Police go away

[spudchucka]

Are you seriously suggesting that because you can not bring back the dead or undo the past of whatever else you want to call it, there should be no consequences.(prosecution) Would you agree with your rationale if other members of the public are killed, a biker for example?

We are all held accountable in the eyes of the law for our actions where death and injury result. The police can use their desecration, but they need to be able to do this on the information given to them. Not on the lack of it.

Skyryder

I don't think I've ever done that, sounds like it could get you into strife.

[James Deuce]

Sounds exciting! I might join up if I get to desecrate!

[The Stranger:Me]

By the same logic, why do we charge murderers?

Help stop them re-offending - harder to re-offend if you are in prison or dead.
Retaliation.
Teach them the error of their ways.
Honouring the dead and their families.
Probably some other reasons I have overlooked too.

[doc]

No, that's just in the US.

And they are allowed all those guns as well. At least we got pineapple lumps and Lemon and Paeroa.

[KLOWN]

The system puzzles me sometimes.

Say she had killed three family members by leaving hot oil on the stove and burnt the house down - would she have been charged with anything ? Manslaughter perhaps ?

What about the parents of the 13 year old boys (or the boys themselves) - one of which nearly died when his mate shot him in the head.....don't you have to be 14 to use an air gun without parental supervision ? Yet no charges...

Crims getting bail for unremorseful rape...murder....it's got me buggered.

you have to be 16 to use an air rifle and the mother said she thought they were getting ready to go out in the car like she told them to, she had no idea that they had gotten the air rifle, hence no supervision.

[The Stranger:Me]

Are you seriously suggesting that because you can not bring back the dead or undo the past of whatever else you want to call it, there should be no consequences.(prosecution)

No, not for a second.
Just that there should be some purpose to an action (please note there was an "or" not "and" between my list of possible reasons). If for example any one of the examples I gave (or some other lucid reason) was met I see no problem with her being charged.

I was just trying to draw a distinction between charging someone for no other reason than "it's the law" and charging someone because there is a rational purpose.

No law is a one size fits all.

[Skyryder]

I've been offline for a few days but its good to see that the old tradition of spouting off on subjects that people know fuck all about hasn't changed while I've been away.

That's what makes this forum so knowledgeable. No one knows what they are talking about. Welcome back Spud for a new year of fun, frolics and flaming, not to mention the odd pisstake and pontificating, from KBer's pleonastic plebeians.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Don't we have the right to remain silent or is that just on TV ?

You're not obliged to say anything, pity more people in these threads haven't realised that yet.

[Skyryder]

I don't think I've ever done that, sounds like it could get you into strife.

Bloody spell checker. See my post on this. Woopssy doosy I just want to go and hide.

skyr

[Skyryder]

No, not for a second.
Just that there should be some purpose to an action. If for example any one of the examples I gave (or some other lucid reason) was met I see no problem with her being charged.

I was just trying to draw a distinction between charging someone for no other reason than "it's the law" and charging someone because there is a rational purpose.

No law is a one size fits all.

Yes no one law fits all sizes. But where an explanation is not given (in the event of an action that results in death or injury) then there is a responsibility on the part of the police to lay a charge. Then it is up to a jury to decide one way or the other.

Skyryder

[Squeak the Rat]

What evidence will the court base a judgement on? Surely (?) there needs to be some evidence of (sufficiently serious) negligence.

The cop's quote would suggest there is no such evidence:

If Mrs Rifle offered us a reasonable explanation, charges would not arise

Welcome back Spud, sorry if us stoopid civilians are discussing how the law works, I know it's none of our business.....

[The Stranger:Me]

Yes no one law fits all sizes. But where an explanation is not given (in the event of an action that results in death or injury) then there is a responsibility on the part of the police to lay a charge. Then it is up to a jury to decide one way or the other.

Skyryder

To serve what purpose?

[Ixion]

Well, it may seem harsh, but I guess there is an expectation that cars do not crash and kill people when they are driven carefully.

So if they do crash, in the absence of any explanation of the "it happened because..." either from the driver, or from the crash investigation chappies, or witnesses etc, the police have to assume that someone was careless.

[Patrick]

. So why does she (The effigy) wear a blindfold.

She is blind, not deaf and dumb...

[Patrick]

What evidence will the court base a judgement on? Surely (?) there needs to be some evidence of (sufficiently serious) negligence.

The cop's quote would suggest there is no such evidence:


Welcome back Spud, sorry if us stoopid civilians are discussing how the law works, I know it's none of our business.....

You chopped off the best part of the coppers quote ... The part where he says if she offered some sort of explanation "there just isn't one there." You're in Media, aren't you???