Absolute bollocks! (Self defence issue) [Archive]

turtleman

3rd October 2008, 22:01

So the message they are sending is "If someone pulls a knife or other deadly weapon and threatens a police officer they call the armed offenders squad who will only aim for centre of body mass (i.e. shoot to kill) but if an armed offender threatens a member of the public we are supposed to just sit there and get stabbed?"

Fuck that for a game of soldiers - if you are prepared to carry a deadly weapon with intent then you had better prepare to die. Simple.

Yep -getting fkn ridiculous ( or is that rediculous)...
Fuck 'em. If they come bearing weapons, they better be prepared to use them or suffer ..... coz, I sure will use anything available to me that will stop them - even if it's only my teeth.!

McJim

3rd October 2008, 22:13

It's just pure logic.

He has a deadly weapon. Therefore he intends to kill me. Therefore this is a fight to the death. Therefore I MUST kill my opponent to survive.

Seems simple to me - this is how I will think when presented with that situation.

Squiggles

3rd October 2008, 23:15

TOTO

3rd October 2008, 23:27

anyone got a link for the news article - i'm a bit behing with the news those days...

jrandom

3rd October 2008, 23:42

So this is a "robber threatens me with deadly weapon, I can either comply or fight back with my own weapon" situation?

When has the smart answer to "your money or your life!" been "fuck you, motherfucker, I'll see your cold steel and raise you a hockey stick!" anywhere outside of Jackie Chan movies?

Also, the fight that a shopkeeper's been charged in relation to happened outside his shop. It's nothing to do with the main 'stabbing' story. Two different incidences reported on in the same article. 'Outside the shop' is hardly last-ditch fighting for one's life, is it?

Even many states in the trigger-happy USA place a 'duty to retreat' on threatened homeowners and shopkeepers, etc.

Edit: I love the inevitable po-faced cop quote about 'taking the law into his own hands'. He should have carried on, "Oh, and if that frustrates you, call 0800 NEW COPS, and learn how to fuck people up with sticks without breaking their pretty faces!"

:laugh:

Boob Johnson

3rd October 2008, 23:42

Must be careful when taking the law into your own hands, self defence sure...
Gotta state the obvious though, had he not complied with them, what would they have done with the knife? waved it around, or stabbed him? who is willing to play russian roulette with their life when they've got a bigger weapon to protect themself with...
Thats not how this went down from what I understand, but do agree. Tis a hard one, as Jim said, you bring a deadly weapon & its a (possible) fight to the death, yours! Are you going to take the chance that a passive approach is going to work when the circumstances at hand don't suit that?

Apparently one of the shop keepers approached a drunk youth outside the shop that was suspected of stealing (highly likely took place id say), a fight broke out, no doubt started by the guilty party, from there on a im a lil sketchie, but can sure as shit say I would approach & hassle anyone stupid enough to stand out front of my shop with my goods in his pockets as well & if the prick started a brawl, situation dependant, you would defend yourself with whatever you had at your disposal, you wouldn't be human if you didn't defend your own life.

Boob Johnson

3rd October 2008, 23:50

So this is a "robber threatens me with deadly weapon, I can either comply or fight back with my own weapon" situation?

When has the smart answer to "your money or your life!" been "fuck you, motherfucker, I'll see your cold steel and raise you a hockey stick!" anywhere outside of Jackie Chan movies?
lol as said above, not quite how it went down by the sounds of it. Pretty sure one of the whanau had run to his aid with the closest thing he could find once the fight broke out, im a betting man & I reckon he didn't intend to fight just confront the drunk youngster about the apparent theft before he is set upon. If any of my whanau are being attacked I can't see myself doing anything different, in fact an incident outside our house a while back where youths were kicking cars & smashing windows of businesses late at night ended with a few vigilante justice delivered tears & we got a pat on the back from the 5-0 when they arrived :niceone:

jrandom

3rd October 2008, 23:53

... ended with a few vigilante justice delivered tears & we got a pat on the back from the 5-0 when they arrived :niceone:

Yeah.

I'm guessing the charged shopkeeper might have crossed a few lines vis-a-vis taking out his frustrations on the naughty people's faces with his hockey stick.

Defending yourself and/or restraining crims until the cops arrive is one thing, rearranging their faces with a bat while you wait is another.

Winston001

3rd October 2008, 23:59

If anyone from the age of 10 12 15 20 30 40 came into my home, work or in public for that matter in numbers, armed and with the intention to demand i hand over goods, money, my woman, or anything for that matter I would take my hockey stick and not stop till only one person walked out of there !

Mmmm...I'm with you but compelled to argue the other side. Hard to know what the facts are but so far looks like the fight was outside the shop. The shopkeeper took it to them.

So he wasn't defending his home and hearth, his business, or his wife and kids.

Having said that - just to be rational - I doubt the shopkeeper wandered out on the footpath just for a bit of aggro fun. He believed one of the group had been stealing and frankly I don't blame him for being pissed off and challenging them.

Comes down to this - where do you draw the line?

Boob Johnson

4th October 2008, 00:00

Yeah.

I'm guessing the charged shopkeeper might have crossed a few lines vis-a-vis taking out his frustrations on the naughty people's faces with his hockey stick.

Defending yourself and/or restraining crims until the cops arrive is one thing, rearranging their faces with a bat while you wait is another.
Sure is, the chap we caught got a beating but nothing to the face so it couldn't be seen, gotta be smart about it. Can't say that for the other one though, he came back after the cops left & baited our mate (the owner of the car in question) who just happens to be a small, weedy chap with 10 odd years of kick boxing experience, plenty of stitches required, but thats what these gangster wannabes deserve.

spudchucka

4th October 2008, 05:48

devnull

4th October 2008, 08:02

I reckon that if someone presents a weapon, that's an open invitation for the victim to kill them as quickly as possible

The Herald article is correct - "reasonable force" is too vague.

Defence against a weapon should be "lethal force" - someone brings a knife to a gun fight, too bad. They won't reoffend....

As it stands now, you're better off doing the offender in and NOT involving police.

What a fucked up country we live in....

(As my wife just pointed out - if you can use a car to run the offender down, you're sweet. Might get a little home detention, but not much else...)

MSTRS

4th October 2008, 08:07

... vigilante justice delivered tears ...

...rearranging their faces with a bat ...

How it's delivered matters?
Pick me for the jury (on any case like this)

Murray

4th October 2008, 08:35

So an armed criminal comes into your shop, stabs you and robs you.

There isn't a jury in the land that will find that shop keeper guilty, yet us tax payers will have to foot the bill for his defence and the defence of the criminals.

Not quite right, the shopkeeper will have to pay for his own defence, the little shitbags will probably be at the cost of the taxpayer. Bigtime SUX

Dooly

4th October 2008, 08:38

Madness! But thats the norm now in our PC society.

No doubt there will be public outcry for the Indian bloke, and at the end of the day, he'll end up the loser even if not convicted purely by the crippling legal fees whereas the kids will get QC type legal aid...........

Murray

4th October 2008, 08:38

Apparently one of the shop keepers approached a drunk youth outside the shop that was suspected of stealing (highly likely took place id say), a fight broke out, no doubt started by the guilty party, from there on a im a lil sketchie, but can sure as shit say I would approach & hassle anyone stupid enough to stand out front of my shop with my goods in his pockets as well & if the prick started a brawl, situation dependant, you would defend yourself with whatever you had at your disposal, you wouldn't be human if you didn't defend your own life.

From what I have been led to believe the shopkeeper tried to stop them entering the shop as they were drunk and known shoplifters. Thats when the trouble started and the poor little boys got beat up.

jrandom

4th October 2008, 09:06

From what I have been led to believe the shopkeeper tried to stop them entering the shop as they were drunk and known shoplifters. Thats when the trouble started and the poor little boys got beat up.

Well, hmm. There you go. Even if people are drunk and 'known shoplifters', shopkeepers shouldn't be beating them up with hockey sticks outside the shop.

I can see why the cops decided to charge the guy. His actions are understandable, but then all sorts of violent crimes are understandable - doesn't make 'em right.

idb

4th October 2008, 09:13

He should be arrested for playing a game as gay as hockey!!!

raftn

4th October 2008, 09:31

Not sure the fill story has come out yet, seems like there is more to it than meets the eye.

McJim

4th October 2008, 09:34

He should be arrested for playing a game as gay as hockey!!!

Could be worse - poncey blokes in white clothes playing cricket - how gay (and English :Pokey:) is that? :rofl:

idb

4th October 2008, 09:38

Could be worse - poncey blokes in white clothes playing cricket - how gay (and English :Pokey:) is that? :rofl:

Bloody English!!!!

fridayflash

4th October 2008, 09:47

time for kiwis to be able to arm themselves....legally

Murray

4th October 2008, 09:50

Not sure the fill story has come out yet, seems like there is more to it than meets the eye.

maybe so but surely the media would have aledged something by now and what were they doing wandering the streets with a knife or knives and pissed. Surely this is illegal and they should have been arrested. It took the police 10 minutes to arrive after being called. Great stuff, so we all now know that if we see someones bike being stolen we can only watch, call and give them at least 10 minutes start (non life threatening so probably longer). Sorry but this has just ruined my day and makes me all the sadder about society and where we are heading. Election coming up gives a huge opportunity to make a statement on this!!!

