... to me it pales to Zimbabwe... but does anyone do anything about the "cleansing" going on over there? have they ever? wonder why...

because there is no oil under Zimbabwe? Thought that was pretty obvious. No oil under Somalia either, so the US had nothing to gain by stopping the slaughter there.

[98tls]

Oi the lot of you!
Step back a bit an look at the broader perspective.
Found not guilty - they go home, we look bad.
Found guilty - given full punishment of law, which is a small fine and some PD.......we look bad
Our courts suck, we have always looked bad.
I mean in jail right now is a chinese guy that put his misses in the boot, dropped the daughter in aus and then moved to US........he was caught, brought back here and now had 3 meals and sky tv......
either way
We look bad
Either way We pay,the French had it sussed way back no ifs or buts walk the stairs,on ya knees and its over with no fuss,imagine the interweb space that would be saved.

[JimO]

There's worse places than here.


skyryder

true comrade true

[peasea]

Either way We pay,the French had it sussed way back no ifs or buts walk the stairs,on ya knees and its over with no fuss,imagine the interweb space that would be saved.

July 14, a day to be celebrated.

Mind you, given the propensity for kiwis to be somewhat lethargic I doubt anyone will lose their head over it.

[Robert Taylor]

The greater good can't be used in this case either - they only got off coz they had a jury full of brain amputees.

Aka communist greenies

[Robert Taylor]

Agree, "America=Bad" is an oversimplification, but so is "America=Good". Maybe if they behaved themselves, it would be different, eh? The fuckers are always off picking fights they should just stay out of (and conveniently staying blind to a few that, by their standards, they should get involved in). They've barely not been fighting a war somewhere since the end of WWII.

And I still don't see why my taxes (and yours) should prop up their dodgy spying in support of their dodgy wars.



Lets not forget that they saved us from certain aninihilation by the Japanese. Okay they are not perfect but Id rather side with them than get all cuddly with muslim sand farmers etc

[Robert Taylor]

True. However what was done, is what should have been done by the U.N as soon as it was discovered that Adolf Hitler was back in the form of Saddam Hussein. Same shit, different man. Do'nt forget about all that genocide.

It should have been led by the U.N, removed the animal, then reconstruction. Unfortunately all the U.N are capable of doing is writing a stern letter, or disapproving an action at a meeting. The yanks just went the wrong way about it.

With people like Helen Clark at the UN there is no hope

[Robert Taylor]

This just proves to me how bad the system realy is...... I am still stunned.
It dosnt matter what the place was but the fact they were cought and they admitted to doing the crime, Cost the tax payer has to pay $$$$$$$$ to replace dome, and the system lets them off.
This is just crazy.
Hang on our taxes are going up.... Petrol is going up.... Regos are going up......
Why dosnt my pay lol.

Well I hope it goes to appeal and those hippy tossers get done like a dogs dinner. Treason worthy of a death penalty, if only we still had such. Another day to live for to see those bastards go down.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Aka communist greenies


ask yourself this question:

"Would I like to be tried by a jury of people who couldnt get of jury service?"

Oh, and as for these hippies, I can see them getting off the burglary, but not the wilful damage, but whatever. Why was that thing made of PVC in the first place, and why werent appropriate measures taken to safeguard it if they didnt want retards to come along and fuck it up?

Stupid gummint doing it on the cheap again, thats the actual issue....

[Skyryder]

Well I hope it goes to appeal and those hippy tossers get done like a dogs dinner. Treason worthy of a death penalty, if only we still had such. Another day to live for to see those bastards go down.

I think treason requires a declaration of war. The realitiy is that this is just piddling stuff. i doubt very much whether they actually saved any lives as claimed. As for the terrorist name I think this does an injustice to those that have been killed and maimed byr real terrorists.

I think the real indignation of many here is not the fact that they got off per se but that those with a different political persuasion were found not guilty...............and that has pissed off some on here more than common sense should allow.


Skyryder

[paturoa]

I think you've all taken this entirely out of context.

This has nothing to do with the justification arguement or whatever.

It is no more than a example of the average intelligence of people on Juries. I've only been on one jury, and my conclusion is that average intelligence is just that. A whole lot of people who have (significantly) below average intelligence are on juries.

So a couple of retards are now being talked up as a great victory for freedom.

EXCUSE ME.

These same people that are talking it up are aso on juries ... QED

[puddytat]

You fellas need to up your meds......

[Robert Taylor]

I think treason requires a declaration of war. The realitiy is that this is just piddling stuff. i doubt very much whether they actually saved any lives as claimed. As for the terrorist name I think this does an injustice to those that have been killed and maimed byr real terrorists.

I think the real indignation of many here is not the fact that they got off per se but that those with a different political persuasion were found not guilty...............and that has pissed off some on here more than common sense should allow.


Skyryder

Inarguably they are vandals and should be made to pay for the damage in full. If they cant pay kill them.

Simple.

[Ixion]

I think treason requires a declaration of war. The realitiy is that this is just piddling stuff. i doubt very much whether they actually saved any lives as claimed. As for the terrorist name I think this does an injustice to those that have been killed and maimed byr real terrorists.

I think the real indignation of many here is not the fact that they got off per se but that those with a different political persuasion were found not guilty...............and that has pissed off some on here more than common sense should allow.


Skyryder

Not quite



Every one owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New Zealand,—
(a) Kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm to Her Majesty the Queen, or imprisons or restrains her; or
(b) Levies war against New Zealand; or
(c) Assists an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country; or
(d) Incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand; or
(e) Uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or
(f) Conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this section.


We also have some possible treason charges under the common law,and remnants of the Statute of Treasons 1359 (I think)

However waihopai is certainly not treason

[rainman]

I think the real indignation of many here is not the fact that they got off per se but that those with a different political persuasion were found not guilty...............and that has pissed off some on here more than common sense should allow.


Got it in one.

[HenryDorsetCase]

It is no more than a example of the average intelligence of people on Juries. I've only been on one jury, and my conclusion is that average intelligence is just that. A whole lot of people who have (significantly) below average intelligence are on juries.



thats my point, innit. they can't get out of it, so in my view by definition, they should be disqualfied from making the decision.

Remember, a jury found Davd B--n not guilty. QED

[Shadows]

No, I think they knew it was against the law, just that their action was towards the greater good - making it harder for the yanks to carry on fighting dubious wars and rendering people off to be tortured. A small wrong preventing a greater wrong being perpetrated against others. At least that's how I understood their explanation.

What a load of idealistic bullshit.

Nobody seems to have mentioned how many lives they may have put at risk by their actions.

Those fuckwits should be sent to pick through the debris of the next bombing of a tourist resort / tower block / crowded market for body parts. Let's see how good they feel about themselves then.

Send the fucking judge and jury along with them too.


Welll.......vandals now have an 'out'!

And murderers, rapists, armed robbers and arsonists.

"I sincerely believe that the human race is affecting the planet like a cancer. I had to take some out in order to reduce the population for the greater good."

"She was dressed provocatively in public. I raped her to teach her a lesson for the greater good because I sincerely believe that children shouldn't have their innocence lost through seeing ladies dressed that way."

"I sincerely believed that I had to rob that bank and kill the teller while I was at it in order to bb able to buy the latest hybrid car to minimise by carbon footprint for the greater good."

"I burnt down the Pak 'n Save because I sincerely believe that the availability of alcohol in supermarkets promotes underage drinking and domestic violence. It was for the greater good."

[mashman]

(b) Levies war against New Zealand


Could you then argue that the government are having a Levies war against New Zealand... ACC Levies etc... and should be tried?

[motor_mayhem]

Bloody hell the way some are going on this issue defies belief. So some misguided cretins destroyed some expensive fabric and jury of our fellow countrymen let them off. Yep that's right a jury found them not guilty. Some of you need to be grateful that we still have jury's of our peers.


Making a terrible decision like that doesn't lead me to believe they are any peers of mine. Common sense deficit perhaps?

I have no problem with people who feel like using their spare time to protest etc but when they spend my tax dollars by vandalising property or collecting the dole so they can do their protest, then they can fuck off to somewhere else. Where's their sense of social responsibilty to the people in their own country let alone anyone elses? you can't take the high moral ground if you're ripping off your own countrymen.

[rwh]

thats my point, innit. they can't get out of it, so in my view by definition, they should be disqualfied from making the decision.

Remember, a jury found Davd B--n not guilty. QED

There are of course a few of us who have a social conscience, and will accept their jury duty for the duty it is.

Richard

[Skyryder]

Making a terrible decision like that doesn't lead me to believe they are any peers of mine. Common sense deficit perhaps?

I have no problem with people who feel like using their spare time to protest etc but when they spend my tax dollars by vandalising property or collecting the dole so they can do their protest, then they can fuck off to somewhere else. Where's their sense of social responsibilty to the people in their own country let alone anyone elses? you can't take the high moral ground if you're ripping off your own countrymen.

I could stand to be corrected on this but I understand this base is operated by the Americans. No where have I seen that the NZ tax dollar has been used for any damage.

Anyone know for sure or is this top secret. Nope classified that's the new buzz word today.



Skyryder

[rainman]

Lets not forget that they saved us from certain aninihilation by the Japanese.

Doesn't mean they get a free pass on all of their misdemeanors for all eternity, at least not by my moral compass. Two wrongs not making a right, and all.


These same people that are talking it up are aso on juries ... QED

I've never been called to jury duty, as it happens... :)


There are of course a few of us who have a social conscience, and will accept their jury duty for the duty it is.

...but I'd happily do it. Good on you.

[mashman]

Who give a shit whether the tax-payer pays or not... if that's what the public think happened... then i'm sure they can dream up a nice $5 million bill to appease the people...

[Toaster]

I could stand to be corrected on this but I understand this base is operated by the Americans. No where have I seen that the NZ tax dollar has been used for any damage.

Anyone know for sure or is this top secret. Nope classified that's the new buzz word today.



Skyryder

No, not the americans. They are operated by GCSB. This is part of the NZ Intelligence community. The bases do form part of an international intelligence group called Echelon.

[Toaster]

The issue relates to the "claim of right" ingredient that needs to be present to make a defence for the actions. The lawyer was able to convince the Jury that they believed they had a lawful right to do what they did. This does not mean it was reasonable or even right.

Keep in mind this is a district court Jury case and may be subject to an appeal.

The issue I have is that it is an established fact that they remained after the incident waiting to be arrested. This to me indicates that they knew that what they did was in some way wrong or contrary to the law, REGARDLESS of their reasons to commit the offences of burglary and intentional/reckless damage. This SHOULD nullify their argument that they ever had claim of right.

I would be sorely disappointed to see this not appealled or overturned at the next level, the Court of Appeal. Keep in mind that legal precedent is only relevant to cases of very similar and materially different facts/circumstances.

Lawyers..... shoulda been one. Such a gravy train in this country.

[Robert Taylor]

Doesn't mean they get a free pass on all of their misdemeanors for all eternity, at least not by my moral compass. Two wrongs not making a right, and all.



I've never been called to jury duty, as it happens... :)



...but I'd happily do it. Good on you.

Im in no way an apologist for American misdemeanours but Id rather cosy up to them than China. We need them, fact. Even moreso since Helen bloody Clark left us defenceless, or at least showed the world we have no intent to defend ourselves. Our tax dollars should be supporting a modern RNZAF with air strike capability.

[boostin]

Lawyers..... shoulda been one. Such a gravy train in this country.

No you should not have been. At least not if your analysis in this case is anything to go by.

[Toaster]

No you should not have been. At least not if your analysis in this case is anything to go by.

A legal case is an argument/debate of two sides. If you don't agree then fine. So if you are so right how about you give the "correct" analysis?

[Jantar]

I do believe that with the "not guilty" verdict there is a far better opportunity to see justice done. Had they been found guilty they would have received a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, bee given a few hours community work and told to be on their best behaviour for the next 12 months.

Now they are likely to be sued in a civil case where the burden of proof is of a much lower standard, and between them they may very well have to find a million dollars or more to pay the cost of repairs.

[mashman]

The issue I have is that it is an established fact that they remained after the incident waiting to be arrested. This to me indicates that they knew that what they did was in some way wrong or contrary to the law, REGARDLESS of their reasons to commit the offences of burglary and intentional/reckless damage. This SHOULD nullify their argument that they ever had claim of right.


The issue I have is whether they had run away after the incident so as not to be arrested. This to me indicates that they knew that what they did was in some way wrong or contrary to the law, REGARDLESS of their reasons to commit the offences of burglary and intentional/reckless damage. This SHOULD prove their argument that they ever had claim of right.

[boostin]

A legal case is an argument/debate of two sides. If you don't agree then fine. So if you are so right how about you give the "correct" analysis?

