The instructions are simple...
Endless 'debate' can't change what has happened. The police said the farmer got it wrong & charged him appropriately, the Court/people of NZ said said he didn't and set him free. The man should be reimbursed by the Police for all it cost him since the Police could have looked at the likely outcome (bloody obvious in a case like this) and decided not to prosecute. Perhaps this case will be considered a benchmark if & when this situation arises again.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
???? you need to read some law.Originally Posted by Clockwork
the crimes act is found here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/brows...wtype=contents
but i'll summarise - theft is found in part 10, s227, 'crimes against rights of property'
robbery is found in part 10,s235, 'crimes against rights of property'
Forum whore
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.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
The instructions are simple...
I thought the man should have been given a medal.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
I'd rather be thinking
And don't you understand that "the law" is more than just the statutes and regulations under which the police may lay charges? You have strong opinions about victims' rights - fair enough - but as has been pointed out there are other valid arguments, and you have not shown exactly why you believe the specific regulations in this case are inappropriate. If you think that the relevant legislation should be altered to remove the threat of prosecution from people who took the action that this farmer did, you need to fully think through all the ramifications of such a change.
Age is too high a price to pay for maturity
sorry don't agree - police being judge and jury? there is no precedent set when police decide not to charge - the precedent is set by the court. ask any number of drink drivers and other people who have either not been charged of got off because of precedent set by a higher court.
your logic says that every person who gets off should be reimbursed by the police, as obviously they got it wrong. does that go for rapists who walk? how about drug dealers? how about someone who in a moment of carelessness crosses the centreline and kills your family, who gets off because the carelessness was found to be 'only' a moment's lapse of concentration? should the law not be tested in these serious situations?
Easily wound up!!
Ohh man! I have no desire to read the crimes act (I only need to read the acts I may be in breach of!) Spud originally brought up the point of the two sections and I was curious how that scenario would pan out. I must say I'm supprised that it would still be considered a crime against property but I guess its a cause and effect thing. (ie the assault came about out of the original intent to thieve)
"There must be a one-to-one correspondence between left and right parentheses, with each left parenthesis to the left of its corresponding right parenthesis."
Immature and proud of it.
That's the problem, your bosses have become politicians. You need Policemen.Don't mention him and Incis to me in the same breath - but then he's at the same level as all the politicians, - maybe that's where he's aimed
And easy with the loose use of my name in connection with Doone
Sorry about the scum, I should have said filth.
Speed doesn't kill people.
Stupidity kills people.
Immature and proud of it.
As I pointed out in previous post, the cost of proving your innocence can be a horrendous punishment in itself. Perhaps the Police shouldn't pay, unless the prosecution was malicious or negligent, but the Justice system definitely should.
Any one of us could be placed in this position at any time.
And don't forget that the Police have elected not to charge in cases of self-defence before.
Speed doesn't kill people.
Stupidity kills people.
that they have lou, but this case in point was not self defence. it was someone fucked off that something had been stolen from him.
The instructions are simple...
Agreed, this is much like the point I was making. Besides, in this country as in others, the defendent is presumed by the law to be innocent until etc. This farmer is still innocent, as found by the court/people, but like the poor couple with the beekeeper-killer bridge, is waaaay out of pocket. Also, since he was found innocent, the events leading us to this point should once more be the 'alleged' event or never even happened.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Still Ridin'
Drummer: A firearm is a recognised and regulated "lethal weapon" - Take it from me, I have passed the licensing for it three times (twice under the old "permit to procure" system and once under the "Owner Licensing" system).
Any legitimate firearms owner knows the law quite well with respect to whether or not you are allowed to discharge one at a person.
Even if the farmer could outshoot Annie Oakley whilst blindfolded, he had no guarantee that his actions would not result in the deaths of the people he was shooting at.
Anyone who has used a firearm knows this.
As a licenced firearm owner, the farmer knew the law and the risks inherent in discharging a firearm - the potential to kill someone was known to him and he still decided to shoot.
He was not being "robbed", he caught them in the act of theft. Robbery would have involved them actively threatening him, most likely with some form of weapon. In the case of them threatening him with a weapon, he would have possibly had justification (being in fear for his life) for shooting at them.
