Gunshop employee charged

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

Gun Shop Employee Speaks Out Over Shooting

Newsroom Agency Story8:00am, 5th October 2006


A gun shop employee who shot a man in the Auckland suburb of Penrose in July says it would be a travesty of justice if he was prosecuted over what he calls a clear cut case of self defence.

A decision is imminent on whether charges will be laid against Greg Carvell, who says the man was advancing on him with a machete in the shop.

Mr Carvell says he has had a stressful and emotional 10 weeks waiting to hear his fate.

The police are seeking a Crown opinion before deciding whether to prosecute.

Mr Carvell's alleged attacker faces a charge of assault with intent to rob.

Will justice be done??

[Sniper]

Be a fucken sad day if he gets prosecuted

[Crasherfromwayback]

Gun Shop Employee Speaks Out Over Shooting

Newsroom Agency Story8:00am, 5th October 2006


A gun shop employee who shot a man in the Auckland suburb of Penrose in July says it would be a travesty of justice if he was prosecuted over what he calls a clear cut case of self defence.

A decision is imminent on whether charges will be laid against Greg Carvell, who says the man was advancing on him with a machete in the shop.

Mr Carvell says he has had a stressful and emotional 10 weeks waiting to hear his fate.

The police are seeking a Crown opinion before deciding whether to prosecute.

Mr Carvell's alleged attacker faces a charge of assault with intent to rob.

Will justice be done??

No. Because he didn't shoot him in the head.

[SARGE]

Greg is the Brother in law of one of the mechanics at Colemans .. ive met him a few times .. hes a really good kid and if he gets done for this .. i will kick in a few $$ for his legal defense fund


bet the douchebag that rolled in there with the machete will never do that shit again ..

i personally woulda emptied the clip into his silly ass.. thats just me though

[Sniper]

i personally woulda emptied the clip into his silly ass.. thats just me though

I wouldve loosed 2 shots, both head. You need to make sure pricks that do shit like that dont wake up to do it again.

Let me know if he needs some $$ dude.

[The_Dover]

I would have dick whipped him into submission cos I'm so much harder than you pussies.

[Swoop]

The Carvells know some damn good lawyers...

Prosecution would have a hell of a time.

[WINJA]

I Hope He Dont Get Charged , I Do How Ever Wish He Shot The Guy In The Cock Cause Thats An Injury The Scum Can Live With For The Rest Of His Life In Suffering, Good On That Guy For Shooting Him Tho Hic Courage Stopped The Theft Of Weapons Which Woulda Ended Up In The Wrong Hands

[Paul in NZ]

. hes a really good kid and if he gets done for this .. i will kick in a few $$ for his legal defense fund



Seems fair considering we have probably all contributed to the other guys through our taxes... :mad:

[FilthyLuka]

if this guy gets prosecuted, it will be a real wake up call to the injustice of our so called "justice" system. I mean, if a dude is robbing my house, and he falls over and breaks his ankle, I get sued? what the hell? Sometimes i really loose faith in the human race...

[The_Dover]

SuperTed would fuck you up Texas Pete.

[McJim]

Frankly I'm still amazed the guy was able to pull a gun from a secure place, open a box of shells, load the gun, take aim and then fire in the space of time it took the other guy to open the door and commence his advance.

Respect - he must be as skilled as Lee Harvey Oswald was in getting a rapid stream of shots from an antique rifle!

Impressive.

[LilSel]

I hope he doesnt get charged with anything!! That would just be WRONG!!
It was an interesting day here at work that day, (gun shop is 20m up the rd).:Pokey:

[Sniper]

Frankly I'm still amazed the guy was able to pull a gun from a secure place, open a box of shells, load the gun, take aim and then fire in the space of time it took the other guy to open the door and commence his advance.

Really? Its not that hard man.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that they did the cleaning and servicing of firearms on situ. If he had been there a while, I would be really dissapointed if he couldnt get the gun from a safe state to a round in the chamber in under 15 secs. Im not talking about a full mag, just a round in the spout.

[SARGE]

Really? Its not that hard man.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that they did the cleaning and servicing of firearms on situ. If he had been there a while, I would be really dissapointed if he couldnt get the gun from a safe state to a round in the chamber in under 15 secs. Im not talking about a full mag, just a round in the spout.

it was his personal weapon and i believe ( dont quote me here) that he was wearing it at the time

[Sniper]

it was his personal weapon and i believe that he was wearing it at the time

In that case then it shouldve taken 5 secs.

see I didnt quote ya either :p

[SARGE]

In that case then it shouldve taken 5 secs.

see I didnt quote ya either :p



from what i hear from Dan at Colemans.. Greg warned him 3 times and the guy kept advancing .. he was apparently wanting a gun to kill himself with .. :doh:

[Sniper]

Fuck. Well he damn near got his wish, and if Greg warned him then I see nothing wrong with how the situation panned out. I feel sorry for Greg though, being put through all this shit by the average NZ'er who would have pissd themselves after crawling into a little ball.

[The Pastor]

Unless the guy dropped his knife before he got shot.... Even then I'd say hes in the right.

[pritch]

The Carvells know some damn good lawyers...

Prosecution would have a hell of a time.

But it'd still cost between $50,000 and $100,000 to defend it, and you don't get your money back if you are found not guilty.

One of Machiavelli's items of advice to the Prince was "Be well advised." Never ask generals should you go to war, generals always answer yes to that question.

So the Police ask lawyers should they go to court.
Guess what?

[Damon]

They used to have a really big dog in that store, I guess it's not too well trained, but the guy deserved it, any one who tries to rob a gun store with only a machete needs to be taken out of the gene pool

[Hitcher]

Given the nature of this case, I suspect that it probably will go to trial. Using a firearm for self-defence is a big deal in New Zealand. But unless there are circumstances here that haven't been made public, I doubt a jury would convict.

[What?]

if this guy gets prosecuted, it will be a real wake up call to the injustice of our so called "justice" system. I mean, if a dude is robbing my house, and he falls over and breaks his ankle, I get sued? what the hell? Sometimes i really loose faith in the human race...

You reckon???
There's been plenty of other instances of people getting done (sometimes jailed) for defending themselves, their family or their property.
Two sad facts: criminals have all the rights in this country and the court system has NOTHING to do with justice.
And it isn't the human race at fault per se, just the division of it that makes the rules in this part of the world (and a few others). In some countries, the pleece actually encourage the use of firearms and booby-traps for self defense.

[SARGE]

And it isn't the human race at fault per se, just the division of it that makes the rules in this part of the world (and a few others). In some countries, the pleece actually encourage the use of firearms and booby-traps for self defense.

i heard a rumor that in SA they were selling car "Flame Thrower" kits for carjackings .. any Seffas care to confirm?


in the US.. if you are home when your house is invaded and you bust a few rounds into the perp, as long as it is a frontal shot and he falls 100% within your house ( no fingers hanging out over the door jam..) then it is a justified kill and although it WILL be investigated, it is unlikely to be prosecuted ..


if you just wound him however .. expect that the dickhead will sue you..best to go for a double tap and remove that possibility

[Sniper]

i heard a rumor that in SA they were selling car "Flame Thrower" kits for carjackings .. any Seffas care to confirm?


It was fitted to diplomatic BMWs for a while, but then thy took them off because the BG's didnt know if the perps were dead, so they shot them as well. Something about overkill :p

I know they were invented and used for trials, not sure if they are sold to the public.

EDIT: Just read, they are now banned.

[slimjim]

Frankly I'm still amazed the guy was able to pull a gun from a secure place, open a box of shells, load the gun, take aim and then fire in the space of time it took the other guy to open the door and commence his advance.

Respect - he must be as skilled as Lee Harvey Oswald was in getting a rapid stream of shots from an antique rifle!

Impressive.

:cool: yup wondered this myself, as even knowing the cost i had with keeping all my rifles in a bloody costly safe,

[Street Gerbil]

I wouldve loosed 2 shots, both head.
I'd go for kneecups. You can't really assault somebody from a wheelchair.


Let me know if he needs some $$ dude.
Yep, me too. If that's not a worthy cause, I don't know what is.

[Sniper]

I'd go for kneecups. You can't really assault somebody from a wheelchair.


Yea, but you can still steal the tax payers money. Besides, you would be helping cleaning the gene pool :p

[ManDownUnder]

Just rang the shop and they're going to make sure it's very very public if it ever goes to prosecution. I'll happily co-ordinate contributions to the defence fund if an alternate system isn't in place already.

Nigel

[SARGE]

Just rang the shop and they're going to make sure it's very very public if it ever goes to prosecution. I'll happily co-ordinate contributions to the defence fund if an alternate system isn't in place already.

Nigel

i'm good for a few bux man .. lemme know

[ManDownUnder]

i'm good for a few bux man .. lemme know

I know - and cheers. Let me know if you hear anything before I do (re him going through court/needing to defend himself).

[Sniper]

Ditto here....

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

Armed Robber Escapes Preventive Detention

Newsroom Agency Story11:44am, 6th October 2006


A serial armed robber has escaped a sentence of preventive detention, but has been told by a judge it was a "pretty close call".

Laurence Minhinnick, 47, was being sentenced for the armed robbery at a Christchurch supermarket, during which over $220,000 was taken.

His criminal history of four other armed robberies meant he was eligible for preventive detention.

The Crown submitted he would re-offend unless jailed indefinitely although Minhinnick submitted he would be too old to commit crimes when released.

In the High Court at Christchurch, Justice Graeme Pankhurst told Minhinnick an infinite jail term was not appropriate and sentenced him to 11 years jail, with a minimum term of 6.5 years.

Minhinnick gave the judge the thumbs up as he left the court, calling out "see you in six-and-a-half years".

(c) NewsRoom 2006


Excuse me - he escaped preventive detention - what does this mean? Another one that needs to be removed from the gene pool.
Crims certainly get VIP treatment in this country. The gullible judge would also believe the tripe that he will be too old at 53.5 years to re-offend?? FFS

[scumdog]

Excuse me - he escaped preventive detention - what does this mean? Another one that needs to be removed from the gene pool.
Crims certainly get VIP treatment in this country. The gullible judge would also believe the tripe that he will be too old at 53.5 years to re-offend?? FFS

I'm older than him - and I don't offend!!:lol: :innocent: :whistle:

[Swoop]

... and I don't offend!!:lol: :innocent: :whistle:

Hmm, some posts here become marginal though...:whistle: :chase:

[McJim]

I've just heard through the grapevine....allegedly he's going to be prosecuted. It's farking wrong - probably cost $60K

[ManDownUnder]

I've just heard through the grapevine....he's going to be prosecuted. It's farking wrong - probably cost $60K

Cheers - keep me posted. That's not even a dollar per licence holder...

[Virago]

I've just heard through the grapevine....allegedly he's going to be prosecuted. It's farking wrong - probably cost $60K

That sucks.:angry:

It just confirms the way the law works in NZ - there is NO right of self-defence in this country (unless of course you're a police officer).

[ManDownUnder]

That sucks.:angry:

It just confirms the way the law works in NZ - there is NO right of self-defence in this country (unless of course you're a police officer).

It also makes sure people are held accountable for their actions. I have no problem with that aspect of it. The issue I have is with him being stressed out emotionally, and financially in the meantime.

At the far end, I wonder if he'll get any compensation... I'm willing to bet he doesn't... and THAT is where's it's wrong - in my book.
MDU

[Hitcher]

That sucks.

It just confirms the way the law works in NZ - there is NO right of self-defence in this country (unless of course you're a police officer).

For fuck's sake. The guy used a firearm to shoot another guy in the gut. At face value that is a criminal act. We only know what we have read or heard in the media or through the ever-reliable "grapevine". Those may or may not be all of the relevant matters. Let the Courts decide whether he is guilty or not.