I have never heard of any claim of right being needed to plead s48 of the Crimes Act. They only needed to convince the court they had a subjective view of the situation, which resulted in objectively reasonable actions for that situation so believed. (I have given a fairly poor explanation of the defence but I am sure you get the idea)

You got the hierarchy of the court system a little mixed up. The next appalette court is the High Court.

"Keep in mind that legal precedent is only relevant to cases of very similar and materially different facts/circumstances." - I don't really know what you mean here.

[Toaster]

I have never heard of any claim of right being needed to plead s48 of the Crimes Act. They only needed to convince the court they had a subjective view of the situation, which resulted in objectively reasonable actions for that situation so believed. (I have given a fairly poor explanation of the defence but I am sure you get the idea)

You got the hierarchy of the court system a little mixed up. The next appalette court is the High Court.

"Keep in mind that legal precedent is only relevant to cases of very similar and materially different facts/circumstances." - I don't really know what you mean here.

Yes correct it is the High Court next up the line... my oversight after a couple beers. I had the word "appeal" in my head at the time.

Claim of right is clearly there as a definition. Just because you haven't heard of something, it does not mean it doesn't exist.

The view I gave was the same as that given by a senior lawyer/spokesman from the law society as well.

[carver]

Perhaps you will tell me why becasue I don't know. Or are you just a silly fucke r who fantaises about me in your wet dreams??


Skyryder

the latter for me, and only some nights

[Toaster]

There was no 'greater good' defense pleaded as far as I am aware, nor any ignorance of the law.

It was more than likely the defence from s48 of the Crimes Act, Self-defence and defence of another - Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

This is not what is at issue at all. It formed part of the argument only. The issue of claim of right relates to the sections in the Crimes Act relating to burglary and intentional damage - there are specific requirements that need to be met in each case to prove guilt of each offence. They require the person to be found "without claim of right" in other words had no right to do what was done/be where they were/damage what they damaged.

I hope that clarifies the matter.

[boostin]

Yes correct it is the High Court next up the line... my oversight after a couple beers. I had the word "appeal" in my head at the time.

Claim of right is clearly there as a definition. Just because you haven't heard of something, it does not mean it doesn't exist.

The view I gave was the same as that given by a senior lawyer/spokesman from the law society as well.

I know what you mean about the beers, I am having to read everything a couple of times. Have you got a link or reference to the view given by the lawyer/spokesman? Would be interested in reading it.

[Toaster]

I know what you mean about the beers, I am having to read everything a couple of times. Have you got a link or reference to the view given by the lawyer/spokesman? Would be interested in reading it.

It was verbal. But do look up the offences of burglary and wilful damage in the Crimes and Summary Offences Acts. These offences, like all offences and crimes are defined and have specific "ingredients" to each one that must ALL be present for the prosecution to be successful.

Although they admitted damaging the spy base property (which means they were also charged with burglary (which is basically being somewhere without permission and committing a crime whilst there ... i.e. damaging the balloon cover (wiful/intentional damage))), the fact that they convinced the jury that they believed what they were doing was lawful and they had a right to do it (for the greater good, saving lives in Iraq, peace, a hatred for white plastic etc etc) meant that they had not met all criteria for either charge and hence the jury found them not guilty of anything.

[Toaster]

Glen Marshall, crown prosecutor may be able to send you something on this (for a fee no doubt). He was representing Earthlings for this case.

Sadly a case for a clever defence lawyer getting into the nitty gritty and bypassing what the average armchair kiwi would consider an appropriate outcome.... they were there, they broke it, they get done for it.

Sadly it wasn't that simple. Bring on the appeal!

[Skyryder]

Im in no way an apologist for American misdemeanours but Id rather cosy up to them than China. We need them, fact. Even moreso since Helen bloody Clark left us defenceless, or at least showed the world we have no intent to defend ourselves. Our tax dollars should be supporting a modern RNZAF with air strike capability.

Well on that both clarke and Key are in accord. I'd boot the Free trade Agreement with China down the shithole but i don't recall simular sentiments coming from ya self. Still i might have missed a post.

Now for the real issisue


We never had the need for a tactical strike wing. The decision to scrap the strikemasters was base on cost. To replace these aircraft was simply going to be to damn expensive. There is no imminent threat to NZ security by way of invasion in the forseeable future and as such no need for a defensive aircover. Should the need arise SAM batteries could be emplyed at a fraction of the cost and be equall effective. Air strikes in the future are likely to be carried out by pilotless planes operated by 'pilots' on the air base so to suggest that we should be putting our tax dollare in a tactical strike force shows how litle you know of both costs and the future direction of air warfare.