As they were returning to the car and he shot at their retreating backs, he was committing a crime - assault with a lethal weapon.
Whether or not anyone died is immaterial. The law even dictates that if he threatened them with a replica firearm he is guilty of threatening them with a loaded firearm.
The Law's an Ass? Maybe. But it does mean that if someone threatens you with a firearm and you kill him - fearing for your life - then it turns out he had a toy pistol, that ass of a law would uphold your right to self defence and decree you defended yourself against what could be reasonably believed to be a loaded firearm.
By shooting at the thieves, the farmer signified that he did not care if they lived or died, he signified his willingness to accept the consequences and he signified that he believed that a quad "bike" is worth more than a human life. The fact that his victim survived is of no consequence.
OK, so he was the victim of attempted theft - but he turned one of the thieves into a victim of assault. The thieves were breaking the law, but so was he. They got arrested, so did he - I fail to see the problem here.
What do you expect? "Why did you shoot him?" "He deserved it." "Oh, that's OK then, go home." ??? For good measure and to save inconvenience they could just take his word for his name and address (why subject him to the hassle of having to prove identity?)
Would you like the cops to let someone who shot one of your family members walk away based on "It wuz self-defence, officer."?
Somehow I doubt it. Somehow I suspect you would want the bugger arrested and charged. You might not even like it if the jury ruled it was self-defence but at least you would feel that the cops took what he did seriously enough to investigate it and present the evidence they found at court.
And FYI - despite all the crap you see on TV - in the USA, where you are allowed to carry firearms for the express purpose of defending your life, if you shoot someone - fatally or not - you will be arrested and charged.
During your questioning and the gathering of evidence, the police will then get an idea of how you will plead and whether or not the evidence supports your self-defence claim. You may eventually be let off - but you will be arrested on whatever charges may apply until such time as they can determine whether or not you were justified in using (potentially) lethal force. And that is direct from Massad Ayoob - former US cop and trainer of cops who now trains (US) civilians in home defence.
The farmer is bloody lucky to have avoided conviction for at least "assault with a lethal weapon" as the actions of the thieves did not justify lethal force - they were not directly threatening the farmer's life or the life of anyone in his family. The force he used was technically "excessive". The jury, however, said "yeah, we understand where you're coming from."
But the question is still on the table - what dollar value do you place on a human life; which of your possessions are worth (possibly) killing for? If you feel shooting a person for theft is acceptable, how about beating up a person who calls you names or "looks at you funny"? Do two wrongs actually make a right?
Would you be happy for me to shoot you, or at least wallop you with a baseball bat, if I found you "behaving suspiciously" on or near my property at night? If I did, should I be allowed to say, "look, officer, he looked downright fucking suspicious and so I defended my property from him - stupid bastard had no right to be here in the first place, it's private property." Should the cops then say "OK Wolfie, off ya go, we're sure you had every justification for suspecting him, he looks suspicious right enough - bloody cunning of him to park his car down the road and drain the fuel, probably a criminal mastermind. We'll sort him out."
Motorbike Camping for the win!
The instructions are simple...
Interestingly, as I understand it, the judge actually directed the jury to find him not guilty.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Forum whore
Hm. There can be arguments on both sides. But I do know that, a few years ago, I was on a jury. We found the guy not guilty, and unamimously also reckoned that he should never have been charged (I wanted the foreman to add that as a rider to the verdict, but the judge reckoned it wasn't allowed). In civil cases the judge determines how costs should fall , and one of the determinants is the reasonableness of your case. If the judge thinks that your case was a load of cobblers from the start, and you should not have been wasting everybody's time, then you'll probably end up paying the other guys costs. If he thinks that your case was pretty good (even though you lost), he may make an order that each party bears their own costs (more likely if you are a little guy and the other party is a big corporate or government department). So maybe the same logic could apply to criminal cases. If you get off , but the judge reckons the police had a good case, you cop your costs. If the judge reckons the police case was dodgy they pay . I remember some cases where judges have been pretty scathing about police bringing unjustified cases so I think that it might happen (though rare I expect since police won't usually try for a charge that they don't feel fairly confident of winning )
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks