NZ Police public image

[spudchucka]

And don't forget that the Police have elected not to charge in cases of self-defence before.

This was clearly not an issue of self defence.

[spudchucka]

So under what section is he charged? property or people?

The Crimes Act is simply writen in parts. Theft, robbery, burglary etc are under property offences. Murder, manslaughter, assault etc are under offences against the person. Its simply categorizing offences. All crimes affect people in some way or another.

[spudchucka]

OK all... nice debating you today... better go and earn some money... stay upright... even you Spud... ;-)

Unless I get drunk and trip over my own feet or roll the ride on lawn mower then I'll be right side up, no bike anymore sadly.

[spudchucka]

When the Redcoats arrive to prevent NZ seceding to become a Republic, then I will be ready......

Checked under your bed lately? The reds are allready here my friend!

[spudchucka]

True, but baiting spud is fun!

Get over yourself, please.

So you aren't trying to prove a point anymore and are just actively trying to bait somebody. Watch out, you could become the new site Troll.

[spudchucka]

There you go... quoting existing law... but don't you understand that the existing law is an ass...

There you go..... saying the existing law is and ass..... but not clarifying any details as to WHY....

WHy is the offence of Robbery an ass?

[spudchucka]

Please show me where I have said that LETHAL FORCE is OK.. Lethal means death.

Pointing a firearm at a person and pulling the trigger has a high probability of causing the death of the other person. If you are advocating the use of firearms against theft offenders then you are advocating the use of lethal force.

Unless of course you believe what you see at the movies.

[spudchucka]

The one that the farmer was charged under. If you haven't got my point, the farmer should NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED!!!!!

And what law was he charged under? I'm guessing you don't even know! And you aren't getting my point that charging him was totally correct in the circumstances.

Easy answer..

So what? It was a stupid question!

Hang on... isn't this what I am saying. The farmer did NOT use lethal force.

He used a level of force that was potentially lethal. he could just as easily have found himself charged with murder of manslaughter.

Hang on again.... you are now making an exception... ok... what say a kid was in your house.... and stealing food... are you now saying that you should be able to use (quote) "Lethal Force" in this situation... OK Spud, what age would it be ok to use this "lethal Force" against... and what is the monetry value of goods being stolen before using your so-called "Lethal Force"?

For the record, I do not agree as I have stated in many posts, that Lethal Force (Your words) should be used... ain any circumstance... even as capital punishment.

Lets just reiterate the facts re the farmer... he did NOT USE LETHAL FORCE (proven by the courts). Do you STILL insist that the farmer was LUCKY?

THE FARMER USED FORCE THAT WAS POTENTIALLY LETHAL. HE WAS LUCKY NOT TO BE CONVICTED.

I'll answer your other point if you answer the question asked of you earlier.

[spudchucka]

There is not a clear difference... what happend where a parent smacks a naughty child... under this day and age, the parent can be charged with assault... but are you suggesting this is more serious than if someone burns their house down? Where do you draw the line?

Why expect an answer when you still aren't answering the question you've been asked?

[MikeL]

Also, since he was found innocent, the events leading us to this point should once more be the 'alleged' event or never even happened.

Fuzzy thinking. You confuse the "event" [of which the precise circumstances, sequence of actions, motivation etc. may give rise to varying interpretations] with the charge [the legal definition of a crime which the defendant is alleged to have committed]. To find someone guilty or not guilty as charged involves a different sort of reasoning from deciding whether objectively an "event" happened or not.

[drummer]

I had a farmer point a firearm at me as I drove down a country road. I had my wife who was pregnant and my son who was 3 at the time, in the car with me. I was delivering a laptop to his wife on a Saturday morning as part of my job. He was charged, but the charges were dropped when he apologised and surendered the firearm. That was my idea.

The farmer should have been convicted in my opinion. He was clearly in breach of a statute that he should have known about if he had a valid firearms license. He got away with it thanks to a sustained media assault on the NZ Police, who for some reason have been made scapegoat for a number issues relating to laws that the "general public" disagree with, either in detail or generally. The Police do not make laws, they uphold laws that are made by the "general public", every time there is an election.

If you want a particular law to have a whole subset of conditions, get thee to parliament and get it changed.

That situation was a whole lot different than the farmer we are chatting about.... how can you even compare the two?

[drummer]

Why expect an answer when you still aren't answering the question you've been asked?

I have answered your question... don't blame me for not being able to read. Come on... I asked a valid question that you REFUSE to answer.

[drummer]

Wolf... for a start I have repeatedly stated that I am against killing. That answers that question AGAIN! Secondly, you and all the other bleeding hearts here fail to see a logic that a majority of sensible NZer's see. That is, the first one to committ a crime was the scum. If the scum hadn't committed that offence then nothing would have happened. Secondly, now the case has been proven through court to have the farmer found NOT GUILTY, then there is a precedent... and I would assume in a similar case the Police would get on with solving Child molestation charges in South Auckland rather than waste taxpayers money on fruitless exercises.

[drummer]

Interestingly, as I understand it, the judge actually directed the jury to find him not guilty.

Very good point. The judge at least here was sensible... and saw the complete waste of taxpayers mone because of some moronic cop being more interested in the rights of scum rather than solving real crime!

[drummer]

actually, if you took the time to research, you would find that there is a big difference between being found not guilty, and being found innocent. some countries have them as separate findings, not this one though.

My God you are confusing... if this country has no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, then why say there is a BIG DIFFERENCE? face it... your colleagues made a huge stuff up when deciding to charge this farmer and were told emphatically by the judge through his direction to the jury that this was so. To have no charges awarded against the cops was a disgrace.