NZ Police public image

[RDJ]

""The Police should attend everything? No matter how big or small? Kind of like saying an Ambulance should attend every accident even if its just a 5 year old kid who has just graised his knee. ""

Having spent many many hours riding ground and air ambulances, I'll bite at this one Honda :-)

Kid falls out of the tree. Mother sees kid on the ground, screaming, holding neck and bleeding from knee. Dials 111, calls for an ambulance. Ambulance arrives, child sitting up tearful, bleeding from a graze to knee. Was the ambulance needed? No. Was it necessary to send the ambulance? Yes. That's my view. :-)

[scumdog]

sorry... that doesn't wash with me.... what right do you or anyone else have to judge what is serious or not... if we need 20000 more cops then so be it... but somehow I believe you figures are wrong. Face it... the police are letting themselves down badly!

:confused:
So what are YOU going to do to fix this problem????????

[inlinefour]

""The Police should attend everything? No matter how big or small? Kind of like saying an Ambulance should attend every accident even if its just a 5 year old kid who has just graised his knee. ""

Having spent many many hours riding ground and air ambulances, I'll bite at this one Honda :-)

Kid falls out of the tree. Mother sees kid on the ground, screaming, holding neck and bleeding from knee. Dials 111, calls for an ambulance. Ambulance arrives, child sitting up tearful, bleeding from a graze to knee. Was the ambulance needed? No. Was it necessary to send the ambulance? Yes. That's my view. :-)

Then there is no point, but I guess that you live for making storms in teacups...

[Gremlin]

:confused:
So what are YOU going to do to fix this problem????????
I'm going to piss and moan like an ingrained asshole, and TAKE IT UP THE TAILPIPE.

That was especially for those who like Liar Liar. (Well, I did)

[inlinefour]

I'm going to piss and moan like an ingrained asshole, and TAKE IT UP THE TAILPIPE.

That was especially for those who like Liar Liar. (Well, I did)

That sounds like an average day in politics, no matter which side of the bench your supporting...

[spudchucka]

I think I'll chirp in my 2cents. NZ has the worst police/population ratios in the developed world. Overall they re owed 700 years in TOIL. They are overworked, understaffed and underresourced and this is now being manifested in poor service and standards. The individuals themselves do a remarkable job given the resources allocated. We desperately need a change in governmental attitude towards policing for things to change. The latest email drama is a piss in the eyes for the folk employed in the force and damaging to an already fickle morale.
The sweet sound of common sense, thanks Jimbo.

[spudchucka]

I absolutely winced the other day when I was seeing "Police 10-7"... some moron was arested after a theft... the police molycoddled him and kept saying "Sweet Bro"... NO.... IT AIN'T SWEET BRO.... Being arrested after stealing some victims poccessions ain't sweet bro... that particular officer deserved an uppercut...
After reading all your posts on this issue I've finally found something that I agree with.

[spudchucka]

Brash makes sense... and what is wrong with saying what the public wants to hear.... isn't that what should happen?
Saying is one thing. Doing is another. Even explaining how he intend to do something would be an improvement. His public reaction to this issue was just that, a reaction, a statement made to capture some public support with little or no attention given to the intended path he would take to reach that outcome.

[drummer]

I think I'll chirp in my 2cents. NZ has the worst police/population ratios in the developed world. Overall they re owed 700 years in TOIL. They are overworked, understaffed and underresourced and this is now being manifested in poor service and standards. The individuals themselves do a remarkable job given the resources allocated. We desperately need a change in governmental attitude towards policing for things to change. The latest email drama is a piss in the eyes for the folk employed in the force and damaging to an already fickle morale.
It IS the police on the ground ... (or a few of them to be accurate) ..as you call them that are the cause of the latest drama. Fair enough, there are good cops around, but... I can only go on what I have personally seen since arriving back in NZ... and that is a tired, arrogant bunch of individuals. Now if that doesn't apply to all... and I would think it doesn't... then good.... but I am still waiting to meet one of the good ones!

[drummer]

Just my opinion and all, but. The way you carry on drummer with your nazi rants, I reckon your an even bigger pillick as Helen C.
Its easy to say things are not great and we need to do this and that, but you provide no details how, just like Don, point the finger and complain., but don't actually come up with ANY good solutions...
Oh dear... dare I insult the Pm.... but OK... the solution is straight forward... and the Don has already said it.... scrap treaty grievences... once and for all. Increase the numbers of police and actually make crime NOT pay!

[drummer]

:confused:
So what are YOU going to do to fix this problem????????
Fair question... firstly, If I was in government, I would dramatically increase police numbers... but restrict them to fighting crime... not tax collecting on our roads. Resource the police well. Secondly I would impose increased minimum sentences... mandatory sentences on things like rape, murder, child molestation etc. The courts currently pay lip service to what the majority of NZer's want. How for example can an Asian young man end up getting 200 hours community service for killing a Motorcyclist by doing an illegal U turn when his license had already been suspended? How can we as a nation be satisfied with the current government when police resources don't allow child rape cases in Manukau to be investigated?

However I am not in government. So... I lobby the current government and debate publically about these issues. It's all I can do presently.

[drummer]

After reading all your posts on this issue I've finally found something that I agree with.
Well golly... don't you also agree with the fact that police are under resourced? Don't you also agree that some coppers have let the force down? What has been done officially about that coppers reaction to that kid on TV... is this normal?

[drummer]

The Police should attend everything? No matter how big or small? Kind of like saying an Ambulance should attend every accident even if its just a 5 year old kid who has just graised his knee. :whistle:
What you ask is rhetorical.... and I hope you know that. The point is... who makes the judgement... and what... like has happened too many times lately if they get it wrong?

[drummer]

Saying is one thing. Doing is another. Even explaining how he intend to do something would be an improvement. His public reaction to this issue was just that, a reaction, a statement made to capture some public support with little or no attention given to the intended path he would take to reach that outcome.

He has said plenty... OK.. lets ask you a question... do you therefore support Klarke? Are you happy with the way things are... with the police... race relations....

[drummer]

""The Police should attend everything? No matter how big or small? Kind of like saying an Ambulance should attend every accident even if its just a 5 year old kid who has just graised his knee. ""

Having spent many many hours riding ground and air ambulances, I'll bite at this one Honda :-)

Kid falls out of the tree. Mother sees kid on the ground, screaming, holding neck and bleeding from knee. Dials 111, calls for an ambulance. Ambulance arrives, child sitting up tearful, bleeding from a graze to knee. Was the ambulance needed? No. Was it necessary to send the ambulance? Yes. That's my view. :-)
Well put... and the way it should be!

[inlinefour]

Oh dear... dare I insult the Pm.... but OK... the solution is straight forward... and the Don has already said it.... scrap treaty grievences... once and for all. Increase the numbers of police and actually make crime NOT pay!

All I see from your posts, along with Don B's dribble is SELFISHNESS. All you lot think about is whats good for you and screw anyone else. Its really pathetic and shows that some people have no common sense as only slfish self centered people will vote for this...

[Gremlin]

All I see from your posts, along with Don B's dribble is SELFISHNESS. All you lot think about is whats good for you and screw anyone else. Its really pathetic and shows that some people have no common sense as only slfish self centered people will vote for this...
But isn't that what it is really about?

Everybody votes, and votes for people they think will be best for them, and the majority wins.

[inlinefour]

But isn't that what it is really about?

Everybody votes, and votes for people they think will be best for them, and the majority wins.

But the reality of it is: despite which side is in power, they are all equally good at running the country into the ground. National have a far worse history than Labour, but as far as I'm concerned they are all equally crap.

[Gremlin]

I remember when I first went to uni (2002) and all the elections etc they had. For the first yirs we were given talks about how somebody was better than somebody else (I soon realised that we were given the talks because we didn't know better... yet).

After two years at uni I had a suspicion that things were not as I was led to believe.

Now, in my fourth year (3yr deg, but fucked up at the start, plus doing it minimum full time load) I realise that they are all the same monkeys, just about know each other, every one of them claims to tell the truth, and not a single one knows what truth is.

And you wonder why students are apathetic fucks?? Last elections, we apparently had an excellent turn out of +/- 1100 students. Thats out of a possible 34,000 odd.

I lean towards national, but labour are in power because there is no effective opposition. Winston lies through his teeth at every election, and the other parties are just about non-existant. Act isn't bad tho.

[Krusti]

Main problem is......Govt promises more Police ......Robs Peter to pay Paul....same number of Police or less....Oh well we delivered on our promise not our fault we didn't allow for those leaving in our election promise...

Govt has a lot to answer for....

We used to have a Police force and a Traffic enforcement force...worked bloody well....Snakes were bloody good at their job allthough not very popular and Cops were cops...Both groups were specialists in their field

Now the whole system is watered down and areas of responsibility are very grey.

Problem was some wally in Wellywood could see how cost savings could be made and now we have what they are willing to pay for...Cops having to spend more of their time learning Traffic regs and vice versa with HP.

In reallity the only reason for the intergration was so that some Polititian could say look how many more Police we have without spending any more of the budget.

You get what you pay for and I for one would be happy to pay more tax for more Police if I knew the money was going to go there....Yeah right

Pay peanuts get monkeys.....sorry Spud

Bla Bla Bla Bla....I'm ranting now...Good night

[Pixie]

You get what you pay for and I for one would be happy to pay more tax for more Police if I knew the money was going to go there....Yeah right

Pay peanuts get monkeys.....sorry Spud

Bla Bla Bla Bla....I'm ranting now...Good night
Personally,I wouldn't pay more tax for more cops on the basis of their current performance.
Pay more tax so they can watch more porn?
Recently, a farmer on the Pouto peninsular was phoned by a cop and asked to investigate a "neighbour",a woman on her own,some kilometres away,who had dialed 111 to report an intruder.
The cop said he was too busy to take the call.
I suppose he would have had to put his pants on and turn the computer off in order to take the call himself.

[Pixie]

the police have severely let themselves down... If the police on the ground wanted to instigate change then for cripes sake... speak up!
I agree In the U.K.recently cops have protested ,both anonamously and in public about things their administration and government are trying to instigate.Here the cops just tow the party line.They are totally indoctrinated with their boss's bullshit

[Pixie]

I think you will find that this is a typical media beatup.

Another article i read stated that the guys (who had called 111) Wife then took the phone and stated that Police weren't required.

I dunno if you quite know the area but depending on where this remote Northland farm was it could easily have taken the cop 6 hours to drive there and another 6 to drive back. All to attend a 111 call where the callers have told Police they didn't want them to attend.

Imo he did the right thing, asking a neighboor who lived close if he could just check on them to make sure everything was definately ok.
The nearest large town was Dargarville ,the call was somewhere on the Pouto peninsular.
Look at a map -six hours?Come on.On a bicycle maybe.
Plus -remember that the last farmer that "investigated" a crime in the area was brought up on charges for putting a 12 gauge slug through a piece of filth.

[spudchucka]

Plus -remember that the last farmer that "investigated" a crime in the area was brought up on charges for putting a 12 gauge slug through a piece of filth.
And what was the outcome of that matter? With the ruling that followed, laying those charges may have been the best thing that could have happened in the circumstances.

[spudchucka]

He has said plenty... OK.. lets ask you a question... do you therefore support Klarke? Are you happy with the way things are... with the police... race relations....
I'm generally a National voter, I have voted for Labour back in the Lange days however. I've said plenty about my feelings on the way things are, if you are interested you can use the search function.

[spudchucka]

Well golly... don't you also agree with the fact that police are under resourced?If you are talking solely about police rsourcing then the answer is yes.


Don't you also agree that some coppers have let the force down?In an organization with 10,000 employees there will always be a small percentage that let the rest of us down. The latest porn scandle is an example. There are 330 police employees, (they aren't all sworn officers) involved, just over 3% of all staff. Its unfortunate but its hardly the scandle of the century. The media fails to keep things in perspective and the public form ill informed opinions because of the media's reporting habits.


What has been done officially about that coppers reaction to that kid on TV... is this normal?Are you talking about the cop on police 10/7 who was talking like a Hommie to the guy he was arresting?

The cop looked like he was little more than a kid himself. He had his shirt tail hanging out and was walking around slouched over with a gait similar to a breakdancer with a big boom box on his shoulder.

I thought he was a disgrace, he had no pride in the uniform and his body language was very poor.

If he is a new cop, (possibly one of the 17 - 19 year old cadets that went through the training college a year or so ago) then he is being let down badly by his supervisors and his field training officers. If he was a new cop under me then I would be giving him a good kick up the arse.

[Indoo]

Personally,I wouldn't pay more tax for more cops on the basis of their current performance.
Pay more tax so they can watch more porn?
Recently, a farmer on the Pouto peninsular was phoned by a cop and asked to investigate a "neighbour",a woman on her own,some kilometres away,who had dialed 111 to report an intruder.
The cop said he was too busy to take the call.
I suppose he would have had to put his pants on and turn the computer off in order to take the call himself.

Pixie please show me the direct references where you got your 'facts' in regard to the Pouto incident. Somehow i think your just full of shit.

In order to troll you really do need a better sense of humour. At least Winja can be amusing.

[MikeL]

The media fails to keep things in perspective and the public form ill informed opinions because of the media's reporting habits.


Most people's attitudes are more likely to be formed by the electronic media than by the press. Yesterday's Herald had a long article on the police porn issue and it was thoughtful and reasonably well-balanced. Anyone who read the whole story carefully would be unlikely to jump to any hasty conclusions. But among the general population, how many took the trouble to read it? National Radio (e.g. Morning Report) is the only electronic medium that attempts any in-depth analysis, and again is a minority choice among listeners. Commercial radio and television, with their 15-second sound bites and inability to go beyond sensational headlines, will always distort reality. And don't get me started on talkback radio - exploitation and manipulation hypocritically packaged as freedom of expression...

[inlinefour]

I remember when I first went to uni (2002) and all the elections etc they had. For the first yirs we were given talks about how somebody was better than somebody else (I soon realised that we were given the talks because we didn't know better... yet).

After two years at uni I had a suspicion that things were not as I was led to believe.

Now, in my fourth year (3yr deg, but fucked up at the start, plus doing it minimum full time load) I realise that they are all the same monkeys, just about know each other, every one of them claims to tell the truth, and not a single one knows what truth is.

And you wonder why students are apathetic fucks?? Last elections, we apparently had an excellent turn out of +/- 1100 students. Thats out of a possible 34,000 odd.

I lean towards national, but labour are in power because there is no effective opposition. Winston lies through his teeth at every election, and the other parties are just about non-existant. Act isn't bad tho.


Finished the Ba a few years ago, but know exactly where your coming from :niceone:

[Pixie]

Pixie please show me the direct references where you got your 'facts' in regard to the Pouto incident. Somehow i think your just full of shit.

In order to troll you really do need a better sense of humour. At least Winja can be amusing.
It was a quote directly from the farmer involved,via federated farmers ,to whom he complained about the incident and published in farmers' weekly or rural express.I've recycled the edition.

[drummer]

I agree In the U.K.recently cops have protested ,both anonamously and in public about things their administration and government are trying to instigate.Here the cops just tow the party line.They are totally indoctrinated with their boss's bullshit
absolutely... its all very well saying the police on the ground are not to blame... and in the majority of cases that's true... however... Those cops need to be aware that they CAN make a difference!

[drummer]

All I see from your posts, along with Don B's dribble is SELFISHNESS. All you lot think about is whats good for you and screw anyone else. Its really pathetic and shows that some people have no common sense as only slfish self centered people will vote for this...
Sefishness? May I ask you how wanting racial equality in NZ, wanting to boost police resources and wanting a tougher stance on crime is selfishness????? Please explain how and why you come to this conclusion... without rhetoric, and without the Labour line

[drummer]

But the reality of it is: despite which side is in power, they are all equally good at running the country into the ground. National have a far worse history than Labour, but as far as I'm concerned they are all equally crap.
So lets see... Labour... taxes up... Labour ... race relations down... Labour... Police resources under funded.... despite Klarke dictating for almost two terms...

[drummer]

And what was the outcome of that matter? With the ruling that followed, laying those charges may have been the best thing that could have happened in the circumstances.
The farmer should have received a heros medal!

[drummer]

Spud.... with regards to your post about the young cop... I am glad you feel the way I do re that... but can't you see for one moment that this is the sort of thing letting down the force... I would want to know if I was a cop what is being done about this idiot!

[Gremlin]

So lets see... Labour... taxes up... Labour ... race relations down... Labour... Police resources under funded.... despite Klarke dictating for almost two terms...
and it looks almost completely certain she is going to get another :brick: :cry: :cry: What's even worse is that she might even get a majority. So her support is going UP. :confused2

Sometimes I really feel like shaking brash and saying "Get your shit together, how hard can it be"

Trying to be honest about Herr Klarke, (and I really don't like her) she does confront shit within her party usually. All the other parties pussy foot around and hence you don't trust them...

[MikeL]

and it looks almost completely certain she is going to get another :brick: :cry: :cry: What's even worse is that she might even get a majority. So her support is going UP. :confused2


Can't understand it. She can't do anything right. All her policies have failed. The economy's in a mess. Inflation and unemployment are out of control. Children and old people are starving. Everybody's standard of living is much worse than it was under National. Taxes are sky-high.
Only the trendy, pinko, tree-hugging loonies could possibly agree with her social policy.
So how come her support is going UP??

Bloody democracy...

[Gremlin]

Can't understand it. She can't do anything right. All her policies have failed. The economy's in a mess. Inflation and unemployment are out of control. Children and old people are starving. Everybody's standard of living is much worse than it was under National. Taxes are sky-high.
Only the trendy, pinko, tree-hugging loonies could possibly agree with her social policy.
So how come her support is going UP??

Bloody democracy...
oh, it gets better. You look at the number of people on the forums that like/loathe her, loathe is easily the winner.

Strike up a convo with a random person in the street (doesn't everybody do that?) and they also usually don't like klarke.

Now try tell me which section of the country likes her... and we'll go and separate it/sink it.

[drummer]

Can't understand it. She can't do anything right. All her policies have failed. The economy's in a mess. Inflation and unemployment are out of control. Children and old people are starving. Everybody's standard of living is much worse than it was under National. Taxes are sky-high.
Only the trendy, pinko, tree-hugging loonies could possibly agree with her social policy.
So how come her support is going UP??

Bloody democracy...
Why don't you add Race relations lowest ever... crime going up... police under resourced... You mention unemployment... don't forget that the statistics are not revealing the UNDER EMPLOYED.

[drummer]

Now try tell me which section of the country likes her... and we'll go and separate it/sink it.
the section that could not care less... plus a certain racial element.

[Clockwork]

Could be the section that that got sick of everything being sold off in to private ownership (almost always overseas ownership). The section that saw them trying to sell off the roads and the health services. Ha, maybe even the Police! Now theres a thought, they may even decide to allow the new owners to keep whatever money they they can raise in fines..... Then we really would have reasons to bitch about getting caught speeding. :weep:

[drummer]

Could be the section that that got sick of everything being sold off in to private ownership (almost always overseas ownership). :
Say what? Who was that moron Lange again? What party?

[inlinefour]

Sefishness? May I ask you how wanting racial equality in NZ, wanting to boost police resources and wanting a tougher stance on crime is selfishness????? Please explain how and why you come to this conclusion... without rhetoric, and without the Labour line

that has nothing to do with what is happening with the Police. Your just being selfish by taking away from one and giving to another. Whats next, education and health?

[Clockwork]

Say what? Who was that moron Lange again? What party?

Sorry, I thought we were discussing current or "recent" policies, I guess you've put me in my place then!

[idb]

Can't understand it. She can't do anything right. All her policies have failed. The economy's in a mess. Inflation and unemployment are out of control. Children and old people are starving. Everybody's standard of living is much worse than it was under National. Taxes are sky-high.
Only the trendy, pinko, tree-hugging loonies could possibly agree with her social policy.
So how come her support is going UP??

Bloody democracy...
I'm all right :niceone:

[spudchucka]

Spud.... with regards to your post about the young cop... I am glad you feel the way I do re that... but can't you see for one moment that this is the sort of thing letting down the force... I would want to know if I was a cop what is being done about this idiot!
I'd like to know too. Thankfully, (in my experience) cops like him a few and far between. Looking at the average age for recruitment these days most new cops are in the 28 - 35 age bracket and therefore aren't little hommie wannabe twits. Most have valuable life experience from previous occupations, some however are young and impressionable, these ones need guidance and it appears that this young cop is not getting it.

All we can do as individual cops is to help guide those who are within are own circle of influence. If you are a constable then your circle of influence is really only your peers with less service than yourself. If you are a supervisor then your circle of influence is much wider. Whats really required is good, experienced field training officers that are capable of being mentors to young cops. Sadly the attrition rate amongst senior staff, (especially in Auckland) is such that the field training officers have much less experience these days than they did a while ago.

[spudchucka]

The farmer should have received a heros medal!
Well at least he wasn't convicted and I think that was a good decision.

[spudchucka]

Most people's attitudes are more likely to be formed by the electronic media than by the press. Yesterday's Herald had a long article on the police porn issue and it was thoughtful and reasonably well-balanced. Anyone who read the whole story carefully would be unlikely to jump to any hasty conclusions. But among the general population, how many took the trouble to read it? National Radio (e.g. Morning Report) is the only electronic medium that attempts any in-depth analysis, and again is a minority choice among listeners. Commercial radio and television, with their 15-second sound bites and inability to go beyond sensational headlines, will always distort reality. And don't get me started on talkback radio - exploitation and manipulation hypocritically packaged as freedom of expression...
I agree on the electronic media, they are seldom balanced and usually sensationalist. The print media do a better job but it is human nature to read little more than the headline. When that headline reads "Shocking Porn Scandle Rocks Police" or something similar the readers opinion is pretty much set before they even read the first paragraph.

Talkback radio :killingme :killingme !

[denill]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing current or "recent" policies, I guess you've put me in my place then!

Sorry, I thought this was a motorcycle Forum! :no: :no:

[drummer]

that has nothing to do with what is happening with the Police. Your just being selfish by taking away from one and giving to another. Whats next, education and health?
How am "I" taking from the health budget by saying we need better police resources? The Government is making a surplus of 8 billion dollars... spend some on services... spend some on protecting kiwis! Why am I selfish when saying this?

[drummer]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing current or "recent" policies, I guess you've put me in my place then!
You mentioned sell offs... they started with Lange!

[drummer]

All we can do as individual cops is to help guide those who are within are own circle of influence. If you are a constable then your circle of influence is really only your peers with less service than yourself. If you are a supervisor then your circle of influence is much wider.
Influence can extend far beyond what officially is available to you however. Some serious lobbying by senior staff both in terms of age and rank would be a great thing.

[drummer]

Well at least he wasn't convicted and I think that was a good decision.
Yes... that is correct... but he should NEVER have been charged. This is what is wrong here. We are being told that is not ok to defend yourself and your property. If someone comes into my home and I am around then woe be them.... and if someone hurts my stepkids... they will not be fit for court let alone anything else! What is wrong with that?

[drummer]

Sorry, I thought this was a motorcycle Forum! :no: :no:
??????????????

[WINJA]

How am "I" taking from the health budget by saying we need better police resources? The Government is making a surplus of 8 billion dollars... spend some on services... spend some on protecting kiwis! Why am I selfish when saying this?
WE SHOULD STOP GIVING HALF A BILLION DOLLARS AWAY IN GRANTS TO OVERSEAS COUNTRYS EVERY YEAR THIS WILL HELP EVEN MORE, FUCK THAT COUNTRYS SHOULD STAND AND FALL ON THEIR OWN 2 FEET FINANCIALLY

[drummer]

WE SHOULD STOP GIVING HALF A BILLION DOLLARS AWAY IN GRANTS TO OVERSEAS COUNTRYS EVERY YEAR THIS WILL HELP EVEN MORE, FUCK THAT COUNTRYS SHOULD STAND AND FALL ON THEIR OWN 2 FEET FINANCIALLY

Partly I agree... some overseas aid is wasting money. I think the worst is giving money to groups in our own country that believe they are living in the past... that to me is the biggest rort of all.

[Bren_chch]

WELL, about 4 weeks ago a 'very bad' asian driver pulled out along side of me then did a blind u-turn in front of me, I hit the side of his car and did a little bit of damage to me left hand side of bike (broken upper fairing, broken h-bracket, broken lhs indicator, broken mud front gaurd and a few other small dings)... the guy then drove off after me expressing my frustration regarding the fact that my bike is stuck to his car... so i'm now alone feeling like a right twat in the middle of the road. I used a near by phone, called the cops, explained about the hit and run and how i was pretty pissed that the dude has just driven off! What are they going to do about it... nothing much it seems... i said i have his number plate details can you take them, to which he replied, well you'll have to come in to the station and make a report! WHAT! some guy has just done a runner from a hit and run basically and u want me to get to the station on my now sick bike? anyhow it seems they wont come out to anything like that unless you have a BAD injury, like a broken leg, arm etc, anything else then you have to get down to the station and file a report which takes about an hour and 30mins, well at least it did for me! Anyhow i think thats toss, maybe I just expect to much? you tell me!

[spudchucka]

Yes... that is correct... but he should NEVER have been charged. This is what is wrong here. We are being told that is not ok to defend yourself and your property. If someone comes into my home and I am around then woe be them.... and if someone hurts my stepkids... they will not be fit for court let alone anything else! What is wrong with that?
Why shouldn't he have been charged? Isn't it better to put the matter before the courts and let the justice system decide if the actions were justifiable in the circumstances?

The police did the right thing and so have the courts, (so did the farmer as far as I'm concerned).

[spudchucka]

Influence can extend far beyond what officially is available to you however. Some serious lobbying by senior staff both in terms of age and rank would be a great thing.
Age limits and other criteria are set standards that recruits must achieve. We were talking about a scruffy individual cop who talks like a street Bro, he is the responsibility of his immediate supervisors.

[spudchucka]

WELL, about 4 weeks ago a 'very bad' asian driver pulled out along side of me then did a blind u-turn in front of me, I hit the side of his car and did a little bit of damage to me left hand side of bike (broken upper fairing, broken h-bracket, broken lhs indicator, broken mud front gaurd and a few other small dings)... the guy then drove off after me expressing my frustration regarding the fact that my bike is stuck to his car... so i'm now alone feeling like a right twat in the middle of the road. I used a near by phone, called the cops, explained about the hit and run and how i was pretty pissed that the dude has just driven off! What are they going to do about it... nothing much it seems... i said i have his number plate details can you take them, to which he replied, well you'll have to come in to the station and make a report! WHAT! some guy has just done a runner from a hit and run basically and u want me to get to the station on my now sick bike? anyhow it seems they wont come out to anything like that unless you have a BAD injury, like a broken leg, arm etc, anything else then you have to get down to the station and file a report which takes about an hour and 30mins, well at least it did for me! Anyhow i think thats toss, maybe I just expect to much? you tell me!
You aren't expecting too much. The licence plate details should have been taken from you and broadcast over the local frequency for units to look out for the vehicle.

[Lou Girardin]

Influence can extend far beyond what officially is available to you however. Some serious lobbying by senior staff both in terms of age and rank would be a great thing.

It better happen soon. Public approval now stands at 53% and falling.
Until Robinson and his fanatics gained power it was never below 90%.

[MikeL]

Yes... that is correct... but he should NEVER have been charged. This is what is wrong here. We are being told that is not ok to defend yourself and your property. If someone comes into my home and I am around then woe be them.... and if someone hurts my stepkids... they will not be fit for court let alone anything else! What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that you automatically assume that certain circumstances justify any degree of retaliation. If the farmer had shot and killed the thieves, do you still think he should not have been charged?
Exactly what circumstances justify shooting to kill or seriously injure? Where do you draw the line?

And that's a rhetorical question, because where you personally draw the line is not the point. Nor where the police draw the line. It's a matter for the courts.

And btw I believe in this case the judgement was fair.

[Indoo]

It better happen soon. Public approval now stands at 53% and falling.
Until Robinson and his fanatics gained power it was never below 90%.

I think Robinson and his 'managers' have burnt a few bridges with the handling of the 'porn crisis'. Theres a problem within the force of people gaining positions through politics, not merit and thats seen a rise in cops at the top out of touch with the cops on the street. It makes a huge difference when your working for bosses you respect.

[Lou Girardin]

And that's a rhetorical question, because where you personally draw the line is not the point. Nor where the police draw the line. It's a matter for the courts.
And btw I believe in this case the judgement was fair.

While I do agree with you in principle, the problem is that defending these charges often bankrupt people. Hardly justice being served.
It would be a lot fairer if full costs were awarded in the event of an aquittal.

[Clockwork]

Sorry, I thought this was a motorcycle Forum! :no: :no:

Your point being?
I didn't change this topic of this thread, but even if I did are you saying that we can only discuss motorbikes here?

[Clockwork]

You mentioned sell offs... they started with Lange!

Yeah! but they finished with Clarke and we all know Dr Don would like to start them off again.

[Clockwork]

Why shouldn't he have been charged? Isn't it better to put the matter before the courts and let the justice system decide if the actions were justifiable in the circumstances?

I agree entirely with you there Spud, but shouldn't the same logic have been applied to Keith Abbot?

