Cops blinded by their own stupidity

[spudchucka]

With all respect, what good would that have done?

It wouldn't have resulted in anyone getting beat up with a baseball bat or the person doing the beating getting charged.

[spudchucka]

I'll take note of this for future reference,should I see a police officer having the shit kicked out of him

You're an idiot.

[Beemer]

You're an idiot.

Um, one thing I'd like to know - if we did step up and help a police officer who was being attacked and we injured one of the attackers, would we be charged for using excessive force? Or is the fact that a police officer is involved an excuse to beat the crap out of them? If so, then the law is an ass (please note, Hitcher, correct ass in this instance!) - why should it make any difference who is being attacked?

I would be more inclined to go to the assistance of an innocent member of the public who was being attacked - but then if I used force I would probably be done for injuring the tosser who was attacking them!

I think the reason many people look the other way when they see crimes being committed is because they just don't want the hassle that becoming involved creates. As for vigilantes, I think people are missing the point - if you act AT THE TIME AN OFFENCE IS BEING COMMITTED - how can it be viewed as the action of a vigilante? I would think that was the action of a concerned citizen. Sure, if you watch the crime being committed and do nothing, but track the guy down a week later and beat him up, that isn't right. But if you see a crime, apprehend the offender and have to use force to restrain him - good for you! If anyone attacks me or my property, they better be prepared for a good kicking or a thump or two with the wrought iron poker or baseball bat. Four years of karate also mean I know where to hurt them where the bruises won't show!

[Fart]

I am surprise the police commissioner and the minister of police have not been asked to step down. The entire police management structure needs reviewing. Maybe a change of government will result in changes.

[Lou Girardin]

I am surprise the police commissioner and the minister of police have not been asked to step down. The entire police management structure needs reviewing. Maybe a change of government will result in changes.

Robbie has 1 or 2 years at $400k to go, then a fat pension. He'll ride out any tsunami of shit to get that.
Leadership? Yeah right!

[spudchucka]

Robbie has 1 or 2 years at $400k to go, then a fat pension. He'll ride out any tsunami of shit to get that.
Leadership? Yeah right!

He's promised to stand down if we don't get stab resistant body armour by the end of the next financial year. All you have to do is hijack the shipment and your wish can come true. Who do you reckon will be the next Big Cheese and how do you think they wil serve the police organisation and the public of NZ better than big Robbie has?

[spudchucka]

Um, one thing I'd like to know - if we did step up and help a police officer who was being attacked and we injured one of the attackers, would we be charged for using excessive force? Or is the fact that a police officer is involved an excuse to beat the crap out of them? If so, then the law is an ass (please note, Hitcher, correct ass in this instance!) - why should it make any difference who is being attacked?

I would be more inclined to go to the assistance of an innocent member of the public who was being attacked - but then if I used force I would probably be done for injuring the tosser who was attacking them!

I think the reason many people look the other way when they see crimes being committed is because they just don't want the hassle that becoming involved creates. As for vigilantes, I think people are missing the point - if you act AT THE TIME AN OFFENCE IS BEING COMMITTED - how can it be viewed as the action of a vigilante? I would think that was the action of a concerned citizen. Sure, if you watch the crime being committed and do nothing, but track the guy down a week later and beat him up, that isn't right. But if you see a crime, apprehend the offender and have to use force to restrain him - good for you! If anyone attacks me or my property, they better be prepared for a good kicking or a thump or two with the wrought iron poker or baseball bat. Four years of karate also mean I know where to hurt them where the bruises won't show!

As I recall this has been covered many times before but to clarify....

Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 refers...

48.Self-defence and defence of another—

Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.]

To be lawful the use of force must be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. What is reasonable is subjective to what you believe at the time but is also considered objectively as in what any other reasonable person would believe in the same circumstances. These are the tests applied to use of force when determining whether it was necessary and reasonable and therefore justifiable in the circumstances.

Where excessive use is used section 62 of the same act applies...

62.Excess of force—

Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

In other words.. where use of force is necessary in the circumstances but the level of force used is unreasonable then the force used is not justifiable.

So to answer your question.... Using force to defend a police officer or any other person getting a beating is totally justifiable so long as the level of force used is reasonable. In other words, section 48 is not a free licence to beat the shit out of someone in the name of self defence or defence of another.

If however you believed at the time that the only way you could stop the assault on the third party was to deliver one mighty blow, sufficient to incapacitate the offender and therefore stop the assault then that may well be totally justifiable.

Problems arise when people carry on after the assault has effectively been stopped. This constitutes an assault as the reason for the initial use of force no longer exists.

Make sense? I hope so.

In reference to this comment:

As for vigilantes, I think people are missing the point - if you act AT THE TIME AN OFFENCE IS BEING COMMITTED - how can it be viewed as the action of a vigilante?

The original scenario relating to this thread involved a person witnessing an offence or potential offence about to happen. He took steps to stop that offence, which were successful. Having stopped the offending he has then carried on pursuing the offenders and this has resulted in an assault with a weapon.

You figure the rest out.

[idb]

Who do you reckon will be the next Big Cheese and how do you think they wil serve the police organisation and the public of NZ better than big Robbie has?

All the likely candidates are suspended on full pay pending court cases at the moment aren't they?

[scumdog]

All the likely candidates are suspended on full pay pending court cases at the moment aren't they?

Ooooohh!

You're a low sneaky cynical bastard idb!!!

But I like it!!

[Lou Girardin]

He's promised to stand down if we don't get stab resistant body armour by the end of the next financial year. All you have to do is hijack the shipment and your wish can come true. Who do you reckon will be the next Big Cheese and how do you think they wil serve the police organisation and the public of NZ better than big Robbie has?

You've just got to keep trying till you find one with testicular fortitude.

[spudchucka]

You've just got to keep trying till you find one with testicular fortitude.

It won't happen! They are all ladder climbers by the time they get pips on their shoulders.