Hammer Attacker's Sentence Aborted [Archive]

sAsLEX

28th October 2005, 20:47

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11964-4954940-300,00.html

Tom Lauaki - the man who gave new meaning to the crime road rage - still waits to learn his fate after a judge was forced to abort his sentencing.

what is this country coming to?

I am lost for words that this excuse for a human is given the chance to ruin his victims life more!

Qkchk

28th October 2005, 20:51

Scorpygirl

28th October 2005, 21:52

It's Fucken disgraceful!!! :argh:

The guy with the hammer was caught on vid for all the world to see, tried to get away with name suppression cause he claimed to be a close relative of a rugby player (YEAH RIGHT!!!!!) :whocares:

Then he admitted it all. :argh:

Now his lawyer is trying to do put the blame on the victim!! Go figure!!! :headbang:

Justice (YEAH RIGHT!!!) :dodge:

Toast

28th October 2005, 22:11

Even if the guy is a shit driver and did fail to give way or something...what the hell does the matter compared to assault?

I'm sure plenty of us here have felt the animal inside strain on its leash when someone's nearly killed us on a bike...but if we did do something, we'd obviously know that there'd be no defence for the assault committed. I really don't see how any evidence of a poor driving record will change anything here...or should...that just sends the message that violence is ok if you're pissed off enough...stupid!

laRIKin

29th October 2005, 07:52

Zed

29th October 2005, 08:09

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11964-4954940-300,00.html

what is this country coming to?

I am lost for words that this excuse for a human is given the chance to ruin his victims life more!What better reason to instigate capital punishment, even if it's just a 'once off' for this loser! Don't you know he'll do it again...:argh:

scooterboynz

29th October 2005, 08:47

this country is too PC! clear video evidence , should have been put away! end of story!

Indiana_Jones

29th October 2005, 10:24

this country is too PC! clear video evidence , should have been put away! end of story!

Welcome to Helengrad, Comrade

-Indy

scooterboynz

29th October 2005, 10:27

Welcome to Helengrad, Comrade

-Indy

unfortunatly i think you are right!

TwoSeven

29th October 2005, 10:53

VasalineWarrior

29th October 2005, 10:59

I dont think the prat had heard of excessive force. Lock him up and toss the key into the path of an oncoming steamroller

sAsLEX

29th October 2005, 11:34

If anyone actually reads the news article, you'll find that the defense lawyer tried to turn the court case into an attack on the truck driver and tried to introduce a new witness and evidence. The judge was forced to suspend the court case because of it.

I did and failed to see how this witness, who was only going to say that the driver had a history of sub standard driving, has any effect on the brutal assualt captured on camera.

Why was the judge forced to suspend the case? That is my question, she had enough evidence to convict the looser there and then, and now the courts going to drag the victim through more shit!? Not on I say.

29th October 2005, 11:34

So fucken wrong............. let the guy piss me off in MY truck.. I have a hammer in the door pocket - but I use it to open my bins...and fuckwits' heads. :argh: Now they are trying to bad-mouth the poor driver!!!
I hope you don't end up in court one day for manslaughter because you hit someone on the head with your hammer and compressed their skull causing hemoraging and death. Remember the hight of a truck seat is a ill advantage.

But that sick fuck needs to be locked up.

yungatart

29th October 2005, 11:50

Patrick

29th October 2005, 12:40

I thought the guy had been convicted already and was back in court for sentencing only..did I get it wrong again? Whatever the driver allegedly did should have no bearing on the case whatsoever.The crim is a sick violent individual who has no place in normal society. If the victim had done something to provoke the incident, it should have all come out at the original court case, not at the sentencing.

Still...took the law into his own hands, IF the truck driver did do something wrong...watch this space, it will be a media knock up about how bad the truckie was...

Put the driver out of action for maybe up to year at the latest call...for what? Following to closely? Didn't indicate lane change? So deal to him with a hammer...jeez what a loser...I guess he will still be playing mamas and papas when he gets sent away...

MacD

29th October 2005, 12:44

I thought the guy had been convicted already and was back in court for sentencing only..did I get it wrong again?

No, you didn't get it wrong. The guy actually plead guilty, and now the task of the judge is to pass sentence. Whether you like it or not the defence lawyer is only doing what you'd expect a defence lawyer to do. Introducing mitigating circumstances in order to minimise his client's sentence, just like any rider on this site would expect their lawyer to do if they were up on a dangerous driving charge for example.