[MikeL]

While I do agree with you in principle, the problem is that defending these charges often bankrupt people. Hardly justice being served.
It would be a lot fairer if full costs were awarded in the event of an aquittal.

Absolutely. It seems inconsistent to me to acquit but not award full costs.

[drummer]

Why shouldn't he have been charged? Isn't it better to put the matter before the courts and let the justice system decide if the actions were justifiable in the circumstances?

The police did the right thing and so have the courts, (so did the farmer as far as I'm concerned).
absolutely NOT... that is what is wrong... he should not have been charged for defending his own property!

[drummer]

Yeah! but they finished with Clarke and we all know Dr Don would like to start them off again.
Um... what about the privy council... she sold off the bloody court system!!!!!!!!

[drummer]

Absolutely. It seems inconsistent to me to acquit but not award full costs.
Totally... the farmer should also receive compensation... what happened to him was a disgrace... and I can not believe for one moment that some cops... (Stand up Spud) believe that this is fair...

[Clockwork]

absolutely NOT... that is what is wrong... he should not have been charged for defending his own property!

So you think its Ok to kill someone if you are trying to stop them from stealing your property?

[Clockwork]

Um... what about the privy council... she sold off the bloody court system!!!!!!!!

Not really the same subject is it. I'm not defending anything this Government has done, everyone will have their own views on that and no one will ever agree 100% with any Government (except maybe the Prime Minister). I was simply telling offering you a reason why people still support Labour over National despite all the PC Bull.

[drummer]

So you think its Ok to kill someone if you are trying to stop them from stealing your property?
The farmer didn't kill anyone... in my view he used reasonable force. I look at it this way... if you come on my property with the intention of harming myself or family or stealing property then you have NO rights. Lets examine the case we are talking about... the half lifes who came on were proven to have been stealing the farmers quad. Therefore the farmer in my view had every right to do virtually anything to these pieces of scum. Morally he didn't have the right to kill them... that is one where I would draw the line.

If i stole your SV.... and then you caught me riding it... what would you do?

[Clockwork]

The farmer didn't kill anyone... in my view he used reasonable force. I look at it this way... if you come on my property with the intention of harming myself or family or stealing property then you have NO rights. Lets examine the case we are talking about... the half lifes who came on were proven to have been stealing the farmers quad. Therefore the farmer in my view had every right to do virtually anything to these pieces of scum. Morally he didn't have the right to kill them... that is one where I would draw the line.

If i stole your SV.... and then you caught me riding it... what would you do?

I sure as hell wouldn't take pot shots at you as you were riding away!!!!

He bloody near did kill somebody and he wasn't defending himself or his family

Ok so maybe a quad bike is worth more than a life, what' the lowest value you would put on a thiefs life? How much does he need to steal before being eligable for your death penalty?

[drummer]

Not really the same subject is it. I'm not defending anything this Government has done, everyone will have their own views on that and no one will ever agree 100% with any Government (except maybe the Prime Minister). I was simply telling offering you a reason why people still support Labour over National despite all the PC Bull.
well it is related. here we have the government changing a public system... which is what selling off is. I must also say that I don't disagree with some of the sell offs... telecom for example. However I do believe that we should have tryed to keep at least half in NZ hands... same as Aussie have done.

I bel;ieve that the support is high because ultimately Klarke is a good spindoc...

[drummer]

I sure as hell wouldn't take pot shots at you as you were riding away!!!!

He bloody near did kill somebody and he wasn't defending himself or his family

Ok so maybe a quad bike is worth more than a life, what' the lowest value you would put on a thiefs life? How much does he need to steal before being eligable for your death penalty?
For goodness sake... read my post before you answer.

[Clockwork]

For goodness sake... read my post before you answer.

I read your last sentance but it appears to be inconsistent with your other comments. Are you saying its ok to shoot and maim just so long as they don't die? How was this farmer to know when he pulled the trigger that no one would get killed?

[spudchucka]

Totally... the farmer should also receive compensation... what happened to him was a disgrace... and I can not believe for one moment that some cops... (Stand up Spud) believe that this is fair...
Life isn't always fair but the outcome of that case was.

[spudchucka]

absolutely NOT... that is what is wrong... he should not have been charged for defending his own property!
Well there are laws governing the use of firearms and he discharged his without due care and consideration for the consequences. He was charged as a result of discharging the weapon recklessly, that charge was totally appropriate.

[spudchucka]

I agree entirely with you there Spud, but shouldn't the same logic have been applied to Keith Abbot?
No !

[James Deuce]

Um... what about the privy council... she sold off the bloody court system!!!!!!!!
That is actually completely incorrect. The idea that NZ released the Privy Council from it's Supreme Court equivalent role is a fabrication of the NZ media and implanted in practically every communication about the issue. The Privy Council asked to be released from it's role as NZ's de facto Supreme Court, as it felt it had little understanding or relevance in light of the types of issues that were being bought before it.

[James Deuce]

If i stole your R6.... and then you caught me riding it... what would you do?

Ring the Police and lodge an insurance claim with my insurance company.

[Clockwork]

Well there are laws governing the use of firearms and he discharged his without due care and consideration for the consequences. He was charged as a result of discharging the weapon recklessly, that charge was totally appropriate.

If the charges were totaly appropriate, then how come the outcome was too?

[Lou Girardin]

Ok so maybe a quad bike is worth more than a life, what' the lowest value you would put on a thiefs life? How much does he need to steal before being eligable for your death penalty?

What was the Quad worth?

[sAsLEX]

He bloody near did kill somebody and he wasn't defending himself or his family

Ok so maybe a quad bike is worth more than a life, what' the lowest value you would put on a thiefs life? How much does he need to steal before being eligable for your death penalty?

If he was uninsured, maybe due to the excessive costs due to the abundance of theives in his area, then yes he was defending his family and himself. Without farm machinery his farm could well fail, leaving another family to go on to welfare!!

How can he a farmer tell if the person coming on to his farm with the intention of nicking shit aint going to turn around and murder him and his family? its happened before.

[scumdog]

What was the Quad worth?

Probably more than the worthless twat that got shot!!

[Lou Girardin]

McIntyre (the farmer) would be bloody good at snooker judging by the shot off the ute into the brown pocket.

[spudchucka]

If the charges were totaly appropriate, then how come the outcome was too?
By discharging his firearm at another person and subsequently injuring that person the farmer committed a number of offences. It was totally appropriate for the police to charge him with those offences.

The Court heard the charges and the evidence and decided not to convict. I won't presume to know the reasons why the Court made this decision, it would be very interesting to read the Judges summary. The decision was, (in my opinion) a wise one as it sends a message to thieves and to property owners that the sort of behaviour that led up to the shooting, (a burglary) is a serious offence with serious consequences.

Both decisions, the police and the court, were the right decisions in their respective circumstances.

Its a pity that the farmer has suffered through numerous court appearances and is no doubt financially worse off than he was previously. However he elected to discharge the weapon in a situation where his life or the life of another person was not in dire and immediate threat, he has to face up to the consequences of his actions. I agree that his expenses should be covered if he is charged and subsequently found not guilty.

[spudchucka]

McIntyre (the farmer) would be bloody good at snooker judging by the shot off the ute into the brown pocket.
Good one. :niceone:

[Gremlin]

I won't jump into the argument of shooting the scum, (well, fine, I think the farmer was in the right - simply because I dislike the opposing argument)

I will instead focus on one fact. Once again, the innocent is the one in trouble, and the thief is the "victim". That's what really pisses me off.

Nobody would have ever got shot if no thieves had come onto the farm. Life is about choices. The thief chose to break the law. The thief tacitally (sp) agrees to the consequences.

If I go bungy jumping (which is a lot of fun) and a freak accident occurs (excl. systematic problems etc) then I chose to go bungy jumping. I live with the consequences.

If a biker goes off through his own fault, then he basically chose to do a number of things (excludes things like govt knew of problem but did nothing). The biker lives with the choice.

That is something that rarely happens in todays society. Always somebody elses fault... :mad:

[scumdog]

Tell me about it Gremlin!
I get it all the time "I was only..." "I was just..." always followed by a story as to why it wasn't their fault :no:

[Clockwork]

If he was uninsured, maybe due to the excessive costs due to the abundance of theives in his area, then yes he was defending his family and himself. Without farm machinery his farm could well fail, leaving another family to go on to welfare!!

How can he a farmer tell if the person coming on to his farm with the intention of nicking shit aint going to turn around and murder him and his family? its happened before.

1.) I don't think proptecting your family from welfare would stand up too well as Self Defense.
2.) I got the idea the hood was attempting to leave the property at the time.
3.) Why don't we just execute everyone when they come out of prison. 'Cause some of these bastards have gone on to kill someone after being released, its happened before.

Now look what you've done...... You've got me defneding the crim which is the last thing I want to do. I'm condemiing the actions of the farmer not condoning the actions of the crims.

[drummer]

I read your last sentance but it appears to be inconsistent with your other comments. Are you saying its ok to shoot and maim just so long as they don't die? How was this farmer to know when he pulled the trigger that no one would get killed?
You still haven't read my post! To paraphrase it, anyone coming onto my property to harm or steal should lose ALL rights.

[drummer]

By discharging his firearm at another person and subsequently injuring that person the farmer committed a number of offences. It was totally appropriate for the police to charge him with those offences.

The Court heard the charges and the evidence and decided not to convict. I won't presume to know the reasons why the Court made this decision, it would be very interesting to read the Judges summary. The decision was, (in my opinion) a wise one as it sends a message to thieves and to property owners that the sort of behaviour that led up to the shooting, (a burglary) is a serious offence with serious consequences.

Both decisions, the police and the court, were the right decisions in their respective circumstances.

Its a pity that the farmer has suffered through numerous court appearances and is no doubt financially worse off than he was previously. However he elected to discharge the weapon in a situation where his life or the life of another person was not in dire and immediate threat, he has to face up to the consequences of his actions. I agree that his expenses should be covered if he is charged and subsequently found not guilty.
What an absolute load of codswallop. Maybe the farmer broke the existing law... but the existing law is stupid to the max. Why.... WHY do you as a cop justify some piece of scum having any rights when committing an offence against a person. You say... it wasn't against the person... bollocks... the farmer worked hard to afford the Quad.... to steal it IS an offence.

[drummer]

Ring the Police and lodge an insurance claim with my insurance company.
Why ring the police?

[Clockwork]

You still haven't read my post! To paraphrase it, anyone coming onto my property to harm or steal should lose ALL rights.

I'm not too big on the rights of crims...... but I like them to have been convicted by a court first!

[MikeL]

You still haven't read my post! To paraphrase it, anyone coming onto my property to harm or steal should lose ALL rights.

He has read it, he has understood, and he (like many others who think the whole question through carefully) disagrees with your opinion. It's your turn to start listening to what he's saying.
Coming on to your property with intent to commit a crime places the would-be thief in a particular legal situation, and, depending on the circumstances, he will not be protected by the law against certain consequences. That is reasonable. However, to suggest that he loses ALL rights, including the right to life, is absurd.

Spud's view on this is the correct one. Where there is a considerable grey area, where interpretations of what is justified may vary, surely this is a matter for the courts to decide?
The financial cost of justice is a separate issue.

[spudchucka]

What an absolute load of codswallop. Maybe the farmer broke the existing law... but the existing law is stupid to the max. Why.... WHY do you as a cop justify some piece of scum having any rights when committing an offence against a person. You say... it wasn't against the person... bollocks... the farmer worked hard to afford the Quad.... to steal it IS an offence.
Drummer, you are laying into someone else for apparently not reading your post yet you are doing the same with my post. You obviously aren't reading or are only taking from it the points you wish to push for your own arguement.

Here are some of the stupid laws you mention:


Arms Act 1983

48.Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place—

Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding [$3,000] or to both who, without reasonable cause, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near—

(a)A dwellinghouse; or

(b)A public place,—

so as to endanger property or to endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.


Arms Act 1983

52.Presenting firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon at other person—

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both who, except for some lawful and sufficient purpose, presents a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon (whether or not the firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon is loaded or capable at the time of the offence of discharging any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile) at any other person.

(2)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both who, except for some lawful or sufficient purpose, presents at any person anything which, in the circumstances, is likely to lead that person to believe that it is a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon.


Arms Act 1983

53.Careless use of firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon—

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who causes bodily injury to or the death of any person by carelessly using a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon.

(2)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person who has in his charge or under his control a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon loaded with a shot, bullet, cartridge, missile, or projectile, whether [in] its breech, barrel, chamber, or magazine, leaves that firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in any place in such circumstances as to endanger the life of any person without taking reasonable precautions to avoid such danger.

(3)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, without reasonable cause, discharges or otherwise deals with a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in a manner likely to injure or endanger the safety of any person or with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

(4)It shall be no defence to the crime of manslaughter that the guilty act or omission proved against the person charged upon the indictment is an act or omission constituting an offence against this section.


Crimes Act 1961

198.Discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to do grievous bodily harm,—

(a)Discharges any firearm, airgun, or other similar weapon at any person; or

(b)Sends or delivers to any person, or puts in any place, any explosive or injurious substance or device; or

(c)Sets fire to any property.

(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to injure, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, does any of the acts referred to in subsection (1) of this section.

[(3)]Repealed.


Crimes Act 1961

[202C.Assault with weapon—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who,—

(a)In assaulting any person, uses any thing as a weapon; or

(b)While assaulting any person, has any thing with him or her in circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use it as a weapon.

[[(2)]] ]Repealed.


Crimes Act 1961

190.Injuring by unlawful act—

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who injures any other person in such circumstances that if death had been caused he would have been guilty of manslaughter.


Crimes Act 1961

189.Injuring with intent—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, injures any person.

(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, with intent to injure any one, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, injures any person.

[(3)]Repealed.



Crimes Act 1961

188.Wounding with intent—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.

(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to injure anyone, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.

[(3)]Repealed.

But I guess you must be right, they are all stupid to the max laws that we really don't need.

Have I justified what the burglar did? Read again Drummer because you are badly mistaken. And by the way he hasn't committed an offence against a person, thats what the farmer did, the burglar committed an offence against property.

And if you want to be totally ignored keep responding to my posts by saying "what a load of codswallop" as your opening retort.

[James Deuce]

Why ring the police?
Because at the very minimum, I won't get my Insurance paid out if I don't have a Police report corroborating my theft claim.

[Lou Girardin]

I guess the bottom line is; would your wife and kids rather have a live father in jail or a dead hero.
If someone breaks in, shoot first ask questions later.
And, if he was unarmed, there's plenty of kitchen knives to be put in his cold, dead hand.

[Clockwork]

I guess the bottom line is; would your wife and kids rather have a live father in jail or a dead hero.
If someone breaks in, shoot first ask questions later.
And, if he was unarmed, there's plenty of kitchen knives to be put in his cold, dead hand.

Just so long as you shoot him when he's "in" your house...... not driving away from it!

[Ixion]

Just so long as you shoot him when he's "in" your house...... not driving away from it!

The old rule used to be in the house "or the curtilage thereof".

Rule in common law used to be that if threatened you had to run away. But "at the threshhold of his house a man may stand and fight, yea even unto the death'

I may be wrong but I seem to recall that those thieves actually had a gun in their car . Jolly hard in such circumstances to decide if they're running back to the car to flee, or to get their guns. I'd be inclined to send a round over their heads to encourage the former.

[Wolf]

I guess the bottom line is; would your wife and kids rather have a live father in jail or a dead hero.
If someone breaks in, shoot first ask questions later.
And, if he was unarmed, there's plenty of kitchen knives to be put in his cold, dead hand.
And any competent forensic examiner will be able to determine that his hand was forced to grip the knife posthumously - adding "tampering with evidence" to the various firearms offences and possibly providing a skilled prosecutor with all the "evidence" required for a "premeditated murder" charge - all (s)he has to do is convince twelve random members of the public that you killed someone with the intention of planting a weapon afterwards and then point to this forum where you have already posted your "plan"... :msn-wink:

[Lou Girardin]

And any competent forensic examiner will be able to determine that his hand was forced to grip the knife posthumously - adding "tampering with evidence" to the various firearms offences and possibly providing a skilled prosecutor with all the "evidence" required for a "premeditated murder" charge - all (s)he has to do is convince twelve random members of the public that you killed someone with the intention of planting a weapon afterwards and then point to this forum where you have already posted your "plan"... :msn-wink:

CSI has a lot to answer for.
I wouldn't contemplate this plan anyway, we have an attack cat.
One word from me and he'll slaughter his dinner.

[Wolf]

CSI has a lot to answer for.
My mum's long-time interest in forensic science has a lot more to answer for. Thanks to her willingness to share her interest with anyone not fast enough to get out of the room in time, I have a pretty good chance of being able to identify whether a person slit their own throat or had it slit for them...

Pretty vicious, those attack cats, too.

[spudchucka]

The old rule used to be in the house "or the curtilage thereof".

Rule in common law used to be that if threatened you had to run away. But "at the threshhold of his house a man may stand and fight, yea even unto the death'

I may be wrong but I seem to recall that those thieves actually had a gun in their car . Jolly hard in such circumstances to decide if they're running back to the car to flee, or to get their guns. I'd be inclined to send a round over their heads to encourage the former.
Did the farmer know they had guns at the time he discharged his weapon?

There is a big difference between a round over their heads and one up his fat hairy arse, (in the case of any competent firearms user at least).

[spudchucka]

CSI has a lot to answer for.
So has any cop drama. The amount of absolute crap that gets quoted back at you from American cop dramas is unbelievable.

[Lou Girardin]

So has any cop drama. The amount of absolute crap that gets quoted back at you from American cop dramas is unbelievable.

You're going to have stop agreeing with me, Spud. People are starting to talk.

[spudchucka]

You're going to have stop agreeing with me, Spud. People are starting to talk.
It shocks me too but someone I met a while ago told me that you weren't a total arsehole so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

[drummer]

I'm not too big on the rights of crims...... but I like them to have been convicted by a court first!
True enough, however lets look at the facts. The farmer caught the scum stealing. Now Spud says that it was a crime against property. I have to ask how come he doesn't believe that a crime against property is actually a crime against SOMEONE! Stealing property affects PEOPLE. Are we so soft on crime here in NZ that we honestly believe that someone trying to steal your property has a degree of protection by the sate... that if I stop a thief stealing my property and in the course of stopping him or her, I hurt them.... that the state blames me for their injury? Simple answer... don't steal!

[drummer]

[QUOTE=spudchucka]Have I justified what the burglar did? Read again Drummer because you are badly mistaken. And by the way he hasn't committed an offence against a person, thats what the farmer did, the burglar committed an offence against property.QUOTE]
OK... this demands a good answer for what was a good post.

I see that "reasonable cause" was used in the discharging of a firearm. I argue that if someone is stealing your property then they do not have rights of protection under the law. They are committing an offence... therefore are operating OUTSIDE of the law to begin with. Now wheather that currently is the case or not isn't the issue here. What I am saying is that the law is fine... except where one of the parties is committing an offence against someone... (More of that later) that someone SHOULD have the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop and aprehend the scumbag. You may say that exists now, however the mere fact that it went to court, it cost the farmer megabucks, and heaps of time and stress means that the law is NOT working.

You say yourself that the charges AND the outcome was correct. How can this be? How can an outcome that sees the victim (as proven by the current system) be out of pocket and stressed be "correct"? It is the result of a system that gives people far too many rights without emphisising their responsibilities. The lowlife thief in the case we are discussing had rights, but also a responsibility to obey the law. They neglected their responsibilities and therefore in my opinion should therefore forgo their rights

Think about your children if you are fortunate enough to have them... hasn't their been a huge focus on rights over the past 3 decades... and yet responsibilities are seldem mentioned. Whats happened? Kids are under tremendous pressure to perform, to live as an adult before their time is due.... suicide rates for young men especially are soaring still. It's all very well to talk about peoples rights. But what about the responsibility angle....? What about the right of the farmer to protect his property?

Another aspect of your post was the mention that the crime was against the farmers property not person. I regard that as being a very cold hard attitude. All crime is committed against people... if you steal my property that I worked hard for, that affects me... that upsets me... that could even bankrupt me.... that, Spud is crime against my person as good as a bashing.

There ya go... no codswollop!! Cheers!

[spudchucka]

Now Spud says that it was a crime against property. I have to ask how come he doesn't believe that a crime against property is actually a crime against SOMEONE!What are you? The master of misinterpretation? Of course crimes against property affect people because people own property. However the Crimes Act cleary sets out what is a crime against property, (part 10) and what is a crime against a person, (part 8).


Are we so soft on crime here in NZ that we honestly believe that someone trying to steal your property has a degree of protection by the sate...


New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

8.Right not to be deprived of life—

No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. If you have a problem with it then take it up with Sir Geoffry Palmer, the genious that drafted that fine piece of legislation.


if I stop a thief stealing my property and in the course of stopping him or her, I hurt them.... that the state blames me for their injury? Simple answer... don't steal!Did the Court ruling not endorse the feelings that you jumping up and down over? Whats the problem?

[hondacmx450]

i will say i do not like them much i was pulled over in the outter parts of hamilton by a so called cop and given a ticket for no wof when i asked him why he pulled me over he said cause i had jeans on man i was mad at that so i went home and got out old gsxr1100 and put shorts on and went looking for the dick so i could show him my ass at 100kph on one wheel could not find him :no:

[Lou Girardin]

i will say i do not like them much i was pulled over in the outter parts of hamilton by a so called cop and given a ticket for no wof when i asked him why he pulled me over he said cause i had jeans on man i was mad at that so i went home and got out old gsxr1100 and put shorts on and went looking for the dick so i could show him my ass at 100kph on one wheel could not find him :no:

OK, so you're going to teach the cop a lesson for giving you a ticket by getting another one!
At least you didn't do what the arsehole in Victoria did.

[Ixion]

Did the farmer know they had guns at the time he discharged his weapon?

There is a big difference between a round over their heads and one up his fat hairy arse, (in the case of any competent firearms user at least).

Not sure. To be honest I've not followed the details that closely.

Don't think he needs to know that they have guns (or knives or whatever), just have reasonable grounds to fear for his life.

I think (open to correction here), that the shot that hit was actually a ricochet off something ? Didn't he (Mr McIntyre) say that he fired more or less randomly into the air (I was going to say "into the brown" then realised how that would be misinterpreted! ) and was surprised the the ricochet hit someone ?

One of the advantages of a jury system is that occasionally a jury will say, stuff the law we're going to do what's right.

[spudchucka]

I see that "reasonable cause" was used in the discharging of a firearm. I argue that if someone is stealing your property then they do not have rights of protection under the law.So when a shoplifter is caught stealing a chocolate bar the shop keeper is justified in blowing his brains out to prevent the offender from getting away with his property?


someone SHOULD have the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop and aprehend the scumbag. As above. Put it in perspective and the situation you prescribe is quite absurd.


You may say that exists nowThe Crimes Act covers defence of property in sections 52 - 56. Use of force to the level of discharging a firearm at another person is reallly only justified under section 48, which covers self defence and defence of another person, which makes the Court decision even more interesting.


however the mere fact that it went to court, it cost the farmer megabucks, and heaps of time and stress means that the law is NOT working.I'm afraid that you are wrong. The Court is the only appropriate forum to judge whether the actions were justified. The farmer broke a law, he was charged, (correctly) and the Court made a decision based on the evidence presented. That is how the justice system works and in my opinion this case has actually increased my faith in the system.


You say yourself that the charges AND the outcome was correct. How can this be?As above. The farmer committed an offence by firing his weapon and injuring another person. It is the police function to put that person before the Court, which they did. It is not the police function to decide whether his actions were justifiable, that is the job of the Courts. It is my opinion as a person, (not as a cop) that the decision of the Court was the correct one in the circumstances.


The lowlife thief in the case we are discussing had rights, but also a responsibility to obey the law. They neglected their responsibilities and therefore in my opinion should therefore forgo their rightsEven their right to life? You're a hard man. Most hardliners want the death penalty for murders, rapes and such but wouldn't see a person put to death by either the state or by vigilanty justice for staeling a quad bike.

Oh by the way, the farmer has responsibilities as a firearms licence holder too.


Think about your children if you are fortunate enough to have them... hasn't their been a huge focus on rights over the past 3 decades... and yet responsibilities are seldem mentioned. Whats happened? Kids are under tremendous pressure to perform, to live as an adult before their time is due.... suicide rates for young men especially are soaring still. It's all very well to talk about peoples rights. But what about the responsibility angle....? What about the right of the farmer to protect his property?I agree with many of your points here and fundamentally I agree with the right to defend property but not to the point of vigilanty justice taking hold.


Another aspect of your post was the mention that the crime was against the farmers property not person. I regard that as being a very cold hard attitude. All crime is committed against people... if you steal my property that I worked hard for, that affects me... that upsets me... that could even bankrupt me.... that, Spud is crime against my person as good as a bashing.Thats simply your subjective opinion. Others have equally valid but differing opinions. The law is generally quite clear on these issues and the police in this matter acted appropriately according to the relevant laws.


There ya go... no codswollop!! Cheers!Appreciate it, thanks.

[marty]

So when a shoplifter is caught stealing a chocolate bar the shop keeper is justified in blowing his brains out to prevent the offender from getting away with his property?

.


good point spud.

or what about if there is disagreement about ownership, like in domestic separation situations, and one party believes they have the property rights (or just doesn't want the ex to have it), so when the other one takes it away, they can be shot?

drummer?

[marty]

maybe drummer has a $ value on personal property being stolen at which you can shoot someone in the back.

[RDJ]

maybe drummer has a $ value on personal property being stolen at which you can shoot someone in the back.

I doubt that he or anyone would claim that there should be any such value. On the other hand, there is substantial merit in the idea that property theft is actually a crime against the person. If I work for 20 weeks at 40 hours a week to buy a car / boat / quad / fur coat or whatever and it is stolen, that thief has in some respects stolen 800 hours of my life. Does not justify shooting him in the back, by no means, but this is certainly not a 'victimless crime' - this is a crime against me not just my property ... not so? I am never going to get those 800 hours back.... just a different perspective, am by no means advocating vigilanteism (which is sort step from anarchy).

[Pixie]

WE SHOULD STOP GIVING HALF A BILLION DOLLARS AWAY IN GRANTS TO OVERSEAS COUNTRYS EVERY YEAR THIS WILL HELP EVEN MORE, FUCK THAT COUNTRYS SHOULD STAND AND FALL ON THEIR OWN 2 FEET FINANCIALLY
If we don't send aid to poor countries,(like Indonesia for instance,who have armed forces with the resources to scare the USA)
Then clarke and her cronies won't earn the points that will get them the UN posts they covert for when they retire from screwing our country.

[Pixie]

So you think its Ok to kill someone if you are trying to stop them from stealing your property?
Heavens no!It wasn't his fault ,Society failed him

[Pixie]

I sure as hell wouldn't take pot shots at you as you were riding away!!!!

He bloody near did kill somebody and he wasn't defending himself or his family

Ok so maybe a quad bike is worth more than a life, what' the lowest value you would put on a thiefs life? How much does he need to steal before being eligable for your death penalty?
What would be the pros and cons if the said Scum died?
Pros : One less crim Scum
One social worker/case worker would have one less client
A patch of ground somewhere would get fertilised

Cons: Cost of funeral arrangments?Sorry that would probably be covered
by ACC or a WINZ special needs grant

[Pixie]

McIntyre (the farmer) would be bloody good at snooker judging by the shot off the ute into the brown pocket.
:killingme :killingme :killingme :killingme :killingme :killingme

[Pixie]

And any competent forensic examiner will be able to determine that his hand was forced to grip the knife posthumously - adding "tampering with evidence" to the various firearms offences and possibly providing a skilled prosecutor with all the "evidence" required for a "premeditated murder" charge - all (s)he has to do is convince twelve random members of the public that you killed someone with the intention of planting a weapon afterwards and then point to this forum where you have already posted your "plan"... :msn-wink:
My how things have changed.In Arthur Thomas's time they couldn't tell that a shiny brass cartridge case was unlikely to have been in a flower bed for eighteen months.

[Lou Girardin]

So when a shoplifter is caught stealing a chocolate bar the shop keeper is justified in blowing his brains out to prevent the offender from getting away with his property?


There was the classic scene from the LA riots of two Korean shopowners standing in their doorway and banging off rounds at any rioter who came near.
They didn't seem to get bothered much.

[Lou Girardin]

My how things have changed.In Arthur Thomas's time they couldn't tell that a shiny brass cartridge case was unlikely to have been in a flower bed for eighteen months.

Or that it couldn't possibly have contained the bullet that killed Harvey Crewe.
But in those days, if a cop said black was white a jury would believe him. Three juries in this case.
And who was it that revealed the crucial evidence?
Oh, that's right. A journalist.

[Lou Girardin]

If anyone is wondering how the Police reputation has come to this low. Check out the Herald this morning. Peter Doone, ex-commissioner, is sueing helen Clarke over his resignation. Which was forced on him because he tried to make a rookie cop not breath test his girlfriend.
This is an example of the integrity and moral courage of some of the Police hierachy. The new lot aren't any better.

[scumdog]

If anyone is wondering how the Police reputation has come to this low. Check out the Herald this morning. Peter Doone, ex-commissioner, is sueing helen Clarke over his resignation. Which was forced on him because he tried to make a rookie cop not breath test his girlfriend.
This is an example of the integrity and moral courage of some of the Police hierachy. The new lot aren't any better.

