NZ Police public image

[drummer]

This was clearly not an issue of self defence.

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.

[drummer]

Unless I get drunk and trip over my own feet or roll the ride on lawn mower then I'll be right side up, no bike anymore sadly.

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

[drummer]

Why expect an answer when you still aren't answering the question you've been asked?

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!

[Lou Girardin]

Very good point. The judge at least here was sensible... and saw the complete waste of taxpayers mone because of some moronic cop being more interested in the rights of scum rather than solving real crime!

I wouldn't say the Police are interested in the rights of scum (sorry dog), they are more worried about being 2nd guessed by pollies, media etc. So they err on the side of safety (let the courts decide). All of which doesn't help innocent people trying to defend themselves in court.
I'd like to know why they used the scattergun technique and laid multiple charges against McIntyre though.

[Clockwork]

I have answered your question... don't blame me for not being able to read. Come on... I asked a valid question that you REFUSE to answer.

Actually, it was me you asked the question of. You are right of course, in all offending there are degrees of.... (offensiveness?) and burning down a house is (ususally) worse than smacking a child. But it was your proposed punishment regime that seemd to lack any sense of proportion.

[MSTRS:Me]

Fuzzy thinking. You confuse the "event" [of which the precise circumstances, sequence of actions, motivation etc. may give rise to varying interpretations] with the charge [the legal definition of a crime which the defendant is alleged to have committed]. To find someone guilty or not guilty as charged involves a different sort of reasoning from deciding whether objectively an "event" happened or not.

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'

[James Deuce]

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'

No he didn't. You missed his

The person is being proven guilty of a charge. The jury in a jury trial has to be convinced that the defendant was guilty of the charge, not the event, subsequent events, or previous or subsequent charges.

[scumdog]

I wouldn't say the Police are interested in the rights of scum (sorry dog), they are more worried about being 2nd guessed by pollies, media etc. So they err on the side of safety (let the courts decide). All of which doesn't help innocent people trying to defend themselves in court.
I'd like to know why they used the scattergun technique and laid multiple charges against McIntyre though.

Lou has made a vey valid point (or two) which seems to have gone unnoticed by most on this thread, 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.

The cockie was not 'defending' himself as he was under no direct threat - he was pissed off (rightly so) that somebody was taking his property and was just a tad heavy handed showing it.

Lucky for the light fingered cretins he just didn't waste the lot and diispose of them and their ute discretely - after all, who was going to come to his farm to look for people he didn't know and shouldn't have been there??

[Pixie]

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)

Yeah,and what about no concurrent sentencing for these scum.

[Wolf]

Wolf... for a start I have repeatedly stated that I am against killing. That answers that question AGAIN!

So you are opposed to killing but OK with shooting someone - Riiiight! And of course, you're such a great shot that you can do what no firearm user on the planet can do - including Olympic medalists, trained soldiers, police and assassins - guarantee that when shooting someone (for merely attempting to take your property) you are not going to kill them - because killing would be wrong, but merely wounding them is acceptable. Yeah, sure, whatever.

And of course, the average homeowner who sits a firearms safety course and passes the test can be expected to have the same level of marksmanship.

Secondly, you and all the other bleeding hearts here fail to see a logic that a majority of sensible NZer's see.

So it's "sensible" to shoot people who are not directly threatening you. It is "sensible" to seriously wound, or possibly kill, someone who has not even threatened to harm you. Suuuuuuuure, whatever.

As to me being a "bleeding heart": If someone attempted to physically harm me, I would defend myself against them - using reasonable force as the law allows me to do. This means that if they came at me with bare fists, I would not attempt to shoot them or hit them with a baseball bat - I would use my own hands and feet as weapons in my defence. I would have no compunction about doing so.

If someone threatened my life in such a manner that I felt genuinely in fear of my life, and I had the opportunity and means to do so, I would kill them - without heasitation. If they threatened the lives of my family in a convincing manner, and I had means and opportunity, I would also kill them with no hesitation. I probably would not use a gun as NZ law dictates that firearms must be stored under lock and key and that the bolt and ammunition must be stored separately, also under lock and key - this would make it a trifle difficult and time-consuming to get the firearm in a state in which I could use for self defence. I would probably have to make do with whatever came to hand - or just my hands.

