NZ Police public image

[Lou Girardin]

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.

I remember a scene in a cop movie years back. Stacey Keach was training a newbie.
He said, "if he throws a punch, use your nightstick. If he pulls a knife use your gun, cancel his ticket then and there"
A reasonable approach.
He also did CPR on a crim who was bleeding out from a severed artery. Just to make sure.

[Lias]

Wolf thinks my opinion on this issue is "extreme" but hes a dyed in the wool communist :-P

As far as I am concerned, anyone who trespasses on to my property to commit a crime against my family (be that stealing our property, or worse) can and will have lethal force used to neutralize them.

I wouldnt hesitate for a split second if I'd been in that farmers shoes, and I would not have aimed for the tyres, I would have been aiming for the drivers head.

A mans house is his castle and the government will pry my weapons from my cold dead hands before they stop me defending it.

[MSTRS:Me]

Checked under your bed lately? The reds are allready here my friend!

"Redcoats" = English soldiers. I know where the Commies are, somewhere that has something to do with honey

[Wolf]

Wolf thinks my opinion on this issue is "extreme" but hes a dyed in the wool communist :-P

Actually, LiasTZ and I are about equally "left wing" but we're both equally removed from "Centrist" - in opposite directions (me toward Libertarian/Anarchist, LiasTZ toward Authoritarian/Facist) so with LiasTZ being a strongly Authoritarian Left Winger, that would make him a "Communist"...

I am a mere "Libertarian Socialist".

[marty]

sections 49 thru 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 discuss self defence and defence of property. reasonable force in the circumstances is the test. If the farmer thought it was reasonable, that's fine. Sometimes though, the public acceptance of reasonable is different to the individuals - this applies to all facets of life - and the only true and proper way to test this is by a panel of peers.

the likes of drummer and liastz are welcome to their opinions, just expect to have to defend them at some stage.

don't ya love livin in a democracy?

[Ixion]

Actually, LiasTZ and I are about equally "left wing" but we're both equally removed from "Centrist" - in opposite directions (me toward Libertarian/Anarchist, LiasTZ toward Authoritarian/Facist) so with LiasTZ being a strongly Authoritarian Left Winger, that would make him a "Communist"...

I am a mere "Libertarian Socialist".

I'm a "confused"

[marty]

My God you are confusing... if this country has no difference between Not Guilty and Innocent, then why say there is a BIG DIFFERENCE? face it... your colleagues made a huge stuff up when deciding to charge this farmer and were told emphatically by the judge through his direction to the jury that this was so. To have no charges awarded against the cops was a disgrace.

read the post drummer - NZ does not have a finding of 'innocent'. it has a finding of 'not guilty'. there is a difference, as i said. would you like me to spell it out for you?

and, did the judge tell the jury that the police made a huge stuff up? my understanding was that he said a conviction would be unsafe.

and, if you knew anything about law at all, you would know that criminal courts do not 'award charges'.

[James Deuce]

....that would make him a "Communist"...

Or maybe a National Socialist.

[Lou Girardin]

read the post drummer - NZ does not have a finding of 'innocent'. it has a finding of 'not guilty'. there is a difference, as i said. would you like me to spell it out for you?

and, did the judge tell the jury that the police made a huge stuff up? my understanding was that he said a conviction would be unsafe.

and, if you knew anything about law at all, you would know that criminal courts do not 'award charges'.

As illustrated by the Govt trying to avoid paying compensation to David Dougherty by saying that although he was found not guilty, he still had to prove his innocence.

[Wolf]

As illustrated by the Govt trying to avoid paying compensation to David Dougherty by saying that although he was found not guilty, he still had to prove his innocence.

My understanding is that no one can be found/proved "innocent" - except possibly a new-born child - merely "not guilty" of a specific charge laid against them.

"Innocent" implies never having done any wrong at all; "not guilty" means "he didn't do that, but we have no idea what else he's managed to get away with."

[Lou Girardin]

My understanding is that no one can be found/proved "innocent" - except possibly a new-born child - merely "not guilty" of a specific charge laid against them.

"Innocent" implies never having done any wrong at all; "not guilty" means "he didn't do that, but we have no idea what else he's managed to get away with."

One of the basic principles of criminal law in NZ is innocent until proven guilty.
But if you're proven not guilty you aren't necessarily innocent.

[marty]

being found not guilty basically means you just weren't found guilty. i think it's called a semantic negation, whereas being found 'innocent' is an affirmation (dragging back criminal law 201 memories...)

[Ixion]

being found not guilty basically means you just weren't found guilty. i think it's called a semantic negation, whereas being found 'innocent' is an affirmation (dragging back criminal law 201 memories...)

Not guilty = "You haven't convinced us he did it (though probably he did)"
Innocent = "We're certain he didn't do it "

But there is no such thing as a finding of "innocent" in English Law (or Scotish for that matter, though they do have Not Proven, so Not Guilty tends more to Innocent)

[Wolf]

Not guilty = "You haven't convinced us he did it (though probably he did)"
Innocent = "We're certain he didn't do it "

When I was on Jury Service, we were only given "Guilty" ("beyond a reasonable doubt") or "Not Guilty" (if there was "reasonable doubt" as to whether he did it) as possible verdicts. We were not give the option of returning "Innocent".

What we wanted was "We know the bugger did it but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt". That, and the opportunity to tell the respective solicitors what we thought of their performance. Sadly we got neither...

[Ixion]

..
But there is no such thing as a finding of "innocent" in English Law (or Scotish for that matter, though they do have Not Proven, so Not Guilty tends more to Innocent)

I am wrong I think, on a technicality. In the case of a trial at the Court of Arches, on a charge of unchastity in a woman, the court may bring in a finding of "Innocent" - meaning the woman is still a virgin. Guilty (I think, but am not certain) here meant that she had indeed been spreading it about. Not guilty meant that she was not a virgin but was not to blame (eg a rape victim)

As such trials are now long defunct, (had you worried there, didn't I ladies) we may safely ignore the special case.