Ah yes, but what are you going to do improve things? So far all the slanging on this site has made things worse so in this age of dispensing with resposibility I blame you and Ixion :D :msn-wink:

BTW Note the claim made in the MEDIA re Doones words was retracted by them hence the 'go' at H. Cluck by Doone.

[Clockwork]

What would be the pros and cons if the said Scum died?
Pros : One less crim Scum
One social worker/case worker would have one less client
A patch of ground somewhere would get fertilised

Cons: Cost of funeral arrangments?Sorry that would probably be covered
by ACC or a WINZ special needs grant


Yeeee Haaaaarrr.

Saddle up boys!!!! there's gonna be a lynchin'

I guess we won't need courts anymore.... and there would be no need for Prisons. All offences can be punished by death (should this include traffic infringements?)

Jeez, look at all the people you're putting out of a job.... they may have to resort to crime to survive!

[Clockwork]

I doubt that he or anyone would claim that there should be any such value. On the other hand, there is substantial merit in the idea that property theft is actually a crime against the person. If I work for 20 weeks at 40 hours a week to buy a car / boat / quad / fur coat or whatever and it is stolen, that thief has in some respects stolen 800 hours of my life. Does not justify shooting him in the back, by no means, but this is certainly not a 'victimless crime' - this is a crime against me not just my property ... not so? I am never going to get those 800 hours back.... just a different perspective, am by no means advocating vigilanteism (which is sort step from anarchy).

By this definition every crime becomes a crime against the person!

[Wolf]

By this definition every crime becomes a crime against the person!
Except for burgling a bank - the funds are all insured and who the fuck gives a rats arse if an insurance company is forced to give back the money it's fleeced off the policy holder?

Note I said "burgling" not "robbing" - the former involves sneaking in and taking the loot, the latter involves threatening staff (which would be a direct crime against said staff).

[Clockwork]

Except for burgling a bank - the funds are all insured and who the fuck gives a rats arse if an insurance company is forced to give back the money it's fleeced off the policy holder?

Note I said "burgling" not "robbing" - the former involves sneaking in and taking the loot, the latter involves threatening staff (which would be a direct crime against said staff).

What if the Bank doesn't have insurance? or What if they have it and they use the same insurance company that you use and then your premiums go up to protect their pofits?

[Ixion]

Ah yes, but what are you going to do improve things? So far all the slanging on this site has made things worse so in this age of dispensing with resposibility I blame you and Ixion :D :msn-wink:
..

Well, as soon as you all get your collective act together and agree to my appointment as national Dictator , with full autocratic powers, then you'll see lots of improvement to lots of things. (Starting with the personal bike collection in the Dictatorial gargre :niceone: ).

You might decide you don't like the improvements too much though. Especially when my New Style police (in their *special* new uniforms) come breaking your door down at 2am. (Did I mention that one of the improvements was getting rid of all that tedious nuisance about warrants and right to a fair trial blah blah blah) :devil2:

[Pixie]

Well, as soon as you all get your collective act together and agree to my appointment as national Dictator , with full autocratic powers, then you'll see lots of improvement to lots of things. (Starting with the personal bike collection in the Dictatorial gargre :niceone: ).

You might decide you don't like the improvements too much though. Especially when my New Style police (in their *special* new uniforms) come breaking your door down at 2am. (Did I mention that one of the improvements was getting rid of all that tedious nuisance about warrants and right to a fair trial blah blah blah) :devil2:
You'll get my vote :niceone:
Be aware though that failure to perform will result in a "Mussolini"
(hung upside down with brain removed)

[Ixion]

You'll get my vote :niceone:
Be aware though that failure to perform will result in a "Mussolini"
(hung upside down with brain removed)

Vote ? Vote? What's with the vote bit ?. I follow the Vetenarian principle of politics. One man, one vote. I'm the man and I've got the one vote. The rest of you just do as you're told. :devil2:

[Wolf]

Vote ? Vote? What's with the vote bit ?. I follow the Vetenarian principle of politics. One man, one vote. I'm the man and I've got the one vote. The rest of you just do as you're told. :devil2:
All Hail Lord Havelock Vetinari! And much kudos to his esteemed chronicler, Terry Prachett...

[Ixion]

All Hail Lord Havelock Vetinari! And much kudos to his esteemed chronicler, Terry Prachett...

Actually, I'd vote for Sam Vimes as Police Commisioner ! I reckon that man had the right idea about policing. Unfortunately, we seem to have ended up with Sergeant Colon.

[Wolf]

Actually, I'd vote for Sam Vimes as Police Commisioner ! I reckon that man had the right idea about policing. Unfortunately, we seem to have ended up with Sergeant Colon.
Could have wound up with Nobby...

[mikey]

I WANA BE A COPPER :whocares:

[drummer]

good point spud.

or what about if there is disagreement about ownership, like in domestic separation situations, and one party believes they have the property rights (or just doesn't want the ex to have it), so when the other one takes it away, they can be shot?

drummer?

Interesting point because this is exactly what happened to me... not shot but I had a situation where police in Queensland took sides over a despute and firearms were carried by the police.

I have never justified shooting to kill with my posts infact you will if you look see a comment of mine that killing is not right... ever.

[Lou Girardin]

Ah yes, but what are you going to do improve things? So far all the slanging on this site has made things worse so in this age of dispensing with resposibility I blame you and Ixion :D :msn-wink:

BTW Note the claim made in the MEDIA re Doones words was retracted by them hence the 'go' at H. Cluck by Doone.

There's not a lot I can do apart from publicly pointed out the failings, as do many others. I do my best :devil2:
I didn't think this site had such far reaching influence, I'll have to forgo writing to the papers, or maybe just to the ODT.
But, back to the original point, don't you think that Doone is scum.

[drummer]

So when a shoplifter is caught stealing a chocolate bar the shop keeper is justified in blowing his brains out to prevent the offender from getting away with his property?

As above. Put it in perspective and the situation you prescribe is quite absurd.

The Crimes Act covers defence of property in sections 52 - 56. Use of force to the level of discharging a firearm at another person is reallly only justified under section 48, which covers self defence and defence of another person, which makes the Court decision even more interesting.

I'm afraid that you are wrong. The Court is the only appropriate forum to judge whether the actions were justified. The farmer broke a law, he was charged, (correctly) and the Court made a decision based on the evidence presented. That is how the justice system works and in my opinion this case has actually increased my faith in the system.

As above. The farmer committed an offence by firing his weapon and injuring another person. It is the police function to put that person before the Court, which they did. It is not the police function to decide whether his actions were justifiable, that is the job of the Courts. It is my opinion as a person, (not as a cop) that the decision of the Court was the correct one in the circumstances.

Even their right to life? You're a hard man. Most hardliners want the death penalty for murders, rapes and such but wouldn't see a person put to death by either the state or by vigilanty justice for staeling a quad bike.

Oh by the way, the farmer has responsibilities as a firearms licence holder too.

I agree with many of your points here and fundamentally I agree with the right to defend property but not to the point of vigilanty justice taking hold.

Thats simply your subjective opinion. Others have equally valid but differing opinions. The law is generally quite clear on these issues and the police in this matter acted appropriately according to the relevant laws.

Appreciate it, thanks.
Spud... thanks for your long reply earlier, however you are arguing on a different plane... I am not debating what the law is now... I am simply saying that the current law is an ass...

Secondly... you say I am a hard man... yes... I am... against lowlife scum. Let me ask you a simple question.. (assuming you made the law) Do YOU believe that a criminal caught in the act of stealing should be protected or not? If you do then how far would YOU allow the victim to go in preventing the crime from happening?

[drummer]

Spud... thanks for your long reply earlier, however you are arguing on a different plane... I am not debating what the law is now... I am simply saying that the current law is an ass...

Secondly... you say I am a hard man... yes... I am... against lowlife scum. Let me ask you a simple question.. (assuming you made the law) Do YOU believe that a criminal caught in the act of stealing should be protected or not? If you do then how far would YOU allow the victim to go in preventing the crime from happening?

[drummer]

maybe drummer has a $ value on personal property being stolen at which you can shoot someone in the back.
I hesitated to answer this simply because of the absurdity... and now, come to think of it... I won't

[drummer]

By this definition every crime becomes a crime against the person!
Your point?

[scumdog]

There's not a lot I can do apart from publicly pointed out the failings, as do many others. I do my best :devil2:
I didn't think this site had such far reaching influence, I'll have to forgo writing to the papers, or maybe just to the ODT.
But, back to the original point, don't you think that Doone is scum.

Don't mention him and Incis to me in the same breath - but then he's at the same level as all the politicians, - maybe that's where he's aimed :whistle:

And easy with the loose use of my name in connection with Doone :msn-wink:

[idb]

Don't mention him and Incis to me in the same breath - but then he's at the same level as all the politicians, - maybe that's where he's aimed :whistle:

And easy with the loose use of my name in connection with Doone :msn-wink:
How is the INCIS project going anyway....it must be just about finished?

[scumdog]

How is the INCIS project going anyway....it must be just about finished?

Yeah, that's the word I'd use: "finished" - like the dodo is finished.

[spudchucka]

I hesitated to answer this simply because of the absurdity... and now, come to think of it... I won't
Whats absurd about it? Its a fair question when you are saying that the use of potentially lethal force is justified to prevent property from being stolen. Do you propose that this same level of force used in this case would be appropriate in circumstances such as a shoplifter stealing a packet of chewing gum? The value of the gum is much less than the value of a quad bike, however it is still somebody's property that is being stolen. At what threshold would the use of lethal force be appropriate? $1.00? $5.00? $10.00? $100.00? $1000.00? $5000.00? Its a legitimate question and I think you should answer it.

[Clockwork]

Your point?

Ok a crim mugs your Granny of $20 and leaves her in hospital. Which is the greater offence, the theft or the assault? What if he just snatched her bag and left her unharmed, does he still deserve the same punishment?

Are you really telling me you can see no difference between an offence against property and an offence against a person?

[drummer]

Whats absurd about it? Its a fair question when you are saying that the use of potentially lethal force is justified to prevent property from being stolen. Do you propose that this same level of force used in this case would be appropriate in circumstances such as a shoplifter stealing a packet of chewing gum? The value of the gum is much less than the value of a quad bike, however it is still somebody's property that is being stolen. At what threshold would the use of lethal force be appropriate? $1.00? $5.00? $10.00? $100.00? $1000.00? $5000.00? Its a legitimate question and I think you should answer it.
Its a loaded question... I have already covered that answer in earlier posts. Bad attempt at rhetoric Spud! You seem more intelligent than that.

[spudchucka]

Interesting point because this is exactly what happened to me... not shot but I had a situation where police in Queensland took sides over a despute and firearms were carried by the police.

I have never justified shooting to kill with my posts infact you will if you look see a comment of mine that killing is not right... ever.
The QLD coppers always carry a side arm.

Discharging a firearms at another person has a high probability of killing, maiming or injuring another person. Very few people would be skilled enough to shoot to injure, despite what the TV would have us believe.

If, (as somebody else has suggested), the farmer was actually trying to fire a shot over their heads but instead ended up shooting one of the thieves, this indicates how things can go very wrong very quickly. The theif could have just as easily have been killed and the farmer facing homicide charges. I don't think the same decision would have resulted if that had been the case.

Unless a person is totally mental they should be fully aware of the dangers of firing a weapon at another human, (even if they are a sub-human). If they choose to pull the trigger then they elect to face whatever consequences arise as a result of that shooting. This farmer has been rather lucky really.

[drummer]

Ok a crim mugs your Granny of $20 and leaves her in hospital. Which is the greater offence, the theft or the assault? What if he just snatched her bag and left her unharmed, does he still deserve the same punishment?

Are you really telling me you can see no difference between an offence against property and an offence against a person?
The degree of punishment isn't an issue here... I have stated as others have that any crime is a crime against someone... a person... a human being... I can see a difference between a bashing and a theft, but they are both crimes that affect PEOPLE.

Would you disagree with that?

[drummer]

This farmer has been rather lucky really.

You are joking I must assume.... LUCKY???????????????????????????????????

Say what!!! You consider the farmer lucky huh..... well now... lets see... this farmer is LUCKY to have some scum try to rob him.... this farmer was LUCKY AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION OF THE SCUM TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT IN THE FIRST PLACE to have been dragged through court, to then HAVE BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY... and then to have have had this cost him in time and money.... YET YOU STATE THIS GUY IS LUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear God.... I would hate what you define as unlucky!!!

[scumdog]

Time we brought in "three strikes and you're out" legislation in this country!!

Nice big new prsion being built down here - up to 600 beds!!

Back to watching "Night Rider"!!!! (nearly cried on seeing the '60 T'bird in the crusher at the wrecking yard sceen)

[spudchucka]

I am not debating what the law is now... I am simply saying that the current law is an ass... Which law exactly? I posted examples of the relevant offences that the farmer might have been charged under, which of them is the problem in your view?


Let me ask you a simple question.. (assuming you made the law) Do YOU believe that a criminal caught in the act of stealing should be protected or not? I don't make the law and I don't want to either.

However, I do not believe that a theif caught in the act should be summarily executed by the property owner. I believe that reasonable force should be permitted to defend property but not to the extent that lethal force is used. An exception to this would be if an offender was breaking into a family home while the occupants were present, then I think lethal force could be used so long as it could later be justified in Court.

[drummer]

Time we brought in "three strikes and you're out" legislation in this country!!

Nice big new prsion being built down here - up to 600 beds!!

Back to watching "Night Rider"!!!! (nearly cried on seeing the '60 T'bird in the crusher at the wrecking yard sceen)
Three strikes and you are out is a great idea... Does anyone here believe that we are not too soft on crime?

[spudchucka]

You are joking I must assume.... LUCKY???????????????????????????????????

Say what!!! You consider the farmer lucky huh..... well now... lets see... this farmer is LUCKY to have some scum try to rob him.... this farmer was LUCKY AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION OF THE SCUM TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT IN THE FIRST PLACE to have been dragged through court, to then HAVE BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY... and then to have have had this cost him in time and money.... YET YOU STATE THIS GUY IS LUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear God.... I would hate what you define as unlucky!!!
Quit with the melow dramatic BS. He was lucky not to be convicted!

[spudchucka]

Its a loaded question... I have already covered that answer in earlier posts. Bad attempt at rhetoric Spud! You seem more intelligent than that.
Just answer the question! If you expect that lethal force is a reasonable means of preventing theft then you either accept the same degree of force for all theft situations or you set a level at which lethal force becomes appropriate.

Its a fair question.

[spudchucka]

Ok a crim mugs your Granny of $20 and leaves her in hospital. Which is the greater offence, the theft or the assault? What if he just snatched her bag and left her unharmed, does he still deserve the same punishment?