If people don't like defence lawyers I could suggest any number of countries where they effectively don't exist.

Patrick

29th October 2005, 12:59

No, you didn't get it wrong. The guy actually plead guilty, and now the task of the judge is to pass sentence. Whether you like it or not the defence lawyer is only doing what you'd expect a defence lawyer to do. Introducing mitigating circumstances in order to minimise his client's sentence, just like any rider on this site would expect their lawyer to do if they were up on a dangerous driving charge for example.

If people don't like defence lawyers I could suggest any number of countries where they effectively don't exist.

NAH... he will be legal aid... on the gravy train...gets taxpayer $$$ for each appearance he makes for this arsewipe. Stretch it out for a few more appearances = more $$$ :argh:

MacD

29th October 2005, 14:38

NAH... he will be legal aid... on the gravy train...gets taxpayer $$$ for each appearance he makes for this arsewipe. Stretch it out for a few more appearances = more $$$ :argh:

And did you know that Crown prosecution lawyers are getting paid at about 1.5x the rate of the legal aid defence lawyers. Even better gravy train for them...

TwoSeven

29th October 2005, 14:47

I did and failed to see how this witness, who was only going to say that the driver had a history of sub standard driving, has any effect on the brutal assualt captured on camera.

Why was the judge forced to suspend the case? That is my question, she had enough evidence to convict the looser there and then, and now the courts going to drag the victim through more shit!? Not on I say.

The defendant claimed they were provoked. Evidence was introduced to suggest (more than reasonably) that the driver provoked the chap with the hammer. That changes what the original case was about - from someone being violently attacked for no reason), to someone trying to make someone attack them for a reason (if bizare).

I think the hammer dude is still being prosecuted (or sentenced). I'd be interested to see if charges are brought against the driver or not.

sAsLEX

29th October 2005, 15:11

The defendant claimed they were provoked. Evidence was introduced to suggest (more than reasonably) that the driver provoked the chap with the hammer. That changes what the original case was about - from someone being violently attacked for no reason), to someone trying to make someone attack them for a reason (if bizare).

I think the hammer dude is still being prosecuted (or sentenced). I'd be interested to see if charges are brought against the driver or not.

see what your saying but that is heading towards saying that if someone cuts you off its alright to grab a 2x4 and go beat them to a pulp. Provoked or not its then end result that he should be being charged with.

MacD

29th October 2005, 15:42

see what your saying but that is heading towards saying that if someone cuts you off its alright to grab a 2x4 and go beat them to a pulp. Provoked or not its then end result that he should be being charged with.

He's been charged and plead guilty! The issue is about the sentence now...

Pathos

29th October 2005, 22:30

If one was to knock him off and borrow his laywer....

spudchucka

30th October 2005, 05:58

Dafe

30th October 2005, 07:00

What about the Prisoner that died riding his Quad bike a week ago?
Yep, Prisoners in the Waikato region are out there Quad Biking.
But as well as that,
Did you know that cellphones are Mandatory in this prison. Along with their internet connections are supplied Pornographic Literature.
Thats the prison system we pay for!

avgas

30th October 2005, 07:41

Right fairs fair, anyone got a claw hammer and this guys add? Sick of the BS in NZ - Makes me fear for my life, having people out there that can beat the shit out of somedude with a hammer....walking around and still getting the benefit.
+ that truckdriver actually wants to get back to work, id rather have him in NZ then some prick that is full of shit.
If he was such a shit driver - the cops would pull his license, not make him unable to walk.

Ghost Lemur

30th October 2005, 10:27

Its just a defence ploy to ensure his "client" doesn't spend Xmas in jail. Pathetic!

Well that didn't work as he's been remanded in custody til January.

As for the comments here, I can't help but be reminded of the number of wingmirror/door kickers we have here. And of the pat on the backs they get when such threads come up.

Not saying it's in the same league as bashing a guy with a hammer, but it's still "road rage", it's still illegal (willful damage?). It has no possitives, potentially increases anti-biker sentiment.

I was abhorred to see the crap this losers lawyer pulled. And was just glad he'll be spending xmas with bubba. It doesn't matter how bad someone's driving is. Taking the law into you own hands is illegal. This fucker could have just as easily called *555 (or whatever it is), or taken down his details and laid a complaint with his employer.

