And it goes on and on and on.

**SPman** · 16th December 2005, 18:17

And it goes on and on and on.........
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10360295

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

**SuperDave** · 16th December 2005, 18:23

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

**miSTa** · 16th December 2005, 18:30

+1

That is just so wrong...

**John Banks** · 16th December 2005, 18:44

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

**Virago** · 16th December 2005, 18:46

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

**Sniper** · 16th December 2005, 18:49

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

**Skyryder** · 17th December 2005, 06:31

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

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

Skyryder

**ZorsT** · 17th December 2005, 13:01

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

poorest excuse ever

**Marmoot** · 17th December 2005, 13:05

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

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

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

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

**Indiana_Jones** · 17th December 2005, 13:22

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

-Indy

**Marmoot** · 17th December 2005, 13:34

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

Yes, this is what I was talking about

NC · 17th December 2005, 13:54

Should have just groin stomped them both.

**spudchucka** · 17th December 2005, 15:59

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

Issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

5: Was it a "Citizens Arrest"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**skidMark** · 17th December 2005, 16:23

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

but we arnt talking about intelligent people...

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

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