NZ Police public image

[Clockwork]

Your point?

Ok a crim mugs your Granny of $20 and leaves her in hospital. Which is the greater offence, the theft or the assault? What if he just snatched her bag and left her unharmed, does he still deserve the same punishment?

Are you really telling me you can see no difference between an offence against property and an offence against a person?

[drummer]

Whats absurd about it? Its a fair question when you are saying that the use of potentially lethal force is justified to prevent property from being stolen. Do you propose that this same level of force used in this case would be appropriate in circumstances such as a shoplifter stealing a packet of chewing gum? The value of the gum is much less than the value of a quad bike, however it is still somebody's property that is being stolen. At what threshold would the use of lethal force be appropriate? $1.00? $5.00? $10.00? $100.00? $1000.00? $5000.00? Its a legitimate question and I think you should answer it.

Its a loaded question... I have already covered that answer in earlier posts. Bad attempt at rhetoric Spud! You seem more intelligent than that.

[spudchucka]

Interesting point because this is exactly what happened to me... not shot but I had a situation where police in Queensland took sides over a despute and firearms were carried by the police.

I have never justified shooting to kill with my posts infact you will if you look see a comment of mine that killing is not right... ever.

The QLD coppers always carry a side arm.

Discharging a firearms at another person has a high probability of killing, maiming or injuring another person. Very few people would be skilled enough to shoot to injure, despite what the TV would have us believe.

If, (as somebody else has suggested), the farmer was actually trying to fire a shot over their heads but instead ended up shooting one of the thieves, this indicates how things can go very wrong very quickly. The theif could have just as easily have been killed and the farmer facing homicide charges. I don't think the same decision would have resulted if that had been the case.

Unless a person is totally mental they should be fully aware of the dangers of firing a weapon at another human, (even if they are a sub-human). If they choose to pull the trigger then they elect to face whatever consequences arise as a result of that shooting. This farmer has been rather lucky really.

[drummer]

Ok a crim mugs your Granny of $20 and leaves her in hospital. Which is the greater offence, the theft or the assault? What if he just snatched her bag and left her unharmed, does he still deserve the same punishment?

Are you really telling me you can see no difference between an offence against property and an offence against a person?

The degree of punishment isn't an issue here... I have stated as others have that any crime is a crime against someone... a person... a human being... I can see a difference between a bashing and a theft, but they are both crimes that affect PEOPLE.

Would you disagree with that?

[drummer]

This farmer has been rather lucky really.

You are joking I must assume.... LUCKY???????????????????????????????????

Say what!!! You consider the farmer lucky huh..... well now... lets see... this farmer is LUCKY to have some scum try to rob him.... this farmer was LUCKY AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION OF THE SCUM TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT IN THE FIRST PLACE to have been dragged through court, to then HAVE BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY... and then to have have had this cost him in time and money.... YET YOU STATE THIS GUY IS LUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear God.... I would hate what you define as unlucky!!!

[scumdog]

Time we brought in "three strikes and you're out" legislation in this country!!

Nice big new prsion being built down here - up to 600 beds!!

Back to watching "Night Rider"!!!! (nearly cried on seeing the '60 T'bird in the crusher at the wrecking yard sceen)

[spudchucka]

I am not debating what the law is now... I am simply saying that the current law is an ass...

Which law exactly? I posted examples of the relevant offences that the farmer might have been charged under, which of them is the problem in your view?

Let me ask you a simple question.. (assuming you made the law) Do YOU believe that a criminal caught in the act of stealing should be protected or not?

I don't make the law and I don't want to either.

However, I do not believe that a theif caught in the act should be summarily executed by the property owner. I believe that reasonable force should be permitted to defend property but not to the extent that lethal force is used. An exception to this would be if an offender was breaking into a family home while the occupants were present, then I think lethal force could be used so long as it could later be justified in Court.

[drummer]

Time we brought in "three strikes and you're out" legislation in this country!!

Nice big new prsion being built down here - up to 600 beds!!

Back to watching "Night Rider"!!!! (nearly cried on seeing the '60 T'bird in the crusher at the wrecking yard sceen)

Three strikes and you are out is a great idea... Does anyone here believe that we are not too soft on crime?

[spudchucka]

You are joking I must assume.... LUCKY???????????????????????????????????

Say what!!! You consider the farmer lucky huh..... well now... lets see... this farmer is LUCKY to have some scum try to rob him.... this farmer was LUCKY AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION OF THE SCUM TO PERFORM AN ILLEGAL ACT IN THE FIRST PLACE to have been dragged through court, to then HAVE BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY... and then to have have had this cost him in time and money.... YET YOU STATE THIS GUY IS LUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear God.... I would hate what you define as unlucky!!!

Quit with the melow dramatic BS. He was lucky not to be convicted!

[spudchucka]

Its a loaded question... I have already covered that answer in earlier posts. Bad attempt at rhetoric Spud! You seem more intelligent than that.

Just answer the question! If you expect that lethal force is a reasonable means of preventing theft then you either accept the same degree of force for all theft situations or you set a level at which lethal force becomes appropriate.

Its a fair question.

[spudchucka]

Ok a crim mugs your Granny of $20 and leaves her in hospital. Which is the greater offence, the theft or the assault? What if he just snatched her bag and left her unharmed, does he still deserve the same punishment?

Are you really telling me you can see no difference between an offence against property and an offence against a person?

Theft accompanied by violence is robbery, which carries a higher penalty than straight theft.

If he was charged with robbery he couldn't also be charged with assault, unless a second assault took place that was independant of the theft.

[drummer]

Which law exactly? I posted examples of the relevant offences that the farmer might have been charged under, which of them is the problem in your view?.

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

I don't make the law and I don't want to either..

Easy answer..

However, I do not believe that a theif caught in the act should be summarily executed by the property owner. I believe that reasonable force should be permitted to defend property but not to the extent that lethal force is used. .

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

An exception to this would be if an offender was breaking into a family home while the occupants were present, then I think lethal force could be used so long as it could later be justified in Court.

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?

[drummer]

Just answer the question! If you expect that lethal force is a reasonable means of preventing theft then you either accept the same degree of force for all theft situations or you set a level at which lethal force becomes appropriate.

Its a fair question.

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

[scumdog]

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

Guns tend to be a bit lethal at times.....

[drummer]

Theft accompanied by violence is robbery, which carries a higher penalty than straight theft.

If he was charged with robbery he couldn't also be charged with assault, unless a second assault took place that was independant of the theft.

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