Just look at the costs per unit. OK not a definitive site on this and its if bit old. Janes might be better but not too sure if they give costs.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

Take a look at the Highlights.

Average unit costs exceed 100 million........................yep we can afford that alright.

Try and get something right.......................just for once.

Skyryder

[boostin]

It was verbal. But do look up the offences of burglary and wilful damage in the Crimes and Summary Offences Acts. These offences, like all offences and crimes are defined and have specific "ingredients" to each one that must ALL be present for the prosecution to be successful.

Although they admitted damaging the spy base property (which means they were also charged with burglary (which is basically being somewhere without permission and committing a crime whilst there ... i.e. damaging the balloon cover (wiful/intentional damage))), the fact that they convinced the jury that they believed what they were doing was lawful and they had a right to do it (for the greater good, saving lives in Iraq, peace, a hatred for white plastic etc etc) meant that they had not met all criteria for either charge and hence the jury found them not guilty of anything.

Thanks for that.

I have read that "Law Society criminal law sub-committee convener Jonathan Krebs said the "claim of right" was enshrined in statute law" from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3473859/Waihopai-three-verdict-may-be-appealed

I would be interested in finding out what statutes these are and the relevant sections etc.

I always thought the "Greater Good" defence was a term from the media, because when I saw some of the trial on the news one of the accused appeared to be stating a defence based on s48 of the Crimes Act.

[Toaster]

Thanks for that.

I have read that "Law Society criminal law sub-committee convener Jonathan Krebs said the "claim of right" was enshrined in statute law" from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3473859/Waihopai-three-verdict-may-be-appealed

I would be interested in finding out what statutes these are and the relevant sections etc.

I always thought the "Greater Good" defence was a term from the media, because when I saw some of the trial on the news one of the accused appeared to be stating a defence based on s48 of the Crimes Act.

Burglary is Section 231 of the Crimes Act 1961 and Intentional Damage is Section 269 of the same.

Greater good is no defence and the argument actually held no water and was ruled as irrelevant. The issue came down to their misguided or mistaken belief (in that defence) that what they did was justified. That one time mistaken belief mean't that the Jury felt they actually had a claim of right to do what they did despite it being unlawful.

Claim of right is also defined in the Crimes Act..... Section 2.

The problem is the Crown has to/had to prove that these men did not in fact actually believe what they did was right but merely hoped it was right. That has to be beyond reasonable doubt.

It was not a matter of ignorance of the law - that is clearly no defence and any monkey in pants know that.

The jury did not see that the crown had disproven the genuineness of their belief. They had to find them not guilty because of this finer point of the law.

[Toaster]

No you should not have been. At least not if your analysis in this case is anything to go by.

So, after all that do you still hold to your rather pointed comment in this post?

[Jantar]

....We never had the need for a tactical strike wing. The decision to scrap the strikemasters was base on cost. To replace these aircraft was simply going to be to damn expensive. ....
Yet the Strikemasters were replaced with Aermacchis. A much more economical aircraft to operate, and still able to be used for strike training.

The 'macchis were scrapped when they were still relatively new and had years of service left in them. the decision to scrap them could not have been based on cost as the costs of storing them, maitaining them to a saleable quality, and paying consultants to try and find buyers were higher than the operational costs. the only reason for disbanding the 'macchis was to please our chinese masters.

[boostin]

So, after all that do you still hold to your rather pointed comment in this post?

I will take that back. I was based mostly on the slip around the Court of Appeal which was explained quickly.

I am still confused (or uneducated) about the claim of right. Is it based on a mistake of law, that is not a mistake about the enactment which the offence is alleged? What was the law they were mistaken about ?

[Toaster]

I will take that back. I was based mostly on the slip around the Court of Appeal which was explained quickly.

I am still confused (or uneducated) about the claim of right. Is it based on a mistake of law, that is not a mistake about the enactment which the offence is alleged? What was the law they were mistaken about ?

In this case it related to the fact they had a belief that they were right to do what they did despite the fact that in law they are mistaken - mistaken because their actions were undoubtedly unlawful - i.e. being there without permission and damaging property to which they had no right to damage.