Are you really telling me you can see no difference between an offence against property and an offence against a person?
Theft accompanied by violence is robbery, which carries a higher penalty than straight theft.

If he was charged with robbery he couldn't also be charged with assault, unless a second assault took place that was independant of the theft.

[drummer]

Which law exactly? I posted examples of the relevant offences that the farmer might have been charged under, which of them is the problem in your view?.

The one that the farmer was charged under. If you haven't got my point, the farmer should NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED!!!!!


I don't make the law and I don't want to either..

Easy answer..


However, I do not believe that a theif caught in the act should be summarily executed by the property owner. I believe that reasonable force should be permitted to defend property but not to the extent that lethal force is used. .

Hang on... isn't this what I am saying. The farmer did NOT use lethal force.


An exception to this would be if an offender was breaking into a family home while the occupants were present, then I think lethal force could be used so long as it could later be justified in Court.

Hang on again.... you are now making an exception... ok... what say a kid was in your house.... and stealing food... are you now saying that you should be able to use (quote) "Lethal Force" in this situation... OK Spud, what age would it be ok to use this "lethal Force" against... and what is the monetry value of goods being stolen before using your so-called "Lethal Force"?

For the record, I do not agree as I have stated in many posts, that Lethal Force (Your words) should be used... ain any circumstance... even as capital punishment.

Lets just reiterate the facts re the farmer... he did NOT USE LETHAL FORCE (proven by the courts). Do you STILL insist that the farmer was LUCKY?

[drummer]

Just answer the question! If you expect that lethal force is a reasonable means of preventing theft then you either accept the same degree of force for all theft situations or you set a level at which lethal force becomes appropriate.

Its a fair question.
Please show me where I have said that LETHAL FORCE is OK.. Lethal means death.

[scumdog]

Please show me where I have said that LETHAL FORCE is OK.. Lethal means death.

Guns tend to be a bit lethal at times.....

[drummer]

Theft accompanied by violence is robbery, which carries a higher penalty than straight theft.

If he was charged with robbery he couldn't also be charged with assault, unless a second assault took place that was independant of the theft.
There you go... quoting existing law... but don't you understand that the existing law is an ass...

[drummer]

Guns tend to be a bit lethal at times.....
At times.... but not all the time... and also... lets just state another thing here... I do not agree for one moment that firearms should be carried by all... that is not an issue here... the farmer used something at his desposal to prevent a robbery. It happened to be a gun.

[James Deuce]

The Farmer was charged appropriately. Even waving a loaded firearm at someone as a joke carries that charge. The Farmer was *this close* to using lethal force. If I back over my son in the driveway and kill him I WILL be charged with careless misuse causing death. Irrespective of the personal tragedy, I'd bloody deserve it.

The law is not an ass in this case, and I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.

[James Deuce]

There you go... quoting existing law... but don't you understand that the existing law is an ass...

Write a better one, and get the law changed. Whinging in here is not going to fix a thing.

[Clockwork]

The degree of punishment isn't an issue here... I have stated as others have that any crime is a crime against someone... a person... a human being... I can see a difference between a bashing and a theft, but they are both crimes that affect PEOPLE.

Would you disagree with that?

Anything that doesn't affect "people" is of little or no consequence to "people" and we probably wouldn't bother discussing it (unless we were astronomers, perhaps).

My point is that I see a clear difference between a crime against property and a crime against a person. My take on RDJ's comment was that he was attempting to remove this distinction.

[drummer]

Quit with the melow dramatic BS. He was lucky not to be convicted!
Aha... lucky to not be convicted... for what? For stopping a theif... When the police start to actually solve crime a lot better in NZ then I would agree with you... but when the 111 system is so f**ked up, the simple fact is that the farmer would have been successfully robbed unless he had taken steps.

I draw your attention to the simple fact that IF the scum had NOT have decided to rob the farmer, the whole thing would not have occurred. The blame is squarly on the scum.

[drummer]

Anything that doesn't affect "people" is of little or no consequence to "people" and we probably wouldn't bother discussing it (unless we were astronomers, perhaps).

My point is that I see a clear difference between a crime against property and a crime against a person. My take on RDJ's comment was that he was attempting to remove this distinction.
There is not a clear difference... what happend where a parent smacks a naughty child... under this day and age, the parent can be charged with assault... but are you suggesting this is more serious than if someone burns their house down? Where do you draw the line?

[drummer]

Write a better one, and get the law changed. Whinging in here is not going to fix a thing.
True, but baiting spud is fun!

[MSTRS]

I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.
When the Redcoats arrive to prevent NZ seceding to become a Republic, then I will be ready......

[scumdog]

How would you all feel if your son was in a ute with a pair of dicks who decided to steal a farm quad and he sat in the ute (not wanting a part of it) and the cockie let loose at the departing ute - and hit your son? THAT is the question you have to ask.

(sure, on this occassion the guy shot WAS one of the thieves.)

[drummer]

The Farmer was charged appropriately. Even waving a loaded firearm at someone as a joke carries that charge. The Farmer was *this close* to using lethal force. If I back over my son in the driveway and kill him I WILL be charged with careless misuse causing death. Irrespective of the personal tragedy, I'd bloody deserve it.

The law is not an ass in this case, and I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.
Now comeon.... there is a case currently I read recently involving that exact thing... and no charges were laid... can't recall exact details so don't ask. You keep quoting existing law. I am not debating this... In fact I am mainly debating the plight og this partivular farmer.

[scumdog]

The law is not an ass in this case, and I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.

Need to own A firearm? Sheesh, need to own all the ones I have! :D

[drummer]

How would you all feel if your son was in a ute with a pair of dicks who decided to steal a farm quad and he sat in the ute (not wanting a part of it) and the cockie let loose at the departing ute - and hit your son? THAT is the question you have to ask.

(sure, on this occassion the guy shot WAS one of the thieves.)
Good point but the charges should then be firmly against the two scum...

[drummer]

OK all... nice debating you today... better go and earn some money... stay upright... even you Spud... ;-)

[marty]

At times.... but not all the time... and also... lets just state another thing here... I do not agree for one moment that firearms should be carried by all... that is not an issue here... the farmer used something at his desposal to prevent a robbery. It happened to be a gun.


actually, the farmer was preventing a theft. robbery is a different offence. and i ask again, you say that he was justified in using lethal force (which just happened to be non-lethal in this case) to prevent this offence from taking place. at what level should the ability to use this lethal force be imposed? if you point a gun at someone, and pull the trigger, you should expect the worse outcome. you shoot to incapacitate - that may mean that the person dies.

there are more than a few examples of people shooting and killing others when they are committing offences against those persons - most of them get off, but the law needs to be tested - that is what living in a democracy is about.

so drummer, i feel from your postings that you believe that keith abbott was justified in shooting to incapacitate? should he also not have been charged?

[Clockwork]

Theft accompanied by violence is robbery, which carries a higher penalty than straight theft.

If he was charged with robbery he couldn't also be charged with assault, unless a second assault took place that was independant of the theft.

So under what section is he charged? property or people?

[MSTRS]

Endless 'debate' can't change what has happened. The police said the farmer got it wrong & charged him appropriately, the Court/people of NZ said said he didn't and set him free. The man should be reimbursed by the Police for all it cost him since the Police could have looked at the likely outcome (bloody obvious in a case like this) and decided not to prosecute. Perhaps this case will be considered a benchmark if & when this situation arises again.

[marty]

So under what section is he charged? property or people?

???? you need to read some law.

the crimes act is found here:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes&clientid=&viewtype=contents

but i'll summarise - theft is found in part 10, s227, 'crimes against rights of property'

robbery is found in part 10,s235, 'crimes against rights of property'

[James Deuce]

Now comeon.... there is a case currently I read recently involving that exact thing... and no charges were laid... can't recall exact details so don't ask. You keep quoting existing law. I am not debating this... In fact I am mainly debating the plight og this partivular farmer.

I had a farmer point a firearm at me as I drove down a country road. I had my wife who was pregnant and my son who was 3 at the time, in the car with me. I was delivering a laptop to his wife on a Saturday morning as part of my job. He was charged, but the charges were dropped when he apologised and surendered the firearm. That was my idea.

The farmer should have been convicted in my opinion. He was clearly in breach of a statute that he should have known about if he had a valid firearms license. He got away with it thanks to a sustained media assault on the NZ Police, who for some reason have been made scapegoat for a number issues relating to laws that the "general public" disagree with, either in detail or generally. The Police do not make laws, they uphold laws that are made by the "general public", every time there is an election.

If you want a particular law to have a whole subset of conditions, get thee to parliament and get it changed.

[MSTRS]

keith abbott was justified in shooting to incapacitate? should he also not have been charged?
I thought the man should have been given a medal.

[MikeL]

There you go... quoting existing law... but don't you understand that the existing law is an ass...

And don't you understand that "the law" is more than just the statutes and regulations under which the police may lay charges? You have strong opinions about victims' rights - fair enough - but as has been pointed out there are other valid arguments, and you have not shown exactly why you believe the specific regulations in this case are inappropriate. If you think that the relevant legislation should be altered to remove the threat of prosecution from people who took the action that this farmer did, you need to fully think through all the ramifications of such a change.

[marty]

Endless 'debate' can't change what has happened. The police said the farmer got it wrong & charged him appropriately, the Court/people of NZ said said he didn't and set him free. The man should be reimbursed by the Police for all it cost him since the Police could have looked at the likely outcome (bloody obvious in a case like this) and decided not to prosecute. Perhaps this case will be considered a benchmark if & when this situation arises again.

sorry don't agree - police being judge and jury? there is no precedent set when police decide not to charge - the precedent is set by the court. ask any number of drink drivers and other people who have either not been charged of got off because of precedent set by a higher court.

your logic says that every person who gets off should be reimbursed by the police, as obviously they got it wrong. does that go for rapists who walk? how about drug dealers? how about someone who in a moment of carelessness crosses the centreline and kills your family, who gets off because the carelessness was found to be 'only' a moment's lapse of concentration? should the law not be tested in these serious situations?

[Clockwork]

???? you need to read some law.

the crimes act is found here:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes&clientid=&viewtype=contents

but i'll summarise - theft is found in part 10, s227, 'crimes against rights of property'

robbery is found in part 10,s235, 'crimes against rights of property'

Ohh man! I have no desire to read the crimes act (I only need to read the acts I may be in breach of! :devil2: ) Spud originally brought up the point of the two sections and I was curious how that scenario would pan out. I must say I'm supprised that it would still be considered a crime against property but I guess its a cause and effect thing. (ie the assault came about out of the original intent to thieve)

[Lou Girardin]

Don't mention him and Incis to me in the same breath - but then he's at the same level as all the politicians, - maybe that's where he's aimed :whistle:

And easy with the loose use of my name in connection with Doone :msn-wink:

That's the problem, your bosses have become politicians. You need Policemen.
Sorry about the scum, I should have said filth.

[Lou Girardin]

sorry don't agree - police being judge and jury? there is no precedent set when police decide not to charge - the precedent is set by the court. ask any number of drink drivers and other people who have either not been charged of got off because of precedent set by a higher court.

your logic says that every person who gets off should be reimbursed by the police, as obviously they got it wrong. does that go for rapists who walk? how about drug dealers? how about someone who in a moment of carelessness crosses the centreline and kills your family, who gets off because the carelessness was found to be 'only' a moment's lapse of concentration? should the law not be tested in these serious situations?

As I pointed out in previous post, the cost of proving your innocence can be a horrendous punishment in itself. Perhaps the Police shouldn't pay, unless the prosecution was malicious or negligent, but the Justice system definitely should.
Any one of us could be placed in this position at any time.
And don't forget that the Police have elected not to charge in cases of self-defence before.

[marty]

that they have lou, but this case in point was not self defence. it was someone fucked off that something had been stolen from him.

[MSTRS]

As I pointed out in previous post, the cost of proving your innocence can be a horrendous punishment in itself. Perhaps the Police shouldn't pay, unless the prosecution was malicious or negligent, but the Justice system definitely should.
Any one of us could be placed in this position at any time.
And don't forget that the Police have elected not to charge in cases of self-defence before.
Agreed, this is much like the point I was making. Besides, in this country as in others, the defendent is presumed by the law to be innocent until etc. This farmer is still innocent, as found by the court/people, but like the poor couple with the beekeeper-killer bridge, is waaaay out of pocket. Also, since he was found innocent, the events leading us to this point should once more be the 'alleged' event or never even happened.

[Wolf]

Drummer: A firearm is a recognised and regulated "lethal weapon" - Take it from me, I have passed the licensing for it three times (twice under the old "permit to procure" system and once under the "Owner Licensing" system).

Any legitimate firearms owner knows the law quite well with respect to whether or not you are allowed to discharge one at a person.

Even if the farmer could outshoot Annie Oakley whilst blindfolded, he had no guarantee that his actions would not result in the deaths of the people he was shooting at.

Anyone who has used a firearm knows this.

As a licenced firearm owner, the farmer knew the law and the risks inherent in discharging a firearm - the potential to kill someone was known to him and he still decided to shoot.

He was not being "robbed", he caught them in the act of theft. Robbery would have involved them actively threatening him, most likely with some form of weapon. In the case of them threatening him with a weapon, he would have possibly had justification (being in fear for his life) for shooting at them.

As they were returning to the car and he shot at their retreating backs, he was committing a crime - assault with a lethal weapon.

Whether or not anyone died is immaterial. The law even dictates that if he threatened them with a replica firearm he is guilty of threatening them with a loaded firearm.

The Law's an Ass? Maybe. But it does mean that if someone threatens you with a firearm and you kill him - fearing for your life - then it turns out he had a toy pistol, that ass of a law would uphold your right to self defence and decree you defended yourself against what could be reasonably believed to be a loaded firearm.

By shooting at the thieves, the farmer signified that he did not care if they lived or died, he signified his willingness to accept the consequences and he signified that he believed that a quad "bike" is worth more than a human life. The fact that his victim survived is of no consequence.

OK, so he was the victim of attempted theft - but he turned one of the thieves into a victim of assault. The thieves were breaking the law, but so was he. They got arrested, so did he - I fail to see the problem here.

What do you expect? "Why did you shoot him?" "He deserved it." "Oh, that's OK then, go home." ??? For good measure and to save inconvenience they could just take his word for his name and address (why subject him to the hassle of having to prove identity?)

Would you like the cops to let someone who shot one of your family members walk away based on "It wuz self-defence, officer."?

Somehow I doubt it. Somehow I suspect you would want the bugger arrested and charged. You might not even like it if the jury ruled it was self-defence but at least you would feel that the cops took what he did seriously enough to investigate it and present the evidence they found at court.