I am rather annoyed at being called a "bleeding heart" by someone who does not know me, just because I think that shooting/wounding/potentially killing someone for theft is "excessive force". By your own scale, that should at least give me the right to kick your head in - you commited a crime against me first (libel) so you've lost your rights -

That is, the first one to committ a crime was the scum. If the scum hadn't committed that offence then nothing would have happened.

- so therefore what I do to you is your own fault. As libel is more directly against me than merely theft of my property (you called me a derogatory term in front of the whole forum), I should be allowed to shoot you in the back (but not kill you) according to your own argument. I could choose to be "lenient" and just kick the shit out of you (long job that would be) or I could just obey the law and use reasonable force - words against words.

As I have done.

[sAsLEX]

you're such a great shot that you can do what no firearm user on the planet can do - including Olympic medalists, trained soldiers, police and assassins

soldiers and police law enforcement, are generally trained to shoot for the centre of mass, smack bang in the middle of the torso, not to be able to take out knees at 30 paces or anything.

If someone attempted to physically harm me, I would defend myself against them - using reasonable force as the law allows me to do. This means that if they came at me with bare fists, I would not attempt to shoot them or hit them with a baseball bat - I would use my own hands and feet as weapons in my defence. I would have no compunction about doing so.

If someone comes at you unarmed, how do you know your life is not in mortal danger?! The person could be a nijitsu or whatever expert, or have a concealed weapon/bomb!? Or hold a golf club! If someone approaches yourself in a threatning matter,and they dont back down after being warned, and you cant assertain there level of danger to you then reasonable force in my opinion would have to be all available force you have until the threat to you is gone.
Some situations could call for a simple stick weapon such as an ASP batton to take down the offender, but if they are armed with say a baseball bat or long club ......

[Sniper]

Is this still going as a shit slinging match?

[Lou Girardin]

Is this still going as a shit slinging match?

Only if you fucking want it to, OK!

[MSTRS:Me]

No he didn't. You missed his

The person is being proven guilty of a charge. The jury in a jury trial has to be convinced that the defendant was guilty of the charge, not the event, subsequent events, or previous or subsequent charges.

Shark. This was a PT. The event is not disputed, only the farmer's 'crime' which was & must remain 'alleged'

[Wolf]

If someone comes at you unarmed, how do you know your life is not in mortal danger?! The person could be a nijitsu or whatever expert, or have a concealed weapon/bomb!? Or hold a golf club! If someone approaches yourself in a threatning matter,and they dont back down after being warned, and you cant assertain there level of danger to you then reasonable force in my opinion would have to be all available force you have until the threat to you is gone.
Some situations could call for a simple stick weapon such as an ASP batton to take down the offender, but if they are armed with say a baseball bat or long club ......

True. You don't know. However, the law requires we use "reasonable force" and use our own judgement at the time. If he's holding a golf club and getting stroppy, he's armed, in my book, and has justified my use of a similar weapon - if I can find one. If he's apparently unarmed and says "I'm gunna fuggin kill ya, ya arsehole!" in a sufficiently threatening manner that left me with no doubt as to his intent, I would feel justified in killing him (if I were able to) - considering I know of a lot of ways an "unarmed" person can kill you. If the person produces a concealed weapon that looks life-threatening, then the justification for a lethal response is there.

It's acheiving it that is the problem. I saw a doco on a home invasion on TV - where the guy got his foot shot off as he answered the door and then he and his family - wife and young child - were bound and threatened at gun-point by some bloke who believed they had drugs in the house. The home-owners were fully entitled to use lethal force - the invader made several dire threats against them and their child and was threatening them with a shotgun. He had even demonstrated a willingness to use it.

The big problem was: They were powerless to do anything. They had neither the means nor opportunity to do anything. They were left bound, shaken and (in the husband's case) weak from blood-loss.

Dealing with threats of violence and death, however, was not an issue in the farmer's case - he shot at theives about to jump in their ute and drive off with his quad bike. No direct threat to his, or his family's, physical safety.