Gunshop employee charged

[Winston001]

The case against Greg was a political one.

Sorry Monsieur Le Merde but that won't fly. You imply that a Minister of the Crown or perhaps the Police Commissioner told the police to prosecute Greg. Nonsence. If that was true, they'd have charged him with attempted manslaughter or similar.

In prosecution terms this was a minor case. Not difficult at all, any junior crown solicitor could have advised and run the case.

Until it becomes accepted in New Zealand that we can use lethal force to defend ourselves, cases like this will continue to occur. Fortunately they are rare.

Even in gungho places like the USA, very few states allow carte blanc use of weapons for self defence. In fact only Florida and South Dakota. So the prosecution of Greg isn't out of step with what happens elsewhere.

[spudchucka]

Until it becomes accepted in New Zealand that we can use lethal force to defend ourselves, cases like this will continue to occur. Fortunately they are rare.

It takes ages to sink in sometimes.

He wasn't charged over the use of force, which means that it was justified under the current laws.

[Winston001]

It takes ages to sink sometimes.

He wasn't charged over the use of force, which means that it was justified under the current laws.

Dyareckon? He was charged with possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose - so I understand. And that unlawful purpose? The intended use of the firearm against robbers. You cannot use a firearm without using or unleashing force - basic law of physics. Even the threat of a firearm is unlawful because the threat is one of (potentially lethal) force.

Just so you know we are on the same page I completely understand your point and you are right to make it.

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

[oldrider]

Dyareckon? He was charged with possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose - so I understand. And that unlawful purpose? The intended use of the firearm against robbers. You cannot use a firearm without using or unleashing force - basic law of physics. Even the threat of a firearm is unlawful because the threat is one of (potentially lethal) force.

Just so you know we are on the same page I completely understand your point and you are right to make it.

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

He was charged because he was careless about what he "said" to the police and left the door open for them to prosecute him on the "unlawful purpose" charge!

The message I take from this is, if you have such a situation in place, have your statement of intent ready and within the law, or face the risk of prosecution!

It's their job, it's what they do!

How much clearer do the police have to spell it out? Give them some slack here, they are not all fcukwits.

Even I can take a hint. Cheers John.

PS: During six o'clock closing, a Sergent of police pushed his way between me and the bar, called out to the barman and said, barman, if you see any underage drinkers in here tell them I will be back in 5 mins.

Do you think I should have stayed there?

[spudchucka]

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

It isn't anything to do with this case. The force used was justified, always was. By all means discuss the issue of self defence, (there have been other threads on that topic) but it has no relevance to the charges that were laid in this case.

[Patrick]

Dyareckon? He was charged with possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose - so I understand. And that unlawful purpose? The intended use of the firearm against robbers.

Just so you know we are on the same page I completely understand your point and you are right to make it.

My point is that the right to self defence and use of force is the main issue which comes to peoples minds and should be discussed - even if it isn'twhy this prosecution took place.

I get your point, and a good one it is at that, which is why it should be sorted in a court by a judge, even a panel of judges, not a couple of old JPs. It is that important, but has nothing to do with the charge he faced, so it would be out of thier scope of review.

But Self defence was not the issue... his use of force was completely justified, which is why he was not charged in relation to shooting the sack of shite... It was then the media beat up which made this the "main issue which comes to the peoples minds..."

[Winston001]

But Self defence was not the issue... his use of force was completely justified, which is why he was not charged in relation to shooting the sack of shite... It was then the media beat up which made this the "main issue which comes to the peoples minds..."

Thanks Patrick. I think our news media are very shallow these days and often fail to understand the real issues - or ask pertinent questions, such as in the cut-off electricity case.

However we can't blame them for the public view of arguments over self defence. It is completely understandable that when a victim shoots a criminal, and gets charged afterwards, most people feel something is wrong. We all regard ourselves as having the right to defend ourselves and our families.

Its a shame that there has been so much misunderstanding over the correct charges in this case.

Look - if I was Greg Carvell, I'd probably have shot the guy too, knowing I might be charged. Better a live martyr than a decapitated law abiding citizen.

[Patrick]

Agreed on all...

Including shooting the prick... wouldn't hesitate but would have double tapped at least to be sure...

[ghost]

He was charged because he was careless about what he "said" to the police and left the door open for them to prosecute him on the "unlawful purpose" charge!

The message I take from this is, if you have such a situation in place, have your statement of intent ready and within the law, or face the risk of prosecution!

It's their job, it's what they do!

How much clearer do the police have to spell it out? Give them some slack here, they are not all fcukwits.

Agreed on that one. Maybe in future, all the employee's should carry a loaded magizine on themselves, for the purpose of demonstrating the proper way of loading and unloading the magazine of course. And in a properly secured area a firearm for the corresponding (coinsidence) magazine could be used for demonstrations to potential lawful customers if required.Then that way should the need arise that they may need to defend themselfs or others from what they believe to be a life threatening risk, they can quickly combine the two preiviously lawfull components and lawfully defend themselves or others. Maybe a lawyer or two should be consulted to establish the legalities of this first.

Just a thought.

[Lias]

If you havn't read it, Unintended Consequences is a damned good book which basically outlines a fictional revolt by US gun owners against gun control laws and bullyboy tactics by the ATF etc.

If anyone wants a PDF copy just PM me, its only 4mb so easy to email.