Bloody rediculous

NZsarge

4th October 2008, 09:52

"
- if you are prepared to carry a deadly weapon with intent then you had better prepare to die. Simple.

Fookin' exactly! :yes:

Headbanger

4th October 2008, 09:56

Well, hmm. There you go. Even if people are drunk and 'known shoplifters', shopkeepers shouldn't be beating them up with hockey sticks outside the shop.

I can see why the cops decided to charge the guy. His actions are understandable, but then all sorts of violent crimes are understandable - doesn't make 'em right.

Think of his shop as your house, would you still feel the same?

Good on him for giving him the bash, pity it doesn't happen more often.

Swoop

4th October 2008, 09:57

Fookin' exactly! :yes:
You might appreciate this (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1756663&postcount=1770) little bit of truth then...

Goblin

4th October 2008, 10:06

Kinda reminds me of Mr Chef on the bus. Hope Mr Shopkeeper doesnt get prison time.

smoky

4th October 2008, 10:11

I have a propensity to say ‘good on ya mate’ for anyone who stands up against street vermin and thugs, kick their arses back I say.

But for my own experience;
I was a teenager, living in a town of infamous repute littered with gangs,
I did look like a wayward youth.

I had purchased a said item in a shop, it was not what was advertised, feeling ripped off I returned, whilst waiting in line I witnessed him being very abusive to a person with down syndrome giving him the incorrect change, I challenged him.
Long story short – by the time I had got onto the reason I had returned; the shopkeeper had picked up a baseball bat and was asking me to leave his shop.

Being young and stupid I used a number of profanities while explaining I wasn’t leaving with out a full refund – he responded by attacking me with a baseball bat
Blood followed – police turned up, I was arrested and removed.
He claimed he was defending him self – because he was a shopkeeper everyone automatically presumed he was the victim and he got away with it.

So now I kind of don’t trust one-sided stories, we have an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ justice system – like it or not. So unless there’s clear evidence of a crime or threat to the shopkeeper then he effectively attacked an innocent person/s.
Not a good way to look at it – unless you’re on the receiving end unjustly.

Or – because I chose to dress and look like a thug, and live in those kind of areas then perhaps you live with the disadvantages that society deals out for looking a certain way.
A bit like seeing a 5 minute slot on the news – the person who was dealt to in a hoodie and buying alcohol form a liquor shop in south Auckland, the odds are they deserved it. Wouldn’t we all like to dish out a bit punishment to these delinquent looking twats with their baggy jeans half way down their arse and hoodies covering their ugly faces – intimidating little shits.

Murray

4th October 2008, 10:20

Being young and stupid I used a number of profanities while explaining I wasn’t leaving with out a full refund – he responded by attacking me with a baseball bat
Blood followed – police turned up, I was arrested and removed.
He claimed he was defending him self – because he was a shopkeeper everyone automatically presumed he was the victim and he got away with it.

So now I kind of don’t trust one-sided stories, we have an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ justice system – like it or not. So unless there’s clear evidence of a crime or threat to the shopkeeper then he effectively attacked an innocent person/s.
Not a good way to look at it – unless you’re on the receiving end unjustly.

So were you pissed and carrying a knife and did you stab him while he was hitting you???? And were you in a pack of 4 and had there been several other killings/stabbings/robberies happen recently in the same area. Sorry but this has got completely out of hand and if I was in the shopkeepers position I would also be taking the "protect thyself" attitude

Ocean1

4th October 2008, 10:21

So now I kind of don’t trust one-sided stories

Wise. I've also found it prudent not to trust stories with multiple sides, 'cause they're no more likely to be accurate.

If I've seen it I'll believe it.

Usually.

we have an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ justice system

That we do.

Except for vehicular crime.

Edit: Society doesn't dish out disadvantages to anyone in particular. People refrain from dishing out advantages to those they don't identify with.

smoky

4th October 2008, 10:25

Except for vehicular crime.

Actually you’re still innocent until you pay the fine – it’s taken as an admission of guilt

Murray

4th October 2008, 10:26

Wise. I've also found it prudent not to trust stories with multiple sides, 'cause they're no more likely to be accurate.

If I've seen it I'll believe it.

Usually.

That we do.

Except for vehicular crime.

Edit: Society doesn't dish out disadvantages to anyone in particular. People refrain from dishing out advantages to those they don't identify with.

Better stop reading newspapers then!!!

smoky

4th October 2008, 10:33

Better stop reading newspapers then!!!

Do you actually believe what the media feeds you then……?

devnull

4th October 2008, 10:42

Roll on the election!!

http://www.cafepress.com/rooftops

:yes:

It's time for a BIG shake-up
No more PC bullshit... poor wee crims crap

Time to boot the politically appointed Broad, his sidekick Pope, and the deputy comissioner (the librarian), and put REAL cops in there that can get things done
Because either we have a functioning police force and legal system, or we have vigilante justice.

As it stands now, vigilante justice wins hands down

Murray

4th October 2008, 10:46

Do you actually believe what the media feeds you then……?

Hell no, I have had to much experience for that. But saying I'll believe it if I see it is a very bold statement. It's like saying the Antartic is not there because I haven't seen it. Taking the micky here a bit, I am actually totally against newspapers and their "alleged comments and a neighbour is quoted as saying" crap.

My point is that drunken youths with knives were at a shop and the shopkeeper protected himself and gets charged. 1) they were drunk trying to get into or were in his shop (no dispute from police or witnesses) 2) they had knives (no dispute from police or witnesses) 3) the shopkeeper was stabbed (no dispute from police or witnesses). The police are prosecuting for using excessive force (no dispute). What right does someone have against drunken youths with a knife??? Yes you can protect yourself but not too much????

I also note a 55 year old shop keeper was stabbed 4 times in the back and neck last night and while the police were attending that, another call came in for another knife point robbery at another shop nearby. Now this is in the newspapers so you can believe it or not but seems pretty clear and umambiguous.

People must have the right to defend themselves against armed intruders/offenders!!!! And with recent events there is a fine line between armed robbery/attempted homocide.

smoky

4th October 2008, 10:58

Roll on the election!!

No more PC bullshit... poor wee crims crap
Because either we have a functioning police force and legal system, or we have vigilante justice.

As it stands now, vigilante justice wins hands down
That’s the real point isn’t it – do we have faith in our thin blue line to be there when we need them (they always seem to be there when I drive too fast).
And once apprehended do we have faith that our justice system (department of corrections included) will sufficiently punish or rehabilitate them as to deter them from re-offending or dissuade people from taking up a life of crime
Are the consequences enough? I don’t think they are;
I think the chances of being caught are getting slimmer, and the consequences getting less

But who’s offering a better alternative?

martybabe

4th October 2008, 11:38

Could be worse - poncey blokes in white clothes playing cricket - how gay (and English :Pokey:) is that? :rofl:

:lol: Unlike the butch Scotish game eh. :girlfight:

Bren

4th October 2008, 12:14

Another attack in the herald site this morning...

The owner of an Auckland Lotto store and dairy is in hospital with stab wounds in his neck and back after being attacked late yesterday afternoon.
It was at least the fourth serious attack on an Auckland shop worker this year, and followed a police decision to charge a liquor retailer after an altercation with two youths this week.
In yesterday's attack, a man went into the Lotto store on New Windsor Rd in Avondale and stabbed the owner, said Inspector Karen Lane of the police northern communications centre.

Full Story here. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10535710)

I would not own a dairy for the life of me (because that is what it may cost)...

Whats happened to the good old days when a murder was something that happened maybe once or twice a year, not every second day...
...where ya could hop outta your Holden Premiere and leave the keys in it, engine running, and go into the bottle store knowing that your holden would still be there when ya got back...
...where you could leave the door unlocked, and windows open and have a decent sleep knowing all would be okay!

Reckless

4th October 2008, 12:27

Whats happened to the good old days when a murder was something that happened maybe once or twice a year, not every second day...
...where ya could hop outta your Holden Premiere and leave the keys in it, engine running, and go into the bottle store knowing that your holden would still be there when ya got back...
...where you could leave the door unlocked, and windows open and have a decent sleep knowing all would be okay!

Whats happened my friend is when some drunken scumbag stabs you and you give him a good beating you get charged!!

The fact remains whether the guy went over the top or not (that remains to be seen) it simply would not have happened at all if the scumbag wasn't there doing what he was doing. So remind me who's the victim here??? Not the shopkeeper in my book! And for all those that may disagree I don't give a fuck my minds made up!!!

OH and by the way this sends a good message to all the other scumbags out there as well doesn't it!!!

Ocean1

4th October 2008, 12:34

Actually you’re still innocent until you pay the fine – it’s taken as an admission of guilt

Yeah, but I've done it the outher way as well. Didn't make a blind bit of difference. Hence the attitude.

Better stop reading newspapers then!!!

Other than the crossword, when I get time, I don't.

If I didn't need it to light the barbie I'd cancel it.

But saying I'll believe it if I see it is a very bold statement. It's like saying the Antartic is not there because I haven't seen it.

But I have.

And, while there's a whole bunch of stuff I'm quite happy to believe is more than likely to exist, or to have happened based on repeated consistent reports, I've not found the press to be a reliable source of such reports.