And FYI - despite all the crap you see on TV - in the USA, where you are allowed to carry firearms for the express purpose of defending your life, if you shoot someone - fatally or not - you will be arrested and charged.

During your questioning and the gathering of evidence, the police will then get an idea of how you will plead and whether or not the evidence supports your self-defence claim. You may eventually be let off - but you will be arrested on whatever charges may apply until such time as they can determine whether or not you were justified in using (potentially) lethal force. And that is direct from Massad Ayoob - former US cop and trainer of cops who now trains (US) civilians in home defence.

The farmer is bloody lucky to have avoided conviction for at least "assault with a lethal weapon" as the actions of the thieves did not justify lethal force - they were not directly threatening the farmer's life or the life of anyone in his family. The force he used was technically "excessive". The jury, however, said "yeah, we understand where you're coming from."

But the question is still on the table - what dollar value do you place on a human life; which of your possessions are worth (possibly) killing for? If you feel shooting a person for theft is acceptable, how about beating up a person who calls you names or "looks at you funny"? Do two wrongs actually make a right?

Would you be happy for me to shoot you, or at least wallop you with a baseball bat, if I found you "behaving suspiciously" on or near my property at night? If I did, should I be allowed to say, "look, officer, he looked downright fucking suspicious and so I defended my property from him - stupid bastard had no right to be here in the first place, it's private property." Should the cops then say "OK Wolfie, off ya go, we're sure you had every justification for suspecting him, he looks suspicious right enough - bloody cunning of him to park his car down the road and drain the fuel, probably a criminal mastermind. We'll sort him out."

[MSTRS]

The jury, however, said "yeah, we understand where you're coming from."


Interestingly, as I understand it, the judge actually directed the jury to find him not guilty.

[Ixion]

sorry don't agree - police being judge and jury? there is no precedent set when police decide not to charge - the precedent is set by the court. ask any number of drink drivers and other people who have either not been charged of got off because of precedent set by a higher court.

your logic says that every person who gets off should be reimbursed by the police, as obviously they got it wrong. does that go for rapists who walk? how about drug dealers? how about someone who in a moment of carelessness crosses the centreline and kills your family, who gets off because the carelessness was found to be 'only' a moment's lapse of concentration? should the law not be tested in these serious situations?

Hm. There can be arguments on both sides. But I do know that, a few years ago, I was on a jury. We found the guy not guilty, and unamimously also reckoned that he should never have been charged (I wanted the foreman to add that as a rider to the verdict, but the judge reckoned it wasn't allowed). In civil cases the judge determines how costs should fall , and one of the determinants is the reasonableness of your case. If the judge thinks that your case was a load of cobblers from the start, and you should not have been wasting everybody's time, then you'll probably end up paying the other guys costs. If he thinks that your case was pretty good (even though you lost), he may make an order that each party bears their own costs (more likely if you are a little guy and the other party is a big corporate or government department). So maybe the same logic could apply to criminal cases. If you get off , but the judge reckons the police had a good case, you cop your costs. If the judge reckons the police case was dodgy they pay . I remember some cases where judges have been pretty scathing about police bringing unjustified cases so I think that it might happen (though rare I expect since police won't usually try for a charge that they don't feel fairly confident of winning )

[marty]

Agreed, this is much like the point I was making. Besides, in this country as in others, the defendent is presumed by the law to be innocent until etc. This farmer is still innocent, as found by the court/people, but like the poor couple with the beekeeper-killer bridge, is waaaay out of pocket. Also, since he was found innocent, the events leading us to this point should once more be the 'alleged' event or never even happened.

actually, if you took the time to research, you would find that there is a big difference between being found not guilty, and being found innocent. some countries have them as separate findings, not this one though.

[spudchucka]

And don't forget that the Police have elected not to charge in cases of self-defence before.
This was clearly not an issue of self defence.

[spudchucka]

So under what section is he charged? property or people?
The Crimes Act is simply writen in parts. Theft, robbery, burglary etc are under property offences. Murder, manslaughter, assault etc are under offences against the person. Its simply categorizing offences. All crimes affect people in some way or another.

[spudchucka]

OK all... nice debating you today... better go and earn some money... stay upright... even you Spud... ;-)
Unless I get drunk and trip over my own feet or roll the ride on lawn mower then I'll be right side up, no bike anymore sadly. :no:

[spudchucka]

When the Redcoats arrive to prevent NZ seceding to become a Republic, then I will be ready......
Checked under your bed lately? The reds are allready here my friend!

[spudchucka]

True, but baiting spud is fun!
Get over yourself, please.

So you aren't trying to prove a point anymore and are just actively trying to bait somebody. Watch out, you could become the new site Troll.

[spudchucka]

There you go... quoting existing law... but don't you understand that the existing law is an ass...
There you go..... saying the existing law is and ass..... but not clarifying any details as to WHY....

WHy is the offence of Robbery an ass?

[spudchucka]

Please show me where I have said that LETHAL FORCE is OK.. Lethal means death.
Pointing a firearm at a person and pulling the trigger has a high probability of causing the death of the other person. If you are advocating the use of firearms against theft offenders then you are advocating the use of lethal force.

Unless of course you believe what you see at the movies.

[spudchucka]

The one that the farmer was charged under. If you haven't got my point, the farmer should NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED!!!!!
And what law was he charged under? I'm guessing you don't even know! And you aren't getting my point that charging him was totally correct in the circumstances.



Easy answer..So what? It was a stupid question!




Hang on... isn't this what I am saying. The farmer did NOT use lethal force. He used a level of force that was potentially lethal. he could just as easily have found himself charged with murder of manslaughter.




Hang on again.... you are now making an exception... ok... what say a kid was in your house.... and stealing food... are you now saying that you should be able to use (quote) "Lethal Force" in this situation... OK Spud, what age would it be ok to use this "lethal Force" against... and what is the monetry value of goods being stolen before using your so-called "Lethal Force"?

For the record, I do not agree as I have stated in many posts, that Lethal Force (Your words) should be used... ain any circumstance... even as capital punishment.

Lets just reiterate the facts re the farmer... he did NOT USE LETHAL FORCE (proven by the courts). Do you STILL insist that the farmer was LUCKY?
THE FARMER USED FORCE THAT WAS POTENTIALLY LETHAL. HE WAS LUCKY NOT TO BE CONVICTED.

I'll answer your other point if you answer the question asked of you earlier.

[spudchucka]

There is not a clear difference... what happend where a parent smacks a naughty child... under this day and age, the parent can be charged with assault... but are you suggesting this is more serious than if someone burns their house down? Where do you draw the line?
Why expect an answer when you still aren't answering the question you've been asked?

[MikeL]

Also, since he was found innocent, the events leading us to this point should once more be the 'alleged' event or never even happened.

Fuzzy thinking. You confuse the "event" [of which the precise circumstances, sequence of actions, motivation etc. may give rise to varying interpretations] with the charge [the legal definition of a crime which the defendant is alleged to have committed]. To find someone guilty or not guilty as charged involves a different sort of reasoning from deciding whether objectively an "event" happened or not.

[drummer]

I had a farmer point a firearm at me as I drove down a country road. I had my wife who was pregnant and my son who was 3 at the time, in the car with me. I was delivering a laptop to his wife on a Saturday morning as part of my job. He was charged, but the charges were dropped when he apologised and surendered the firearm. That was my idea.

The farmer should have been convicted in my opinion. He was clearly in breach of a statute that he should have known about if he had a valid firearms license. He got away with it thanks to a sustained media assault on the NZ Police, who for some reason have been made scapegoat for a number issues relating to laws that the "general public" disagree with, either in detail or generally. The Police do not make laws, they uphold laws that are made by the "general public", every time there is an election.

If you want a particular law to have a whole subset of conditions, get thee to parliament and get it changed.
That situation was a whole lot different than the farmer we are chatting about.... how can you even compare the two?

[drummer]

Why expect an answer when you still aren't answering the question you've been asked?
I have answered your question... don't blame me for not being able to read. Come on... I asked a valid question that you REFUSE to answer.

[drummer]

Wolf... for a start I have repeatedly stated that I am against killing. That answers that question AGAIN! Secondly, you and all the other bleeding hearts here fail to see a logic that a majority of sensible NZer's see. That is, the first one to committ a crime was the scum. If the scum hadn't committed that offence then nothing would have happened. Secondly, now the case has been proven through court to have the farmer found NOT GUILTY, then there is a precedent... and I would assume in a similar case the Police would get on with solving Child molestation charges in South Auckland rather than waste taxpayers money on fruitless exercises.

[drummer]

Interestingly, as I understand it, the judge actually directed the jury to find him not guilty.
Very good point. The judge at least here was sensible... and saw the complete waste of taxpayers mone because of some moronic cop being more interested in the rights of scum rather than solving real crime!

[drummer]

actually, if you took the time to research, you would find that there is a big difference between being found not guilty, and being found innocent. some countries have them as separate findings, not this one though.
My God you are confusing... if this country has no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, then why say there is a BIG DIFFERENCE? face it... your colleagues made a huge stuff up when deciding to charge this farmer and were told emphatically by the judge through his direction to the jury that this was so. To have no charges awarded against the cops was a disgrace.

[drummer]

This was clearly not an issue of self defence.
Are you kidding???????????????????????????????? The scum were stealing... the farmer didn't want this... stealing would have hurt him... oh I know you don't say that stealing is against a "person" but in my mind the farmer was using "self defence" oh... and I would say in the judges mind as well.

[drummer]

Unless I get drunk and trip over my own feet or roll the ride on lawn mower then I'll be right side up, no bike anymore sadly. :no:
Really? Getting one or looking? I couldn't live without my bikes....

[drummer]

Why expect an answer when you still aren't answering the question you've been asked?
I have answered... you have several questions on the table. You also use 'POTENTIALLY LETHAL" now... thats NOT what you said earlier... I have the potential to speed... cripes don't tell me your mates are going to pull me up and tax me because there is a mere "Potential".

as for baiting.... well you continue to bite!

[Lou Girardin]

Very good point. The judge at least here was sensible... and saw the complete waste of taxpayers mone because of some moronic cop being more interested in the rights of scum rather than solving real crime!
I wouldn't say the Police are interested in the rights of scum (sorry dog), they are more worried about being 2nd guessed by pollies, media etc. So they err on the side of safety (let the courts decide). All of which doesn't help innocent people trying to defend themselves in court.
I'd like to know why they used the scattergun technique and laid multiple charges against McIntyre though.

[Clockwork]

I have answered your question... don't blame me for not being able to read. Come on... I asked a valid question that you REFUSE to answer.

Actually, it was me you asked the question of. You are right of course, in all offending there are degrees of.... (offensiveness?) and burning down a house is (ususally) worse than smacking a child. But it was your proposed punishment regime that seemd to lack any sense of proportion.

[MSTRS]

Fuzzy thinking. You confuse the "event" [of which the precise circumstances, sequence of actions, motivation etc. may give rise to varying interpretations] with the charge [the legal definition of a crime which the defendant is alleged to have committed]. To find someone guilty or not guilty as charged involves a different sort of reasoning from deciding whether objectively an "event" happened or not.
You miss my point. As is always reported in the media, prior to a conviction, an event or crime is 'alleged' to have occured. If defendent is found guilty then aforementioned event/crime is 'proven' to have actually occurred. If the defendent is found not guilty, conversely the event/crime is still 'alleged' or in fact 'didn't happen'

[James Deuce]

You miss my point. As is always reported in the media, prior to a conviction, an event or crime is 'alleged' to have occured. If defendent is found guilty then aforementioned event/crime is 'proven' to have actually occurred. If the defendent is found not guilty, conversely the event/crime is still 'alleged' or in fact 'didn't happen'
No he didn't. You missed his :)

The person is being proven guilty of a charge. The jury in a jury trial has to be convinced that the defendant was guilty of the charge, not the event, subsequent events, or previous or subsequent charges.

[scumdog]

I wouldn't say the Police are interested in the rights of scum (sorry dog), they are more worried about being 2nd guessed by pollies, media etc. So they err on the side of safety (let the courts decide). All of which doesn't help innocent people trying to defend themselves in court.
I'd like to know why they used the scattergun technique and laid multiple charges against McIntyre though.

Lou has made a vey valid point (or two) which seems to have gone unnoticed by most on this thread, I would say there is a lot or "arse covering" as media, pollies etc would be straight on the bandwagon if any other course had been taken.

The cockie was not 'defending' himself as he was under no direct threat - he was pissed off (rightly so) that somebody was taking his property and was just a tad heavy handed showing it.

Lucky for the light fingered cretins he just didn't waste the lot and diispose of them and their ute discretely - after all, who was going to come to his farm to look for people he didn't know and shouldn't have been there?? :msn-wink:

[Pixie]

Time we brought in "three strikes and you're out" legislation in this country!!

Nice big new prsion being built down here - up to 600 beds!!

Back to watching "Night Rider"!!!! (nearly cried on seeing the '60 T'bird in the crusher at the wrecking yard sceen)
Yeah,and what about no concurrent sentencing for these scum.

[Wolf]

Wolf... for a start I have repeatedly stated that I am against killing. That answers that question AGAIN!
So you are opposed to killing but OK with shooting someone - Riiiight! And of course, you're such a great shot that you can do what no firearm user on the planet can do - including Olympic medalists, trained soldiers, police and assassins - guarantee that when shooting someone (for merely attempting to take your property) you are not going to kill them - because killing would be wrong, but merely wounding them is acceptable. Yeah, sure, whatever. :bs:

And of course, the average homeowner who sits a firearms safety course and passes the test can be expected to have the same level of marksmanship.

Secondly, you and all the other bleeding hearts here fail to see a logic that a majority of sensible NZer's see.
So it's "sensible" to shoot people who are not directly threatening you. It is "sensible" to seriously wound, or possibly kill, someone who has not even threatened to harm you. Suuuuuuuure, whatever.

As to me being a "bleeding heart": If someone attempted to physically harm me, I would defend myself against them - using reasonable force as the law allows me to do. This means that if they came at me with bare fists, I would not attempt to shoot them or hit them with a baseball bat - I would use my own hands and feet as weapons in my defence. I would have no compunction about doing so.

If someone threatened my life in such a manner that I felt genuinely in fear of my life, and I had the opportunity and means to do so, I would kill them - without heasitation. If they threatened the lives of my family in a convincing manner, and I had means and opportunity, I would also kill them with no hesitation. I probably would not use a gun as NZ law dictates that firearms must be stored under lock and key and that the bolt and ammunition must be stored separately, also under lock and key - this would make it a trifle difficult and time-consuming to get the firearm in a state in which I could use for self defence. I would probably have to make do with whatever came to hand - or just my hands.

