NZ Police public image

[drummer]

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

At times.... but not all the time... and also... lets just state another thing here... I do not agree for one moment that firearms should be carried by all... that is not an issue here... the farmer used something at his desposal to prevent a robbery. It happened to be a gun.

[James Deuce]

The Farmer was charged appropriately. Even waving a loaded firearm at someone as a joke carries that charge. The Farmer was *this close* to using lethal force. If I back over my son in the driveway and kill him I WILL be charged with careless misuse causing death. Irrespective of the personal tragedy, I'd bloody deserve it.

The law is not an ass in this case, and I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.

[James Deuce]

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

Write a better one, and get the law changed. Whinging in here is not going to fix a thing.

[Clockwork]

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?

Anything that doesn't affect "people" is of little or no consequence to "people" and we probably wouldn't bother discussing it (unless we were astronomers, perhaps).

My point is that I see a clear difference between a crime against property and a crime against a person. My take on RDJ's comment was that he was attempting to remove this distinction.

[drummer]

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

Aha... lucky to not be convicted... for what? For stopping a theif... When the police start to actually solve crime a lot better in NZ then I would agree with you... but when the 111 system is so f**ked up, the simple fact is that the farmer would have been successfully robbed unless he had taken steps.

I draw your attention to the simple fact that IF the scum had NOT have decided to rob the farmer, the whole thing would not have occurred. The blame is squarly on the scum.

[drummer]

Anything that doesn't affect "people" is of little or no consequence to "people" and we probably wouldn't bother discussing it (unless we were astronomers, perhaps).

My point is that I see a clear difference between a crime against property and a crime against a person. My take on RDJ's comment was that he was attempting to remove this distinction.

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?

[drummer]

Write a better one, and get the law changed. Whinging in here is not going to fix a thing.

True, but baiting spud is fun!

[MSTRS:Me]

I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.

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

[scumdog]

How would you all feel if your son was in a ute with a pair of dicks who decided to steal a farm quad and he sat in the ute (not wanting a part of it) and the cockie let loose at the departing ute - and hit your son? THAT is the question you have to ask.

(sure, on this occassion the guy shot WAS one of the thieves.)

[drummer]

The Farmer was charged appropriately. Even waving a loaded firearm at someone as a joke carries that charge. The Farmer was *this close* to using lethal force. If I back over my son in the driveway and kill him I WILL be charged with careless misuse causing death. Irrespective of the personal tragedy, I'd bloody deserve it.

The law is not an ass in this case, and I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.

Now comeon.... there is a case currently I read recently involving that exact thing... and no charges were laid... can't recall exact details so don't ask. You keep quoting existing law. I am not debating this... In fact I am mainly debating the plight og this partivular farmer.

[scumdog]

The law is not an ass in this case, and I still don't understand why anyone even needs to own a firearm, especially in NZ.

Need to own A firearm? Sheesh, need to own all the ones I have!

[drummer]

How would you all feel if your son was in a ute with a pair of dicks who decided to steal a farm quad and he sat in the ute (not wanting a part of it) and the cockie let loose at the departing ute - and hit your son? THAT is the question you have to ask.

(sure, on this occassion the guy shot WAS one of the thieves.)

Good point but the charges should then be firmly against the two scum...

[drummer]

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

[marty]

At times.... but not all the time... and also... lets just state another thing here... I do not agree for one moment that firearms should be carried by all... that is not an issue here... the farmer used something at his desposal to prevent a robbery. It happened to be a gun.

actually, the farmer was preventing a theft. robbery is a different offence. and i ask again, you say that he was justified in using lethal force (which just happened to be non-lethal in this case) to prevent this offence from taking place. at what level should the ability to use this lethal force be imposed? if you point a gun at someone, and pull the trigger, you should expect the worse outcome. you shoot to incapacitate - that may mean that the person dies.

there are more than a few examples of people shooting and killing others when they are committing offences against those persons - most of them get off, but the law needs to be tested - that is what living in a democracy is about.

so drummer, i feel from your postings that you believe that keith abbott was justified in shooting to incapacitate? should he also not have been charged?

[Clockwork]

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.

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