Quite the contrary, on a few cases where I was closely associated with the events surrounding what later became a media report the story strayed universally so far from the facts that it was unrecognisable from what actually did happen.

So the only value I get from the media is that of entertainment, if I want facts I look elsewhere.

slimjim

4th October 2008, 12:37

weeee...:lol:..sorted...bad blood now...no rules..

Ocean1

4th October 2008, 12:39

But who’s offering a better alternative?

LAW AND ORDER
All laws against victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults will be repealed, in order that real crimes with genuine victims like rape, robbery, murder, theft and fraud can be vigorously pursued and the rights of these victims enforced and upheld. All people currently incarcerated for victimless 'crimes' will be immediately released. Life sentences for real crimes will mean life. The NZ Bill of Rights will be amended to uphold your right to self-defence and the right to possess the means of self-defence.

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

Winston001

4th October 2008, 12:50

Whats happened to the good old days when a murder was something that happened maybe once or twice a year, not every second day...
...where ya could hop outta your Holden Premiere and leave the keys in it, engine running, and go into the bottle store knowing that your holden would still be there when ya got back...
...where you could leave the door unlocked, and windows open and have a decent sleep knowing all would be okay!

They still exist - in the provinces. At least down here in Otago and Southland. Had a guy formerly from South Auckland point this out to me yesterday - he was astonished at the cars sitting unlocked, keys in ignition at the local supermarket.

Scummy will have a more accurate idea.

Winston001

4th October 2008, 13:07

That’s the real point isn’t it – do we have faith in our thin blue line to be there when we need them (they always seem to be there when I drive too fast).

Well said but I don't think it is reasonable to expect an instant response from the police. To get that you'd need a huge number of police officers just sitting around in every neighbourhood, helicoptor support, on the off-chance a crime might take place. We wouldn't pay for it, and shouldn't expect it.

And once apprehended do we have faith that our justice system (department of corrections included) will sufficiently punish or rehabilitate them as to deter them from re-offending or dissuade people from taking up a life of crime?We all ask that question but there is a much more fundamental issue - common respect for each other and the rules we live by. When that respect breaks down sufficiently, society dissolves into anarchy. Blaming the justice system, the police, lawyers, judges, etc etc is useless because they are at the hard end of the problem - the bottom of the cliff.

Are the consequences enough? I don’t think they are;
I think the chances of being caught are getting slimmer, and the consequences getting lessContrary to public perception, our penal system has grown harsher over the past 20 years. We imprison more people per capita apart for the USA. Pretty shocking for a laid-back nation like NZ.

As for crime, both nationally and internationally its been dropping. Again, this is counter-intuitive because we think its growing but the reason is media reporting is ratings driven and is disproportionately exaggerated.

McJim

4th October 2008, 13:08

They still exist - in the provinces. At least down here in Otago and Southland. Had a guy formerly from South Auckland point this out to me yesterday - he was astonished at the cars sitting unlocked, keys in ignition at the local supermarket.

Scummy will have a more accurate idea.

I recall having a similar conversation with you a month ago. And I used to live near South Auckland (which, after Glasgow and London) also seemed very quaint and sheltered to me.

slofox

4th October 2008, 13:12

So the cops are to prosecute the guy who used a hockey stick when confronted by a couple of little thugs in his liquor store.......how easy a prosecution that must be. The dude gets stabbed and HE gets prosecuted. Makes sense.....? Total wankism on the part of the coppers IMO....
Now I don't know if he was a little premature in his "self defense" but even so, it was the little buggers who came into his shop and confronted him. What is he supposed to do? Open his shirt and say "Stab here please?"
Should this happen to me I would have absolutely no compunction about getting in first - if I could. Any little snot who points a knife or other at me deserves to have his arm broken with a piece of pipe. And if they want to prosecute me for that then get it on, boys, get it on. I will never pay a fine - you will have to stick me in jail. And you can have all the publicity you want........grrrrantsnortraveroargibberhoottweetzz zzzzzitttzzzzz....:angry2::angry2::angry2:

Winston001

4th October 2008, 13:16

I recall having a similar conversation with you a month ago. And I used to live near South Auckland (which, after Glasgow and London) also seemed very quaint and sheltered to me.

Glasgow?? You were lucky! There were half a dozen of us used to live i'tenament i'South Central LA. We used to brick up the doors every night before we went to sleep which wasn't a lot of fun wot wif the lavatory being down the hall.....ah but we were 'appy!

MSTRS

4th October 2008, 13:17

As for crime, both nationally and internationally its been dropping. Again, this is counter-intuitive because we think its growing but the reason is media reporting is ratings driven and is disproportionately exaggerated.

But it is obvious that violent crimes are on the increase. And that is where the problem lies...the Farce can't respond (in time) to events like dairy robberies, home invasions, farm vehicle thefts etc... but the victims are discouraged from doing whatever it takes to protect themselves and their livelihood. And should they do so, then the system sees them as the bad guy. Of course, a jury of my peers may not find them guilty of any crime, but they have been left in shit street by the costs involved. Shafted from all sides, what are they supposed to do?
Edit...and complying with said robbers demands is no guarantee of survival. With the other downside being that word soon gets around that Mr Singh's dairy is easy pickings....

Winston001

4th October 2008, 13:56

I'm not saying we should be complacent, or accept knife carrying yoof as normal, or not be entitled to defend ourselves. However, like it or not, crime is decreasing. Violent crime reporting is increasing but that's because we now speak more openly about violence and victims are encouraged to speak up - previously they kept quiet. Think of abused children and spouses.

Have a look at this study http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/articles/2008/02/crime_incidence.cfm

 "The incidence of crime in New Zealand has steadily decreased over the last decade, according to a recent study.

"This is contrary to popular perception," says Julia Tolmie, co-editor of Criminal Justice in New Zealand (published by Lexis Nexis) and associate professor of law at The University of Auckland.

"What has changed is that the amount of people who are being prosecuted and the sentences that they are getting have both increased. In other words, the numbers we are locking up for committing crimes have been rapidly increasing in recent years even though crime is not growing."

devnull

4th October 2008, 19:22

Winston001

4th October 2008, 19:36

scumdog

4th October 2008, 19:42

There isn't a jury in the land that will find that shop keeper guilty, yet us tax payers will have to foot the bill for his defence and the defence of the criminals.

I suspect Malcolm that each time one of these 'prosecutions' fail it stretches the envelope of what we (citizens) CAN do to repulse an attack.

Of course I could be spouting shit here.
(As usual)

scumdog

4th October 2008, 19:45

Sorry dude, that's bullshit.

Looks all rosy if you include ALL crime - slice out violent crime and see how those stats look.

It's going up, not down.

I feel sorry for those cops who genuinely want to make a difference - they get screwed by the system, and their own management.

As for being a member of the public, you're pretty much left to your own devices. If you don't protect yourself, nobody else will....

I agree - 145% increase on assaults on Police over the last 10 years - but that's not the 'official' figure...you don't want to see the unofficial figure for other attacks/violence to the public by criminals.

scumdog

4th October 2008, 19:48

They still exist - in the provinces. At least down here in Otago and Southland. Had a guy formerly from South Auckland point this out to me yesterday - he was astonished at the cars sitting unlocked, keys in ignition at the local supermarket.

Scummy will have a more accurate idea.

I concur.

You would be amazed down here on a rainy day when you see the amount of cars with wipers going and/or indicators blinking and nobody in the car.

On fine days the doors are also left open too....

scumdog

4th October 2008, 19:52

So an armed criminal comes into your shop, stabs you and robs you.

According to the police your response should be "Please just wait a minute while I dial 111. The Police will take a while to send a taxi so you can continue to rob and stab me afterwards."

To hell with that. If a criminal comes into a shop, armed and intent on robbery, then don't even waste time with a hockey stick, blow him away with both barrels of a 12 guage.

There isn't a jury in the land that will find that shop keeper guilty, yet us tax payers will have to foot the bill for his defence and the defence of the criminals.

Yeah, we had a good (if drunken) discussion on the use of 'disuaders' a few weeks ago eh!;)

Forest

4th October 2008, 20:07

Mr Singh hasn't been charged for self-defence. He has been charged for getting in a couple of hits after the youth had been restrained and disarmed.

Personally I think the youth got what he deserved. Unfortunately the legal system sees things differently.

devnull

4th October 2008, 20:13

Mmmmm......

In 2006/2007 there were 102.5 recorded offences for every thousand people -- compared with 128.5 in 1996/1997.

However I do wonder about violent crime too and would like to see some more stats. P/Meth fuelled violence didn't exist years ago.

Maybe P and meth didn't, but plenty of others did.
PCP, for example. A very nasty drug.

Mr Singh hasn't been charged for self-defence. He has been charged for getting in a couple of hits after the youth had been restrained and disarmed.

Personally I think the youth got what he deserved. Unfortunately the legal system sees things differently.

Section 48 (self defense) is just something you can claim AFTER you get charged with assault and go to court.
So you still end up getting screwed with legal fees regardless.

Now if you could sue the crown for costs if found not guilty - that'd be somewhat better

FJRider

4th October 2008, 20:18

Some of the crim's make silly mistakes though...as ably demonstrated in the attempted robbery of a gunshop a while back. The mistake was taking a knife to a gun fight...