[MattRSK]

I hope he gets hung out to dry!

[Virago]

For fuck's sake. The guy used a firearm to shoot another guy in the gut. At face value that is a criminal act. We only know what we have read or heard in the media or through the ever-reliable "grapevine". Those may or may not be all of the relevant matters. Let the Courts decide whether he is guilty or not.

Which is always the police view when deciding to prosecute - "Let the courts decide".

Unfortunately, justice in this case doesn't come cheap.

It's the hypocrisy that bugs me. If a cop was in the same scenario, you could be certain no prosecution would result.

The problem is that any measure of reasonable force used in self-defence by normal citizens, will result in prosecution.

His only mistake in the eyes of the law? Not accepting his legal duty to allow himself to be hacked to bits by a machete-wielding nutter. How dare he....!

[Hitcher]

If a cop was in the same scenario, you could be certain no prosecution would result.

What a load of crap. Constable "X" was prosecuted in the Stephen Wallace murder trial. The Mokau cop was prosecuted for driving under the influence to get to a road accident scene. There are numerous other examples of Police officers being prosecuted for crimes, including capital offences.

And as for the last bit, people are allowed to use "reasonable force" to protect themselves and others. Even then, a case may go to Court for a determination as to what constitutes "reasonable".

[McJim]

Don't want to sound like a whinger but back home if the crown or police feel the need to prosecute it's on the understanding that they will reimburse you for legal costs, loss of earnings etc. if you are found to be innocent.

I'm reading between the lines here but it sounds like you don't get fully compensated for being found innocent in this country - surely this can't be true...have I really emigrated to the 3rd world? I thought Dover was just joking.

[Virago]

.....Constable "X" was prosecuted in the Stephen Wallace murder trial.....

Okay, I'm happy to be corrected here if wrong, but as I recall Constable X was not prosecuted, but the Wallace family took a civil case?

[scumdog]

Hmm, some posts here become marginal though...:whistle: :chase:

Wotchoo talkin' about Willis???:innocent:

[Hitcher]

Scots Law is considerably different to the English Law on which New Zealand's system of "justice" is based. Examples are reliance of the principles of natural justice and fairness. Murder and theft are not defined as statute offences but come under common law. The Courts themselves are run more like New Zealand Coroner's Courts, where the magistrate takes a more active part in procedings, rather than the adverserial battles between prosecution and defence seen here.

[Hitcher]

Okay, I'm happy to be corrected here if wrong, but as I recall Constable X was not prosecuted, but the Wallace family took a civil case?

In addition to the criminal case, yes you're right. The Wallace family lost their civil case.

[McJim]

Well - back home it's either civil law (person a versus person b) or criminal law (Crown versus person a) and basically the loser pays all the bills unless there's a not proven verdict (which is a nasty aspect of Scots law better left unmentioned).

So will the gun shop employee have a large bill to settle when he is found not guilty?

[Hitcher]

So will the gun shop employee have a large bill to settle when he is found not guilty?

Depends. He may have to bear his legal costs and any other costs related to this prosecution. The size of these will be determined by the length and complexity of the trial.

[Karma]

Could you then counter-claim against the crown or the criminal for the costs incurred?

[Hitcher]

You could take a civil case after the criminal trial. Lots of additional cost for no guaranteed outcome though.

[spudchucka]

In addition to the criminal case, yes you're right. The Wallace family lost their civil case.

It was still a criminal charge under the crimes act. The only difference was that the information was laid privately, not by the usual prosecuting agency, (the police).

Civil cases are those that involve disputes between parties, being accused of murder is just slightly different. I'm not sure that the Wallace family took out any sort of civil case? If they did, who was it against? The constable, the police, the Govt or somebody else?

[SlashWylde]

Just rang the shop and they're going to make sure it's very very public if it ever goes to prosecution. I'll happily co-ordinate contributions to the defence fund if an alternate system isn't in place already.

Nigel

Well I just read the Herald article saying the Police are going to charge Mr Carvel. This seems highly unjust to charge a guy who was merely attempting to defend his own life. I don't know the guy from a bar of soap, and I'm currently a poor student, but I'll donate what I can MDU. Let us know where to direct funds once you get the system set up.

-SW

[Harry33]

Yip I just read the same article, what a load of bullshit. How can they charge a man for defending himself? It makes my blood boil.

[spudchucka]

What is the charge?

[SlashWylde]

Well according to the article he is expected to be charged in the next few days with unlawful possession of a weapon. Given that the incident occurred over 16 weeks ago, and it has taken this long for the Police to produce a charge against Mr Carvel, my inherent cynicism tells me the Police needed to charge him with something but that unlawful possession of a weapon was all they could come up with.

This to me suggests they couldn't find anything unlawful with Mr Carvels actions in defending himself, but that the mechanism of his defence revealed a technical breach of the law.

Frankly this reeks. As a citizen what is one supposed to do when a deranged person threatens you and others with bodily harm and possibly death? One defends oneself in whatever manner one can, because at that point all the rules of civilised society have gone out the window, and it is a simple brutish contest of man against man.

I note in the paper today a newly wed couple near Paihia were assaulted, robbed and the mans wife was raped in front of him at gunpoint. What would have happened if the poor man had managed to wrest control of the gun and shot one or both of the perpetrators? Would he be charged with something?

Why is it that in this country defending ones life and loved ones by whatever means possible now carries with is the risk of prosecution and imprisonment?

[spudchucka]

So he hasn't actually been charged at this stage?

[SlashWylde]

No, the article says he is expected to be charged. We'll obviously have to wait and see what the outcome is.

Link to article here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410334)

[Hitcher]

I'm not sure that the Wallace family took out any sort of civil case? If they did, who was it against? The constable, the police, the Govt or somebody else?

My memory is that the Wallace family took out a civil case against Constable X. But I am not 100% sure on that.

[Crazy Steve]

If he gets charged..

Makes sense..to me..:yes:

Crazy Steve..

[JimO]

unbefuckingleviable

[MSTRS]

What did you expect. We know it's a crock of shit, but the law does suggest that it is not a good idea to shoot someone.
Where do I apply to be on the jury. Or at least get close enough to give the guy a pat on the back.

[The_Dover]

what a bunch of fuckwits.

Maybe Unkle Helen put some pressure on them so as to not upset her anti-gun, alpaca farming, vagitarian dole bludgers.

[Postie]

NZ justice. Fantastic. I love this bit

Police said today they would charge the man with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes.

So a nutcase coming at you with a machete doesn't give you the right to defend your self. Fucking bullshit.

[ManDownUnder]

With any luck this will turn into a test case... and with enough support we can influence that (i.e. we give the guy enough $$$, he gets a great lawyer that can raise the lid on it)

[Toaster]

what a bunch of fuckwits.

Maybe Unkle Helen put some pressure on them so as to not upset her anti-gun, alpaca farming, vagitarian dole bludgers.

Agreed, I'm sick of this crap. Poor bugger was defending himself but that counts for shit if you are a victim. Helengrade needs to go. She has her social engineering finger in everything.... so much for democracy.

[limbimtimwim]

Consider it like this:

The police need to apply the law in a uniform fashion. If said gun shop owner pleads not guilty, it goes to trial.

Would you convict him?

Probably not.

Would the judge give him a slap on the wrist sentence if found guity? Probably.

Would the crown appeal a small sentence? Probably not.

Also, the guy with the machete will be found guity of assault (Or attempted assault HA HA) and that will probably help the 'self defence' defence.

[Toaster]

Hopefully it'll be like the other recent cases where police had to charge cops that rightly got off their charges in court - drink driver cop went to fatal crash and also the cops driving the motorcade.

It's always the same issue... it's for the courts to decide as an independent body, not the cops.

[limbimtimwim]

With any luck this will turn into a test case... and with enough support we can influence that (i.e. we give the guy enough $$$, he gets a great lawyer that can raise the lid on it)Aye, good point.

But I think we've had this sort of thing before. Farmer shooting (at?) theives. I think they were acquitted.

Gah, can't remember.

[Toaster]

Consider it like this:

The police need to apply the law in a uniform fashion. If said gun shop owner pleads not guilty, it goes to trial.

Would you convict him?

Probably not.

Would the judge give him a slap on the wrist sentence if found guity? Probably.

Would the crown appeal a small sentence? Probably not.

Also, the guy with the machete will be found guity of assault (Or attempted assault HA HA) and that will probably help the 'self defence' defence.

Agreed. Good summary.

[sAsLEX]

Police said today they would charge the man with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes.



Fuck pretty hard to own a gunstore now aint it.

[idb]

That's the system but I'm not sure where Helen Clark comes into it.
The guy'll have to spend $50,000 and then be acquitted.
The other bloke'll get legal aid.





That's what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

[jrandom]

You're all going off half-cocked, guys. Shut up and read the news (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3859707a10,00.html) carefully.

The shop owner is not being charged with an offense relating to actually shooting the guy. This is a most important point, IMHO, and indicates that the Police do not see a prima facie case for viewing the shooting itself as anything other than justifiable self-defense.

"Possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purpose", though, means that Greg Carvell had that pistol somewhere he shouldn't have, in a state it shouldn't have been in.

Currently, yes, the law doesn't allow shop owners to carry loaded pistols, or stash them within reach. We all saw this coming, though, didn't we? No way could Greg have had that pistol in a legal storage configuration and still managed to load and fire it in time to stop the intruder.

If you don't like our laws relating to firearms storage, write to the NZ Harold and your MP with a succinct and meaningful argument against them.

In the meantime, though, applaud our Police for their careful evaluation of a difficult situation and impartial application of the law.

[sAsLEX]

The police need to apply the law in a uniform fashion.


Yip waste resources charging the innocent rather than chasing real criminals....

[McJim]

I'm off to find out where I can donate my $ - probably there's a gun shop owners of New Zealand thing online that will accept donations - alternatively I'll ask the fella for his bank account details.

The travesty is the fact that he will probably be found not guilty but still have to fork out cash for a successful defence.

He didn't HAVE to wing the fella running at him - he could have easily shot the bastard in the face...but he chose not to.

[RabidTraNZiT]

So a nutcase coming at you with a machete doesn't give you the right to defend your self. Fucking bullshit.

I guess you're supposed to ask Helen if you can borrow her strap-on to clip him round the ear with. :sick:

The egg with the machete was trying to commit suicide FFS, how can the shop owner get charged with any wrong-doing?

When the dykes in the Beehive stop us cleaning the scum out of the gene pool it's a sorry state of affairs IMO!

[Toaster]

Yep.... poor bugger should get acquitted based on the facts todate.... keeping in mind none of us were there and we don't know the whole facts.

Should be self defence - the same defence used by police when they have to slot someone with a 9mm. Fearing death or GBH of self or another person.

The issue may be the level of force used and how the threat is portrayed in court by the lawyer representing scumbag he shot (i.e. the crown in this case... how ironic).

[Ixion]

Consider it like this:

The police need to apply the law in a uniform fashion. If said gun shop owner pleads not guilty, it goes to trial.

Would you convict him?

Probably not.

Would the judge give him a slap on the wrist sentence if found guity? Probably.

Would the crown appeal a small sentence? Probably not.

Also, the guy with the machete will be found guity of assault (Or attempted assault HA HA) and that will probably help the 'self defence' defence.

There is no such thing as a "small sentence" in these cases. Even if he is found not guilty (as will almost certainly be the case) his life is ruined. His defence will cost him at least $100,000. And even having been charged , despite being found not guilty, can prevent him being able to hold his job.

It stinks. The cops do this all the time, it is just vindictivness.

And the argument about "being up to the courts to decide" is utter crap. The police make decisions not to prosecute all the time: remember Helen and the forged painting? And I didn't hear the police saying "it's up to the courts" when Constable Abbot was charged. So, will we see every cop who Tasers someone being charged in future, because "it's up to the courts to decide".

