NZ Police public image

[Wolf]

CSI has a lot to answer for.

My mum's long-time interest in forensic science has a lot more to answer for. Thanks to her willingness to share her interest with anyone not fast enough to get out of the room in time, I have a pretty good chance of being able to identify whether a person slit their own throat or had it slit for them...

Pretty vicious, those attack cats, too.

[spudchucka]

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.

Did the farmer know they had guns at the time he discharged his weapon?

There is a big difference between a round over their heads and one up his fat hairy arse, (in the case of any competent firearms user at least).

[spudchucka]

CSI has a lot to answer for.

So has any cop drama. The amount of absolute crap that gets quoted back at you from American cop dramas is unbelievable.

[Lou Girardin]

So has any cop drama. The amount of absolute crap that gets quoted back at you from American cop dramas is unbelievable.

You're going to have stop agreeing with me, Spud. People are starting to talk.

[spudchucka]

You're going to have stop agreeing with me, Spud. People are starting to talk.

It shocks me too but someone I met a while ago told me that you weren't a total arsehole so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

[drummer]

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

True enough, however lets look at the facts. The farmer caught the scum stealing. Now Spud says that it was a crime against property. I have to ask how come he doesn't believe that a crime against property is actually a crime against SOMEONE! Stealing property affects PEOPLE. Are we so soft on crime here in NZ that we honestly believe that someone trying to steal your property has a degree of protection by the sate... that if I stop a thief stealing my property and in the course of stopping him or her, I hurt them.... that the state blames me for their injury? Simple answer... don't steal!

[drummer]

[QUOTE=spudchucka]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.QUOTE]
OK... this demands a good answer for what was a good post.

I see that "reasonable cause" was used in the discharging of a firearm. I argue that if someone is stealing your property then they do not have rights of protection under the law. They are committing an offence... therefore are operating OUTSIDE of the law to begin with. Now wheather that currently is the case or not isn't the issue here. What I am saying is that the law is fine... except where one of the parties is committing an offence against someone... (More of that later) that someone SHOULD have the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop and aprehend the scumbag. You may say that exists now, however the mere fact that it went to court, it cost the farmer megabucks, and heaps of time and stress means that the law is NOT working.

You say yourself that the charges AND the outcome was correct. How can this be? How can an outcome that sees the victim (as proven by the current system) be out of pocket and stressed be "correct"? It is the result of a system that gives people far too many rights without emphisising their responsibilities. The lowlife thief in the case we are discussing had rights, but also a responsibility to obey the law. They neglected their responsibilities and therefore in my opinion should therefore forgo their rights

Think about your children if you are fortunate enough to have them... hasn't their been a huge focus on rights over the past 3 decades... and yet responsibilities are seldem mentioned. Whats happened? Kids are under tremendous pressure to perform, to live as an adult before their time is due.... suicide rates for young men especially are soaring still. It's all very well to talk about peoples rights. But what about the responsibility angle....? What about the right of the farmer to protect his property?

Another aspect of your post was the mention that the crime was against the farmers property not person. I regard that as being a very cold hard attitude. All crime is committed against people... if you steal my property that I worked hard for, that affects me... that upsets me... that could even bankrupt me.... that, Spud is crime against my person as good as a bashing.

There ya go... no codswollop!! Cheers!

[spudchucka]

Now Spud says that it was a crime against property. I have to ask how come he doesn't believe that a crime against property is actually a crime against SOMEONE!

What are you? The master of misinterpretation? Of course crimes against property affect people because people own property. However the Crimes Act cleary sets out what is a crime against property, (part 10) and what is a crime against a person, (part 8).

Are we so soft on crime here in NZ that we honestly believe that someone trying to steal your property has a degree of protection by the sate...

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

8.Right not to be deprived of life—

No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

If you have a problem with it then take it up with Sir Geoffry Palmer, the genious that drafted that fine piece of legislation.

if I stop a thief stealing my property and in the course of stopping him or her, I hurt them.... that the state blames me for their injury? Simple answer... don't steal!

Did the Court ruling not endorse the feelings that you jumping up and down over? Whats the problem?

[hondacmx450]

i will say i do not like them much i was pulled over in the outter parts of hamilton by a so called cop and given a ticket for no wof when i asked him why he pulled me over he said cause i had jeans on man i was mad at that so i went home and got out old gsxr1100 and put shorts on and went looking for the dick so i could show him my ass at 100kph on one wheel could not find him

[Lou Girardin]

i will say i do not like them much i was pulled over in the outter parts of hamilton by a so called cop and given a ticket for no wof when i asked him why he pulled me over he said cause i had jeans on man i was mad at that so i went home and got out old gsxr1100 and put shorts on and went looking for the dick so i could show him my ass at 100kph on one wheel could not find him

OK, so you're going to teach the cop a lesson for giving you a ticket by getting another one!
At least you didn't do what the arsehole in Victoria did.