Hitcher

4th October 2008, 21:54

jrandom

4th October 2008, 22:06

Surely it's the Police's job to prosecute people they believe to have broken the law? Whether Mr Dairy Owner is guilty or innocent is a matter for the Courts. Isn't that how our justice system is supposed to work?

You know as well as I do that the issues here are twofold:

(a) being charged with such an offense is stressful, expensive and time-consuming, and wouldn't it be nice if the Police just turned a blind eye and let the Goodies beat up the Baddies once in a while, like in comic books, not to mention that:

(b) 99% of Average Kiwi Males (tm) will automatically respond to any discussion on this subject with chest-thumping stupidity.

It's hardly worthwhile attempting to inject reason into the debate; the roar of testosterone in the ears of most of the participants will drown it out.

FJRider

4th October 2008, 22:39

Winston001

4th October 2008, 23:05

You know as well as I do that the issues here are twofold:

(a) being charged with such an offense is stressful, expensive and time-consuming, and wouldn't it be nice if the Police just turned a blind eye and let the Goodies beat up the Baddies once in a while, like in comic books, not to mention that:

(b) 99% of Average Kiwi Males (tm) will automatically respond to any discussion on this subject with chest-thumping stupidity.

It's hardly worthwhile attempting to inject reason into the debate; the roar of testosterone in the ears of most of the participants will drown it out.

Yeah, LOL agreed ,but ya know, sometimes enough is enough. There is a strange dichotomy here when one shopkeeper gets stabbed and arrested because he gave more than he got, and another shopkeeper gets viciously wounded in his shop. Its not hard to see where the public sympathy lies and the testosterone fuelled outrage is a reasonable reaction.

I can sit here and hypothesise about reasonable force, guarding against vigilantism, assessment of imminent threat, disproportionate response etc etc.............. but if my child/wife/mate was hurt by one of these vermin.......I'd find the shotty pretty quick and take my chances.

Guess I'm really a redneck deep down after all :laugh:

Murray

5th October 2008, 08:17

MSTRS

5th October 2008, 08:34

Is using excessive force in the event of someone coming at you with a knife a prosecutable offence????

And unfortunately the Justice system does work but costs Mr innocent bigtime. I was involved in a case the police brought against someone and the case was thrown out after the prosecution (no defense required) still cost the defendent over $20k with no rights to compensation!!!! That Sux bigtime

The force used to oppose (someone attacking you) is not allowed to be greater than the force used (or threatened by) that attacker. I would think that despite the greater reach of a hockey stick, it would be trumped by a knife with it's greater manoeuvrability and potential for more serious harm with less effort.
And if the prosecution had to pay the costs of the accused if found not guilty, then we'd see a much fairer system for victims who strike back.

Ocean1

5th October 2008, 09:40

And if the prosecution had to pay the costs of the accused if found not guilty, then we'd see a much fairer system for victims who strike back.

Only if the prosecution's budget depended on getting it right.

But it wouldn't, one of two things would happen, either the police would cherry-pick their cases in order to remain within budget, or their budget would be doubled overnight, at the taxpayer's expense.

spudchucka

5th October 2008, 09:51

The force used to oppose (someone attacking you) is not allowed to be greater than the force used (or threatened by) that attacker.

That's quite a simplistic overview. In reality force used against another person is only lawful when it is necessary, proportionate within the given circumstances and justifiable under law.

It becomes very difficult to argue that the extra couple of whacks around the ears are necessary or proportionate once the immediate threat of personal harm has been negated.

Winston001

5th October 2008, 14:23

That's quite a simplistic overview. In reality force used against another person is only lawful when it is necessary, proportionate within the given circumstances and justifiable under law.

It becomes very difficult to argue that the extra couple of whacks around the ears are necessary or proportionate once the immediate threat of personal harm has been negated.

Exactly.

IF - and I say IF, the shopkeeper bludgened this piece of vermin after it was being held down/tied up whatever, understandable as that might be, that's a step too far.

Even so, the odds of a jury acquitting hm are good.

Genestho

5th October 2008, 17:30

Well said but I don't think it is reasonable to expect an instant response from the police. To get that you'd need a huge number of police officers just sitting around in every neighbourhood, helicoptor support, on the off-chance a crime might take place. We wouldn't pay for it, and shouldn't expect it.

Sensibly said - Agreed
We all ask that question but there is a much more fundamental issue - common respect for each other and the rules we live by. When that respect breaks down sufficiently, society dissolves into anarchy. Blaming the justice system, the police, lawyers, judges, etc etc is useless because they are at the hard end of the problem - the bottom of the cliff.

Agreed 100% theres alot of factors going on, BUT there needs to be action taken to meet contributing members of society half way to protect the innocents from morons that are not being responsible for their own wrong doings, sadly because theres always an excuse to defend and always somebody else to blame. My personal opinion is that there is NO excuse to take another human beings life, not poverty, not past history (those that know me will know why I say that) we all have choices.
As far as the courts system, it appears to wrap itself around the defendants, there are supressions of information like you wouldnt believe, and even journalists are supressed from revealing the supressed info, the public has no idea what it doesnt know.. (if you get what I mean)

Contrary to public perception, our penal system has grown harsher over the past 20 years. We imprison more people per capita apart for the USA. Pretty shocking for a laid-back nation like NZ.

True enough, but if your loved one was murdered, would you prefer to see the offender laidup for minimal years and out early for good behaviour ,with a couple of years frolicking around out on bail, prior to the courtcase? While your loved one has been in a box? While your left to flounder mentally, somehow try to work to pay the bills. Watch familymembers grieve hard?
The toll this crap takes on people after the crime is huge, Im glad I dont have to suffer the system

As for crime, both nationally and internationally its been dropping. Again, this is counter-intuitive because we think its growing but the reason is media reporting is ratings driven and is disproportionately exaggerated.

Since when has it been dropping? Your quoting Annette and Helen, that info depends where you source the stats from, I believe as some one told me - thats called dyscalculia (numbers dyslexia)

The thing about this whole defense thing is that fine line.. wouldnt it be awful if while protecting yourself excessively - the tosser got to sue you all the way down the drain, take your house, your savings, laughing at you the whole way?
Pretty hard though if your faced with a knife, what would you do?
Crime in my suburb is up 15%, my local non indian dairy owners are scared..Stuffs happening to ordinary everyday people, and nobody thinks it can happen to them

Ocean1

5th October 2008, 18:23

I don't think it is reasonable to expect an instant response from the police. To get that you'd need a huge number of police officers just sitting around in every neighbourhood, helicoptor support, on the off-chance a crime might take place. We wouldn't pay for it, and shouldn't expect it.

Jurisprudence notwithstanding, the social contract that prevents vigilantisim goes like this: You may not use force which would normally constitute an offense, almost without exception. In exchange for which the constabulary will deal with any issues which may require you to use that force.

So tell me dude, did we get a good deal? At what point does the daily public risk amount to contractual negligence?

As for crime, both nationally and internationally its been dropping. Again, this is counter-intuitive because we think its growing but the reason is media reporting is ratings driven and is disproportionately exaggerated.

There's lies, damn lies and...

Winston001

5th October 2008, 18:31

My personal opinion is that there is NO excuse to take another human beings life, not poverty, not past history (those that know me will know why I say that) we all have choices.
As far as the courts system, it appears to wrap itself around the defendants, there are supressions of information like you wouldnt believe, and even journalists are supressed from revealing the supressed info, the public has no idea what it doesnt know.. (if you get what I mean)

Nice post. Suppression of name and facts is rare. Ask Scummy. Go into any District Court on a police list day and you'll see. Its worth a visit just as an eyeopener.

NZ Imprisonment rate high - True enough, but if your loved one was murdered, would you prefer to see the offender laidup for minimal years and out early for good behaviour ,with a couple of years frolicking around out on bail, prior to the courtcase? While your loved one has been in a box? While your left to flounder mentally, somehow try to work to pay the bills. Watch familymembers grieve hard?

Agreed but how do the victims of crime in other countries who jail far fewer feel.....? Their pain is no less, yet their society chooses other punishments. Being second to the US for imprisonment suggests something is fundamentally wrong in this small country.

[I]As for crime, both nationally and internationally its been dropping....

Since when has it been dropping? Your quoting Annette and Helen, that info depends where you source the stats from, I believe as some one told me - thats called dyscalculia (numbers dyslexia)

Not government figures, international figures. One theory is the liberaliastion of abortion in the 1970s has saved us from a generation of crims.

As for local facts, http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/..._incidence.cfm (http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/articles/2008/02/crime_incidence.cfm) University of Auckland study, crime is dropping and the rate of imprisonment is growing.

However Scummy says violent crime is up and although it would be good to see some numbers, that feels true.

The thing about this whole defence thing is that fine line.. wouldnt it be awful if while protecting yourself excessively - the tosser got to sue you all the way down the drain, take your house, your savings, laughing at you the whole way? Fortunately ACC means you can't be sued. But......defending yourself in court might have the same effect. Its expensive. The only fair answer would be to extend legal aid to every person charged with an offence ....TUI moment.....or give people charged the choice of a public defender (taxpayer funded) or privately pay their own lawyer.