My $0.02

TLDV8

30th October 2005, 10:35

This fucker could have just as easily called *555 (or whatever it is), or taken down his details and laid a complaint with his employer.

My $0.02

That might be how it is in Christchurch... the weapon of choice in South Auckland is the claw hammer,either that or most Pacific Islander's are Chippies.... Cut a PI off,they will want to bash you,they cut you off and you give them the finger,they will want to bash you... Keyword, i want to bash you anyway,that is not a slur but just how it is in most cases.... Serve the time then deportation.

Macktheknife

30th October 2005, 10:50

What better reason to instigate capital punishment, even if it's just a 'once off' for this loser! Don't you know he'll do it again...:argh:

Do you mean corporal punishment dude?
Or then again... maybe you do mean kill him for the hammer attack! lol At least that would certainly be a 'once off'! lol
Still I understand why we have to debate the previous action angle, I mean if someone has been putting up with repeated incidents of being cutoff by the same truckie 3-4 times a day for 10 years maybe a hammer attack is justified........
Tui anyone?

Beemer

30th October 2005, 11:00

As far as I can see it, the guy with the hammer had no history with the truck driver, so he had no reason to believe that he wasn't a decent, law abiding driver. Even if the truckie's driving record wasn't squeaky clean, it is no reason to be pulled from the truck and beaten with a hammer - he's lucky he wasn't killed. The fact of the matter is, everyone does dumb shit at times - pulling out and not seeing a vehicle, etc., so even if the truckie had done something to upset the other guy, the response was not appropriate. If he had blasted on the horn or followed the guy and told him what a tosser he was when he stopped, fine, but to drag him from the truck and beat the crap out of him is way beyond what a reasonable person would do.

I was under the impression that when you appeared in court they were not allowed to bring in evidence of prior crimes in case it tainted the jury - if that is true for the defendent, why should it be any different for the victim? Even if he was a shocking driver, the truckie is not on trial here, the guy with the hammer is! There aren't any mitigating factors as far as I can see, unless this particular truckie had done this kind of thing to him before.

TLDV8

30th October 2005, 11:51

The latest is someone presenting a shotgun in a road rage incident in Otahuhu :mellow:

Ixion

30th October 2005, 11:52

That might be how it is in Christchurch... the weapon of choice in South Auckland is the claw hammer,either that or most Pacific Islander's are Chippies.... Cut a PI off,they will want to bash you,they cut you off and you give them the finger,they will want to bash you... Keyword, i want to bash you anyway,that is not a slur but just how it is in most cases.... Serve the time then deportation.
Unfortunately, this is pretty much true. If someone carves me up, doesn't give way when they should etc, I usually try to have a little word with them. Which can often be quite restrained : " Hey, you should have given way back there, you could have killed me". " Oh, sorry mate yeah, I was watching that big truck " - or whatever- "Well, please watch out for bikers eh". "Yeah , will do".

Not always though. I find that Asians, when they stuff up, are usually apologetic. So it can be quite positive. White Kiwis usually try to argue that they were in fact correct and you are wrong, even to the extent of quite extraordinary "interpretations" of the law "Bikes ALWAYS have to give to cars - doncha know the rules or what".

Maoris and Pacific Islanders, however, generally turn violent and nasty. Seems to be a sort of axiomatic response to anything.

Indiana_Jones

30th October 2005, 12:01

Maoris and Pacific Islanders, however, generally turn violent and nasty. Seems to be a sort of axiomatic response to anything.

Too true :p

-Indy

Patrick

31st October 2005, 13:22

And did you know that Crown prosecution lawyers are getting paid at about 1.5x the rate of the legal aid defence lawyers. Even better gravy train for them...

Thats because they made the grade and are top rate lawyers anyhow...pay for what you get...

They also have the facts in front of them...they know the crim is guilty, just gotta prove it...cos they are "innocent until proven guilty.."

Legal Aid plays the games, fart around and get as many appearances as possible and even change the plea to guilty on the day of the trial or defended hearing when they could have done so in the 1st instance.

A burglar I caught red handed coming out of the front door of the house he just broke into with his bag of goodies over his shoulder was the perfect example. He even told me he wanted to plead guilty on the first appearance but the lawyer dragged it out "for his client..." Yeah right...

warewolf

31st October 2005, 13:47

I was under the impression that when you appeared in court they were not allowed to bring in evidence of prior crimes in case it tainted the jury

This is true in terms of determining guilt.

