Absolute bollocks! (Self defence issue)

[Patrick]

LAW AND ORDER
All laws against victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults will be repealed, in order that real crimes with genuine victims like rape, robbery, murder, theft and fraud can be vigorously pursued and the rights of these victims enforced and upheld. All people currently incarcerated for victimless 'crimes' will be immediately released. Life sentences for real crimes will mean life. The NZ Bill of Rights will be amended to uphold your right to self-defence and the right to possess the means of self-defence.

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

Soooooo... recidivist drunk / disqualified drivers are two types that spring to mind as a victimless crime... but oh the carnage they COULD cause to victims, hence the reason on why they are locked away...????

NO vote for them from me then....

...Even so, the odds of a jury acquitting hm are good.

Fingers crossed then. Sounded extremely disappointing to start with, but more to the story and all.....

[McJim]

Anybody know or understand the lack of accurate information here? I know the case is now sub judicae so the media are limited but you'd expect the correct facts to filter out.

So far as I can glean, these towrags had been in the shop or were hanging around - they were outside when events happened. They were suspected by Mr Singh of shoplifting - either right then, or on previous occassions. They were drunk and I imagine intimidating any regular customers on the footpath.

He seems to have confronted them, with hockey stick in hand. Possibly the knife was drawn by a towrag to defend himself. Singh somehow came to be in the position of getting the upper hand and instead of stopping, got in a few extra hits on a couple of the towrags heads, just for good luck. There lies the excessive force because at that point he is no longer defending himself.

Now - all of the above is drawn from hearing his wife speak, media reports, and bits and pieces in this thread. Every chance the "facts" I've set out are completely wrong.

Anyone have a clearer idea?

Winston. Stop being so reasonable. Many of us here on KB are passing into the realms of "Old fartdom" and therefore we would like to see young kids in hoodies carrying knives and intimidating people getting "dealt to" by members of the public. The reason for this is that we want to feel safe and we want those who would intimidate us feel threatened.

That way balance is maintained.

A jury of peers may well believe that he is guilty of excessive force when the facts come out but may still elect to find him not guilty as they will think "there go I but for the grace of god"

The idea of being a vigilante is very attractive to many - we know we shouldn't but we want to taste that sweet victory as justice is dealt.

The bloke that shot the fella in the gunshop was my neighbour in Auckland. I was glad he was found not guilty but the trial sent him and his family to hell and back for a year. Maybe it is better to kill and destroy the body after all since the criminal court system causes such hardship for the honest.

[Ocean1]

Soooooo... recidivist drunk / disqualified drivers are two types that spring to mind as a victimless crime... but oh the carnage they COULD cause to victims, hence the reason on why they are locked away...????

Balance, dude. You're drawing a long bow interpreting "victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults" as drunk drivers. Think the intent is to control those that hurt others and those who's behaviour is likely to do so.

Otherwise, basically, mind yer own fucking business. Sorta the polar opposite of the plethora of nit-pickin' bullshit we have at the moment eh?

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

What's the problem here? The Police have charged this dude because they believe that he used excessive force. Surely it's the Police's job to prosecute people they believe to have broken the law? Whether Mr Dairy Owner is guilty or innocent is a matter for the Courts. Isn't that how our justice system is supposed to work?

Dairy owner 0 cunt 1. dairy owner will have to pay for his own defence, cunt gets US to pay for his FFS

Well I think we need to go back to the guy from my patch who lost his life helping a stricken lady...he paid with his life and left his family without a Dad.
This is what can happen when we just let them get away with this shit.
If your shop gets robbed...let them...you are Insured...let the Police do the business...prison ain't no good to your family and friends...if someone threatens you with a knife...don't be a hero...

Best option, too many dead heroes.

Reasonable force is all well and good except that often the victim is not the equal of the offender, either in size, weight or weapons of choice. For me turning tail and running (if that were an option) would always be my survival method of choice. However if my kids or husband were in danger, or even a stranger for that matter, and I had a chance of helping them at the risk of harming the offender there would be no question of worrying about "hurting the poor criminal". Basically we lose our rights to a peaceful lawabiding existence because crims know they have a good chance of coming off looking like the victim instead when we fight back. Their rights to abuse us override everything it would seem.

This is where it gets complicated. Any self respecting indervidual would throw caution to the wind and defend your friends, family even public and worry about the shit hitting the fan after the fact.

Yes they are. And the law does allow self-defence, with a proviso of "reasonable force" used. In this case the Police believe that the amount of force used was excessive. It's now up to a jury to determine whether they agree with that proposition.

At who's cost?! Certainly not the pricks that caused the incident in the first place.

Winston. Stop being so reasonable. Many of us here on KB are passing into the realms of "Old fartdom" and therefore we would like to see young kids in hoodies carrying knives and intimidating people getting "dealt to" by members of the public. The reason for this is that we want to feel safe and we want those who would intimidate us feel threatened.