We don't have a public defender system in NZ and frankly I don't know where they would ever find enough lawyers to employ. We are just too small a country. As it is, in Invercargill there are so few lawyers prepared to do legal aid work that lawyers are brought down from Dunedin. Its low paid exasperating work.

Headbanger

5th October 2008, 19:17

Pretty hard though if your faced with a knife, what would you do?

Get stabbed, bleed.

Seems to be how its done.

Pedrostt500

5th October 2008, 19:19

Ok I havent read most of this thread, What I tell my boys who are young Fitter Welders and Fitter Turner Apprentices, the first rule in self defence is there are no rules, If you are prepared to get into a fight, Knock the other bastard down as quickly as you can, and make certain that he stays there, Ie put the fucken boot in, if the other guy gets up you may be the one eating hospital food, rule 2 if you are prepared to knock the other fucker down and put the boot in, you may Kill him, so be prepared to stand up and take the consequences of your actions, regardless if you were wrong or right.

Delerium

5th October 2008, 20:00

crime is NOT down, reported crime is, two very different things.

Hitcher

5th October 2008, 20:02

Depends whether you support National or Labour.

Grahameeboy

5th October 2008, 20:12

Well I think we need to go back to the guy from my patch who lost his life helping a stricken lady...he paid with his life and left his family without a Dad.

If your shop gets robbed...let them...you are Insured...let the Police do the business...prison ain't no good to your family and friends...if someone threatens you with a knife...don't be a hero...

devnull

5th October 2008, 20:14

Agreed 100% theres alot of factors going on, BUT there needs to be action taken to meet contributing members of society half way to protect the innocents from morons that are not being responsible for their own wrong doings, sadly because theres always an excuse to defend and always somebody else to blame. My personal opinion is that there is NO excuse to take another human beings life, not poverty, not past history (those that know me will know why I say that) we all have choices.
As far as the courts system, it appears to wrap itself around the defendants, there are supressions of information like you wouldnt believe, and even journalists are supressed from revealing the supressed info, the public has no idea what it doesnt know.. (if you get what I mean)

While I agree for the most part, I disagree with saying there's NO excuse to take a life.

Because if it was my wife or children that was threatened, I believe that the killing of the offender would be justified.

I'd rather end up in court or even prison, than have to bury my wife or my kids...

Swoop

5th October 2008, 20:19

On fine days the doors are also left open too....
Now that is just silly.

The battery will go flat...

Genestho

5th October 2008, 20:28

While I agree for the most part, I disagree with saying there's NO excuse to take a life.

Because if it was my wife or children that was threatened, I believe that the killing of the offender would be justified.

I'd rather end up in court or even prison, than have to bury my wife or my kids...

I guess I say that from a place where I have seen the immense suffering of the cause of somebody taking lives, not just the dead and dying but also the carnage left, my opinion is not from a defensive point of view.
Id hate to be in a position to have to make that call, reasonable force needs to be clear.

Genestho

5th October 2008, 20:56

[QUOTE=Winston001;1757984]

Nice post. Suppression of name and facts is rare. Ask Scummy. Go into any District Court on a police list day and you'll see. Its worth a visit just as an eyeopener.

I must be liasing with the rare bunch who have had info suppressed at trial

Agreed but how do the victims of crime in other countries who jail far fewer feel.....? Their pain is no less, yet their society chooses other punishments. Being second to the US for imprisonment suggests something is fundamentally wrong in this small country.

Swift and Severe consequences that are available might help with deterence, how bout night court whipping the minor cases through? (Yea right)
But going back to what you said in your earlier post, the issues that cause this need sorting, from what I see, the mental health sector has been suffering for over a decade, probably even longer, rehab centres shut down, not enough social workers, not enough people that want to help, not enough pay to do it, and red tape, which I hear alot of people give up on (Im having trouble trying to spell bueracratic << red tape lol)

Not government figures, international figures. One theory is the liberaliastion of abortion in the 1970s has saved us from a generation of crims.

As for local facts, http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/..._incidence.cfm (http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/articles/2008/02/crime_incidence.cfm) University of Auckland study, crime is dropping and the rate of imprisonment is growing.

However Scummy says violent crime is up and although it would be good to see some numbers, that feels true.

[COLOR="red"]I have quite a bit of info on this, various sources and I believe the violent crime rate jumped around 6000 from june 07 to june 08 it'll be outdated already though - big time, and its been steadily rising for years. I saw there was jump in crime after the abolishment of that whatsit called service (name escapes me) in the late 60's

Fortunately ACC means you can't be sued. But......defending yourself in court might have the same effect. Its expensive.

Sorry my fauxpah - wrong choice of words, you said what I meant

We don't have a public defender system in NZ and frankly I don't know where they would ever find enough lawyers to employ. We are just too small a country. As it is, in Invercargill there are so few lawyers prepared to do legal aid work that lawyers are brought down from Dunedin. Its low paid exasperating work.

Ah I've been wondering about that..

spudchucka

6th October 2008, 05:16

crime is NOT down, reported crime is, two very different things.

Correct, however the actual true crime rate is something that can never be completely known.

Grahameeboy

6th October 2008, 06:15

jrandom

6th October 2008, 10:13

Interesting (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10535943).

The officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Senior Sergeant Dave Pizzini, contacted two high-profile critics at the weekend - Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar and retired detective chief inspector Rex Miller - to explain the background to the case.

...

After their conversation, Mr Miller retracted his emailed comments, saying the information should be "put before the court, not the papers".

Mr Miller said that having been informed of the full circumstances of the case, which police cannot reveal because doing so could prejudice the case, he withdrew everything in his email.

"As a result of what I've been told - which I'm not going to tell you - disregard what I've said."

...

Mr Pizzini said it was reprehensible the Herald was still revealing Mr Miller's comments - which the former top detective copied to the newspaper - even though he had withdrawn them. "It concerns me that [Mr Miller] formed his views after only seeing media reports, most of which have been grossly inaccurate."

Ixion

6th October 2008, 10:48

But -

Mr McVicar, however, did not retract his comments after also speaking to Mr Pizzini.

(same source)

jrandom

6th October 2008, 10:58

Mr McVicar, however, did not retract his comments after also speaking to Mr Pizzini.

Mr McVicar, as a spokesman for the Sensible Sentencing Trust, has obvious motivations and will not be free to state his own opinion.

His job is simply to make public noise to influence policymakers toward a particular goal.

I prefer to trust the word of the private citizen who was motivated to write to the Police of his own accord and then changed his mind after receiving an explanation.

Political lobby groups never 'change their minds'.

Ixion

6th October 2008, 11:23

Well, Mr Miller is not entirely a "private citizen'. He is a retired cop. And no doubt imbued after a lifetime of service with precisely the attitudes that would cause the cops to press the charges.

The public opposition is to an apparent frame of mind on the part of the police whereby any attempt to defend ones person or property will always end up with one facing charges. Mr Miller's retraction simply extends this from "on the part of the police " to "on the part of the police , past and present".

The police are one of the largest (and most effective) political lobby groups in the country.

I rather think that the present charges have nothing whatsoever to do with the guilt or innocence of the man charged. Since the recent fatal shooting of Mr Singh, the Asian community, and Sikhs in particular, have been openly questioning both the capability , and the motivation, of the police force to provide any measure of effective protection.

Given that the police do indeed lack both ability and motivation, this questioning scares them very much. Especially as Sikhs are renowned for the ability to "dish it out". So this charge is a warning shot, a statement that "We may not be able to protect you from dacoitry, but we can still punish you if you try to protect yourself."

In the hope that the Sikhs will adopt the same attitude as other New Zealanders, and meekly accept their role as victims.

Me, I'm for the Sikhs. Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal !

Indoo

6th October 2008, 11:58

Well, Mr Miller is not entirely a "private citizen'. He is a retired cop. And no doubt imbued after a lifetime of service with precisely the attitudes that would cause the cops to press the charges.[/I]

And yet wrote to the Herald actively criticizing the Police, hmmm..

The public opposition is to an apparent frame of mind on the part of the police whereby any attempt to defend ones person or property will always end up with one facing charges. Mr Miller's retraction simply extends this from "on the part of the police " to "on the part of the police , past and present".[/I]

And how many of the hundreds or thousands of 'civilians' who apprehend people committing crime each year and detain them often using force end up facing charges?

The police are one of the largest (and most effective) political lobby groups in the country.[/I]

So thats why we have such an overfunded and overstaffed Police force and not one in which cops are forced to buy their own Police issue socks, boots or radio ear pieces...

I rather think that the present charges have nothing whatsoever to do with the guilt or innocence of the man charged. Since the recent fatal shooting of Mr Singh, the Asian community, and Sikhs in particular, have been openly questioning both the capability , and the motivation, of the police force to provide any measure of effective protection.[/I]

Here we go, so its a vast consipiracy. The cops who attended, the witnesses who saw it, the detectives who investigated and the prosecutors who presented it in court all got their directive from Howard to show those pesky Sikhs a lesson. Do you reckon the ambulance staff who treated the kids injuries or the doctors who saw him at hospital and provided medical reports were part of it as well?

There is of course another far fetched alternative to the logical conspiracy theory.