Once guilt is determined, then previous history is tabled and factored in to the sentencing.

In this case, I thought that the previous employer of the victim has only just recently agreed to appear in court. Possibly too late for a retrial, but he's throwing the judical process a screwball.

if that is true for the defendent, why should it be any different for the victim? Even if he was a shocking driver, the truckie is not on trial here, the guy with the hammer is! There aren't any mitigating factors as far as I can see, unless this particular truckie had done this kind of thing to him before.

FWIW, I agree. The perp in this case has no history with the victim, so the victim's prior behaviour is irrelevant.

scumdog

31st October 2005, 14:17

Well that didn't work as he's been remanded in custody til January.

As for the comments here, I can't help but be reminded of the number of wingmirror/door kickers we have here. And of the pat on the backs they get when such threads come up.

My $0.02

I agree, such short memories we have when it suits!!!!

Lou Girardin

31st October 2005, 14:52

Taking out a wing mirror is a little different to taking out a leg.

MacD

31st October 2005, 15:25

Taking out a wing mirror is a little different to taking out a leg.

Yeah, but there is a lot of underlying hypocrisy in these threads. Motorcyclists always seem to be the innocent victims of cops with vendettas, but any other offender seems to deserve lynching without trial?

judgeshock

31st October 2005, 15:30

Road rage causing damage is unacceptable by anyone as far as im concerned.
We all get pissed at stupid behaviour, however causing violence or damage to another person or their property shows a real lack of intelligence.

The attacker we are discussing should be made an example of, it is sickening to think that he even has a chance at lesser charges.

:argh:

Lou Girardin

31st October 2005, 15:56

A burglar I caught red handed coming out of the front door of the house he just broke into with his bag of goodies over his shoulder was the perfect example. He even told me he wanted to plead guilty on the first appearance but the lawyer dragged it out "for his client..." Yeah right...

Apart from your professional bias, is this not the lawyers job? They have to provide the best defence possible and if that includes waiting to see if the Police are ready to proceed at a trial, so be it.
I'm damn sure that if you were one of the Waimate speeders you would have defended the charge too.

spudchucka

31st October 2005, 19:36

Apart from your professional bias, is this not the lawyers job? They have to provide the best defence possible and if that includes waiting to see if the Police are ready to proceed at a trial, so be it.
I'm damn sure that if you were one of the Waimate speeders you would have defended the charge too.
If a case makes it beyond a status hearing or depositions of course the police are willing and ready to proceed to trial / defended hearing. Virtually all legal aid lawyers are the same, they drag it out and then on the day of the hearing they see the cops with their witnesses ready to go and they just roll over like a sick dog. Its pathetic and a total rort of the system but the lawyers have squeezed all that they can out of it by then and they don't care whether their client goes down or not, so long as they get their $$$$.

Lou Girardin

1st November 2005, 08:54

If a case makes it beyond a status hearing or depositions of course the police are willing and ready to proceed to trial / defended hearing. Virtually all legal aid lawyers are the same, they drag it out and then on the day.

Not necessarily, there's been more than a few incidents where cases have been thrown out because the Police were not prepared to proceed, even due to the cop being on leave.

spudchucka

1st November 2005, 09:01

Not necessarily, there's been more than a few incidents where cases have been thrown out because the Police were not prepared to proceed, even due to the cop being on leave.
No one is disputing that. Prosecutions have a knack of arranging hearings for when the officer in charge is either working night shift, on days off or away on leave.

If the slim hope that the cops won't be organised or turn up is all a lawyer has to work with then it is clear why they are working on the legal aid system.

Lou Girardin

1st November 2005, 12:11

I'd say it's a clever exploitation of a poor justice system. If your bosses don't want it to happen the solution is clear.

Patrick

1st November 2005, 14:52

Not necessarily, there's been more than a few incidents where cases have been thrown out because the Police were not prepared to proceed, even due to the cop being on leave.

And that has something to do with the victim because...? Legal Aiders will seek adjornments for any weak excuse and courts bend over backwards to give it to them. Prosecutions try and set a new date and get reamed by the court and usually have the case tossed. Simple leave, no problem, turn up on leave. Sometimes though, your leave takes you overseas, is planned in advance etc etc so you can't be there. I know of illness of a witness/cop and the case was tossed because they weren't there to proceed. I also know of dirtbags faxing a note to say they are ill (nomore details than that) and they get a new date just like that. System surely is stacked against us...but what can we do? Strike? Yeah right....

