4 years for tagger killer

**Reckless** · 13th February 2009, 14:34

Originally Posted by enigma51

I dont have the time to read everyone's comments so i might be repeating

I believe in do the crime do the time but what gets me about this is that the neo glacie case got off lightly where this guy got thrown the book. Home detention etc would have been a more fitting verdict.

My only thought on this is the judge knows the system and might be banking on an appeal and Home detention being the eventual outcome. I dunno! But it seems to send the wrong message overall! There must have been some intent proven in court?? But it could be as simple as the prosecution lawyer was totally better than the defence lawyer and the poor bastard copped it! He could have well said something silly (or true) to the cops immediatly after the event that went against him and proved intent?
We can't judge that, we don't know! No kid deserves to die for tagging but its certainly that event that kicked this whole sorry saga off. We can debate why kids are out with spray cans in the first place, what we can do about it, and who may be responsable for that!

**XxKiTtiExX** · 13th February 2009, 14:34

Originally Posted by jrandom

And then there's the whiteys who are only white on the outside...

Where I live might explain that

**jrandom** · 13th February 2009, 14:38

Originally Posted by XxKiTtiExX

Where I live might explain that

Ah, the Norfland Inner Tan (tm). It seems to be catching!

**MisterD** · 13th February 2009, 14:47

Originally Posted by Headbanger

You don't need a back story, it changes nothing.

Fact is the fat man chased someone with a knife, when they came to a stop he embedded it in his chest and killed him.

Having said that, I'm not fussed if he got done for manslaughter rather then murder, I done worse as a teenager then paint somebodies fence yet don't think I ever done anything bad enough to be killed over.

Au contrer, provocation and intent are very important issues when it comes to the difference between manslaughter and murder. The later requires intent to be proven.

**JimO** · 13th February 2009, 14:47

Originally Posted by Headbanger

So, If someone chased you down the street with a knife, You stop and confront him, he manages to stab you in the heart with the knife he had grabbed to stab you with, You die.

You wouldn't consider yourself murdered?

Granted the "backing away" claim is as stupid as the "he ran onto the knife" defence, But neither change the fact an adult used a knife to kill a child.

Knives are a tool for the weak at the best of times, Let alone in the case of this pathetic twat.

you seen the size of some 15 year olds

**Finn** · 13th February 2009, 14:49

Originally Posted by jrandom

And then there's the whiteys who are only white on the outside...

I blame the black person inside me for all my wrong doings. The only person that truly appreciates him is my girlfriend.

**Cynos** · 13th February 2009, 14:50

Originally Posted by MisterD

You mean you believe that "he was backing away" rubbish the scrote's relative gave as evidence?

I think the taggers ran for a little bit, turned to attack the householder and in the confusion one of them copped the knife in the ribs...that does not equate to murder in my book.

I chased them 300m into a cul-de-sac while carrying a knife and then defended myself, your Honour. Somehow it doesn't strike me as self-defense if you chased them down the road.

**MisterD** · 13th February 2009, 15:10

Originally Posted by Cynos

I chased them 300m into a cul-de-sac while carrying a knife and then defended myself, your Honour. Somehow it doesn't strike me as self-defense if you chased them down the road.

How many times do I have to say this? Self defence is irrelevant to the discussion (except that if the jury had believed it was self-defence he would have been found not guilty of anything), for it to be murder, intent must be proved. It wasn't, therefore manslaughter is the correct verdict.

He grabbed a knife (stupid, I'd have grabbed my shillelagh or a 7-iron) with the aim of frightening the little buggers, who knows what happened between the point that the scrotes stopped running and the fatal wound occurred? I bet even the protagonists can't remember clearly.

**Cynos** · 13th February 2009, 15:12

Originally Posted by MisterD

How many times do I have to say this? Self defence is irrelevant to the discussion (except that if the jury had believed it was self-defence he would have been found not guilty of anything), for it to be murder, intent must be proved. It wasn't, therefore manslaughter is the correct verdict.

He grabbed a knife (stupid, I'd have grabbed my shillelagh or a 7-iron) with the aim of frightening the little buggers, who knows what happened between the point that the scrotes stopped running and the fatal wound occurred? I bet even the protagonists can't remember clearly.

I find chasing them for 300m with a knife pretty compelling evidence of intent. But anyway, even for manslaughter, 4 years is low. You get longer for armed robberies where everyone leaves unharmed.

**Hoon** · 13th February 2009, 15:23

Originally Posted by Benk

+1

Dont do the crime if you cant do the time, which in this case is 4 years.

A long time on the inside for sure, but 2 wrongs dont make a right, and taking another life for a bit of vandalism is excessive.

Agree +2.

Win/win as far as I'm concerned, two less scumbag crims on the street.

Sure they paid dearly for their crimes (one life lost and the other ruined) but call me harsh I'm struggling to find any sympathy for either.

They both chose the path they took - just didn't quite end up where they wanted.

**Dave Lobster** · 13th February 2009, 15:38

Originally Posted by Reckless

No kid deserves to die for tagging!

Rubbish. Anyone out deliberately vandalising property, that someone has worked to pay for, deserves to die.

**Reckless** · 13th February 2009, 16:18

Originally Posted by MisterD

Self defence is irrelevant to the discussion (except that if the jury had believed it was self-defence he would have been found not guilty of anything), for it to be murder, intent must be proved. It wasn't, therefore manslaughter is the correct verdict.

Self defense may still be relevant if that's what actually happened no matter what the jury believed. What sort of intent are we talking here intent to see them off, intent to scare the shit out of them or intent to commit murder!
Obviously intent to commit murder wasn't proved hence the manslaughter conviction but that doesn't mean self defense wasn't relevant it just means it wasn't proven. Hence the 4 year sentence. And that could have been swung by some of the things I mentioned in my earlier post or simply just bad luck during the court process ie good/bad lawyers, good or bad witnesses, or even straight out lies in court.
I must confess I spoke to this guy about 2 weeks before the trial on the phone about a spa pool cover for my spa, he said he couldn't book me in because of going to court, I found out it was this case and spoke in general terms to him about it. He maintained self defense then, said they turned on him in a big way, but we did not go into detail so I know no more facts. We went on to talk about how a lot of out there kids are bought up to think they are above the law, do what they want, when they want and often dish out there own street justice. He could have had his "story" straight by then, but I believed him. Obviously the jury didn't. So maybe he said something after that went against him, or said things in the past or all the witnesses at the actual event where for the prosecution and it was just to much to prove self defense. Again I dunno! but the kid shouldn't have been damaging his property in the first place I reckon. And no ones thought to mention how his family are going to fair while he's inside. There's more than one casualty here because the kid was out on the loose!
A sad affair but preventable in so many ways! Its actually a statement of where we are at in NZ. Little shits running round damaging property etc, 50 year olds picking up knives because they've have a gutsful and the boys turning on him to give him a good kicking (if you believe him) cause there's no real consequences for tagging etc crimes anymore at home or in court? Unfortunately this kid paid with his life!