The cops know they can't get a conviction, but they just charge anyone who defends themselves out of sheer spitefullness.

Only thing you can do if you find yourself in this position, the victim of some thug, is follow the Kahui principle. Say nothing whatsoever to the police and IMMEDIATELY get a lawyer. because no matter how innocent you are, NZ Police policy is always to clobber the victim.

[Toaster]

yeah but that 'scum' are the stupid buggers that vote for them... because they get benefits handouts for sitting at home doing drugs and drinking all day.... as they are not mentally or physically able to work, poor wee things.

[Mr Skid]

You're all going off half-cocked, guys. Shut up and read the news (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3859707a10,00.html) carefully.I have a sturdy brick wall here, once you've finished with these heavyweights..

[Toaster]

I need a beer.......:Punk:

[Toaster]

Im always half cocked.

[idb]

I guess you're supposed to ask Helen if you can borrow her strap-on to clip him round the ear with. :sick:

The egg with the machete was trying to commit suicide FFS, how can the shop owner get charged with any wrong-doing?

When the dykes in the Beehive stop us cleaning the scum out of the gene pool it's a sorry state of affairs IMO!

Well now I'm just confused!
What have the Prime Minister's private sexual practices or lesbians in parliament got to do with this?

[Toaster]

You're all going off half-cocked, guys. Shut up and read the news (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3859707a10,00.html) carefully.

The shop owner is not being charged with an offense relating to actually shooting the guy. This is a most important point, IMHO, and indicates that the Police do not see a prima facie case for viewing the shooting itself as anything other than justifiable self-defense.
.

I didn't read the news.... I'd rather rant and rave and get angry then drink beer to make me feel better.

Nice response and explanation dude.

[jrandom]

no such thing as a "small sentence" in these cases...

Bollocks.

He'll be convicted because he's guilty, ie, he kept a firearm in a naughty configuration, in a naughty place.

He'll be fined, because the range of penalties for that offense isn't really very harsh in comparison to penalties for violent crime.

He'll probably get to keep his firearms dealer's licence after giving an undertaking not to be naughty with the pistols any more.

What's the big deal? If the cops walked in and checked the premises at any stage prior to this incident, they could have charged him with the exact same offense.

I say again. The offense he has been charged with does not relate to the shooting.


cops know they can't get a conviction, but they just charge anyone who defends themselves out of sheer spitefullness...

I would have expected better from you than this ranty tripe.


self defence - the same defence used by police when they have to slot someone with a 9mm

When the cops shoot someone with their Glock, they're carrying it legally, and any potential offense relates to whether they shot the guy justifiably or not.

Greg Carvell has been charged in relation to carrying a gun illegally, not in relation to shooting someone unjustifiably. Big difference.

[McJim]

Well now I'm just confused!
What have the Prime Minister's private sexual practices or lesbians in parliament got to do with this?

Dunno but if they got good lookin' lesbians I'll pay more attention to politics!

[RabidTraNZiT]

yeah but that 'scum' are the stupid buggers that vote for them... because they get benefits handouts for sitting at home doing drugs and drinking all day.... as they are not mentally or physically able to work, poor wee things.

Fuck me, so I can actually get paid to do that shit? Where do I sign up? Do I get a bike and tyre allowance too? I'm addicted to them, honest! How about help with my speeding tickets?

The whole shituation defies belief, really, dunnit.

How about a no job - no vote policy! Ha, that would learn the Greenie mofos.

[Toaster]

Bollocks.

Greg Carvell has been charged in relation to carrying a gun illegally, not in relation to shooting someone unjustifiably. Big difference.

yep, you are correct.... but as I said ... I was reading this thread, not reading the news website, so thought the worse of the charge laid. So yes I stand corrected.

[Toaster]

Fuck me, so I can actually get paid to do that shit? Where do I sign up? Do I get a bike and tyre allowance too? I'm addicted to them, honest! How about help with my speeding tickets?

The whole shituation defies belief, really, dunnit.

How about a no job - no vote policy! Ha, that would learn the Greenie mofos.

You'd get my vote.

[Freakshow]

Bollocks.

He'll be convicted because he's guilty, ie, he kept a firearm in a naughty configuration, in a naughty place.

He'll be fined, because the range of penalties for that offense isn't really very harsh in comparison to penalties for violent crime.

He'll probably get to keep his firearms dealer's licence after giving an undertaking not to be naughty with the pistols any more.

What's the big deal? If the cops walked in and checked the premises at any stage prior to this incident, they could have charged him with the exact same offense.

I say again. The offense he has been charged with does not relate to the shooting.



I would have expected better from you than this ranty tripe.



When the cops shoot someone with their Glock, they're carrying it legally, and any potential offense relates to whether they shot the guy justifiably or not.

Greg Carvell has been charged in relation to carrying a gun illegally, not in relation to shooting someone unjustifiably. Big difference.

SO then if he goes Guilty what is the max he is in for???

[MSTRS]

Greg Carvell has been charged in relation to carrying a gun illegally, not in relation to shooting someone unjustifiably. Big difference.

So far......
You've been right tetchy lately, o fishy one. Need something?

[jrandom]

You've been right tetchy lately, o fishy one. Need something?

I could really use a joint and a shag right about now.

You volunteering?

[RabidTraNZiT]

Well now I'm just confused!
What have the Prime Minister's private sexual practices or lesbians in parliament got to do with this?

Not that there is anything wrong with lesbians, some of my favorite fantasies feature lesbians. Just not Helen Clark!

There is a certain group of lefty man-haters who hold the balance of power in NZ at the moment, and they seem to be seeking to make all men pay for the sins of a few. Anything remotely 'fun' gets banned as anti-social.

Most of NZ should be over the PC shit by now, but unfortunately we don't seem to be.

[limbimtimwim]

You're all going off half-cocked, guys. Shut up and read the news (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3859707a10,00.html) carefully.Yes, quite right. My bad.

[MisterD]

The police make decisions not to prosecute all the time: remember Helen and the forged painting?

Or more recently the $800,000 the labour party ripped us for for, and in that instance the plod found a prima facie case.....this guy's white, male and has a few bob in his pocket therefore he's fair game. Sad.

[MSTRS]

I could really use a joint and a shag right about now.

You volunteering?

Dover is closer AND he's not fussy...

[jrandom]

SO then if he goes Guilty what is the max he is in for???

Up to $5,000 and/or up to 4 years imprisonment, max. Bear in mind that all sorts of offenses carry those sort of maximums, and you'll never see them imposed.

Arms Act 1983, section 45

Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on [conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000] or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—

(a)Carries; or

(b)Is in possession of—

any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive.

(2)In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) of this section in which it is proved that the defendant was carrying or in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive, as the case may require, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, [and sufficient purpose] shall lie on the defendant.

[RabidTraNZiT]

So in reality what we are saying, is that the section of the law that is fucked in this instance is that self-defence is not a lawful excuse.

We all know that self-defence should be a perfectly acceptable legal excuse, and we hope that the juries will see it as such, if we are unlucky enough to be in a similar situation. The media in general, as we well know, hates guns even more than they hate motorcycles, so they are always out to stir up trouble.

The fact remains though, that if you live in a democracy, you should be allowed to defend yourself, and be afforded the protection of the law to do it. Hope the guy gets a good jury.

[Toaster]

The cops don't charge out of spitefulness.... they have a job to uphold the law and charge people based on the evidence for each complaint or case before them. The criminal/arms/drug/offences/traffic laws in NZ are wideranging and cover all sorts of things that we often don't even realise we are subject to (not that ignore is a defence).

They have a job to do and so do the courts. Given the circumstances it seems hard on the guy to charge him, given that he is in possession of a firearm inside a firearm store. I guess its a matter of the nature of that possession that required that charge to be laid.... I dunno. Maybe good case law will come out of it.

[Clivoris]

:gob: I'm impressed. This thread seems to be running contrary to the normal practice of shit-flinging from twenty digital paces. It's great to see arguments being raised and considered. Shit, I think I'll have a joint and a shag to help manage the shock. Does Dover have any relatives in Wellington? By the way, you's making good sense Fishy.

[jrandom]

self-defence is not a lawful excuse...

You're quite right. Self-defense is not a lawful reason to carry a firearm in NZ, and the law is that way by design. Put the question to a referendum, and I suspect you'd get a strong mandate to keep the law the way it is.

So shut your fool mouth about the law being 'fucked up'. You're not making any rational arguments against the current situation.

NZ law does not allow people to 'go forth armed' precisely because the general disarmament of the populace and the consequent easing of the load on our hospital emergency rooms every Saturday night is arguably worth the occasional mismatch of force between a criminal aggressor and his victim.

But give me no shit about oppressive governments taking over. We still have one of the highest rates of legal firearms ownership in the world, and I'm sure that in the gravest extreme, your average NZ citizen would not hesitate to 'repurpose' his Remington 7400.


given that he is in possession of a firearm inside a firearm store...

If he had the pistol out to show it to a customer interested in (legally) purchasing it, well, heck, that's a pretty good defense. We may well yet find that that was the case!

However, firearms dealers waving loaded pistols around and/or stashing them in their pockets, just because they were, you know, there, is not such a hot defense.

[scumdog]

Good to see this thread has a reasonable amount of debate versus the large amount of rant this sort of topic seems to engender.

The guy will probably be charged but (fingers crossed) it will be dismissed, hopefully without the poor dude being too much out of pocket.

The good thing is the benchmark for shooting in self defence will be a little lower.

[James Deuce]

Fish is 100% correct in his assessment and most of you guys are insisting on refusing to see the points of law being raised and examined in public.

The chap should not have had a loaded sidearm in a fully assembled, easily accessible, LOADED state. It is against the law. Handguns are controlled very tightly in NZ with very good reason, and ultimately a very good result - very few deaths (almost none) by handguns in NZ

If' he'd shot the guy with a rifle or shotgun at that range he probably would have killed him. Hobson's choice for the poor bugger, and I'm not saying I don't disagree wholly with the course of action he took, but he revealed that he had a locked and loaded handgun under the counter by doing it.

[Toaster]

Do we know for a fact that it was pre-loaded and waiting use under the counter, or was it loaded as part of a customer demo when the numpty with the machete came into the store?

[scumdog]

Maybe Jim2, he had a loaded magazine 'stashed' somewhere that would in an emergency be capable of fitting a certain one or two stategicly placed pistols in the show room display cabinet??

I know if I worked in a place like that I would do it.:yes:

[jrandom]

I'm going to tell a little story about guns and self-defense here, that I've told on this forum before.

When I got my firearms licence, the copper who visited to interview me and Mrs Fish commented on the subject.

He made the point that keeping a loaded gun in the house for self-defense was illegal.

However, should an armed intruder burst in while I was, say, cleaning a rifle, and should I manage to pop a cap in his arse using what I legitimately had at hand, I would have committed no offense.

All the cops that I know would undoubtedly be quite happy to see such a justification clearly presented in such a situation. Of course, if I happened to be under the eyes of several third parties when I pulled a loaded pistol from my pocket to shoot an aggressor, such a justification would be more or less unavailable.

The law's a bit awkward, but I'd like to see someone come up with something better.

[jrandom]

Maybe Jim2, he had a loaded magazine 'stashed' somewhere that would in an emergency be capable of fitting a certain one or two stategicly placed pistols in the show room display cabinet??

A friend of mine who's known the Carvells for a while as a regular customer commented on the day this happened that it had always been 'well known' that any criminal attempting to hold up SAI would be quickly dealt with in such a manner.

So there you go. My heart goes out to them, and I would probably have done the same thing.

But it's still illegal, and I would have stashed that mag in the sure knowledge of what I'd have to put up with if I ever used it.

I view the daily carry of my Chinook in the same light. If I ever need to use it, I'm fully aware that the next time I see it, it'll be inside an evidence bag.

And that's the way I like it.

[scumdog]

A friend of mine who's known the Carvells for a while as a regular customer commented on the day this happened that it had always been 'well known' that any criminal attempting to hold up SAI would be quickly dealt with in such a manner.

So there you go. My heart goes out to them, and I would probably have done the same thing.

But it's still illegal, and I would have stashed that mag in the sure knowledge of what I'd have to put up with if I ever used it.

I view the daily carry of my Chinook in the same light. If I ever need to use it, I'm fully aware that the next time I see it, it'll be inside an evidence bag.

And that's the way I like it.

I'm with you Fish, if the wrong dude enters my place (watch it Dangerous, Mr Sensible and some other of you Christchurch rabble) I would take my chances with the jury.
No, I DON'T have a loaded gun beside my bed - but then only the intruder will know what I DO have - and too late for him "If he ain't down he ain't done":yes:

[Bend-it]

So isn't there something wrong when the law prohibits us from doing something we all think is right, even the cops among us?

So self defence is okay, but being ready to defend yourself isn't? What kinda bollocks is that? It's like saying you can take a piss anytime you like, but don't you undo your fly!

What was the alternative of NOT having the gun ready? He would have been chopped up, AND have guns stolen.

So, Mr Prosecutor person, which would you prefer? Nutter shot, everyone else happy, or law-abiding guy copped up into small bits and ANOTHER firearm/s out there in the lose?

Mr Carvelle should be given a medal for gallantry and initiative in the face of danger! In fact, I propose we make up a KB medal for him and send it to them!

Bloody tree-hugging seal-kissing hippies...

[jrandom]

So isn't there something wrong when the law prohibits us from doing something we all think is right...?

Sure is.

We're a bit of a selective subset of society here on KB, so you can't draw too many generalised conclusions from this thread.

But if you want to start a petition for a referendum on whether the legal position vis-a-vis carrying (or at least storing ready-for-use at home) weapons for self-defence should be changed, I'll sign it.

[Bend-it]

Yeah, I don't think carrying's a good idea at all, but storing for use at home definitely has its merits...

[jrandom]

storing for use at home...

One word, though. Kids.

Now, my guys (3 and 4), I'd never ever leave an unsafe gun around, but I suspect they'd be safe enough if they stumbled across one. They've both put a round through the 30-30, and they've both seen up close what rifle bullets do to game animals.

They now give firearms a very wide berth.

When it boils down to it, though, they just don't have the necessary judgment, and they won't have for another 15 years at least. As soon as you legalise loaded firearms around the house, you just know that somewhere, sooner or later, a child is going to die that wouldn't have otherwise.

I'm not saying that's a final argument against it, but it gives one pause for thought, doesn't it?

[scumdog]

So isn't there something wrong when the law prohibits us from doing something we all think is right, even the cops among us?

So self defence is okay, but being ready to defend yourself isn't? What kinda bollocks is that? It's like saying you can take a piss anytime you like, but don't you undo your fly!

What was the alternative of NOT having the gun ready? He would have been chopped up, AND have guns stolen.

So, Mr Prosecutor person, which would you prefer? Nutter shot, everyone else happy, or law-abiding guy copped up into small bits and ANOTHER firearm/s out there in the lose?

Mr Carvelle should be given a medal for gallantry and initiative in the face of danger! In fact, I propose we make up a KB medal for him and send it to them!

Bloody tree-hugging seal-kissing hippies...

Ah c'mon Mr Bendit, chill out dude, there's a fair bit of Chicken-Little attitude in what you're saying.
Don't jump to conclusions eh?

[jtzzr]

He`s guilty ,the guy shot a man whilst defending himself , there`s no excuse . Has anyone thought of the guy that got shot , he probably can`t go out in public anymore because of this "Horiffic crime against him and deserves reparation.I`m talking absolute SHIT and you all know it ,but like in a not too dissimilar thread the pc brigade and the idiotic law makers in this country have no idea how the public feel about these situations, Rant over , I wish the shop owner well.

[Clivoris]

One word, though. Kids.

When it boils down to it, though, they just don't have the necessary judgment, and they won't have for another 15 years at least. As soon as you legalise loaded firearms around the house, you just know that somewhere, sooner or later, a child is going to die that wouldn't have otherwise.

I'm not saying that's a final argument against it, but it gives one pause for thought, doesn't it?

:lol: That brings the memories flooding back. As a young man of around 15 I managed to get my hands on my Dad's 22 while he was out. As our house was being demolished at the time, a buddy and I decided it would be a bit of a laugh to put a few rounds into the house. We fired off 6-10 rounds and had a ball...until my old man got home and found the caravan parked on the other side of the house riddled with bullet holes.:gob: This was in a suburban area too. It took me a few years to work out that my life could have been quite different if that caravan hadn't been there. Young n dumb.:yes:

[MattRSK]

Yeah oh well.

[scumdog]

:lol: That brings the memories flooding back. As a young man of around 15 I managed to get my hands on my Dad's 22 while he was out. As our house was being demolished at the time, a buddy and I decided it would be a bit of a laugh to put a few rounds into the house. We fired off 6-10 rounds and had a ball...until my old man got home and found the caravan parked on the other side of the house riddled with bullet holes.:gob: This was in a suburban area too. It took me a few years to work out that my life could have been quite different if that caravan hadn't been there. Young n dumb.:yes:


THAT is why firearms education is so important.
A lot of bozos that watch too many DVDs think bullets only go as far as the first thing they hit - like a board-room table, a house wall etc - when in fact a 303 etc will go right through a whole house.

[RabidTraNZiT]

A friend of mine who's known the Carvells for a while as a regular customer commented on the day this happened that it had always been 'well known' that any criminal attempting to hold up SAI would be quickly dealt with in such a manner.


Certainly wasn't trying to wind you up, Fish, and no, I don't want to go back to the wild west justice system. Dunno how much good a referendum would be, 'cos I believe that they are not binding, and subject to govt veto. I think, however, that the numbers would be pretty close from a home protection standpoint.

At my A cat interview I was told a pretty similar thing to what you were regarding 'cleaning'. It must be semi-official, but I hope to never need to find out. If it makes any sense, I would use one to protect my wife, for myself I wouldn't bother, 'cos it wouldn't be the first kicking I had, and prolly wont be my last...

I got mugged in London in '91, got a bit of a nick on my arm from a knife. There were 2 of them, they got 100 pounds off me. Funny thing was I had about 10x that worth of camera gear in my backpack, and a photographic monopod which I clobbered one of them with. Cops were very good - the toerags were known to them, but I remain nervous of blades.

I certainly agree with you that we don't want to see any carrying of firearms - too much like the US.

Yep, that statement from the shop owner was something that I had heard/read too, and there's a chance that that fact will be used by the prosecutor to prove that there was some prior intent. As you correctly pointed out, the offence was actually having a weapon to hand.

This might very well be enough to get his D cat revoked, thereby forcing him out of work, and I think you have to agree that's wrong. Greg was not the instigator, but he will end up paying more than the perp.

BTW Fish: Chinook = biiiig chopper, am I right?

[SPman]

Bloody tree-hugging seal-kissing hippies...

You called????

[pritch]

But it's still illegal,

No it's not.

Even in this paradise for the Politically Correct you still have the right to defend your life, or the life of a family member. It's about what constitutes reasonable force. In this case the guy was armed with a machete and apparently ignored repeated warnings to stop. A non-fatal bullet wound is an admirably restrained response in the circumstances and a clear case of self defense.

Unless somebody has said something they shouldn't have, there is basically no chance of a conviction.

[one-speed]

yer whats up with the nz law totally SUCKS

[scumdog]

a photographic monopod which I clobbered one of them with. Cops were very good - the toerags were known to them, but I remain nervous of blades.

I certainly agree with you that we don't want to see any carrying of firearms - too much like the US.


BTW Fish: Chinook = biiiig chopper, am I right?
No, a northbound warm wind from the USA is what a Chinook is. And a type of salmon.

Knives are too rampant in NZ now, years ago the penalty for carrying one was increased in NZ ( 202b of the C.A. for you pedants) but now the problem rears up again.
Watcha goin' to do???

[SlashWylde]

A friend of mine who's known the Carvells for a while as a regular customer commented on the day this happened that it had always been 'well known' that any criminal attempting to hold up SAI would be quickly dealt with in such a manner.

So there you go. My heart goes out to them, and I would probably have done the same thing.

But it's still illegal, and I would have stashed that mag in the sure knowledge of what I'd have to put up with if I ever used it.

I view the daily carry of my Chinook in the same light. If I ever need to use it, I'm fully aware that the next time I see it, it'll be inside an evidence bag.

And that's the way I like it.

You make good arguments Mr Fish. Thanks for injecting some knowledge and rationality in to the discussion. I think I now agree with the actions of the Police in charging Mr Carvel, if indeed they are charging him as they would any other member of the public for illegal possession of a weapon, and not as a last resort to lay a charge against a man to fulfill some larger political agenda.

Having said that, I will still be donating what I can to help Mr Carvel defend his case. This is going to cost him a lot of money and will be a huge strain on his family. I applaud him for making an obviously difficult and unenviable decision in the knowledge that there would be severe repercussions, and successfully not killing the man who threatened him.

[SlashWylde]

This might very well be enough to get his D cat revoked, thereby forcing him out of work, and I think you have to agree that's wrong. Greg was not the instigator, but he will end up paying more than the perp.

That is the core of the matter. The perp will have legal aid but will hopefully go to prison, whereas the cost to the Carvels will be high and have long lasting effects.

[davereid]

Like the sign on the wall of my shop says... SHOPLIFTERS... Dont worry, we won't call the police.. it will be delt with right here...

Mr Carvell, I hope I am on your jury, everyone has the right to self defence, and no government can take it from a free man.

Arguements about using a firearm for self defence are rubbish. As the dutch tourists have learned arms controls only control the good, not the criminal.

The police will continue to trumpet the cause thats guns are only for criminal (oops and police use).. yet every year armed americans experience a reduction in violent crime, while the disarmed british, aussies and kiwis manage growth.

Good luck Mr. Carvell and all those who will defend their family, peace and prosperity.

[Lou Girardin]

If the Police can decide to not charge Heather Simpson for electoral offences because it's "in the public interest to NOT do so", then it's in the public interest to not charge Carvell and send a message to thieving scumbags that burglary is a high-risk occupation.
Typical gutless arse-covering behaviour.

[jrandom]

No it's not... right to defend your life... reasonable force.

Read the fucking thread, bozo.

[steams gently out ears]

Jesus H. Christ. I suspect I'd make a bad schoolteacher. The bottom quarter of the bell curve in my class would end up covered in bruises.

[jrandom]

I remain nervous of blades... Chinook = biiiig chopper, am I right?

Like Scumdog said, it's a type of salmon.

It's spent so long in my pocket that the smell alone floors potential muggers at a hundred paces.

[jrandom]

Watcha goin' to do???

"That's not a knife..."

"This (http://spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=22) is a knife."

[scumdog]

If the Police can decide to not charge Heather Simpson for electoral offences because it's "in the public interest to NOT do so", then it's in the public interest to not charge Carvell and send a message to thieving scumbags that burglary is a high-risk occupation.
Typical gutless arse-covering behaviour.

I'm with Lou, 9 shots in a 1911 Colt mag? - so he only used ONE?? Then he has more self resptraint than I. The mag would have been down to 3 shots before I decided I had used enough bullets for the job:Punk:

[Big Dog]

Consider it like this:
the guy with the machete will be found guity of assault (Or attempted assault HA HA) and that will probably help the 'self defence' defence.
Imagine the case of bullying this stupid F&*k is going to get in the donut resizing factory and maybe there is some justice.