A jury of peers may well believe that he is guilty of excessive force when the facts come out but may still elect to find him not guilty as they will think "there go I but for the grace of god"

The bloke that shot the fella in the gunshop was my neighbour in Auckland. I was glad he was found not guilty but the trial sent him and his family to hell and back for a year. Maybe it is better to kill and destroy the body after all since the criminal court system causes such hardship for the honest.

This is my point. Scum commit the crime and the hard working pay the price in more ways than one. The police pretty much have there hands tied in how they have to respond to this sort of response because of the way the law has been developed. Changes need to be made to protect the inocent VICTIM until proven guilty.

[Winston001]

This is my point. Scum commit the crime and the hard working pay the price in more ways than one. The police pretty much have their hands tied in how they have to respond to this sort of response because of the way the law has been developed. Changes need to be made to protect the innocent VICTIM until proven guilty.

Fair enough. For most of human history justice has been rough and brutal. Vigilante help-yourself was the main rule. Only 200 years ago people were hanged for simple theft.

So violent retribution against threats and harm is a normal reaction.

Why do you think our social structure has evolved to where we are today? Not just in NZ, but the USA, Britain, Europe, etc etc....

[Ocean1]

Why do you think our social structure has evolved to where we are today? Not just in NZ, but the USA, Britain, Europe, etc etc....

Evolution is generally held to mean a sustainable improvement in individual performance within a given environment. In an artificial environment those changes remain improvements only to the individual, and only as long as the environment is maintained.

Reducing consequences for behaviour dangerous to society is about as far from a natural environment as you can get. Changes in individual performance detrimental to society under such conditions are not sustainable. It's a positive feedback loop, sooner or later the deterioration in performance swamps the control inputs.

Notice any recent deterioration in social control?

[Winston001]

Ignoring Ocean for the mo ...

Crime is NOT down, reported crime is, two very different things.

If crime isn't reported......then how can we know more of it exists.....?

Certainly we can hypothesise there is heaps of hidden unreported crime - but how do we test that theory? Where's the evidence?

I'm completely unconvinced all this unreported crime exists. Of course there is always some, but significant amounts....? 20/30/40% more? What possible rationale could there be for so much unreported crime?

In fact, you need to report it these days, even simply for insurance purposes, ACC, benefit entitlement, medical care etc.

[Ocean1]

Ignoring Ocean for the mo ...

What possible rationale could there be for so much unreported crime?

What's the usual reason to report crime?

Sommat to do with justice innit?

[scumdog]

crime is NOT down, reported crime is, two very different things.

Don't worry about that too much - unreported crime vs reported crime ratio has changed very little for a long time, bugger-all has changed in that department.

[Mekk]

I didn't read all that bollocks after the first post but...

I read that there was additional information that couldn't be released because of its impact on the final case.

Gah, it irks me seeing the media earn their bonuses through the ol' knee jerk.

[spudchucka]

I'm completely unconvinced all this unreported crime exists.

The under reporting of domestic violence and sexual abuse are the most obvious examples. There is often a huge amount of shame felt by victims so they don't come forward. There are too many other examples to discuss it in any length.

You mentioned reporting for insurance purposes, which to me suggests that you aren't looking too far beyond the dishonesty and property damage type of offending. There is a whole raft of other types of offending that never gets reported or detected, hence the true crime figure can never really be known.

[Clockwork]

Balance, dude. You're drawing a long bow interpreting "victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults" as drunk drivers. Think the intent is to control those that hurt others and those who's behaviour is likely to do so.

Otherwise, basically, mind yer own fucking business. Sorta the polar opposite of the plethora of nit-pickin' bullshit we have at the moment eh?

So which crimes do you have in mind then?

[Finn]

So which crimes do you have in mind then?

Illegal parking of the penis?

[Goblin]

So which crimes do you have in mind then?

How about the old Cultivation of Cannabis, Producing a class B drug (namely Cannabis Butter)?? Where's the victim? Even Cultivation for Supply. Where there is a demand, there's often a supply. Who is the victim? The gubmint because they dont get to tax it? What about indecent exposure? Without lewd or sexual conduct there's nothing wrong with nudity. Who's the victim?

[Hitcher]

How about the old Cultivation of Cannabis, Producing a class B drug (namely Cannabis Butter)?? Where's the victim? Even Cultivation for Supply. Where there is a demand, there's often a supply. Who is the victim? The gubmint because they dont get to tax it? What about indecent exposure? Without lewd or sexual conduct there's nothing wrong with nudity. Who's the victim?

How about the manufacture of P? Surely your arguments apply to this as well? And don't give me any esoteric pot-head nonsense about the relative merits of Class A versus Class B drugs.