It is their belief that was mistaken, not anything in the law,... heck, they were wrong. BUT claim of right does not actually require it to be a lawful belief, but merely that they believed it was okay. What is important is to understand that the Crown was unable to disprove this belief which was relied on as a defence AFTER the judge discounted the common good attempted defence as no excuse.

Their belief behind their actions effectively got them off because, in the law to be found guilty in this case; they had to be shown to have done what they did WITHOUT claim of right. They said they did have a right to do it. But this will work ONLY this time and would now unlikely stand for anyone else as the issue has now been clarified for all the public to see.

I hope that helps, sorry but it is a tricky one to explain on a key board after a few.... geez I am into the wine now.....

They didn't have a right to do what they did. But they believed they did. Because they argued that they had that belief that it was right, and that this belief was not disproven to beyond any reasonable doubt, then they won.

If this had been a civil court, then the level of proof is only on the basis of a balance of probabilities. Because it is a criminal case, the defence was able to establish enough reasonable doubt that they had their belief. It was not shown that they did not to enough of a level to convict them.

Balance of probabilities means... you probably did it.

Beyond reasonable doubt is more like saying.... I am pretty damn sure you did it.

I would bet that this case is very likely to be appealled. Believe me, case I read going from the District all the way to the Privvy Council can get incredibly mind numbing and confusing because at each stage they get overrulled but for all sorts of reasons.

Years back I was in the COA for the winebox case..... man was THAT hard to concentrate on.

[McJim]

Still for all the arguments a great precedent has been set and we can go and break into peoples houses and do damage for the greater good. There is no evidence that the dishes were spying on people of any great import. In this hemisphere I severely doubt they were used for anything important. If the idiots wanted to be useful (rather than just getting their cocks sucked on TV by the TV channels) then they should go off to America and have a go at an active military establishment. New Zealand apars to have little or no law to speak of any more so I suspect we had better take the law into our own hands and tear down these hippies houses until they understand the concept of Private Property.

[boostin]

I hope that helps, sorry but it is a tricky one to explain on a key board after a few....

It does thanks. Might have to re read in the morning.

[Skyryder]

Still for all the arguments a great precedent has been set and we can go and break into peoples houses and do damage for the greater good. There is no evidence that the dishes were spying on people of any great import. In this hemisphere I severely doubt they were used for anything important. If the idiots wanted to be useful (rather than just getting their cocks sucked on TV by the TV channels) then they should go off to America and have a go at an active military establishment. New Zealand apars to have little or no law to speak of any more so I suspect we had better take the law into our own hands and tear down these hippies houses until they understand the concept of Private Property.

Distric t Courts are not bound by their own decisions.

No precedent has been set, until the Appelent Court issues a judgment.


Skyryder

[Toaster]

It does thanks. Might have to re read in the morning.

Great. I was just thinking I will probably read this in the cold light of day tomorrow and wonder what the heck I was saying! There will be a case summary published somewhere in due course. I recommend reading it and the commentary. That will likely explain it better than I ever could.

[Pixie]

Yes they have been found not guilty.But over the next 3 years they will all suffer "mysterious" accidents.And at the scene of one of these "accidents" a briefcase containing a cold meat pie and a Penthouse magazine will be found.

[scissorhands]

Good for them.

The phrase "Pavlov's dog" is often used to describe someone who merely reacts to a situation rather than using ***critical thinking***

The jury finds you a tux biscuit

[oldrider]

Good for them.

The phrase "Pavlov's dog" is often used to describe someone who merely reacts to a situation rather than using ***critical thinking***

The jury finds you a tux biscuit

And the meek shall inherit the earth..........well they will have fucked it up by then anyway, if these guys are any example of the "meek"! :mellow:

[Robert Taylor]

Well on that both clarke and Key are in accord. I'd boot the Free trade Agreement with China down the shithole but i don't recall simular sentiments coming from ya self. Still i might have missed a post.

Now for the real issisue


We never had the need for a tactical strike wing. The decision to scrap the strikemasters was base on cost. To replace these aircraft was simply going to be to damn expensive. There is no imminent threat to NZ security by way of invasion in the forseeable future and as such no need for a defensive aircover. Should the need arise SAM batteries could be emplyed at a fraction of the cost and be equall effective. Air strikes in the future are likely to be carried out by pilotless planes operated by 'pilots' on the air base so to suggest that we should be putting our tax dollare in a tactical strike force shows how litle you know of both costs and the future direction of air warfare.