I am rather annoyed at being called a "bleeding heart" by someone who does not know me, just because I think that shooting/wounding/potentially killing someone for theft is "excessive force". By your own scale, that should at least give me the right to kick your head in - you commited a crime against me first (libel) so you've lost your rights -

That is, the first one to committ a crime was the scum. If the scum hadn't committed that offence then nothing would have happened.
- so therefore what I do to you is your own fault. As libel is more directly against me than merely theft of my property (you called me a derogatory term in front of the whole forum), I should be allowed to shoot you in the back (but not kill you) according to your own argument. I could choose to be "lenient" and just kick the shit out of you (long job that would be) or I could just obey the law and use reasonable force - words against words.

As I have done.

[sAsLEX]

you're such a great shot that you can do what no firearm user on the planet can do - including Olympic medalists, trained soldiers, police and assassins


soldiers and police law enforcement, are generally trained to shoot for the centre of mass, smack bang in the middle of the torso, not to be able to take out knees at 30 paces or anything.



If someone attempted to physically harm me, I would defend myself against them - using reasonable force as the law allows me to do. This means that if they came at me with bare fists, I would not attempt to shoot them or hit them with a baseball bat - I would use my own hands and feet as weapons in my defence. I would have no compunction about doing so.

If someone comes at you unarmed, how do you know your life is not in mortal danger?! The person could be a nijitsu or whatever expert, or have a concealed weapon/bomb!? Or hold a golf club! If someone approaches yourself in a threatning matter,and they dont back down after being warned, and you cant assertain there level of danger to you then reasonable force in my opinion would have to be all available force you have until the threat to you is gone.
Some situations could call for a simple stick weapon such as an ASP batton to take down the offender, but if they are armed with say a baseball bat or long club ......

[Sniper]

Is this still going as a shit slinging match?

[Lou Girardin]

Is this still going as a shit slinging match?

Only if you fucking want it to, OK! :devil2:

[MSTRS]

No he didn't. You missed his :)

The person is being proven guilty of a charge. The jury in a jury trial has to be convinced that the defendant was guilty of the charge, not the event, subsequent events, or previous or subsequent charges.
Shark. This was a PT. The event is not disputed, only the farmer's 'crime' which was & must remain 'alleged'

[Wolf]

If someone comes at you unarmed, how do you know your life is not in mortal danger?! The person could be a nijitsu or whatever expert, or have a concealed weapon/bomb!? Or hold a golf club! If someone approaches yourself in a threatning matter,and they dont back down after being warned, and you cant assertain there level of danger to you then reasonable force in my opinion would have to be all available force you have until the threat to you is gone.
Some situations could call for a simple stick weapon such as an ASP batton to take down the offender, but if they are armed with say a baseball bat or long club ......
True. You don't know. However, the law requires we use "reasonable force" and use our own judgement at the time. If he's holding a golf club and getting stroppy, he's armed, in my book, and has justified my use of a similar weapon - if I can find one. If he's apparently unarmed and says "I'm gunna fuggin kill ya, ya arsehole!" in a sufficiently threatening manner that left me with no doubt as to his intent, I would feel justified in killing him (if I were able to) - considering I know of a lot of ways an "unarmed" person can kill you. If the person produces a concealed weapon that looks life-threatening, then the justification for a lethal response is there.

It's acheiving it that is the problem. I saw a doco on a home invasion on TV - where the guy got his foot shot off as he answered the door and then he and his family - wife and young child - were bound and threatened at gun-point by some bloke who believed they had drugs in the house. The home-owners were fully entitled to use lethal force - the invader made several dire threats against them and their child and was threatening them with a shotgun. He had even demonstrated a willingness to use it.

The big problem was: They were powerless to do anything. They had neither the means nor opportunity to do anything. They were left bound, shaken and (in the husband's case) weak from blood-loss.

Dealing with threats of violence and death, however, was not an issue in the farmer's case - he shot at theives about to jump in their ute and drive off with his quad bike. No direct threat to his, or his family's, physical safety.

[Lou Girardin]

True. You don't know. However, the law requires we use "reasonable force" and use our own judgement at the time. If he's holding a golf club and getting stroppy, he's armed, in my book, and has justified my use of a similar weapon - if I can find one. If he's apparently unarmed and says "I'm gunna fuggin kill ya, ya arsehole!" in a sufficiently threatening manner that left me with no doubt as to his intent, I would feel justified in killing him (if I were able to) - considering I know of a lot of ways an "unarmed" person can kill you. If the person produces a concealed weapon that looks life-threatening, then the justification for a lethal response is there.


I remember a scene in a cop movie years back. Stacey Keach was training a newbie.
He said, "if he throws a punch, use your nightstick. If he pulls a knife use your gun, cancel his ticket then and there"
A reasonable approach.
He also did CPR on a crim who was bleeding out from a severed artery. Just to make sure.

[Lias]

Wolf thinks my opinion on this issue is "extreme" but hes a dyed in the wool communist :-P

As far as I am concerned, anyone who trespasses on to my property to commit a crime against my family (be that stealing our property, or worse) can and will have lethal force used to neutralize them.

I wouldnt hesitate for a split second if I'd been in that farmers shoes, and I would not have aimed for the tyres, I would have been aiming for the drivers head.

A mans house is his castle and the government will pry my weapons from my cold dead hands before they stop me defending it.

[MSTRS]

Checked under your bed lately? The reds are allready here my friend!
"Redcoats" = English soldiers. I know where the Commies are, somewhere that has something to do with honey :msn-wink:

[Wolf]

Wolf thinks my opinion on this issue is "extreme" but hes a dyed in the wool communist :-P
Actually, LiasTZ and I are about equally "left wing" but we're both equally removed from "Centrist" - in opposite directions (me toward Libertarian/Anarchist, LiasTZ toward Authoritarian/Facist) so with LiasTZ being a strongly Authoritarian Left Winger, that would make him a "Communist"... :killingme

I am a mere "Libertarian Socialist".

[marty]

sections 49 thru 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 discuss self defence and defence of property. reasonable force in the circumstances is the test. If the farmer thought it was reasonable, that's fine. Sometimes though, the public acceptance of reasonable is different to the individuals - this applies to all facets of life - and the only true and proper way to test this is by a panel of peers.

the likes of drummer and liastz are welcome to their opinions, just expect to have to defend them at some stage.

don't ya love livin in a democracy?

[Ixion]

Actually, LiasTZ and I are about equally "left wing" but we're both equally removed from "Centrist" - in opposite directions (me toward Libertarian/Anarchist, LiasTZ toward Authoritarian/Facist) so with LiasTZ being a strongly Authoritarian Left Winger, that would make him a "Communist"... :killingme

I am a mere "Libertarian Socialist".

I'm a "confused"

[marty]

My God you are confusing... if this country has no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, then why say there is a BIG DIFFERENCE? face it... your colleagues made a huge stuff up when deciding to charge this farmer and were told emphatically by the judge through his direction to the jury that this was so. To have no charges awarded against the cops was a disgrace.

read the post drummer - NZ does not have a finding of 'innocent'. it has a finding of 'not guilty'. there is a difference, as i said. would you like me to spell it out for you?

and, did the judge tell the jury that the police made a huge stuff up? my understanding was that he said a conviction would be unsafe.

and, if you knew anything about law at all, you would know that criminal courts do not 'award charges'.

[James Deuce]

....that would make him a "Communist"... :killingme


Or maybe a National Socialist.

[Lou Girardin]

read the post drummer - NZ does not have a finding of 'innocent'. it has a finding of 'not guilty'. there is a difference, as i said. would you like me to spell it out for you?

and, did the judge tell the jury that the police made a huge stuff up? my understanding was that he said a conviction would be unsafe.

and, if you knew anything about law at all, you would know that criminal courts do not 'award charges'.

As illustrated by the Govt trying to avoid paying compensation to David Dougherty by saying that although he was found not guilty, he still had to prove his innocence.

[Wolf]

As illustrated by the Govt trying to avoid paying compensation to David Dougherty by saying that although he was found not guilty, he still had to prove his innocence.
My understanding is that no one can be found/proved "innocent" - except possibly a new-born child - merely "not guilty" of a specific charge laid against them.

"Innocent" implies never having done any wrong at all; "not guilty" means "he didn't do that, but we have no idea what else he's managed to get away with."

[Lou Girardin]

My understanding is that no one can be found/proved "innocent" - except possibly a new-born child - merely "not guilty" of a specific charge laid against them.

"Innocent" implies never having done any wrong at all; "not guilty" means "he didn't do that, but we have no idea what else he's managed to get away with."

One of the basic principles of criminal law in NZ is innocent until proven guilty.
But if you're proven not guilty you aren't necessarily innocent.

[marty]

being found not guilty basically means you just weren't found guilty. i think it's called a semantic negation, whereas being found 'innocent' is an affirmation (dragging back criminal law 201 memories...)

[Ixion]

being found not guilty basically means you just weren't found guilty. i think it's called a semantic negation, whereas being found 'innocent' is an affirmation (dragging back criminal law 201 memories...)

Not guilty = "You haven't convinced us he did it (though probably he did)"
Innocent = "We're certain he didn't do it "

But there is no such thing as a finding of "innocent" in English Law (or Scotish for that matter, though they do have Not Proven, so Not Guilty tends more to Innocent)

[Wolf]

Not guilty = "You haven't convinced us he did it (though probably he did)"
Innocent = "We're certain he didn't do it "
When I was on Jury Service, we were only given "Guilty" ("beyond a reasonable doubt") or "Not Guilty" (if there was "reasonable doubt" as to whether he did it) as possible verdicts. We were not give the option of returning "Innocent".

What we wanted was "We know the bugger did it but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt". That, and the opportunity to tell the respective solicitors what we thought of their performance. Sadly we got neither...

[Ixion]

..
But there is no such thing as a finding of "innocent" in English Law (or Scotish for that matter, though they do have Not Proven, so Not Guilty tends more to Innocent)

I am wrong I think, on a technicality. In the case of a trial at the Court of Arches, on a charge of unchastity in a woman, the court may bring in a finding of "Innocent" - meaning the woman is still a virgin. Guilty (I think, but am not certain) here meant that she had indeed been spreading it about. Not guilty meant that she was not a virgin but was not to blame (eg a rape victim)

As such trials are now long defunct, (had you worried there, didn't I ladies) we may safely ignore the special case.

[MSTRS]

What we wanted was "We know the bugger did it but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt". .
Yeah, that is a bastard. Sadly this happens all too often.

[spudchucka]

I would say there is a lot or "arse covering" as media, pollies etc would be straight on the bandwagon if any other course had been taken.

Whether it was arse covering on the police part or not, it was still correct to charge him and have the court decide the outcome.

Anyone who is more than a couple of years out of nappies and has read a few newspapers could easily draw the conclusion that in law enforcement you simply can't please all the people all the time.

[spudchucka]

You miss my point. As is always reported in the media, prior to a conviction, an event or crime is 'alleged' to have occured. If defendent is found guilty then aforementioned event/crime is 'proven' to have actually occurred. If the defendent is found not guilty, conversely the event/crime is still 'alleged' or in fact 'didn't happen'
Sorry, have to disagree. If the defendant is found not guilty that doesn't make the event a fiction. All it means is that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charge or there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to discharge without conviction etc. All thats in dispute is the defendants involvement, that part may remain unproven and therefore is only alleged, the event itself in a case like this is not in dispute.

[MSTRS]

Actually, LiasTZ and I are about equally "left wing" but we're both equally removed from "Centrist" - in opposite directions (me toward Libertarian/Anarchist, LiasTZ toward Authoritarian/Facist) so with LiasTZ being a strongly Authoritarian Left Winger, that would make him a "Communist"... :killingme

I am a mere "Libertarian Socialist".
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't left wing Communist and right wing Fascist ?

[MSTRS]

Sorry, have to disagree.
Read post 978

[spudchucka]

I have answered... you have several questions on the table. You also use 'POTENTIALLY LETHAL" now... thats NOT what you said earlier... I have the potential to speed... cripes don't tell me your mates are going to pull me up and tax me because there is a mere "Potential".

as for baiting.... well you continue to bite!
Grow up quick or this "debate" is over. I can't be fucked stuffing around with a shit stirrer without an arguement.

If I've missed your answer please direct me to the post in which you say at what level of theft, (value of property) is it acceptable to shoot somebody.

[spudchucka]

Really? Getting one or looking? I couldn't live without my bikes....
For the time being I have to be happy with an Alpinestars mountain bike.

[Ixion]

Sorry, have to disagree. If the defendant is found not guilty that doesn't make the event a fiction. All it means is that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charge or there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to discharge without conviction etc. All thats in dispute is the defendants involvement, that part may remain unproven and therefore is only alleged, the event itself in a case like this is not in dispute.

Semantics I think

In the simple case

A dead body is discovered with head injuries.

The fact of the body is not alleged . It is there. The event occured, no doubt about it. The police allege that the death was due to foul play.
And they allege that you and your mate did it together .

Event is the death . Allegations are that it was murder, and that you did it.

Three possibilities

1. You are convicted. Event remains the same, both allegations become "facts" legally speaking
2. The jury agree that it was murder. They convict your mate , but find you not guilty. The event remains (still got a body, still dead) , one allegation (foul play) becomes a legal "fact". The other allegation (that you did it) is disproven.
3. The coroner's inquest determines that in fact the death was accidental, he slipped and fell. The fact remains (still got the body). But both allegations are now disproven.

[spudchucka]

Are you kidding???????????????????????????????? The scum were stealing... the farmer didn't want this... stealing would have hurt him... oh I know you don't say that stealing is against a "person" but in my mind the farmer was using "self defence" oh... and I would say in the judges mind as well.
Go away and study the law and get an understanding of its application. The laws relating to self defence do not cover theft of property. They relate to self defence. If you can't get a grip of what that means get a dictionary.

[spudchucka]

Hang on again.... you are now making an exception... ok... what say a kid was in your house.... and stealing food... are you now saying that you should be able to use (quote) "Lethal Force" in this situation... OK Spud, what age would it be ok to use this "lethal Force" against... and what is the monetry value of goods being stolen before using your so-called "Lethal Force"?
An answer, just to shut up your whining.

The difference between the farmer episode and an incident where a home is entered by an offender while the occupants are present is that there is a great deal higher probability that physical harm may come to the home occupier.

Regardless of why the offender is in the home, to steal property or to rape a child it is my PERSONAL feeling that the home should be vigorously defended.

However lethal force, (EG a firearm) could only be used in circumstances where actual physical harm was likely to result if that force was not used. If those circumstances existed then age and the value of the property would be immaterial because the person was at that time defending life, not property.

You are getting all hung up about the terms "lethal force" or "potentially lethal force". Regardless of how you want to look at it the use of a firearm against another person is about the most extreme level of force possible. The chances that that use of force will in fact be lethal are very high.