NZ Police public image

**MSTRS:Me** · 29th April 2005, 17:20

Originally Posted by Wolf

What we wanted was "We know the bugger did it but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt". .

Yeah, that is a bastard. Sadly this happens all too often.

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 17:38

Originally Posted by scumdog

I would say there is a lot or "arse covering" as media, pollies etc would be straight on the bandwagon if any other course had been taken.

Whether it was arse covering on the police part or not, it was still correct to charge him and have the court decide the outcome.

Anyone who is more than a couple of years out of nappies and has read a few newspapers could easily draw the conclusion that in law enforcement you simply can't please all the people all the time.

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 17:42

Originally Posted by MSTRS

You miss my point. As is always reported in the media, prior to a conviction, an event or crime is 'alleged' to have occured. If defendent is found guilty then aforementioned event/crime is 'proven' to have actually occurred. If the defendent is found not guilty, conversely the event/crime is still 'alleged' or in fact 'didn't happen'

Sorry, have to disagree. If the defendant is found not guilty that doesn't make the event a fiction. All it means is that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charge or there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to discharge without conviction etc. All thats in dispute is the defendants involvement, that part may remain unproven and therefore is only alleged, the event itself in a case like this is not in dispute.

**MSTRS:Me** · 29th April 2005, 17:42

Originally Posted by Wolf

Actually, LiasTZ and I are about equally "left wing" but we're both equally removed from "Centrist" - in opposite directions (me toward Libertarian/Anarchist, LiasTZ toward Authoritarian/Facist) so with LiasTZ being a strongly Authoritarian Left Winger, that would make him a "Communist"...

I am a mere "Libertarian Socialist".

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't left wing Communist and right wing Fascist ?

**MSTRS:Me** · 29th April 2005, 17:44

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Sorry, have to disagree.

Read post 978

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 17:44

Originally Posted by drummer

I have answered... you have several questions on the table. You also use 'POTENTIALLY LETHAL" now... thats NOT what you said earlier... I have the potential to speed... cripes don't tell me your mates are going to pull me up and tax me because there is a mere "Potential".

as for baiting.... well you continue to bite!

Grow up quick or this "debate" is over. I can't be fucked stuffing around with a shit stirrer without an arguement.

If I've missed your answer please direct me to the post in which you say at what level of theft, (value of property) is it acceptable to shoot somebody.

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 17:45

Originally Posted by drummer

Really? Getting one or looking? I couldn't live without my bikes....

For the time being I have to be happy with an Alpinestars mountain bike.

**Ixion** · 29th April 2005, 17:51

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Sorry, have to disagree. If the defendant is found not guilty that doesn't make the event a fiction. All it means is that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charge or there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to discharge without conviction etc. All thats in dispute is the defendants involvement, that part may remain unproven and therefore is only alleged, the event itself in a case like this is not in dispute.

Semantics I think

In the simple case

A dead body is discovered with head injuries.

The fact of the body is not alleged . It is there. The event occured, no doubt about it. The police allege that the death was due to foul play.
And they allege that you and your mate did it together .

Event is the death . Allegations are that it was murder, and that you did it.

Three possibilities

1. You are convicted. Event remains the same, both allegations become "facts" legally speaking
2. The jury agree that it was murder. They convict your mate , but find you not guilty. The event remains (still got a body, still dead) , one allegation (foul play) becomes a legal "fact". The other allegation (that you did it) is disproven.
3. The coroner's inquest determines that in fact the death was accidental, he slipped and fell. The fact remains (still got the body). But both allegations are now disproven.

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 17:52

Originally Posted by drummer

Are you kidding???????????????????????????????? The scum were stealing... the farmer didn't want this... stealing would have hurt him... oh I know you don't say that stealing is against a "person" but in my mind the farmer was using "self defence" oh... and I would say in the judges mind as well.

Go away and study the law and get an understanding of its application. The laws relating to self defence do not cover theft of property. They relate to self defence. If you can't get a grip of what that means get a dictionary.

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 18:10

Originally Posted by drummer

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"?

An answer, just to shut up your whining.

The difference between the farmer episode and an incident where a home is entered by an offender while the occupants are present is that there is a great deal higher probability that physical harm may come to the home occupier.

Regardless of why the offender is in the home, to steal property or to rape a child it is my PERSONAL feeling that the home should be vigorously defended.

However lethal force, (EG a firearm) could only be used in circumstances where actual physical harm was likely to result if that force was not used. If those circumstances existed then age and the value of the property would be immaterial because the person was at that time defending life, not property.

You are getting all hung up about the terms "lethal force" or "potentially lethal force". Regardless of how you want to look at it the use of a firearm against another person is about the most extreme level of force possible. The chances that that use of force will in fact be lethal are very high.

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 18:11

Originally Posted by Ixion

Semantics I think

As are a large pecentage of the most recent posts to this thread.

**spudchucka** · 29th April 2005, 18:13

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Read post 978

I have now......

**Lias** · 29th April 2005, 19:06

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't left wing Communist and right wing Fascist ?

Not according to politicalcompass.org

Thats a pic from the website that shows the orientation of the major parties in the upcoming british election.

Wolf and I were both about the same place on the left to right axis (roughly midway between the greens and the BNP), but he was way down where the greens are on the vertical, whereas I was about 2/3 of the way to where the BNP is.

Quite an interesting site.