Patrick

1st November 2005, 14:59

Apart from your professional bias, is this not the lawyers job? They have to provide the best defence possible and if that includes waiting to see if the Police are ready to proceed at a trial, so be it.
I'm damn sure that if you were one of the Waimate speeders you would have defended the charge too.

Bias - maybe, but aren't we all for one reason or another???. Fair? Damn straight I am!!!

Waimate was something completely different... Sir Helen left them out to dry for them trying to get her to her important rugby game. Back then, how did you say "No" to the Prime Minsiter? Who would have? I know it has happened since though...and a plane was delayed as a result of the cop sticking to 99kmph and nothing more on the highway going to the airport....didn't have fog stopping it in the first place though, which is a shame...would have been a real slow trip to the next airport...hahahahaha!!!

Patrick

1st November 2005, 15:01

I'd say it's a clever exploitation of a poor justice system. If your bosses don't want it to happen the solution is clear.

We wish...Clear solution? Has nothing to do with us, its all the lawmakers, not the enforcers. It just goes into the "Too hard" basket...Solution now????

spudchucka

1st November 2005, 18:57

I'd say it's a clever exploitation of a poor justice system. If your bosses don't want it to happen the solution is clear.
Go back to beating the shit out of crims and don't charge anyone?

Lou Girardin

2nd November 2005, 07:36

We wish...Clear solution? Has nothing to do with us, its all the lawmakers, not the enforcers. It just goes into the "Too hard" basket...Solution now????

Enough staff to cover commitments.
Winnie is getting you another 1000 cops, if they can find 1000 willing to join that is.
But knowing your arse-kissing hierachy the'll put all 1000 on traffic to boost the coffers for Helen.

spudchucka

2nd November 2005, 08:08

They are going to look at recruiting school leavers apparently. That'll help lots!

TLDV8

2nd November 2005, 08:15

Enough staff to cover commitments.
Winnie is getting you another 1000 cops, if they can find 1000 willing to join that is.
But knowing your arse-kissing hierachy the'll put all 1000 on traffic to boost the coffers for Helen.

I believe they are trying to recruit from the U.S now... I would think South Auckland would be a doodle after East L.A...and also last time i looked the "Police" force was still segregated... See what happens if you call a Plod a Snake :whistle:

Colapop

2nd November 2005, 08:43

They are going to look at recruiting school leavers apparently. That'll help lots!

Yeah, sure... As mikey can testify in the $1300 fines thread, most kids of that age have no idea how bad "really bad" is. Oh wait I can see it now...
"And in the news today;
John Gillies, police officer stabbing rapist gang member, was taken into custody for a minor traffic violation by 2 junior oficers. When questioned why he didn't resist arrest he replied "I thought they'd be too much for me to handle".
In other news the labour government has dropped all petrol excise on fuel for motorcyclists.

Makes me think of Tui for some reason....... <_<

Lou Girardin

2nd November 2005, 10:31

They are going to look at recruiting school leavers apparently. That'll help lots!

Nice, fresh, blank minds just perfect for indoctrination. Speed bad - Fines good.

Patrick

2nd November 2005, 14:07

Enough staff to cover commitments.
Winnie is getting you another 1000 cops, if they can find 1000 willing to join that is.
But knowing your arse-kissing hierachy the'll put all 1000 on traffic to boost the coffers for Helen.

That was Winnies election ploy... kick the "More Police" football just before the election...they all like doing that one... Wait and see it happen... OH NO...A TUI MOMENT... :argh:

Probably give us none for a year, loose 1000 though resignations or better job offers, stress, whatever, then give a few hundred for the next few years...

One step forward, two backward...same old, same old...

Lou Girardin

2nd November 2005, 14:53

They have a out, they'll just say they can't find a 1000 cops to join.
Banks used the last 900 trained ticket writers.

inlinefour

2nd November 2005, 17:35

lets shove the hammer down his throat

Lou Girardin

3rd November 2005, 10:45

lets shove the hammer down his throat

Up his butt - head first.

scumdog

4th November 2005, 06:14

They have a out, they'll just say they can't find a 1000 cops to join.
Banks used the last 900 trained ticket writers.

Let's beat them at their game - let's all drive/ride to the letter of the law THEN those 1,000 extra will be free to "fight crime" :shit: