NZ Police public image

[Gremlin]

I won't jump into the argument of shooting the scum, (well, fine, I think the farmer was in the right - simply because I dislike the opposing argument)

I will instead focus on one fact. Once again, the innocent is the one in trouble, and the thief is the "victim". That's what really pisses me off.

Nobody would have ever got shot if no thieves had come onto the farm. Life is about choices. The thief chose to break the law. The thief tacitally (sp) agrees to the consequences.

If I go bungy jumping (which is a lot of fun) and a freak accident occurs (excl. systematic problems etc) then I chose to go bungy jumping. I live with the consequences.

If a biker goes off through his own fault, then he basically chose to do a number of things (excludes things like govt knew of problem but did nothing). The biker lives with the choice.

That is something that rarely happens in todays society. Always somebody elses fault...

[scumdog]

Tell me about it Gremlin!
I get it all the time "I was only..." "I was just..." always followed by a story as to why it wasn't their fault

[Clockwork]

If he was uninsured, maybe due to the excessive costs due to the abundance of theives in his area, then yes he was defending his family and himself. Without farm machinery his farm could well fail, leaving another family to go on to welfare!!

How can he a farmer tell if the person coming on to his farm with the intention of nicking shit aint going to turn around and murder him and his family? its happened before.

1.) I don't think proptecting your family from welfare would stand up too well as Self Defense.
2.) I got the idea the hood was attempting to leave the property at the time.
3.) Why don't we just execute everyone when they come out of prison. 'Cause some of these bastards have gone on to kill someone after being released, its happened before.

Now look what you've done...... You've got me defneding the crim which is the last thing I want to do. I'm condemiing the actions of the farmer not condoning the actions of the crims.

[drummer]

I read your last sentance but it appears to be inconsistent with your other comments. Are you saying its ok to shoot and maim just so long as they don't die? How was this farmer to know when he pulled the trigger that no one would get killed?

You still haven't read my post! To paraphrase it, anyone coming onto my property to harm or steal should lose ALL rights.

[drummer]

By discharging his firearm at another person and subsequently injuring that person the farmer committed a number of offences. It was totally appropriate for the police to charge him with those offences.

The Court heard the charges and the evidence and decided not to convict. I won't presume to know the reasons why the Court made this decision, it would be very interesting to read the Judges summary. The decision was, (in my opinion) a wise one as it sends a message to thieves and to property owners that the sort of behaviour that led up to the shooting, (a burglary) is a serious offence with serious consequences.

Both decisions, the police and the court, were the right decisions in their respective circumstances.

Its a pity that the farmer has suffered through numerous court appearances and is no doubt financially worse off than he was previously. However he elected to discharge the weapon in a situation where his life or the life of another person was not in dire and immediate threat, he has to face up to the consequences of his actions. I agree that his expenses should be covered if he is charged and subsequently found not guilty.

What an absolute load of codswallop. Maybe the farmer broke the existing law... but the existing law is stupid to the max. Why.... WHY do you as a cop justify some piece of scum having any rights when committing an offence against a person. You say... it wasn't against the person... bollocks... the farmer worked hard to afford the Quad.... to steal it IS an offence.

[drummer]

Ring the Police and lodge an insurance claim with my insurance company.

Why ring the police?

[Clockwork]

You still haven't read my post! To paraphrase it, anyone coming onto my property to harm or steal should lose ALL rights.

I'm not too big on the rights of crims...... but I like them to have been convicted by a court first!

[MikeL]

You still haven't read my post! To paraphrase it, anyone coming onto my property to harm or steal should lose ALL rights.

He has read it, he has understood, and he (like many others who think the whole question through carefully) disagrees with your opinion. It's your turn to start listening to what he's saying.
Coming on to your property with intent to commit a crime places the would-be thief in a particular legal situation, and, depending on the circumstances, he will not be protected by the law against certain consequences. That is reasonable. However, to suggest that he loses ALL rights, including the right to life, is absurd.

Spud's view on this is the correct one. Where there is a considerable grey area, where interpretations of what is justified may vary, surely this is a matter for the courts to decide?
The financial cost of justice is a separate issue.

[spudchucka]

What an absolute load of codswallop. Maybe the farmer broke the existing law... but the existing law is stupid to the max. Why.... WHY do you as a cop justify some piece of scum having any rights when committing an offence against a person. You say... it wasn't against the person... bollocks... the farmer worked hard to afford the Quad.... to steal it IS an offence.

Drummer, you are laying into someone else for apparently not reading your post yet you are doing the same with my post. You obviously aren't reading or are only taking from it the points you wish to push for your own arguement.