Just look at the costs per unit. OK not a definitive site on this and its if bit old. Janes might be better but not too sure if they give costs.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

Take a look at the Highlights.

Average unit costs exceed 100 million........................yep we can afford that alright.

Try and get something right.......................just for once.

Skyryder

With reference to the FTA with China I dont have much empathy with it as it is costing NZers jobs. So I broadly agree with you on that.

On the fact we are not threatened well maybe not yet. But we are one of the worlds foodbowls, we have fresh water, a huge fishery zone and are a gateway to the Antarctic. To deny that we wont have a future need to have a better form of self defence and to not be in accord with our traditional allies will I think be foolhardy.

[Robert Taylor]

Yet the Strikemasters were replaced with Aermacchis. A much more economical aircraft to operate, and still able to be used for strike training.

The 'macchis were scrapped when they were still relatively new and had years of service left in them. the decision to scrap them could not have been based on cost as the costs of storing them, maitaining them to a saleable quality, and paying consultants to try and find buyers were higher than the operational costs. the only reason for disbanding the 'macchis was to please our chinese masters.

You may ( cynically ) be right on that count. Max Bradford, minister of defence in the Shipley National Govt had arranged the deal of the century on F16s to replace the ageing A4s. Only for the deal to be immediately cancelled by incoming Primemanipulator Clark, ''the great pacifist of our time''. Incidentally she was one of the protestors when the A4s arrived in NZ back in the early 70s. Its a pity the bitch wasnt assasinated before she had a chance to spread her venomous poison.

[oldrider]

You may ( cynically ) be right on that count. Max Bradford, minister of defence in the Shipley National Govt had arranged the deal of the century on F16s to replace the ageing A4s. Only for the deal to be immediately cancelled by incoming Primemanipulator Clark, ''the great pacifist of our time''. Incidentally she was one of the protestors when the A4s arrived in NZ back in the early 70s. Its a pity the bitch wasnt assasinated before she had a chance to spread her venomous poison.

So I guess you didn't like Clark then! :lol:

[rwh]

On the fact we are not threatened well maybe not yet. But we are one of the worlds foodbowls, we have fresh water, a huge fishery zone and are a gateway to the Antarctic. To deny that we wont have a future need to have a better form of self defence and to not be in accord with our traditional allies will I think be foolhardy.

The food thing I kind of agree with - though our fisheries are well connected with the rest of the pacific (the fish swim about and don't respect our boundaries), and in fact I'm not convinced we're doing any better than anyone else at preventing overfishing, so I don't think we'll have decent fish stocks for very much longer.

Richard

[scumdog]

The food thing I kind of agree with - though our fisheries are well connected with the rest of the pacific (the fish swim about and don't respect our boundaries), and in fact I'm not convinced we're doing any better than anyone else at preventing overfishing, so I don't think we'll have decent fish stocks for very much longer.

Richard

And all the 'visiting' fishermen from other countries certainly aren't helping.

[Swoop]

Even moreso since Helen bloody Clark left us defenceless, or at least showed the world we have no intent to defend ourselves.
Did you catch "Last Chance to See" on Prime, Sunday night? It was on the kakapo.
The lead-in to the story was about the simple fact that all wildlife was basically "predator free" in NZ, so the evolution of birdlife developed into flightless species (kakapo, kiwi).
The natural reaction of a kakapo, when threatened, is to remain completely still and hope that the threat goes away...

There were so many similies with the NZ defence force, now that they have been neutred by liarbour.

Even back in the '80's, the refitted HMNZS Waikato was fitted with fancy electronic gear that allowed the crew to detect incoming missiles, track them and predict when the impact would occur... but did not have the ability to stop the attack in any way, shape or form.

A lovely message to other nations.
Let's hope Australia really will come to our aid in a time of crisis. We're fucked otherwise.

[motor_mayhem]

Anyone seen this?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8AIppqNePdM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8AIppqNePdM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[specter]

Great news! Now I invite you all to break into any defence establishment in N.Z, vandalise something, and you will be fine. Plead ignorance and say it's for the greater good!

what id don't understand is this :a local "militia" broke into and damaged a NZ defense base!

if this was America and anyone entered a defense base and started breaking shit they'd all leave in a body bag!

show some balls NZ instead of being the bent over PC raped bastards you are!

[Robert Taylor]

anyone seen this?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8aippqnepdm&hl=en_us&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8aippqnepdm&hl=en_us&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

funny but true