Maybe, just maybe the guy did go completely overboard and the injuries he caused and the reasons why he caused those injuries went far beyond what the attending officers could turn a blind eye to. Setting a precedent that you can dish out whatever punishment you see fit at the scene regardless of the proportionately to the crime is a dangerous one and its precisely why we have a justice system in the first place. Although its clearly unfortunate to many on here that we do still have an independent Police force that isn't swayed by the call of the ignorant baying mob, the same mob who form opinions knowing none of the facts but are simply led by a media selling them a story that they want to hear.

jrandom

6th October 2008, 12:06

And yet wrote to the Herald actively criticizing the Police, hmmm..

Yes. Wot 'e said.

Ixion, you may choose to believe that Mr Miller retracted his public criticisms because he forgot to wear a tinfoil hat during the phone call and Mr Pizzini activated his long-dormant psychological programming designed to bring ex-cops back in line if they ever deviated from the official position.

I, however, prefer to see it simply as a responsible individual expressing concern of their own free will and then retracting their statements after being provided with further facts.

... how many of the hundreds or thousands of 'civilians' who apprehend people committing crime each year and detain them often using force end up facing charges?

Well, so far this year, according to the media: One. Unless I've missed any earlier reports.

Maybe, just maybe the guy did go completely overboard and the injuries he caused and the reasons why he caused those injuries went far beyond what the attending officers could turn a blind eye to.

On second thoughts, no, I can't accept that. This is definitely all some sort of conspiracy.

:msn-wink:

scumdog

6th October 2008, 13:08

[ "It concerns me that [Mr Miller] formed his views after only seeing media reports, most of which have been grossly inaccurate."[/I]

Mwahahaha, ain't that the media all over?:laugh:

And the source of a lot of the 'information' posted by quite a few on KB:doh::2guns:

MSTRS

6th October 2008, 13:37

Mwahahaha, ain't that the media all over?:laugh:

And the source of a lot of the 'information' posted by quite a few on KB:doh::2guns:

GIGO. We want the real facts, and then we can give our real opinions. (which will no doubt differ only slightly)

BiK3RChiK

6th October 2008, 14:04

The one time a hooded loser tried to steal my till, HE left with NOTHING!! but hopefully a few bruises... Tossers! I wouldn't hesitate next time either!:2guns::2guns:

Indoo

6th October 2008, 14:42

GIGO. We want the real facts, and then we can give our real opinions. (which will no doubt differ only slightly)

Which will be presented in court.

PrincessBandit

6th October 2008, 15:07

Reasonable force is all well and good except that often the victim is not the equal of the offender, either in size, weight or weapons of choice. For me turning tail and running (if that were an option) would always be my survival method of choice. However if my kids or husband were in danger, or even a stranger for that matter, and I had a chance of helping them at the risk of harming the offender there would be no question of worrying about "hurting the poor criminal". Basically we lose our rights to a peaceful lawabiding existence because crims know they have a good chance of coming off looking like the victim instead when we fight back. Their rights to abuse us override everything it would seem. :angry2:

FROSTY

6th October 2008, 15:07

For a simpleton--IE me
Can someone explain this one.
A group of people walk into another persons place of business and threatens violence. The single person hits back.
Are charges being laid against the group that walked in?

Hitcher

6th October 2008, 15:13

Are charges being laid against the group that walked in?

Yes they are. And the law does allow self-defence, with a proviso of "reasonable force" used. In this case the Police believe that the amount of force used was excessive. It's now up to a jury to determine whether they agree with that proposition.

avgas

6th October 2008, 15:21

you guys are missing the point here.
he didn't kill him and hide the body.
I mean who is going to report :
"17 year old rangi kumara went missing today while holding up a 4-square"

either that or take the crim to the cop shop - tie his ankles to the tow bar.

FROSTY

6th October 2008, 17:12

Yes they are. And the law does allow self-defence, with a proviso of "reasonable force" used. In this case the Police believe that the amount of force used was excessive. It's now up to a jury to determine whether they agree with that proposition.
Thanks dude.

Dunno about you lot but in the shopkeepers shoes I would have been scared shitless. I'd like to think I would have defended myself but if I did I"m pretty sure I wouldn't have stopped hitting untill someone stopped me.
Not because I'm a hero in any way but because its instinctive and I would have been totally shiting myself.

I think all the racial shit aside a bunch of "human beings" attempted to steal from another human being in a violent manor.

Winston001

7th October 2008, 07:58

Patrick

7th October 2008, 20:13

LAW AND ORDER
All laws against victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults will be repealed, in order that real crimes with genuine victims like rape, robbery, murder, theft and fraud can be vigorously pursued and the rights of these victims enforced and upheld. All people currently incarcerated for victimless 'crimes' will be immediately released. Life sentences for real crimes will mean life. The NZ Bill of Rights will be amended to uphold your right to self-defence and the right to possess the means of self-defence.

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

Soooooo... recidivist drunk / disqualified drivers are two types that spring to mind as a victimless crime... but oh the carnage they COULD cause to victims, hence the reason on why they are locked away...????

NO vote for them from me then....

...Even so, the odds of a jury acquitting hm are good.

Fingers crossed then. Sounded extremely disappointing to start with, but more to the story and all.....

McJim

7th October 2008, 20:29

Anybody know or understand the lack of accurate information here? I know the case is now sub judicae so the media are limited but you'd expect the correct facts to filter out.

So far as I can glean, these towrags had been in the shop or were hanging around - they were outside when events happened. They were suspected by Mr Singh of shoplifting - either right then, or on previous occassions. They were drunk and I imagine intimidating any regular customers on the footpath.

He seems to have confronted them, with hockey stick in hand. Possibly the knife was drawn by a towrag to defend himself. Singh somehow came to be in the position of getting the upper hand and instead of stopping, got in a few extra hits on a couple of the towrags heads, just for good luck. There lies the excessive force because at that point he is no longer defending himself.

Now - all of the above is drawn from hearing his wife speak, media reports, and bits and pieces in this thread. Every chance the "facts" I've set out are completely wrong.

Anyone have a clearer idea?
Winston. Stop being so reasonable. Many of us here on KB are passing into the realms of "Old fartdom" and therefore we would like to see young kids in hoodies carrying knives and intimidating people getting "dealt to" by members of the public. The reason for this is that we want to feel safe and we want those who would intimidate us feel threatened.

That way balance is maintained.

A jury of peers may well believe that he is guilty of excessive force when the facts come out but may still elect to find him not guilty as they will think "there go I but for the grace of god"

The idea of being a vigilante is very attractive to many - we know we shouldn't but we want to taste that sweet victory as justice is dealt.

The bloke that shot the fella in the gunshop was my neighbour in Auckland. I was glad he was found not guilty but the trial sent him and his family to hell and back for a year. Maybe it is better to kill and destroy the body after all since the criminal court system causes such hardship for the honest.

Ocean1

7th October 2008, 20:47

Soooooo... recidivist drunk / disqualified drivers are two types that spring to mind as a victimless crime... but oh the carnage they COULD cause to victims, hence the reason on why they are locked away...????

Balance, dude. You're drawing a long bow interpreting "victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults" as drunk drivers. Think the intent is to control those that hurt others and those who's behaviour is likely to do so.

Otherwise, basically, mind yer own fucking business. Sorta the polar opposite of the plethora of nit-pickin' bullshit we have at the moment eh?

Kiwi Graham

7th October 2008, 21:06

What's the problem here? The Police have charged this dude because they believe that he used excessive force. Surely it's the Police's job to prosecute people they believe to have broken the law? Whether Mr Dairy Owner is guilty or innocent is a matter for the Courts. Isn't that how our justice system is supposed to work?

Dairy owner 0 cunt 1. dairy owner will have to pay for his own defence, cunt gets US to pay for his FFS

Well I think we need to go back to the guy from my patch who lost his life helping a stricken lady...he paid with his life and left his family without a Dad.
This is what can happen when we just let them get away with this shit.
If your shop gets robbed...let them...you are Insured...let the Police do the business...prison ain't no good to your family and friends...if someone threatens you with a knife...don't be a hero...

Best option, too many dead heroes.

Reasonable force is all well and good except that often the victim is not the equal of the offender, either in size, weight or weapons of choice. For me turning tail and running (if that were an option) would always be my survival method of choice. However if my kids or husband were in danger, or even a stranger for that matter, and I had a chance of helping them at the risk of harming the offender there would be no question of worrying about "hurting the poor criminal". Basically we lose our rights to a peaceful lawabiding existence because crims know they have a good chance of coming off looking like the victim instead when we fight back. Their rights to abuse us override everything it would seem. :angry2:

This is where it gets complicated. Any self respecting indervidual would throw caution to the wind and defend your friends, family even public and worry about the shit hitting the fan after the fact.

Yes they are. And the law does allow self-defence, with a proviso of "reasonable force" used. In this case the Police believe that the amount of force used was excessive. It's now up to a jury to determine whether they agree with that proposition.

At who's cost?! Certainly not the pricks that caused the incident in the first place.

Winston. Stop being so reasonable. Many of us here on KB are passing into the realms of "Old fartdom" and therefore we would like to see young kids in hoodies carrying knives and intimidating people getting "dealt to" by members of the public. The reason for this is that we want to feel safe and we want those who would intimidate us feel threatened.