[Ixion]

Did the farmer know they had guns at the time he discharged his weapon?

There is a big difference between a round over their heads and one up his fat hairy arse, (in the case of any competent firearms user at least).

Not sure. To be honest I've not followed the details that closely.

Don't think he needs to know that they have guns (or knives or whatever), just have reasonable grounds to fear for his life.

I think (open to correction here), that the shot that hit was actually a ricochet off something ? Didn't he (Mr McIntyre) say that he fired more or less randomly into the air (I was going to say "into the brown" then realised how that would be misinterpreted! ) and was surprised the the ricochet hit someone ?

One of the advantages of a jury system is that occasionally a jury will say, stuff the law we're going to do what's right.

[spudchucka]

I see that "reasonable cause" was used in the discharging of a firearm. I argue that if someone is stealing your property then they do not have rights of protection under the law.

So when a shoplifter is caught stealing a chocolate bar the shop keeper is justified in blowing his brains out to prevent the offender from getting away with his property?

someone SHOULD have the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop and aprehend the scumbag.

As above. Put it in perspective and the situation you prescribe is quite absurd.

You may say that exists now

The Crimes Act covers defence of property in sections 52 - 56. Use of force to the level of discharging a firearm at another person is reallly only justified under section 48, which covers self defence and defence of another person, which makes the Court decision even more interesting.

however the mere fact that it went to court, it cost the farmer megabucks, and heaps of time and stress means that the law is NOT working.

I'm afraid that you are wrong. The Court is the only appropriate forum to judge whether the actions were justified. The farmer broke a law, he was charged, (correctly) and the Court made a decision based on the evidence presented. That is how the justice system works and in my opinion this case has actually increased my faith in the system.

You say yourself that the charges AND the outcome was correct. How can this be?

As above. The farmer committed an offence by firing his weapon and injuring another person. It is the police function to put that person before the Court, which they did. It is not the police function to decide whether his actions were justifiable, that is the job of the Courts. It is my opinion as a person, (not as a cop) that the decision of the Court was the correct one in the circumstances.

The lowlife thief in the case we are discussing had rights, but also a responsibility to obey the law. They neglected their responsibilities and therefore in my opinion should therefore forgo their rights

Even their right to life? You're a hard man. Most hardliners want the death penalty for murders, rapes and such but wouldn't see a person put to death by either the state or by vigilanty justice for staeling a quad bike.

Oh by the way, the farmer has responsibilities as a firearms licence holder too.

Think about your children if you are fortunate enough to have them... hasn't their been a huge focus on rights over the past 3 decades... and yet responsibilities are seldem mentioned. Whats happened? Kids are under tremendous pressure to perform, to live as an adult before their time is due.... suicide rates for young men especially are soaring still. It's all very well to talk about peoples rights. But what about the responsibility angle....? What about the right of the farmer to protect his property?

I agree with many of your points here and fundamentally I agree with the right to defend property but not to the point of vigilanty justice taking hold.

Another aspect of your post was the mention that the crime was against the farmers property not person. I regard that as being a very cold hard attitude. All crime is committed against people... if you steal my property that I worked hard for, that affects me... that upsets me... that could even bankrupt me.... that, Spud is crime against my person as good as a bashing.

Thats simply your subjective opinion. Others have equally valid but differing opinions. The law is generally quite clear on these issues and the police in this matter acted appropriately according to the relevant laws.

There ya go... no codswollop!! Cheers!

Appreciate it, thanks.

[marty]

So when a shoplifter is caught stealing a chocolate bar the shop keeper is justified in blowing his brains out to prevent the offender from getting away with his property?

.

good point spud.

or what about if there is disagreement about ownership, like in domestic separation situations, and one party believes they have the property rights (or just doesn't want the ex to have it), so when the other one takes it away, they can be shot?

drummer?

[marty]

maybe drummer has a $ value on personal property being stolen at which you can shoot someone in the back.

[RDJ]

maybe drummer has a $ value on personal property being stolen at which you can shoot someone in the back.

I doubt that he or anyone would claim that there should be any such value. On the other hand, there is substantial merit in the idea that property theft is actually a crime against the person. If I work for 20 weeks at 40 hours a week to buy a car / boat / quad / fur coat or whatever and it is stolen, that thief has in some respects stolen 800 hours of my life. Does not justify shooting him in the back, by no means, but this is certainly not a 'victimless crime' - this is a crime against me not just my property ... not so? I am never going to get those 800 hours back.... just a different perspective, am by no means advocating vigilanteism (which is sort step from anarchy).