Waihopai terrorists get off

[Shadows]

No, I think they knew it was against the law, just that their action was towards the greater good - making it harder for the yanks to carry on fighting dubious wars and rendering people off to be tortured. A small wrong preventing a greater wrong being perpetrated against others. At least that's how I understood their explanation.

What a load of idealistic bullshit.

Nobody seems to have mentioned how many lives they may have put at risk by their actions.

Those fuckwits should be sent to pick through the debris of the next bombing of a tourist resort / tower block / crowded market for body parts. Let's see how good they feel about themselves then.

Send the fucking judge and jury along with them too.

Welll.......vandals now have an 'out'!

And murderers, rapists, armed robbers and arsonists.

"I sincerely believe that the human race is affecting the planet like a cancer. I had to take some out in order to reduce the population for the greater good."

"She was dressed provocatively in public. I raped her to teach her a lesson for the greater good because I sincerely believe that children shouldn't have their innocence lost through seeing ladies dressed that way."

"I sincerely believed that I had to rob that bank and kill the teller while I was at it in order to bb able to buy the latest hybrid car to minimise by carbon footprint for the greater good."

"I burnt down the Pak 'n Save because I sincerely believe that the availability of alcohol in supermarkets promotes underage drinking and domestic violence. It was for the greater good."

[mashman]

(b) Levies war against New Zealand

Could you then argue that the government are having a Levies war against New Zealand... ACC Levies etc... and should be tried?

[motor_mayhem]

Bloody hell the way some are going on this issue defies belief. So some misguided cretins destroyed some expensive fabric and jury of our fellow countrymen let them off. Yep that's right a jury found them not guilty. Some of you need to be grateful that we still have jury's of our peers.

Making a terrible decision like that doesn't lead me to believe they are any peers of mine. Common sense deficit perhaps?

I have no problem with people who feel like using their spare time to protest etc but when they spend my tax dollars by vandalising property or collecting the dole so they can do their protest, then they can fuck off to somewhere else. Where's their sense of social responsibilty to the people in their own country let alone anyone elses? you can't take the high moral ground if you're ripping off your own countrymen.

[rwh]

thats my point, innit. they can't get out of it, so in my view by definition, they should be disqualfied from making the decision.

Remember, a jury found Davd B--n not guilty. QED

There are of course a few of us who have a social conscience, and will accept their jury duty for the duty it is.

Richard

[Skyryder]

Making a terrible decision like that doesn't lead me to believe they are any peers of mine. Common sense deficit perhaps?

I have no problem with people who feel like using their spare time to protest etc but when they spend my tax dollars by vandalising property or collecting the dole so they can do their protest, then they can fuck off to somewhere else. Where's their sense of social responsibilty to the people in their own country let alone anyone elses? you can't take the high moral ground if you're ripping off your own countrymen.

I could stand to be corrected on this but I understand this base is operated by the Americans. No where have I seen that the NZ tax dollar has been used for any damage.

Anyone know for sure or is this top secret. Nope classified that's the new buzz word today.



Skyryder

[rainman]

Lets not forget that they saved us from certain aninihilation by the Japanese.

Doesn't mean they get a free pass on all of their misdemeanors for all eternity, at least not by my moral compass. Two wrongs not making a right, and all.

These same people that are talking it up are aso on juries ... QED

I've never been called to jury duty, as it happens...

There are of course a few of us who have a social conscience, and will accept their jury duty for the duty it is.

...but I'd happily do it. Good on you.

[mashman]

Who give a shit whether the tax-payer pays or not... if that's what the public think happened... then i'm sure they can dream up a nice $5 million bill to appease the people...

[Toaster]

I could stand to be corrected on this but I understand this base is operated by the Americans. No where have I seen that the NZ tax dollar has been used for any damage.

Anyone know for sure or is this top secret. Nope classified that's the new buzz word today.



Skyryder

No, not the americans. They are operated by GCSB. This is part of the NZ Intelligence community. The bases do form part of an international intelligence group called Echelon.

[Toaster]

The issue relates to the "claim of right" ingredient that needs to be present to make a defence for the actions. The lawyer was able to convince the Jury that they believed they had a lawful right to do what they did. This does not mean it was reasonable or even right.

Keep in mind this is a district court Jury case and may be subject to an appeal.

The issue I have is that it is an established fact that they remained after the incident waiting to be arrested. This to me indicates that they knew that what they did was in some way wrong or contrary to the law, REGARDLESS of their reasons to commit the offences of burglary and intentional/reckless damage. This SHOULD nullify their argument that they ever had claim of right.

I would be sorely disappointed to see this not appealled or overturned at the next level, the Court of Appeal. Keep in mind that legal precedent is only relevant to cases of very similar and materially different facts/circumstances.

Lawyers..... shoulda been one. Such a gravy train in this country.

[Robert Taylor]

Doesn't mean they get a free pass on all of their misdemeanors for all eternity, at least not by my moral compass. Two wrongs not making a right, and all.



I've never been called to jury duty, as it happens...



...but I'd happily do it. Good on you.

Im in no way an apologist for American misdemeanours but Id rather cosy up to them than China. We need them, fact. Even moreso since Helen bloody Clark left us defenceless, or at least showed the world we have no intent to defend ourselves. Our tax dollars should be supporting a modern RNZAF with air strike capability.

[boostin]

Lawyers..... shoulda been one. Such a gravy train in this country.

No you should not have been. At least not if your analysis in this case is anything to go by.

[Toaster]

No you should not have been. At least not if your analysis in this case is anything to go by.

A legal case is an argument/debate of two sides. If you don't agree then fine. So if you are so right how about you give the "correct" analysis?

[Jantar]

I do believe that with the "not guilty" verdict there is a far better opportunity to see justice done. Had they been found guilty they would have received a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, bee given a few hours community work and told to be on their best behaviour for the next 12 months.

Now they are likely to be sued in a civil case where the burden of proof is of a much lower standard, and between them they may very well have to find a million dollars or more to pay the cost of repairs.

[mashman]

The issue I have is that it is an established fact that they remained after the incident waiting to be arrested. This to me indicates that they knew that what they did was in some way wrong or contrary to the law, REGARDLESS of their reasons to commit the offences of burglary and intentional/reckless damage. This SHOULD nullify their argument that they ever had claim of right.

The issue I have is whether they had run away after the incident so as not to be arrested. This to me indicates that they knew that what they did was in some way wrong or contrary to the law, REGARDLESS of their reasons to commit the offences of burglary and intentional/reckless damage. This SHOULD prove their argument that they ever had claim of right.

[boostin]

A legal case is an argument/debate of two sides. If you don't agree then fine. So if you are so right how about you give the "correct" analysis?

I have never heard of any claim of right being needed to plead s48 of the Crimes Act. They only needed to convince the court they had a subjective view of the situation, which resulted in objectively reasonable actions for that situation so believed. (I have given a fairly poor explanation of the defence but I am sure you get the idea)

You got the hierarchy of the court system a little mixed up. The next appalette court is the High Court.

"Keep in mind that legal precedent is only relevant to cases of very similar and materially different facts/circumstances." - I don't really know what you mean here.