A jury of peers may well believe that he is guilty of excessive force when the facts come out but may still elect to find him not guilty as they will think "there go I but for the grace of god"

The bloke that shot the fella in the gunshop was my neighbour in Auckland. I was glad he was found not guilty but the trial sent him and his family to hell and back for a year. Maybe it is better to kill and destroy the body after all since the criminal court system causes such hardship for the honest.

This is my point. Scum commit the crime and the hard working pay the price in more ways than one. The police pretty much have there hands tied in how they have to respond to this sort of response because of the way the law has been developed. Changes need to be made to protect the inocent VICTIM until proven guilty.

Winston001

7th October 2008, 21:40

This is my point. Scum commit the crime and the hard working pay the price in more ways than one. The police pretty much have their hands tied in how they have to respond to this sort of response because of the way the law has been developed. Changes need to be made to protect the innocent VICTIM until proven guilty.

Fair enough. For most of human history justice has been rough and brutal. Vigilante help-yourself was the main rule. Only 200 years ago people were hanged for simple theft.

So violent retribution against threats and harm is a normal reaction.

Why do you think our social structure has evolved to where we are today? Not just in NZ, but the USA, Britain, Europe, etc etc....

Ocean1

7th October 2008, 22:00

Why do you think our social structure has evolved to where we are today? Not just in NZ, but the USA, Britain, Europe, etc etc....

Evolution is generally held to mean a sustainable improvement in individual performance within a given environment. In an artificial environment those changes remain improvements only to the individual, and only as long as the environment is maintained.

Reducing consequences for behaviour dangerous to society is about as far from a natural environment as you can get. Changes in individual performance detrimental to society under such conditions are not sustainable. It's a positive feedback loop, sooner or later the deterioration in performance swamps the control inputs.

Notice any recent deterioration in social control?

Winston001

7th October 2008, 22:13

Ignoring Ocean for the mo ... :D

Crime is NOT down, reported crime is, two very different things.

If crime isn't reported......then how can we know more of it exists.....?

Certainly we can hypothesise there is heaps of hidden unreported crime - but how do we test that theory? Where's the evidence?

I'm completely unconvinced all this unreported crime exists. Of course there is always some, but significant amounts....? 20/30/40% more? What possible rationale could there be for so much unreported crime?

In fact, you need to report it these days, even simply for insurance purposes, ACC, benefit entitlement, medical care etc.

Ocean1

7th October 2008, 22:19

Ignoring Ocean for the mo ... :D

<_<

What possible rationale could there be for so much unreported crime?

What's the usual reason to report crime?

Sommat to do with justice innit?

scumdog

7th October 2008, 22:38

crime is NOT down, reported crime is, two very different things.
Don't worry about that too much - unreported crime vs reported crime ratio has changed very little for a long time, bugger-all has changed in that department.

Mekk

7th October 2008, 22:47

I didn't read all that bollocks after the first post but...

I read that there was additional information that couldn't be released because of its impact on the final case.

Gah, it irks me seeing the media earn their bonuses through the ol' knee jerk.

spudchucka

8th October 2008, 05:15

I'm completely unconvinced all this unreported crime exists.

The under reporting of domestic violence and sexual abuse are the most obvious examples. There is often a huge amount of shame felt by victims so they don't come forward. There are too many other examples to discuss it in any length.

You mentioned reporting for insurance purposes, which to me suggests that you aren't looking too far beyond the dishonesty and property damage type of offending. There is a whole raft of other types of offending that never gets reported or detected, hence the true crime figure can never really be known.

Clockwork

8th October 2008, 10:55

Balance, dude. You're drawing a long bow interpreting "victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults" as drunk drivers. Think the intent is to control those that hurt others and those who's behaviour is likely to do so.

Otherwise, basically, mind yer own fucking business. Sorta the polar opposite of the plethora of nit-pickin' bullshit we have at the moment eh?

So which crimes do you have in mind then?

Finn

8th October 2008, 10:59

So which crimes do you have in mind then?

Illegal parking of the penis?

Goblin

8th October 2008, 11:56

So which crimes do you have in mind then?How about the old Cultivation of Cannabis, Producing a class B drug (namely Cannabis Butter)?? Where's the victim? Even Cultivation for Supply. Where there is a demand, there's often a supply. Who is the victim? The gubmint because they dont get to tax it? What about indecent exposure? Without lewd or sexual conduct there's nothing wrong with nudity. Who's the victim?

Hitcher

8th October 2008, 11:59

How about the old Cultivation of Cannabis, Producing a class B drug (namely Cannabis Butter)?? Where's the victim? Even Cultivation for Supply. Where there is a demand, there's often a supply. Who is the victim? The gubmint because they dont get to tax it? What about indecent exposure? Without lewd or sexual conduct there's nothing wrong with nudity. Who's the victim?

How about the manufacture of P? Surely your arguments apply to this as well? And don't give me any esoteric pot-head nonsense about the relative merits of Class A versus Class B drugs.

Goblin

8th October 2008, 12:17

How about the manufacture of P? Surely your arguments apply to this as well? And don't give me any esoteric pot-head nonsense about the relative merits of Class A versus Class B drugs.Fark off! You cant compare something grown from seed to something manufactured from god knows what chemicals which hooks people first time and sends them into psychotic rages!
Tell me Hitcher....who is the victim when someone grows a little plant and turns it into a cookie to eat instead of smoking it? How many pot heads have been arrested for violent crimes against innocent people? Our Cannabis prohibition laws have to be the biggest waste of police time and resources. Wouldnt they(police) be better to put less into cannabis and more into stopping P manufacturing and dealing?

Finn

8th October 2008, 12:23

How many pot heads have been arrested for violent crimes against innocent people?

Charles Manson.

Goblin

8th October 2008, 12:25

Charles Manson.In New Zealand?

Hitcher

8th October 2008, 12:31

Tell me Hitcher....who is the victim when someone grows a little plant and turns it into a cookie to eat instead of smoking it?

Did the person who consumed the cookie know it contained a mind-altering substance?

If the answer is yes, the next question is why?

If the answer is no, then a "crime" has been committed right there. "I just did it for a bit of a larf, Your Honour."

After having consumed their hash cookie, did that person have another? Were they then persuaded to smoke dak or spot hash so as to get the rush more quickly? Unsatisfied by that, did they then get a "free sample" of P from their local Mob member?

There are lots of things that come from "little plants", such as curare, that are best not left in the hands of your average punter.

New Zealanders have enough problems dealing with mind altering substances, particularly alcohol, that are already "legal". On the basis that as a society we act like a bunch of delinquent teenagers, I believe that marijuana should retain its current status.

And while we're on the subject of "victimless crimes", I'm surprised speeding tickets haven't been mentioned.

Goblin

8th October 2008, 12:46

Did the person who consumed the cookie know it contained a mind-altering substance?

If the answer is yes, the next question is why?

If the answer is no, then a "crime" has been committed right there. "I just did it for a bit of a larf, Your Honour."

After having consumed their hash cookie, did that person have another? Were they then persuaded to smoke dak or spot hash so as to get the rush more quickly? Unsatisfied by that, did they then get a "free sample" of P from their local Mob member?

There are lots of things that come from "little plants", such as curare, that are best not left in the hands of your average punter.

New Zealanders have enough problems dealing with mind altering substances, particularly alcohol, that are already "legal". On the basis that as a society we act like a bunch of delinquent teenagers, I believe that marijuana should retain its current status.

And while we're on the subject of "victimless crimes", I'm surprised speeding tickets haven't been mentioned.If someone grew a little plant and turned it into a cookie or cake, why the hell would they want to have anything to do with the mob??

There are FAR more violent crimes committed through alcohol than pot. In fact I have never heard of any pot user turning violent. We see alcohol related violence every day. Perhaps you should try it Hitcher.:calm: All this "pot is a gateway drug" is a crock of shit! If someone is going to get into hard drugs, they're going to do it whether they smoke pot or not. More likely they will be abusing alcohol already.

Speeding tickets are an infringement...not a crime. Although the speeder is still victimized.

Clockwork

8th October 2008, 13:02

And while we're on the subject of "victimless crimes", I'm surprised speeding tickets haven't been mentioned.

Not actually a "Crime" but Patrick has already posted a similar rebuttal to the charge that a drunk driving is not really hurting anyone.

*Edit*
.... but in that vane how about, not stopping at a compulsory stop when you can see that there is nothing to give way to or crossing double yellows when you can see that there is nothing comming on the other side of the road?

there's nothing wrong with nudity. Who's the victim?

Presumably he/she who was offended by it. I'd tend to agree that it is "their" problem but you can't deny that there are plenty of people who are offended.

Goblin

8th October 2008, 13:24

Did the person who consumed the cookie know it contained a mind-altering substance?

If the answer is yes, the next question is why?
Perhaps he/she is a para/quadriplegic and has grown pot to use for the therapeutic qualities. The only pain relief he/she can get other than legal/prescription drugs from a doctor, which cause horrendous side effects. Nosy, holier than thou neighbor has poked their nose over the fence and told police what they're up to. Wheelchair bound person then gets dragged through the system and sentenced to prison time. Who is the victim???

