And it goes on and on and on.

[SPman]

And it goes on and on and on.........
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10360295

All rights, no responsibilities........

[SuperDave]

What a crock of shit. How does this kinda crap even stand up in the eyes of the cops? I don't fucken get it.

[miSTa]

+1

That is just so wrong... :angry2:

[John Banks]

Here's a question you should ask before you start ranting... did the article actually say the youths were the ones who stole the DVD player, or did the guy just bundle the first likely suspects into his car? Have you considered that maybe they didn't steal the DVD player?

[Virago]

Actually it surprised me that the pensioners who caught and tied up a burglar a few days ago aren't facing charges....:wacko:

[Sniper]

What the hell...............

[Skyryder]

Now if they had the DVD player in their possesion this may be a different story.


From what I've read it is most probable that the 'victim' apprehended those responsible................but here's the rub guys. Next time you're having a pee behind a tree, in an alleyway or wherever what would be your attitude if someone coshes you over the head, trundeles you up and takes you down to the local slammer.........................the moral of the story is keep the cops out of it and deal with it on your own.

Skyryder

[ZorsT]

Police said they could not comment because the case was before the court.

poorest excuse ever

[Marmoot]

The person deserved every charges he gets because he neglected to do a critical thing.

Where the circumstances involves involuntary cooperation of a suspect then it is necessary to ensure the person involved will not talk back. I.e, a decent sized hammer should do the trick.

I'm sick of these PC bullshit that protects the criminal perpetrators while us victims becomes more victimized.

Plus, what thieves would say they're guilty if they know they are protected by law?

[Indiana_Jones]

------------------- criminal rights
-- victim's rights

:bash:

-Indy

[Marmoot]

:bash:


Yes, this is what I was talking about

[NC]

Should have just groin stomped them both.

[spudchucka]

The article states that they saw the two youths emerging from a nearby bush and that they recognised them.

Issues:

1: Were the juvies actually on their property or simply nearby?

2: Did they have any physical evidence that the two were the offenders or have they simply made an assumption based on their sudden emergence?

3: Were the two youths known to them? If they were, why did they need to "apprehend" them then and there? Surely they could have made inquiries at their family homes or had the police make those inquiries on their behalf.

4: The article raises the question, "When is it OK to defend your own property"?

Sections 52 - 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 covers defence of property.

Each section allows a defence for the use of force to prevent the removal (theft) of any movable thing or to prevent any person from trespassing on land or building so long as the force used is reasonable and that the person does not strike or do bodily harm to the other person.

5: Was it a "Citizens Arrest"?

Sections 35 - 36 of the Crimes Act cover powers for any person to arrest in certain circumstances.

Basically the sections state that if a person is found commiting a crime against the crimes act that is punishable by more than 3 years imprisonment or any offence against the crimes act being committed at night then they can be arrested.

The person making the arrest is subject to the sections of the crimes act covering use of force.

6: Were the youths "found" committing an offence against the crimes act?

Not according to the article. At best they were found trespassing, which is an offence against the Trespass Act 1980, not the Crimes Act 1961.

7: Did the person have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the kids were committing or had committed an offence against the crimes act?

Possibly. That could be argued. However I don't believe it would be argued successfully if the only grounds to believe they took the DVD player was based on the fact that they were found emerging from a nearby bush.

8: If it was a citizens arrest did it comply with the special conditions of section 214 of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, which covers the arrest of juvenilles without warrant?

Unlikely as the section refers only to enforcement officers and not to ordinary citizens as having the power to arrest juvies.

9: Once they apprehended these two juvies why was it necessary to bundle them into a car and take them to the police station without first making some effort to contact the police, advise them of what had happened and get advice as to how they should proceed from there?

[skidMark]

yes they ddnt know if it was them they assumed the youths were the ones....

but we arnt talking about intelligent people...

they bought the dvd player got home then went oh shit we have to buy a dvd... i mean honestly

you buy a dvd player but no dvd to put in it duhhhhhh:scratch:

[skidMark]

spud do you take your law and order books with you everywhere? :wari:

just pulling that shit outta no where.....im impressed

ahhh a cop that knows laws ohhh lordy :buggerd:

[inlinefour]

I'm sick of these PC bullshit that protects the criminal perpetrators while us victims becomes more victimized.

Plus, what thieves would say they're guilty if they know they are protected by law?

We whinge, bitch and complain yet do nothing about it as a whole society. i can't see anything changing due to this fact.

