Are speed cameras, laser guns etc now illegal?

**Mr Merde** · 22nd July 2010, 08:58

From todays papers.

This man was found guilty of assault. Not because he threatened who he thought were intruders in his house, with an air pistol, but because in doing so he shone a laser light on them and that was the assault.

Correct me if I am wrong but dont most methods of guaging the speed of a moving vehicle involve shining a light upon it.

By this ruling then those persons shining the light are now guilty of assault.

Bring it on.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10660417

**Devil** · 22nd July 2010, 09:08

It doesn't say anything about the laser being the reason for the assault charge.

**Eyegasm** · 22nd July 2010, 09:17

It doesn't say anything about a laser period.

Where did said laser come from?

**rustyrobot** · 22nd July 2010, 09:22

From the article on stuff.co.nz ...

An airgun, with a laser sight attached, was aimed at one of the two officers who entered the house.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...ells-homeowner

**skippa1** · 22nd July 2010, 09:24

Cant see any laser mention in there...

Originally Posted by rustyrobot

From the article on stuff.co.nz ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...ells-homeowner

**98tls** · 22nd July 2010, 09:28

"dont resort to using a weapon"

wtf should you do whip out the garden and pick them some flowers.

**Scuba_Steve** · 22nd July 2010, 09:31

good point, I had a mate done with "assault on a officer" for accidently shining a laser pointer into his eyes. That must mean the scamming devices are a form of assault right?

Aside from that is does make me question what tests have actually been done to prove these devises are safe to shine at people, I work alot with lasers & just because you cant see the light don't mean it aint gonna hurt/blind you. Invisible light can be dangerous even in short bursts

**Mr Merde** · 22nd July 2010, 09:34

The assault was not for threatening the intruders (who happened to be police) with an air pistol but for shining the laser light upon the bodies of the persons.

This was considered an assault upon their person.

So if a traffic officer shines a laser light upon your vehicle in an attempt to ascetain your velocity then they are guilty of an assault upon your person.

The law applies both ways. The police are not exempt from them because of the nature of their job.

There is also the other implication of now because of this case that "your home is not your castle", meaning that you have no rights to in any way defend it from any threat.

It was saiid that he should have dialed 111. Yeah right and 3 hours later someone might show up if they werent sent to the wrong place to start with.

**98tls** · 22nd July 2010, 09:38

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

The assault was not for threatening the intruders (who happened to be police) with an air pistol but for shining the laser light upon the bodies of the persons.

This was considered an assault upon their person.

So if a traffic officer shines a laser light upon your vehicle in an attempt to ascetain your velocity then they are guilty of an assault upon your person.

The law applies both ways. The police are not exempt from them because of the nature of their job.

Good luck with that Sherlock.

**SMOKEU** · 22nd July 2010, 10:20

I've been assaulted by police when they shined a torch inside my mates car at night during a routine 3T.

**onearmedbandit** · 22nd July 2010, 10:24

Originally Posted by SMOKEU

I've been assaulted by police when they shined a torch inside my mates car at night during a routine 3T.

Do you actually realise that most of us are not 20yr olds with scanners and nothing to do but listen to police activity. 'Routine 3T'? Who are you trying to impress?

**The Pastor** · 22nd July 2010, 10:25

Good thing he didnt flick the lights on, with all that powerful light hurting the police.

**EJK** · 22nd July 2010, 10:26

No worries. Get a lightsaber. It can deflect lazers.

**Indoo** · 22nd July 2010, 10:47

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

The assault was not for threatening the intruders (who happened to be police) with an air pistol but for shining the laser light upon the bodies of the persons.

Nope.

He had just thrown a 100kg statue through a window waking up his neighbours who phoned Police suspecting something violent was happening at his house, a couple of cops turn up yelling out that they are Police. He wakes up grabs a pistol and switches on its aiming laser, cops see the laser light waving around on the walls and make the correct assumption its from a gun. They yell at him to put it down that its the Police and to put it down again, he then aims the gun at the cops chest painting it with the laser light making the cop/victim in this case believe he was about to be shot hence the assault. Remember the Judge also convicted him of unlawfully presenting a firearm at Police, which means that the Judge didn't buy his story that he didn't know they were cops.

Compare that to a brightly marked Police car at the side of the road, a cop wearing a bright day glow vest holding a bulky lazer device that is clearly not a gun and emits no visible light or anything at all that a motorist could construe as being from a firearm or capable of inflicting any force or harm to them whatsoever. Financial harm is not included.

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

There is also the other implication of now because of this case that "your home is not your castle", meaning that you have no rights to in any way defend it from any threat.

And yet funnily enough the Judge also stated that had he grabbed a baseball bat or other weapon he would have been well within his rights but the circumstances at the time did not make lethal force reasonable. Had they been different and it was reasonable for him to fear for his life then he would have been justified. However its the early hours of the morning, he's just thrown a 100kg statue through a double glazed window, it's probably more reasonble to expect that it's his neighbours checking on him or in this case that the two people repeatedly yelling out that they are cops actually are.

**Max Preload** · 22nd July 2010, 11:26

Simply yelling out 'Police' doesn't cut the mustard as far as identifying yourself, in the dark. Any fucker can do that. Besides, I'm likely to be less trusting of them than I am a burglar anyway...

Judge McGuire is clearly a fuckwit if the report is to be believed.

"Mr Graves chose a firearm. The primary purpose of firearms is to kill at a distance.

If there is a moral in this then it is `don't resort to using a weapon'.

Mr Graves would not have been convicted if he had chosen a baseball bat."

Is a baseball bat not a weapon in this situation? If I wander down the street with a baseball bat on my shoulder, will I not get stopped by Police who will tell me to 'Put down the weapon'?. Is a firearm not sports equipment when used on a range?