Here are some of the stupid laws you mention:

Arms Act 1983

48.Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place—

Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding [$3,000] or to both who, without reasonable cause, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near—

(a)A dwellinghouse; or

(b)A public place,—

so as to endanger property or to endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

Arms Act 1983

52.Presenting firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon at other person—

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both who, except for some lawful and sufficient purpose, presents a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon (whether or not the firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon is loaded or capable at the time of the offence of discharging any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile) at any other person.

(2)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both who, except for some lawful or sufficient purpose, presents at any person anything which, in the circumstances, is likely to lead that person to believe that it is a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon.

Arms Act 1983

53.Careless use of firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon—

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who causes bodily injury to or the death of any person by carelessly using a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon.

(2)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person who has in his charge or under his control a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon loaded with a shot, bullet, cartridge, missile, or projectile, whether [in] its breech, barrel, chamber, or magazine, leaves that firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in any place in such circumstances as to endanger the life of any person without taking reasonable precautions to avoid such danger.

(3)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, without reasonable cause, discharges or otherwise deals with a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in a manner likely to injure or endanger the safety of any person or with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

(4)It shall be no defence to the crime of manslaughter that the guilty act or omission proved against the person charged upon the indictment is an act or omission constituting an offence against this section.

Crimes Act 1961

198.Discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to do grievous bodily harm,—

(a)Discharges any firearm, airgun, or other similar weapon at any person; or

(b)Sends or delivers to any person, or puts in any place, any explosive or injurious substance or device; or

(c)Sets fire to any property.

(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to injure, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, does any of the acts referred to in subsection (1) of this section.

[(3)]Repealed.

Crimes Act 1961

[202C.Assault with weapon—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who,—

(a)In assaulting any person, uses any thing as a weapon; or

(b)While assaulting any person, has any thing with him or her in circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use it as a weapon.

[[(2)]] ]Repealed.

Crimes Act 1961

190.Injuring by unlawful act—

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who injures any other person in such circumstances that if death had been caused he would have been guilty of manslaughter.

Crimes Act 1961

189.Injuring with intent—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, injures any person.

(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, with intent to injure any one, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, injures any person.

[(3)]Repealed.

Crimes Act 1961

188.Wounding with intent—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.

(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to injure anyone, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person.

[(3)]Repealed.

But I guess you must be right, they are all stupid to the max laws that we really don't need.

Have I justified what the burglar did? Read again Drummer because you are badly mistaken. And by the way he hasn't committed an offence against a person, thats what the farmer did, the burglar committed an offence against property.

And if you want to be totally ignored keep responding to my posts by saying "what a load of codswallop" as your opening retort.

[James Deuce]

Why ring the police?

Because at the very minimum, I won't get my Insurance paid out if I don't have a Police report corroborating my theft claim.

[Lou Girardin]

I guess the bottom line is; would your wife and kids rather have a live father in jail or a dead hero.
If someone breaks in, shoot first ask questions later.
And, if he was unarmed, there's plenty of kitchen knives to be put in his cold, dead hand.

[Clockwork]

I guess the bottom line is; would your wife and kids rather have a live father in jail or a dead hero.
If someone breaks in, shoot first ask questions later.
And, if he was unarmed, there's plenty of kitchen knives to be put in his cold, dead hand.

Just so long as you shoot him when he's "in" your house...... not driving away from it!

[Ixion]

Just so long as you shoot him when he's "in" your house...... not driving away from it!

The old rule used to be in the house "or the curtilage thereof".

Rule in common law used to be that if threatened you had to run away. But "at the threshhold of his house a man may stand and fight, yea even unto the death'

I may be wrong but I seem to recall that those thieves actually had a gun in their car . Jolly hard in such circumstances to decide if they're running back to the car to flee, or to get their guns. I'd be inclined to send a round over their heads to encourage the former.

[Wolf]

I guess the bottom line is; would your wife and kids rather have a live father in jail or a dead hero.
If someone breaks in, shoot first ask questions later.
And, if he was unarmed, there's plenty of kitchen knives to be put in his cold, dead hand.

And any competent forensic examiner will be able to determine that his hand was forced to grip the knife posthumously - adding "tampering with evidence" to the various firearms offences and possibly providing a skilled prosecutor with all the "evidence" required for a "premeditated murder" charge - all (s)he has to do is convince twelve random members of the public that you killed someone with the intention of planting a weapon afterwards and then point to this forum where you have already posted your "plan"...

[Lou Girardin]

And any competent forensic examiner will be able to determine that his hand was forced to grip the knife posthumously - adding "tampering with evidence" to the various firearms offences and possibly providing a skilled prosecutor with all the "evidence" required for a "premeditated murder" charge - all (s)he has to do is convince twelve random members of the public that you killed someone with the intention of planting a weapon afterwards and then point to this forum where you have already posted your "plan"...

CSI has a lot to answer for.
I wouldn't contemplate this plan anyway, we have an attack cat.
One word from me and he'll slaughter his dinner.