MSTRS

8th October 2008, 14:00

Hmmm...there seems to be a wowser or two about.

scumdog

8th October 2008, 16:48

There are FAR more violent crimes committed through alcohol than pot. In fact I have never heard of any pot user turning violent. We see alcohol related violence every day.

Sadly I have to deal with a lot of the pro-pot crowd....who also piss-up a lot, the reason they have to be 'dealt with' is that they are just as fuckwitted as the piss-heads they despise.
"Hey man, cannibis should be made legal, it doesn't make you all violent like piss does" is what they say.

Then they quaff down loads of bourbon on top of their grass and turn into twats.

Not many tokers don't piss-up down here - and most end up meeting me due to their behaviour.

Now what was the topic????

Goblin

8th October 2008, 17:01

Sadly I have to deal with a lot of the pro-pot crowd....who also piss-up a lot, the reason they have to be 'dealt with' is that they are just as fuckwitted as the piss-heads they despise.
"Hey man, cannibis should be made legal, it doesn't make you all violent like piss does" is what they say.

Then they quaff down loads of bourbon on top of their grass and turn into twats.

Not many tokers don't piss-up down here - and most end up meeting me due to their behaviour.

Now what was the topic????So it's the alcohol causing the problem not the pot. My point exactly!

Yeah...the topic...Self defense and drunken little mouthbreathingfuktard oxygen thieves who become victims when they get what they deserve. And the utter injustice of it all!

Winston001

8th October 2008, 20:22

What about indecent exposure? Without lewd or sexual conduct there's nothing wrong with nudity. Who's the victim?

Not a great example. Just pop around to my place Goblin and show your wacker to my young daughters. Then find out what me, my wife, my brother, and various other citizens think of your "harmless" exposure.

Incidentally you'll find it very hard to get arrested today for walking around nude. Its not exactly encouraged but simply not wearing clothes is no longer indecent exposure. But again, if you wanna try outside a girls school and test the law, tell us the time and place so we can watch. :buggerd:

Virtually every charge of indecent exposure has an aggravating element, usually lewd sexualised behaviour. It ain't harmless.

PS - Apologies Gobs, you can come around and shake your...er...booty at my place any time.

Winston001

8th October 2008, 20:34

Tough one. I used to be very pro-dope, believing that using police time and effort to chase it a waste of money and resources. As people say, victimless crime.

And I do believe alcohol is a worse drug.

But now I have my own children and that tends to focus the mind. We have alcohol, it isn't going away. So we legalise another drug to add to human misery? Pot these days contains high levels of tetracannibol acid so the buzz is stronger than it used to be.

THC releases dopamine in the brain, and because dopamine is a neurotransmitter which causes a sensation of pleasure, smoking dope feels good. The problem is our brains only have a certain reserve of dopamine and THC releases a lot of it quickly, thus drying up the reservoir. It isn't available for other pleasurable experiences which leads to neurotransmitter deficits and mood changes.

Dopamine is linked to bi-polar and there is research which suggests youth who are susceptible to being bi-polar are pushed over the line by using THC.

I'm sure Ocean and others know more.

scumdog

8th October 2008, 20:34

So it's the alcohol causing the problem not the pot. My point exactly!

Yeah...the topic...Self defense and drunken little mouthbreathingfuktard oxygen thieves who become victims when they get what they deserve. And the utter injustice of it all!

Meh, the point I was trying to make that lots sing the positive of pot and the negative of alcamahol and seem to suggest that pot-heads NEVER touch booze.

But lots use both anyway at the same time - and often to their detriment and that of a few around them.

OK, now I'll stick to the topic. (And watch idiots shagging their cars on TV1!)

jrandom

8th October 2008, 20:42

Just pop around to my place Goblin and show your wacker to my young daughters.

Goblin has a wacker?

:shit:

... esoteric pot-head nonsense about the relative merits of Class A versus Class B drugs.

I note that the anti-cannabis sentiments expressed in this thread so far have all distilled [sic] down to "alcohol is bad, therefore cannabis is too".

Society would be a lovely place were it filled with nowt but sober, honest folk, who lived by elevated moral precepts and wore funny hats.

Unfortunately, homo sapiens is many aeons of evolution away from ever being able to behave like that. One suspects that it never will.

Attempts to fantasise that a human society can be like that are doomed from the start. Arguing prohibition or legalisation of psychoactive substances in overly-sweeping terms is fallacious.

Selective banning of psychoactive substances, each considered on its own merits, will always achieve the best results.

jrandom

8th October 2008, 20:53

Dopamine is linked to bi-polar and there is research which suggests youth who are susceptible to being bi-polar are pushed over the line by using THC.

I think it's been clearly shown that cannabis does harm to mentally ill folk.

Then again, alcohol can swiftly and horribly kill anyone with a hepatic disorder, some people have life-threatening anaphylactic reactions to penicillin...

I find the argument that there are people who can be damaged by something insufficient. There are always people who can be damaged by something.

It's odd, how otherwise thoughtful people tend to abandon any pretension to holistic objectivity when certain subjects are raised.

:msn-wink:

McJim

8th October 2008, 21:03

I think it's been clearly shown that cannabis does harm to mentally ill folk.

Then again, alcohol can swiftly and horribly kill anyone with a hepatic disorder, some people have life-threatening anaphylactic reactions to penicillin...

I find the argument that there are people who can be damaged by something insufficient. There are always people who can be damaged by something.

It's odd, how otherwise thoughtful people tend to abandon any pretension to holistic objectivity when certain subjects are raised.

:msn-wink:
Ban peanuts and shellfish.....

Winston001

8th October 2008, 21:17

It's odd, how otherwise thoughtful people tend to abandon any pretension to holistic objectivity when certain subjects are raised.

:msn-wink:

Quite right JR, the bastards. :angry2: Why can't they just accept what I tell 'em. :bash::bash:

jrandom

8th October 2008, 21:26

Why can't they just accept what I tell 'em. :bash::bash:

Heh. I guess it comes down to differing experiences...

... we legalise another drug to add to human misery?

There's the problem, you see - the assumption that psychoactive substances add to human misery.

On the one hand, you may have your violent drunkard, but on the other hand there is the psalmist penning "wine that maketh glad the heart of man..."

We do well not to subside into dismal pessimism over human nature.

Hitcher

8th October 2008, 21:33

It's odd, how otherwise thoughtful people tend to abandon any pretension to holistic objectivity when certain subjects are raised.

Some clearly need better drugs.

awayatc

8th October 2008, 21:44

According to International Hockey rules , subsection 2, paragraph b ,
Mr. Singh was playing Offside, and is being charged accordingly....

scumdog

9th October 2008, 06:43

According to International Hockey rules , subsection 2, paragraph b ,
Mr. Singh was playing Offside, and is being charged accordingly....

And does the 'sticks' rule still apply??

Goblin

9th October 2008, 07:23

OK, now I'll stick to the topic. (And watch idiots shagging their cars on TV1!)Bugga! I missed it.

Goblin

9th October 2008, 07:29

Not a great example.

PS - Apologies Gobs, you can come around and shake your...er...booty at my place any time.You're right, not the best example.

Eeerrr. No thanks. Even my kids get offended if I dash from the bathroom to the linen cupboard but it aint a crime in my view.:eek:

Scummy is a great example tho :Police: Even made front page news.:doh:

DMNTD

9th October 2008, 07:33

OK, now I'll stick to the topic. (And watch idiots shagging their cars on TV1!)

I saw that...wish I hadn't :confused:

scumdog

9th October 2008, 07:59

I saw that...wish I hadn't :confused:

I agree - it sure weren't perty.....

DMNTD

9th October 2008, 08:01

I agree - it sure weren't perty.....

Bit of an orgy? :pinch:

http://as7.dsi.go.com/is/image/DisneyShopping/61220?$full$

Cheshire Cat

10th October 2008, 16:15

Charles Manson.

He's a psychopath...:wacko: he was crazy to start with.pot didnt cause him to kill or hurt people. his insane (but interseting)brain did.

Patrick

11th October 2008, 09:38

Balance, dude. You're drawing a long bow interpreting "victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults" as drunk drivers. Think the intent is to control those that hurt others and those who's behaviour is likely to do so.

Didn't give it much thought at all - just a thought... But surely you don't think drunk drivers behaviours don't need to be controlled to prevent them hurting others???

Best option, too many dead heroes.

A hero he was - but was he "being" a hero? Nope. He was asked by a woman in distress, for help... who would not have stepped in as asked, just like the Auckland dude??? I don't think there would be many who would not have....

If crime isn't reported......then how can we know more of it exists.....?

Certainly we can hypothesise there is heaps of hidden unreported crime - but how do we test that theory? Where's the evidence?

Talk to the people - they will tell ya how they were ripped off, how they got a smack walking up the main street, whatever... their neighbours were, friends were... and none of it reported... It is real - sadly.....

There are FAR more violent crimes committed through alcohol than pot.

That is right....

In fact I have never heard of any pot user turning violent.

I have.......... Extremely rare, but it happens...

Wheelchair bound person then gets dragged through the system and sentenced to prison time. Who is the victim???

Wonder what the previous history looked like? Must have been real bad.

He's a psychopath...:wacko: he was crazy to start with.pot didnt cause him to kill or hurt people. his insane (but interseting)brain did.

I wonder what role the pot had in turning him that way in the first place..........