Article: Help Needed - Stolen Motorcycle in Auckland CBD Hotel - CCTV Video Footage

[Metastable]

That is great news. I'm sure you would have rather it not have happened, but I think this is the next best thing.

I envy your police work down there. We RARELY... , I mean.. I have heard of it happening twice in like 10 years of riding, that police recovering a motorcycle up here. If your bike is gone it is gone. I have heard countless stories of individuals with CCTV video and just being told by our cops that.... too bad so sad, that is why you have insurance.... and they do NOTHING! So I am really amazed to see your police actually taking the matter seriously. Two thumbs up!

[GPXchick]

Fantastic news. CUT their hands off. they won't do it again would they.

[zeocen]

It's not the Police, mate, they did their job and did it well, it's the Courts that make their job as frustrating as it is. They do their job, lay the charges and the Courts hand out the wet bus tickets! Get on the Judges' case, not the poor sods out there getting beaten up and tarred for our sakes!

The judges that will be sentencing these lads are, just like the police, there to make sure the law is followed. It's not up to them to randomly change a law and give a couple of bike theifs 5000 years in prison, even if they really, really want to.

You've got to go higher than that, I'm afraid.

[BoristheBiter]

The judges that will be sentencing these lads are, just like the police, there to make sure the law is followed. It's not up to them to randomly change a law and give a couple of bike theifs 5000 years in prison, even if they really, really want to.

You've got to go higher than that, I'm afraid.

Acultly they can, they just choose not to.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#DLM330215


Last one i heard about got only 12 months supervision.

[zeocen]

Acultly they can, they just choose not to.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#DLM330215


Last one i heard about got only 12 months supervision.

Ugh.

They don't "choose" not to. They have references they have to adhere to, previous decisions and the gravity, deterrence and denunciation of the situation - then add in early guilty plea discounts, mitigating and aggravating factors. It's not quite as simple as, "Yup, you go jail now k."

[puddy]

Ugh.

They don't "choose" not to. They have references they have to adhere to, previous decisions and the gravity, deterrence and denunciation of the situation - then add in early guilty plea discounts, mitigating and aggravating factors. It's not quite as simple as, "Yup, you go jail now k."

Exactly! Sad it isn't different. Wouldn't it be great to have them in stocks in downtown square and bikers could go down and chuck stuff at them ......eggs, rotten friut, coconuts, bricks, large rocks, etc!

[BoristheBiter]

Ugh.

They don't "choose" not to. They have references they have to adhere to, previous decisions and the gravity, deterrence and denunciation of the situation - then add in early guilty plea discounts, mitigating and aggravating factors. It's not quite as simple as, "Yup, you go jail now k."

no, the judges set the precedent not the government.
the government set the laws and maximum. The sentence is there, they choose not to go out of the norm as the don't want any sentence to go to appeal.

And it is just that simple.

[Smifffy]

The nats getting tough on property crime as promised.

[zeocen]

no, the judges set the precedent not the government.
the government set the laws and maximum. The sentence is there, they choose not to go out of the norm as the don't want any sentence to go to appeal.

And it is just that simple.

For the second time you have chosen to complete ignore the reasons I laid out on why they can't do what you're suggesting they choose not to do. I know when to give up.
Armchair lawyers, love it.

[bsasuper]

Judges going soft?, maybe they wont when the public start dishing out justice, not with a wet bus ticket, but a hard baseball bat.Its the only way to get maybe just a little bit of sence into their thick skulls.

[Reckless]

Ugh.

They don't "choose" not to. They have references they have to adhere to, previous decisions and the gravity, deterrence and denunciation of the situation - then add in early guilty plea discounts, mitigating and aggravating factors. It's not quite as simple as, "Yup, you go jail now k."

no, the judges set the precedent not the government.
the government set the laws and maximum. The sentence is there, they choose not to go out of the norm as the don't want any sentence to go to appeal.

And it is just that simple.

For the second time you have chosen to complete ignore the reasons I laid out on why they can't do what you're suggesting they choose not to do. I know when to give up.
Armchair lawyers, love it.

Having an opinion doesn't make Boris an armchair lawyer imho??
And why should we give up (as you say)?? Its only the judges that can change the guide lines if the law already provides for sentences they are not dishing out??
I don't think he ignored your reasons? Boris just wants what we all want a stronger deterrent! Fuck giving them discounts etc and bleeding the sentence to nothing. Simply turn down their appeal or give them even more time when they do! I know for a fact the police get very very sick of doin all that work and they get off for the third time with community service or something similar! The cops are as pissed off with the system as we are, arresting the same wankers, for the same things over an over!!
Its probably 1/2 the reason they can't keep staff??

[BoristheBiter]

For the second time you have chosen to complete ignore the reasons I laid out on why they can't do what you're suggesting they choose not to do. I know when to give up.
Armchair lawyers, love it.

No i didn't ignore the reasons. i just think you are wrong.
Did you even read the link i posted? that is the sentence handed down from government, after that it is down to the judges

You call me an armchair lawyer, where did you get your degree from?

[MSTRS:Me]

For the second time you have chosen to complete ignore the reasons I laid out on why they can't do what you're suggesting they choose not to do. I know when to give up.
Armchair lawyers, love it.

Ah, but they can.
Judges may look to precedents, but they are not impelled to follow them.
Being convicted of tagging can be a jailable offence. Never imposed though.
A HB judge has recently set a new precedent, whereby he ignored previous sentences and sent the little shits to jail.
There is now a new precedent for other judges to measure against.

[zeocen]

MSTRS: As I said, the Judge would've looked at the mitigating, aggravating factors, early discounts on pleas, whether they have community and family support, deterrence and denunciation and sometimes the onus on the accused/prisoner to satisfy the Judge on whether they can be trusted in the community or not. Just because there is a maximum, doesn't mean they CAN give out one - the implications are colossal.

It's not just, "You're a bad apple, DO NOT PASS GO." They have a whole range of factors to decide within the law that's given to them.

Reckless: Re. giving up, that was in relation to giving up talking to the other champion, no idea how Katman, Scumdog, et cetera have kept their sanity this long...

And with that I'm out! Glad it all worked out and the criminals are arrested, hooray!

[MSTRS:Me]

MSTRS: As I said, the Judge would've looked at the mitigating, aggravating factors, early discounts on pleas, whether they have community and family support, deterrence and denunciation and sometimes the onus on the accused/prisoner to satisfy the Judge on whether they can be trusted in the community or not. Just because there is a maximum, doesn't mean they CAN give out one - the implications are colossal.

Judge looked at all that, then said (and I paraphrase) "The community is sick of this tagging nonsense, and so am I. The law allows me to send you to jail, and that's where you are going."
He went on to say that any other tagger appearing before him could expect the same deal.

In other words - this judge has now set a new precedent, that others around the country may look to when they deal with taggers.