[Marmoot]

We whinge, bitch and complain yet do nothing about it as a whole society. i can't see anything changing due to this fact.

any suggestion?

I suggested petition before but my enthusiasm was successfully shot down by some members.

[Ixion]

The gubbermint have already ignored two petitions with (literally) millions of signature; for reducing the number of MPs and tougher sentences for crims.

Why suppose they would take any notice of another petition

And the vaunted fall back position, voting the government out at the next election, is meaningless since the only opposition is just as bad.

So if "democracy" has shown itself to be a crock of shit (as it always does) , what's left?

Revolution - power flows from the barrel of a gun. Join the Communists. No?

Then direct action. Get enough people and you can storm the prisons, drag out the malefactors and lynch them .No?

Protest. Lots of people waving banners and shouting slogans. Which the gubbernmint will ignore . No?

Vigilance committees. If national action won't work try doing it locally. Set up a watch and ward society. Patrol your own area. Any low life you find, catch them and deal with them yourselves. Might work. But be aware that if said lowlifes run to the police, they (the police) will be on lowlife's side not yours. So, be prepared to do gaol time for your beliefs. As good men have done before you, look at Nelson Mandela . Or almost any of our trade union leaders. No ?

Then , you just have to suck it up and live with it..

Me, I'm for revolution m'self.

[SixPackBack]

The gubbermint have already ignored two petitions with (literally) millions of signature; for reducing the number of MPs and tougher sentences for crims.

Why suppose they would take any notice of another petition

And the vaunted fall back position, voting the government out at the next election, is meaningless since the only opposition is just as bad.

So if "democracy" has shown itself to be a crock of shit (as it always does) , what's left?

Revolution - power flows from the barrel of a gun. Join the Communists. No?

Then direct action. Get enough people and you can storm the prisons, drag out the malefactors and lynch them .No?

Protest. Lots of people waving banners and shouting slogans. Which the gubbernmint will ignore . No?

Vigilance committees. If national action won't work try doing it locally. Set up a watch and ward society. Patrol your own area. Any low life you find, catch them and deal with them yourselves. Might work. But be aware that if said lowlifes run to the police, they (the police) will be on lowlife's side not yours. So, be prepared to do gaol time for your beliefs. As good men have done before you, look at Nelson Mandela . Or almost any of our trade union leaders. No ?

Then , you just have to suck it up and live with it..

Me, I'm for revolution m'self.

My choice for what its worth.

[Lou Girardin]

The burglary victim is an idiot, plain and (very) simple. Those kids could have made all sorts of allegations about what happened in the car.
What Spud said is right (God forbid).
This isn't PC at all, it's common sense. Or the lack of.

[inlinefour]

any suggestion?

I suggested petition before but my enthusiasm was successfully shot down by some members.

To be honest no, I don't have any suggestions. As a country we have done petitions to air our voices but at the govt level, they turn a deaf ear/eye. I dont think it makes much difference who is in power either. As they all seem to work to their own agendas...

[spudchucka]

but we arnt talking about intelligent people...

they bought the dvd player got home then went oh shit we have to buy a dvd... i mean honestly
Good call!

[spudchucka]

spud do you take your law and order books with you everywhere? :wari:

just pulling that shit outta no where.....im impressed

ahhh a cop that knows laws ohhh lordy :buggerd:
When you deal with shit like this everyday you tend to acquire a good working knowledge of the applicable laws. I still have to refer to statute books to check the actual wording of particular sections but some you deal with so often you just know them verbatim.

Are people still forming up the posse or have they put away their pitch forks for the time being?

[spudchucka]

What Spud said is right (God forbid)..
:eek5: WTF, I nearly feel off my chair! :spudwow:

[madboy]

As much as I'm just itching to get into slagging the pigs again... umm, er... I can't really find a case for doing so here.

If there was a little more certainty that these kids were the theiving scum, then yeah, I'd be throwing rocks at the cops. I mean, they've got a monopoly to protect, and must actively discourage anyone muscling in on their turf. But the whole deal looks a little weak to me.

Potentially an over-reacting burglary victim. There's plenty out there. I've seen road rage incidents where the "innocent" party has lost the plot, punched the driver a few times, kicked in the door. Then you end up with a middle aged otherwise respectable person getting done for assault and willy damage, and a smart-arse teenage road menace getting the last laugh.

Vigilante actions work much better when there are no witnesses.

[Marmoot]

Vigilante actions work much better when there are no witnesses.

Rep is dutifully awarded :wavey:

Witnesses must be accordingly eliminated. Point taken.