[Swoop]

I'm with Lou, 9 shots in a 1911 Colt mag? - so he only used ONE?? Then he has more self resptraint than I. The mag would have been down to 3 shots before I decided I had used enough bullets for the job:Punk:
Can someone please post a link to where there is some evidence of what the circumstances in the shop were?
So far the "stuff" article just states it was a .45cal. True, or a media misprint?
Was the gun in a loaded state, or was it unloaded and there was a loaded magazine in the vicinity somwhere?

[diggydog]

whats the matter with nz were is our minds, the guy brings a fucking weapon and the owner can't protect himself, so he got shot, maybe he should of died,

[Dai]

Whats the bet its a setup

I was talking to another gundealer the other day and he was telling me that a number of years ago the Auckland Police took the father, Ray, to court over some rifles he imported. He fought them and won the case.

We all know that the police have long memories and what is the bet that someone higher up is trying to make a name for themselves by getting back at the father through the son.

From what I heard the Police took this current case to Wellington and it was dropped.

I bet it is the Auckland Police's own prosecution department that is trying this case not the jJustice Dept in Wellington.

Another case of dictatorial rule by those who are supposed to serve the public.

[scumdog]

Whats the bet its a setup

I was talking to another gundealer the other day and he was telling me that a number of years ago the Auckland Police took the father, Ray, to court over some rifles he imported. He fought them and won the case.

We all know that the police have long memories and what is the bet that someone higher up is trying to make a name for themselves by getting back at the father through the son.

From what I heard the Police took this current case to Wellington and it was dropped.

I bet it is the Auckland Police's own prosecution department that is trying this case not the jJustice Dept in Wellington.

Another case of dictatorial rule by those who are supposed to serve the public.


The paranoia will eat you up.

[Pixie]

The cops know they can't get a conviction, but they just charge anyone who defends themselves out of sheer spitefullness.

Only thing you can do if you find yourself in this position, the victim of some thug, is follow the Kahui principle. Say nothing whatsoever to the police and IMMEDIATELY get a lawyer. because no matter how innocent you are, NZ Police policy is always to clobber the victim.

It's worse than pure vindictiveness.It's a defactor penalty-the cost of defence.
The Kahui principle only works if you have the correct depth of tan

[Finn]

The Kahui principle only works if you have the correct depth of tan

Either that or you need to be a maori.

[Swoop]

...a number of years ago the Auckland Police took the father, Ray, to court over some rifles he imported. He fought them and won the case.
Totally correct statement.
Ray also has some damn good lawyers on call.

[spudchucka]

Yep.... poor bugger should get acquitted based on the facts todate.... keeping in mind none of us were there and we don't know the whole facts.

Should be self defence - the same defence used by police when they have to slot someone with a 9mm. Fearing death or GBH of self or another person.

The issue may be the level of force used and how the threat is portrayed in court by the lawyer representing scumbag he shot (i.e. the crown in this case... how ironic).
He's charged with unlawful possession, he isn't charged with an offence actually related to the sooting itself, just the possession of the weapon.

[spudchucka]

So a nutcase coming at you with a machete doesn't give you the right to defend your self. Fucking bullshit.

Of course it does. He hasn't been charged with assault, attempted murder or any other such offence, which indicates that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Section 48 of the Crimes Act applies and therefore he isn't criminally liable for the harm caused to the machette guy.

His problem lies in explaining why he had a semi auto pistol and ammunition for it in his immediate proximity when the law requires that guns and ammo are stored separately and that stored firearms are not able to be fired.

[spudchucka]

Do we know for a fact that it was pre-loaded and waiting use under the counter, or was it loaded as part of a customer demo when the numpty with the machete came into the store?

Why would it be loaded as part of a customer demo? Was he just going to pop off acouple of rounds into the back wall to show his customer how the weapon functions?

If he was doing something like that shouldn't it be done at a range instead of the public counter of a shop?

[spudchucka]

If the Police can decide to not charge Heather Simpson for electoral offences because it's "in the public interest to NOT do so", then it's in the public interest to not charge Carvell and send a message to thieving scumbags that burglary is a high-risk occupation.
Typical gutless arse-covering behaviour.

Not charging him would send a message that its acceptable to leave loaded semi auto pistols laying around your shop, which in my mind would not be in the public interest at all.

People are losing sight of the fact that the charge he faces is not related to the actual shooting of the scum bag. It is simply a matter of a gun owner meeting his obligations under the Arms Act.

[McJim]

Not charging him would send a message that its acceptable to leave loaded semi auto pistols laying around your shop, which in my mind would not be in the public interest at all.
.

I think it was a revolver...I also think the Crown have decided to prosecute rather than it being a police decision.

But what would I know..I'm just a dirty immigrant and the village idiot to boot. :(

[crazybigal]

i think its more a case of the media twisting the story.
All we heard about was the shooting not the gun and how it was kept.


Not charging him would send a message that its acceptable to leave loaded semi auto pistols laying around your shop, which in my mind would not be in the public interest at all.

People are losing sight of the fact that the charge he faces is not related to the actual shooting of the scum bag. It is simply a matter of a gun owner meeting his obligations under the Arms Act.

[adiddy]

Whats the bet its a setup


dont think it is a dai, guy i met not long ago shared a cell with the meatloaf who went strolling in with the machete! said he was a real hoon

[adiddy]

Why would it be loaded as part of a customer demo? Was he just going to pop off acouple of rounds into the back wall to show his customer how the weapon functions?

If he was doing something like that shouldn't it be done at a range instead of the public counter of a shop?

now from what I heard, was that he had been just giving people a demo of the hand gun ... the dude with the machete walked in after the other "cusstomer " had just left

[Patrick]

If it was revenge, spitefulness, setups, whatever, they would have done him for attempted murder too, but for making those claims.... Pfffttttt.... I expected better:doh: but then remembered where I was...

Keep it simple... it is not a case of self defence or about the shooting.

The problem here was that he had access to loaded gun when he shouldn't have, end of story.

It has nothing to do with the fact he shot anyone with a machete... why did he have access to a loaded gun? Who else may have had access to it? The machete man too perhaps??

[Patrick]

now from what I heard, was that he had been just giving people a demo of the hand gun ... the dude with the machete walked in after the other "cusstomer " had just left

Giving a demo with a loaded gun???? Just asking for trouble...like the gun salesman giving a demo for the Terminator in the movie....

[Ixion]

If it was revenge, spitefulness, setups, whatever, they would have done him for attempted murder too, but for making those claims.... Pfffttttt.... I expected better:doh: but then remembered where I was...

,,

Attempted murder would have been a jury trial. I understand that he has no right to trial by jury for the charge laid. So it is about the most serious thing they could throw at him without the risk of a jury coming back with a condemnation of the police.

[The_Dover]

well, it was just as well he had a fuckin loaded gun in his possesion.

otherwise he'd look like he'd been indecently assaulted by edward scissorhands.

[McJim]

So the law states that firearms should be kept locked and unloaded...could start a nice little 'loaded crossbow and couple of spare katanas' trend to circumvent that issue.

Are we sure that the gun shop employee is not capable of retrieving a gun and loading one shell and firing that shell at said attacker while others present distract the offender with conversation?

After all - it was a revolver not an semi auto wasn't it....

Last time I mentioned this Sniper reckoned it was pretty feasible that if the gun was not locked (as can be understandable in a gun shop) and ammunition was at hand (but not in a chamber) that the defender could easily have loaded and fired a single round.

All depends on the statement he gave to Police at the time of the "offence"

[jrandom]

Why would it be loaded as part of a customer demo? Was he just going to pop off acouple of rounds into the back wall to show his customer how the weapon functions?

Most of the Auckland gun shops have a test-firing room with one of those nifty shoot-into-the-rubber-balls backstop boxes. It'd be reasonable for a purchaser to want to feel recoil and trigger pull etc if they were going to lay down significant bucks on a nice new 1911 for next week's IPSC match.

Although, since the media just keeps saying "45 caliber", maybe it was a big shiny revolver in .45 Long Colt. I haven't heard anything definitive on that subject.

SAI do keep a fair bit of ammo stacked on shelves behind the counter. Might have been possible in that timeframe to turn around, grab a cartridge, load and fire something that had just been legitimately removed from under the glass-topped counter (which is where SAI display pistols). I doubt it, though.

There were customers in the shop, though, as far as I'm aware, so I guess there won't be much bullshitting going on. Whatever happened, happened. Speculation will be unnecessary after the evidence is presented.

[Patrick]

Too true, but too many on here rely on the "facts" presented by the media as gospel, the same media who are well known for not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

[The_Dover]

Most of the Auckland gun shops have a test-firing room with one of those nifty shoot-into-the-rubber-balls backstop boxes. It'd be reasonable for a purchaser to want to feel recoil and trigger pull etc if they were going to lay down significant bucks on a nice new 1911 for next week's IPSC match.

what that? International Pig Shooting Contest?

I'm gonna go in there and say i'm looking for a new cop killa, what have you got?

[jrandom]

what that? International Pig Shooting Contest?

IPSC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shooting_Confederation) is what happens when you take competitive target shooting, add extra coolness and practicality, and leave it to sit overnight.

[The_Dover]

they may start arming themselves which would cause all sorts of problems.

for who? the dicks that try to rob them??

what would have happened if he had not been armed? he'd be fucked

what would have happened if the dick hadn't tried to rob him? fuck all and you dumb shits wouldn't even know he had a loaded weapon in there, if indeed he did.

[Swoop]

All we heard about was the shooting not the gun and how it was kept.
This is why I have asked our KB community to come up with some facts, but alas we do not have anyone coming forward with more precise information.

Attempted murder would have been a jury trial. I understand that he has no right to trial by jury for the charge laid.
I would guess he has the right to go "judge alone", or jury trial with these charges.

[jrandom]

for who? the dicks that try to rob them??

Sigh.

Do you want shopkeepers to be allowed to arm themselves? Do you want the local dairy owner to have a 12-gauge under the counter and start plugging glue sniffers who walk in dragging baseball bats? What about the day that someone walks in just before closing time and cross-eyed Joe Patel who was up all last night with the new baby gets nervous and fills him fulla buckshot when all he wanted was a Diet Coke?

Gotta have one law for all.

[The_Dover]

I have no problem with shooting poofs that drink diet soft drinks or glue sniffers.

[McJim]

WTF Did a magic fairy tell you that??

Your all getting upset in the fact that Police have charged someone for shooting someone who had a machete, thats bullshit he has already been cleared and not charged for it.

He has been charged with having a loaded gun on him, a .45 cal semi auto pistol for no reasonable reason. He knew that he is not supposed to have any weapon together with ammo let alone loaded and within his direct grasp in his shop.

He fucked up by having a firearm loaded and ready for action, if it was allowed to be overlooked Police would be condoning it. That could lead to other gun shop owners or general store owners assuming Police will overlook the law and they may start arming themselves which would cause all sorts of problems.

Shouldn't you be using the word "Allegedly" in there somewhere D50? He hasn't yet been convicted of having the gun loaded...innocent until proven guilty remember? Or are we really living in a 3rd world police state after all?

Try to be more judicious with your comments - you have more to lose from a slip of the tongue than we have.

As I've said - how does one 'prove' when the gun was loaded. If there is no proof that he didn't load the gun at the time of the incident then he cannot reasonably be found guilty and should raise an action for expenses, loss of earnings and defamation of character.

[ManDownUnder]

I have no problem with shooting poofs that drink diet soft drinks or glue sniffers.

especially the caffeine free ones... I mean that's just not just. It's like duck sex... fucking near water!

Re arming themselves... it'll be an interesting case for sure. Both sides appear have a compelling argument.
What would have happened if the gun wasn't loaded...? The gunshop owner might have one less employee toda, as well as a dead theif (he was stealing it to top himself wasn't he?)

vs, he broke the law... loaded gun ready to go, the fish and dynamo argument.

I'm curious to see which way it comes out, but either way the guy in the shop deserves some reasonable access to resources to defend himself.

[The_Dover]

Who gives a fuck if Police would of known or not, its still the law and when Police detect it has been broken Police have to be consistent.

tui anyone?

[Ixion]

Sigh.

Do you want shopkeepers to be allowed to arm themselves?

Yes

Do you want the local dairy owner to have a 12-gauge under the counter and start plugging glue sniffers who walk in dragging baseball bats?

Yes


What about the day that someone walks in just before closing time and cross-eyed Joe Patel who was up all last night with the new baby gets nervous and fills him fulla buckshot when all he wanted was a Diet Coke?

Gotta have one law for all.

Except Helen ?



And ten effing chars to you too.

[Swoop]

...poofs that drink diet soft drinks or glue sniffers.
How do you drink a glue sniffer?:apint:
Is an industrial size blender required???

[scumdog]

what that? International Pig Shooting Contest?

I'm gonna go in there and say i'm looking for a new cop killa, what have you got?

You been living under a rock or something?
Can't believe ya have never heard of IPSC:gob:

[The_Dover]

You been living under a rock or something?
Can't believe ya have never heard of IPSC:gob:

Auckland's as good as being under a rock.

Have you heard of Dramfest? next feb in chch....

[scumdog]

Auckland's as good as being under a rock.

Have you heard of Dramfest? next feb in chch....

Oh, which of my pistols will I need for the Dramfest.?








And seeing as it's in Christchurch and involves whisky I'll probably bump into Dangerous, sound a bit too dodgy for me.

[The_Dover]

depends how badly you want that scotch.

[jrandom]

And ten effing chars to you too.

I am playing Devil's advocate to a certain extent.

Bring me your 'bearing arms in self-defence' petition and I may well sign it.

Of course, if there is, in fact, no petition, and all you're doing is dribbling ranty libertarian bollocks on the Interweb, I guess we'll be waiting a while for the revolution...

[McJim]

If i admit i took a smelly shit in your bog does that mean you cant say its me because a group of my peers havent inspected said shit and verified it was me.


That's it D50 - you're barred from using the toilet at my house if you ever pop round!

Prevention is better than cure.:rofl:

[The_Dover]

i thought girls shit smelled of roses??

[Bend-it]

Not charging him would send a message that its acceptable to leave loaded semi auto pistols laying around your shop, which in my mind would not be in the public interest at all.

No it wouldn't. It says that it is okay for people to defend themselves AND to be ready to do so! It's quite a different thing having a pistol ready in a drawer out of knowledge, out of sight and out of reach of customers, but within reach for a situation like this occurring.


People are losing sight of the fact that the charge he faces is not related to the actual shooting of the scum bag. It is simply a matter of a gun owner meeting his obligations under the Arms Act.

What the law in fact is saying then, like a point I brought up before, is that it is okay to defend yourself, but not to be READY to do so? I'd say the store-keeper met his higher obligation to society in keeping his guns out of the black market, than the dubious one to the "Arms Code".

It was only incidental that all this guy wanted to do was off himself, and not to shoot up some school! It could easily be the other scenario! Even if he just offed himself, the gun would then lay at the hands of a dead man, available to anyone walking by to pick up.

Basically, the VICTIM of crime should NOT be made to chose between (a) suffering at the hands of home invaders and (b) getting charged in court!

[The_Dover]

wot he said, but with more cus words and less eloquence.

[ManDownUnder]

Basically, the VICTIM of crime should NOT be made to chose between (a) suffering at the hands of home invaders and (b) getting charged in court!

Bullseye - pun fully intended.

[McJim]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I though he wanted the guns to off his family AND himself...not just himself.....allegedly........

[Bend-it]

Does this work?

http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html

Can someone with some legal nouse do up the wording for it? Basically, people should be allowed to keep a firearm in a state that is semi-ready to use in self defence.

Semi-ready: Gun accessible but hidden, bullets in magazine and stored separately. Both out of sight.

Something like that?

[James Deuce]

No Bend-it, they need to be locked away. Separately if you are going to have the mag loaded.

[Deano]

As an analogy - if you were in a vehicle accident, the cause was not your fault, but your WOF had expired......is it reasonable for you to be charged with no WOF ?

Just throwing it out there.

[Bend-it]

If it's locked in a safe, is it practical for someone to reach it in case of a home invasion?

[Deano]

If it's locked in a safe, is it practical for someone to reach it in case of a home invasion?

Perhaps if it was accessible, there would be a huge increase in 'accidental' shootings.....

Less home invasions vs more accidental shootings ?

[James Deuce]

Basically, the VICTIM of crime should NOT be made to chose between (a) suffering at the hands of home invaders and (b) getting charged in court!

Utterly disagree. Nice excuse to off a family member you don't like, or an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, or those pesky kids collecting for Plunket.

"They were threatening me."

No way would I support people storing loaded firearms that are in any way accessible. Once the bullet has travelled through a child's brain, you can't do anything to fix it. Once the child has shot a sibling, you can't do anything to fix it. If the loaded firearm falls over in the wardrobe and puts a round through your femoral artery, there's nothing you can do to fix it.

I enjoy firearms. I think they should be stored under lock and key in a facility managed by the biggest, ugliest Policemen you can find, and you should be fined for not being able to account for every round fired by bringing the spent cartridge or shell back when you return your firearm to the lockup.

Think about the sort of people you encounter on the road everyday. They scare the shit out of you from time to time from sheer carelessness. Go ahead and set up your vigilante society.

Don't come whinging to me when it all goes horribly wrong.

They're not toys, and most people are idiots around firearms.

[The_Dover]

does it have to be an ex?

[Bend-it]

Yes, that would be the case if we were living in a crime free utopia. But we're not, and I came to NZ 7 years ago with the impression that it was a safe, friendly society, but that has changed. Gun crime is on the increase, and law enforcement, when it does work, is usually too late for the victim of the crime. I guess the question is how will we adapt to this change?

I'm not FOR a gun crazy society, but neither do I think it's right for people to be at the mercy of criminals and the like, and when we pass that gauntlet, to be at the mercy of the law.

What's a solution?

[James Deuce]

If it's locked in a safe, is it practical for someone to reach it in case of a home invasion?

You're more likely to have a bike accident than a home invasion.

You'd better go shoot your bike before it hurts you.

[James Deuce]

I'm not FOR a gun crazy society, but neither do I think it's right for people to be at the mercy of criminals and the like, and when we pass that gauntlet, to be at the mercy of the law.



You're not at the mercy of anyone.

Where's the documented stats to show the increase in gun crime?

Compare them as a percentage of population over the years.

I reckon the '50s were probably worse for firearms misdemeanours and murders than now.

[Bend-it]

Jim2, can you address the issue without including personal attacks and facetious comments?? What's your problem?

[The_Dover]

i'd rather a licensed gun dealer had loaded weapons in his hands than some crazed fuckstick walking out with a handful of weaponary and a bloodstained machete.

loaded weapons in the home are a different kettle of fish altogether, perhaps a concealed weapons licence for those at risk of getting their arse handed to them by violent crims?

shit, they let the pigs carry guns and some of them aren't too bright.

[James Deuce]

Jim2, can you address the issue without including personal attacks and facetious comments?? What's your problem?

None of my comments fall into that category. Specifically state what you have a problem with.

[James Deuce]

In regard to violent crime in NZ, that statistics don't support the view that it is getting worse.

"Homicides rate high in the public's concern about violent crime, but such crimes made up less than 0.4 percent of all violent crimes recorded between 1994 and 2000. The low numbers of homicide offences recorded make it impossible to identify any trends in the offence rates for any types of homicide over the period. Between 1994 and 2000, the number of recorded murders ranged from 40 to 66 per year, attempted murders (31 to 61), manslaughters (8 to 23), infanticide (0 to 2), abortion-related offences (1 to 6) and aiding suicide and pact (0 to 7)"
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/crime-in-nz/violent-crime.htm

If you regard your inability to create a fact based argument that people need to conceal loaded weapons in their home and my response to that as a personal attack then you need to think about where your argument is coming from.

From my perspective your argument is based in an entirely emotional realm.

If NZ had compulsory military service for men and women and that included firearms training, I'd have no issue with your proposal. NZ doesn't, and I can think of no more hideous society where people arm themselves with weapons they don't understand, or appreciate, or most of all respect.

[Bend-it]

None of my comments fall into that category. Specifically state what you have a problem with.

Here:


Don't come whinging to me when it all goes horribly wrong.


You're more likely to have a bike accident than a home invasion. You'd better go shoot your bike before it hurts you.

You're not at the mercy of anyone.

If you regard your inability to create a fact based argument that people need to conceal loaded weapons in their home and my response to that as a personal attack then you need to think about where your argument is coming from.



Where's the documented stats to show the increase in gun crime?
Compare them as a percentage of population over the years.
I reckon the '50s were probably worse for firearms misdemeanours and murders than now.

Lies, lies and damn statistics... Can be twisted to say anything. Statistics don't come into it. If one person is victimised by a wonky law, then that's one person too many.

Fine, if there are worries about firearm safety, then my question is: Is there a way to maintain their safety, and still NOT be a victim? Which is basically the question I posed before.

[McJim]

But they um fire-stick go bang bang....yummmy...me wants one...bang bang funny.......cool.

[jrandom]

Fine, if there are worries about firearm safety, then my question is: Is there a way to maintain their safety, and still NOT be a victim? Which is basically the question I posed before.

Truism: to defend yourself with a firearm, it needs to be a functional weapon. That means anyone who can pick it up can kill someone with it.

Now, there are some nifty pistol safes that will hold a single loaded gun, and flick open with thumbprint recognition. It still boils down to proper care and attention, though.

If B-class pistol licence holders were allowed, say, to store a ready-to-shoot pistol using one of a list of pre-approved quick-access pistol safes in a location inspected and approved by an arms officer, that could be a pretty good starting point, and would mean that anyone without a criminal record could arm themselves at home after several months of training and supervision.

Note that no change would be necessary to the law in relation to self-defense to enable that.

[MisterD]

He has been charged with having a loaded gun on him, a .45 cal semi auto pistol for no reasonable reason. He knew that he is not supposed to have any weapon together with ammo let alone loaded and within his direct grasp in his shop.

He fucked up by having a firearm loaded and ready for action, if it was allowed to be overlooked Police would be condoning it. That could lead to other gun shop owners or general store owners assuming Police will overlook the law and they may start arming themselves which would cause all sorts of problems.

Except that as the guy's Dad said on the radio this morning, the Police branch who issue the licences to such businesses have audited and cleared them since the shooting, which is why they are trading again....now the crown solicitors office (or whatever) are prosecuting?

Stinks to high heaven of political interference.

[jrandom]

Stinks to high heaven of political interference.

Care to elaborate?

(Be careful, though. They're watching, and they know where you live.)

[Bend-it]

If B-class pistol licence holders were allowed, say, to store a ready-to-shoot pistol using one of a list of pre-approved quick-access pistol safes in a location inspected and approved by an arms officer, that could be a pretty good starting point, and would mean that anyone without a criminal record could arm themselves at home after several months of training and supervision.

Note that no change would be necessary to the law in relation to self-defense to enable that.

Yes, that's a possible scenario... quite hard, but theoretically feasible.

No change in self defence laws, just a change to storage ones... yup...

[Dai]

In regard to violent crime in NZ, that statistics don't support the view that it is getting worse.

"Homicides rate high in the public's concern about violent crime, but such crimes made up less than 0.4 percent of all violent crimes recorded between 1994 and 2000. The low numbers of homicide offences recorded make it impossible to identify any trends in the offence rates for any types of homicide over the period. Between 1994 and 2000, the number of recorded murders ranged from 40 to 66 per year, attempted murders (31 to 61), manslaughters (8 to 23), infanticide (0 to 2), abortion-related offences (1 to 6) and aiding suicide and pact (0 to 7)"
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/crime-in-nz/violent-crime.htm

If you regard your inability to create a fact based argument that people need to conceal loaded weapons in their home and my response to that as a personal attack then you need to think about where your argument is coming from.

From my perspective your argument is based in an entirely emotional realm.

If NZ had compulsory military service for men and women and that included firearms training, I'd have no issue with your proposal. NZ doesn't, and I can think of no more hideous society where people arm themselves with weapons they don't understand, or appreciate, or most of all respect.


Surely you are now preaching against the accepted norm.

The police themselves have purchased the latest Bushmaster assult rifles,800 of them, they are pushing for their general acceptance of Tazers, they have pepper sprays and Glock sidearms.

Why?

Because violent crime is increasing and they must defend themselves and us. Which is basically how they sold these items to the public.

Nothing to do with big boys toys.

"...arm themselves with weapons they don't understand, or appreciate, or most of all respect."

In the past 3 years there have been 11 incidents where police officers have injured themselves with firearms whilst training. They dont get enough proper training with these weapons to be proficient

[jrandom]

In the past 3 years there have been 11 incidents where police officers have injured themselves with firearms whilst training. They dont get enough proper training with these weapons to be proficient

If they had to go through what civilians have to do to get a B class licence, we wouldn't have that problem.

Got any details on the 'incidents'? What's your source? I'd be interested to hear more.

Also, I don't see an unarguable increase in violent crime as a necessary prerequisite to arming police officers. The question of armed vs. unarmed officers should be (and, I think, has been) examined on its own merits.

[The_Dover]

Korma? that proves you're a fuckin blouse.

[jrandom]

The Arms Office (the police "branch" who issue the trading and personal licences) would not prosecute in a charge of this nature, they only issue or revoke licences.

Good to see that the licence has been confirmed and the business will be safe.

You know, I think that the only people who have a problem with this situation are the numbnuts who haven't figured out that Greg C isn't being charged in relation to the shooting.

Political, bah humbug. Who really thinks any cop in his right mind would ignore an obvious violation of gun storage rules if he ran into it in the normal course of duty? That's just not the way things work.

The media have a lot to answer for with their rabble-rousing "GREG CARVELL CHARGED OMG WTF!!!!" bullshit.

[Ixion]

I am playing Devil's advocate to a certain extent.

Bring me your 'bearing arms in self-defence' petition and I may well sign it.

Of course, if there is, in fact, no petition, and all you're doing is dribbling ranty libertarian bollocks on the Interweb, I guess we'll be waiting a while for the revolution...

I am no libertarian. Entirely the reverse. But I can remember when bank tellers all had a loaded revolver under the counter (and in the manager's top drawer). A few were fired. Noone ever dreamed of charging the bank officers with anything. And bank robbers took note.

And country shop keepers and publicans usually had a shotgun ready to hand . Loaded. With rock salt if they were of kindly mein. (Maybe they still do).

So I would say it is not a matter of revolution, but of the public resisting , by outcry, the erosion of ancient liberties.

Certainly the common law recognised , and recognises still , a right to self defence. And I would plead that such an ancient and well expressed right can only be extinguished by specific statute , not by a species of mouse-nibbling assaults by the police, Crown, or judicial dicta.

Sir Edward Coke


And yet in some cases a man may not only use force and arms, but assemble company also. As any may assemble his friends and neighbors, to keep his house against those that come to rob, or kill him, or to offer him violence in it, and is by construction excepted out of this Act; and Sheriff, etc., ought not to deal with him upon this Act; for a man's house is his Castle, and a person's own house is his ultimate refuge; for where shall a man be safe, if it be not in his house. And in this sense it truly said, and the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons."


Sir Michael Foster


The right of self defence in these cases is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society. For before societies were formed, (one may conceive of such a state of things though it is difficult to fix the period when civil societies were formed,) I say before societies were formed for mutual defence and preservation, the right of self defence resided in individuals; it could not reside elsewhere, and since in cases of necessity, individuals incorporated into society cannot resort for protection to the law of the society, that law with great propriety and strict justice considereth them, as still, in that instance, under the protection of the law of nature.

And Blackstone

But the felf-defence, which we are now fpeaking of, is that whereby a man may protect himfelf from an affault, or the like, in the courfe of a fudden brawl or quarrel, by killing him who affaults him. And this is what the law expreffes by the word chance-medley, or (as fome rather chufe to write it) chaud-medley; the former of which in it's etymology fignifies a cafual affray, the latter an affray in the heat of blood or paffion: both of them of pretty much the fame import; but the former is in common fpeech too often erronceoufly applied to any manner of homicide by mifadventure; whereas it appears by the ftatute 24 Hen. VIII. c. 5. and our antient books ^l, that it is properly applied to fuch killing, as happens in felf-defence upon a fudden reencounter ^m. This right of natural defence does not imply a right of attacking: for, inftead of attacking one another for injuries paft or impending, men need only have recourfe to the proper tribunals of juftice. They cannot therefore legally exercife this right of preventive defence, but in fudden and violent cafes; when certain and immediate fuffering would be the confequence of waiting for the affiftance of the law. Wherefore, to excufe homicide by the plea of felf-defence, it muft appear that the flayer had no other poffible means of efcaping from his affailant.

[Clivoris]

Anyone who trys to affault me will get a sucking big bafhing.

[jrandom]

not a matter of revolution, but of the public resisting , by outcry, the erosion of ancient liberties.

Good stuff. That's more like what I expected!

I agree with it, too. Let's try and identify a way of sensibly tweaking the law to allow citizens to bear arms for worthy purposes, while keeping criminals as impotent as possible. If we can add a bit of education for the masses in as well, all the better.

As I pointed out earlier, a modification to the statutes relating to firearms storage would restore our ability to easily exercise our right of self-defense. What say you to that?

[Bend-it]

Yes, not just right though... ability to self-defence as well... There's no (not in this case anyway) issue with the right.

Something in that online petition?

[James Deuce]

I am no libertarian. Entirely the reverse. But I can remember when bank tellers all had a loaded revolver under the counter (and in the manager's top drawer). A few were fired. Noone ever dreamed of charging the bank officers with anything. And bank robbers took note.

And country shop keepers and publicans usually had a shotgun ready to hand . Loaded. With rock salt if they were of kindly mein. (Maybe they still do).



And all of them mostly experienced weapons users, and probably having been under fire themselves at some point in service of their country.

There are a diminishing number of Kiwis with range time or hunting experience under their belt, let alone military level training in handling and care of firearms.

Enabling the inexperienced, or the utterly without experience, to fire off rounds as they see fit will not reduce violent crime in this country.

[ManDownUnder]

Good stuff. That's more like what I expected!

I agree with it, too. Let's try and identify a way of sensibly tweaking the law to allow citizens to bear arms for worthy purposes, while keeping criminals as impotent as possible. If we can add a bit of education for the masses in as well, all the better.

As I pointed out earlier, a modification to the statutes relating to firearms storage would restore our ability to easily exercise our right of self-defense. What say you to that?

Flawless mate...

[jrandom]

Enabling the inexperienced, or the utterly without experience, to fire off rounds as they see fit will not reduce violent crime in this country.

See my previous ideas. Are you with me?

That's three signatures for my petition so far...

Good thing John Key's my MP, eh?

[Edit: He's MDU's, too. No accounting for taste...]

[James Deuce]

Here:

Lies, lies and damn statistics... Can be twisted to say anything. Statistics don't come into it. If one person is victimised by a wonky law, then that's one person too many.

Fine, if there are worries about firearm safety, then my question is: Is there a way to maintain their safety, and still NOT be a victim? Which is basically the question I posed before.

You're just a little bit over sensitive there chap.

The statistics are gathered from Police and Courts records. They aren't twisted.

It is the norm to expect to get through life in NZ without experiencing violent crime directed at you personally.

The FACT remains, you are more likely to be mortally injured in NZ by your motorcycle than you are by a violent offender.

The recent school bus accidents that generated a hue and cry for seatbelts to be fitted to buses is an example of the kind of hysteria that can be generated very easily by over representing a particular incident throughout the media.

The calls to arm the Police are generated by incidents involving a minute sample of the population, who are recidivist offenders of one sort and another. The accepted norm as Dai puts it has been created by a consistent barrage of reporting violent crime above all others.

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

[Bend-it]

Enabling the inexperienced, or the utterly without experience, to fire off rounds as they see fit will not reduce violent crime in this country.

In which case the solution then would be better training... or send people off to war! There's no shortage of them!:dodge:

[jrandom]

The recent school bus accidents that generated a hue and cry for seatbelts to be fitted to buses is an example of the kind of hysteria that can be generated very easily by over representing a particular incident throughout the media.

Well, you know, I've always thought that not putting seatbelts in buses was a bit weird...


The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Nudge nudge. Want to buy a car nav GPS, bro?

;)

[ManDownUnder]

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Liar (sorry.. had to...)

[James Deuce]

See my previous ideas. Are you with me?

That's three signatures for my petition so far...

Good thing John Key's my MP, eh?

[Edit: He's MDU's, too. No accounting for taste...]

No. Anyone who commits an act of violence should be charged with a crime. Whether the justice system convicts them or not is another matter, just like the chap who got off killing his anancephalic daughter, or the chap who killed his own child with his four wheel drive.

The best point in this thread remains McJim's about making sure the person who has to defend themself against the charge and is acquitted or found not guilty doesn't then have to pay off the cost of defending themselves with 2 or 3 mortgages.

[silverado]

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Dishonest people should be shot.

[James Deuce]

Well, you know, I've always thought that not putting seatbelts in buses was a bit weird...



Nudge nudge. Want to buy a car nav GPS, bro?

;)

I've repeatedly offered to send it back. Send me an address.

[jrandom]

In which case the solution then would be better training...

In my experience, it's pretty rare for an NZ firearms licence holder to not be fairly adept around guns, given that the hassle of getting a licence really isn't worthwhile if you're not serious about hunting or target shooting.

I don't think there's a problem there.

[James Deuce]

In which case the solution then would be better training... or send people off to war! There's no shortage of them!:dodge:

It requires compulsory military service for all men and women. I'd have no trouble handing an M249 to a 19 year old Israeli female. A Kiwi chick would be utterly clueless.

You've repeatedly advocated for the clueless to have access to lethal weapons. You're not getting off that easy!

[jrandom]

I've repeatedly offered to send it back. Send me an address.

ROFL. Chill, dude, I don't want it back. It just never really belonged to me in the first place, was all.

:innocent:

I love 'engineering samples'...

[Bend-it]

The statistics are gathered from Police and Courts records. They aren't twisted.

:rofl: :rofl: TUI moment here...



It is the norm to expect to get through life in NZ without experiencing violent crime directed at you personally.

Really?



The FACT remains, you are more likely to be mortally injured in NZ by your motorcycle than you are by a violent offender.


Yup, but there's no law against me protecting myself from an accident is there?



The recent school bus accidents that generated a hue and cry for seatbelts to be fitted to buses is an example of the kind of hysteria that can be generated very easily by over representing a particular incident throughout the media.

Tell that to Mr Carvell who will soon be $50,000 out of pocket.



The calls to arm the Police are generated by incidents involving a minute sample of the population, who are recidivist offenders of one sort and another.

Tell that to the cop who gets shot in the line of duty BECAUSE he couldn't defend himself.



The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Alot less likely to get killed or physically injured from dishonestly isn't it? And for alot of cases, insurance would cover you. Also, the key point is, as above, there is no law that stops you from protecting yourself against dishonesty.

[jrandom]

:rofl: :rofl: Really? ... Mr Carvell who will soon be $50,000 out of pocket ...

Your disingenuousness is starting to annoy me. Pointing and laughing instead of properly refuting something is a primary-school tactic, and it's liable to get you thumped, or even worse, ignored. What is your position, anyway? I can't make it out, yet you still seem to be arguing for or against something or other.

Greg C's defense won't cost him $50K. He'll probably be in and out of court within a single day, including the time it takes him to write a cheque for the grand or two he'll be fined if convicted.

[Bend-it]

You've repeatedly advocated for the clueless to have access to lethal weapons. You're not getting off that easy!

FFS, I have never! Read my posts again... You are hereby ignored.

[Indoo]

You know, I think that the only people who have a problem with this situation are the numbnuts who haven't figured out that Greg C isn't being charged in relation to the shooting........The media have a lot to answer for with their rabble-rousing "GREG CARVELL CHARGED OMG WTF!!!!" bullshit.

I think it goes to show what a media led and brain dead society we live in. The media have little interest in presenting a perfectly balanced and fact led reporting of the news, it's far less appealing to the masses than putting a twist on a story to envoke outrage and interest.

They want Police to invent laws to arrest all the Kahui clan but ignore laws when it involves one of the 'good' guys. Which is fine, until your the one being tried by media.

[ManDownUnder]

No. Anyone who commits an act of violence should be charged with a crime. Whether the justice system convicts them or not is another matter, just like the chap who got off killing his anancephalic daughter, or the chap who killed his own child with his four wheel drive.

The best point in this thread remains McJim's about making sure the person who has to defend themself against the charge and is acquitted or found not guilty doesn't then have to pay off the cost of defending themselves with 2 or 3 mortgages.

Anyone committing an act of violence needs to be held accountable for it - yes.

Commits a crime? No. Use of force in reasonable defence of another or of yourself (as appears to be the case in the gun shop incident) is permissible by me personally. That's status quo for NZ law as it stands anyway.

The guts of this situation does appear to be the ability to be ready in the event of an act of violence, and now we have an ends justifying the means situation which seems acceptable in this situation but there are still some unknowns out there (would he really have hurt the gun shop guy, would he really have gone on to top himself or others, what would have hapened to the gun shop guy once the bad guy was armed with decent firepower...

... etc...

The real crime in this situation is the upcoming financial burden to be heaped squarely on the shoulder of he who has to justify and defend himself.

That sucks, and in the event he's acquitted I think he should be reimbursed in full, for lost wages, expenses incurred etc.

[ManDownUnder]

Greg C's defense won't cost him $50K. He'll probably be in and out of court within a single day, including the time it takes him to write a cheque for the grand or two he'll be fined if convicted.

There's a beer in it for ya if he gets away with expenses less than $10,000

[Bend-it]

Your disingenuousness is starting to annoy me. Pointing and laughing instead of properly refuting something is a primary-school tactic, and it's liable to get you thumped, or even worse, ignored. What is your position, anyway? I can't make it out, yet you still seem to be arguing for or against something or other.

Greg C's defense won't cost him $50K. He'll probably be in and out of court within a single day, including the time it takes him to write a cheque for the grand or two he'll be fined if convicted.

Ignore me then... ad then tell me how to do it... ;)

I am not arguing for any position in particular, people can't seem to get it if someone is neither a libertarian (whatever the heck that is), or a whatever the other extreme is...

I am arguing that people should be allowed to be able to defend themselves without being penalised for it, that's all... My question was, Is there a way and how do we do that?

Your idea with the pistol in the finger-print activated box was feasible...

Why am I pissing you off?

[jrandom]

There's a beer in it for ya if he gets away with expenses less than $10,000

A $10K lawyer's bill is probably about right for a court case of that magnitude. That's more or less the point I was making.

You're still welcome to buy me the beer, of course. :)

[Bend-it]

The real crime in this situation is the upcoming financial burden to be heaped squarely on the shoulder of he who has to justify and defend himself.

That sucks, and in the event he's acquitted I think he should be reimbursed in full, for lost wages, expenses incurred etc.

Yes, that!

Maybe... what if he was "law-abiding" and wasn't "ready"? Then guns would have been stolen, possibly people hurt etc. In whch case the law is penalising a law-abiding citizen...

[jrandom]

Why am I pissing you off?

Your last post in response to Jim2 contained several fallacies, in the strictest Socratic sense. I tend to have an emotional reaction to flawed rhetoric.

[ManDownUnder]

Maybe... what if he was "law-abiding" and wasn't "ready"? Then guns would have been stolen, possibly people hurt etc. In whch case the law is penalising a law-abiding citizen...

Exactly the issue to be calrified in that most rarified air of the court. The crown contests he broke the law by being ready for the bad guy(s) if/when they came

The victim will no doubt agree with the crown's contention, and put the argument they did the right thing.

It turns out the current law may adequately address the needs of NZ society... what to do about that then? Watch the next episode of Judge Judy!

[Paul in NZ]

No. Anyone who commits an act of violence should be charged with a crime. .

Does that include drunken fights in bars? :innocent:

Paul N

[Bend-it]

Your last post in response to Jim2 contained several fallacies, in the strictest Socratic sense. I tend to have an emotional reaction to flawed rhetoric.

Ahhh, I was laughing at the assertion that the statictics were not skewed in any way just because they were collected from police and court records. Not that police of courts don't record correctly, but the collection, organisation and reporting of the statictics is where things go awry...

[davereid]

As a matter of interest, I wanted to find out if I could unlock my safe, load my shotgun and be ready for self defence in less than a minute, so I asked my wife to time me. I was amazed at the result.
I had made a "pre preparation" ie I knew where the keys - shotgun - ammo were, and they were arranged for easy but legal access. I had guessed it would take 1-2 minutes. But as timed, I took only 18 seconds from GO till holding a fully loaded shotgun, previously locked in a gun-safe in another room.

Interestingly, with firearms being locked away I had never considered they would be usefull for self defence. Now I am convinced that with practice I could have my legally stored firearms ready to go in under 15 secs.

With regard to those who bleat "who wants to be like america" and "gun control makes you safer", spend a bit more time in the real world.

Facts - Manchester England 100% gun control, 3.7 murders with guns per 100,000 people. North Dakota USA, no gun control, buy your handgun at Walmart, 0.9 murders with all weapons per 100,000 people.

Of course this doesnt show anything except...

A)Crime is caused by criminals
B)Gun Control does not control criminal use of firearms

Good luck Mr. Carvell, my cheque is in the mail.

[scumdog]

As a matter of interest, I wanted to find out if I could unlock my safe, load my shotgun and be ready for self defence in less than a minute, so I asked my wife to time me. I was amazed at the result.
I had made a "pre preparation" ie I knew where the keys - shotgun - ammo were, and they were arranged for easy but legal access. I had guessed it would take 1-2 minutes. But as timed, I took only 18 seconds from GO till holding a fully loaded shotgun, previously locked in a gun-safe in another room.

Interestingly, with firearms being locked away I had never considered they would be usefull for self defence. Now I am convinced that with practice I could have my legally stored firearms ready to go in under 15 secs.


Good luck Mr. Carvell, my cheque is in the mail.

I bet you could cut that time by quite a bit if your gun cabinet was within arms reach of the bed eh?:msn-wink: :shutup:

[NZHog]

Great post Fish,like you I made my decisions a long time ago on this.
I have no doubt that so have the Carvells.
That said they will be my shop of preference in the future & I will contribute towards Gregs defence. I do expect that good precedents will be set.

Mark




But it's still illegal, and I would have stashed that mag in the sure knowledge of what I'd have to put up with if I ever used it.

I view the daily carry of my Chinook in the same light. If I ever need to use it, I'm fully aware that the next time I see it, it'll be inside an evidence bag.

And that's the way I like it.

[Swoop]

So. Who listened to Ray Carvell being interviewed on the radio (approx 5pm) who stated "we are allowed to keep loaded guns on the premises... since we have an "F" licence"?

[Toaster]

Why would it be loaded as part of a customer demo? Was he just going to pop off acouple of rounds into the back wall to show his customer how the weapon functions?

If he was doing something like that shouldn't it be done at a range instead of the public counter of a shop?


It was merely speculation - I am not condoning it. Of course weapons should only be loaded at firing ranges (unless out hunting of course.)

[NZHog]

No Bend-it semi ready does not work for me. How do I transport the means of self-defence to & from work?
You either have the right to carry concealed or not.
I am safe at home, I have a plan. I am at risk at work,I have a plan there but concealed carry would enhance it.
That said NZ is not ready yet to give people that right.
That is changing & that is good...

[NZHog]

What about those who don't work in a gun shop. I would say the only place for a gun ready to be used in self defence is under the direct control & RESPONSIBILITY of the owner.
But then I am also one of those ranting Libertarianz... :)

Still great posts by the way.


Good stuff. That's more like what I expected!

I agree with it, too. Let's try and identify a way of sensibly tweaking the law to allow citizens to bear arms for worthy purposes, while keeping criminals as impotent as possible. If we can add a bit of education for the masses in as well, all the better.

As I pointed out earlier, a modification to the statutes relating to firearms storage would restore our ability to easily exercise our right of self-defense. What say you to that?

[NZHog]

The expense is one of those nasty realities we have to consider.I agree that should not be the case.
The actions do need to be subject to judgement.That judgement should be provided swiftly & that is a major issue with justice in this country.

[scumdog]

It was merely speculation - I am not condoning it. Of course weapons should only be loaded at firing ranges (unless out hunting of course.)

Don't they have a test firing facility at the rear of the business?

[Toaster]

Don't they have a test firing facility at the rear of the business?

Dunno mate - I'm not really up with the play (as usual).... good idea if they do tho'

[sAsLEX]

One thing is all these people rant about gun laws......ummm criminals by definition break the law so the tightening of controls on law abiding citizens does not affect the criminal underworld

[Pixie]

Mr Carvelle should be given a medal for gallantry and initiative in the face of danger! In fact, I propose we make up a KB medal for him and send it to them!

Bloody tree-hugging seal-kissing hippies...

I wouldn't go that far.The arsehole he shot is still alive

[The_Dover]

One thing is all these people rant about gun laws......ummm criminals by definition break the law so the tightening of controls on law abiding citizens does not affect the criminal underworld

of course it does, just ask the cops.

it makes it much harder for them to get guns and do robberies and shoot people.

dynamytus said so and he's the chief of police in howick.

guns don't kill people, cops kill people.

[Dai]

....

guns don't kill people, cops kill people.

Have to disagree with you here Dover.

Untrained or badly trained cops, with big boys toys, kill people.

They get to run around in paramilitary black uniforms waving the latest and greatest toys for the cameras to pick up on.

[The_Dover]

I saw the cops at big boys toys and they weren't killing people.

but I kept away just incase they recognised me.

[ManDownUnder]

Notwithstanding all the issues surrounding the actual guilt, or otherwise, of people involved...

I had a thought about this last night. If this is a test case shouldn't both sides be given the best counsel possible?

If funds are not an issue then the level of argument from both sides will be more rigorous, and less constrained by economics (length of debate won't be an issue, ability/experience of lawyers on both sides can be the best etc).

The legal question thus gets a far superior examination from every angle and a more learned decision/outcome is the result. If a test case is to be put, and the decision to become a precedent...

... shouldn't it be a good one...?

[The_Dover]

and who's gonna pay for that MDU?

[Bend-it]

Just charge it to:

4652-9547-3652-1586 Exp:04/08

Sorry if my randon number generator V.10 (i.e. fingers) picked an actual real cridit card number!

[scumdog]

guns don't kill people, cops kill people.

Unfortunately not enough of the right kind of people.....

[The_Dover]

maybe you should get some shooting lessons?