Life is cheap

[husaberg]

Robbery in NZ allows for sentences up to 14 years. But cold comfort to the family of the guy who was killed though

235 Aggravated robbery
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(a) robs any person and, at the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery, causes grievous bodily harm to any person; or
(b) being together with any other person or persons, robs any person; or
(c) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, robs any other person.
Compare: 1961 No 43 s 235
Section 235: replaced, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).

236 Assault with intent to rob
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to rob any person,—
(a) causes grievous bodily harm to that person or any other person; or
(b) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument, assaults that person or any other person; or
(c) being together with any other person or persons, assaults that person or any other person.
(2) Every one who assaults any person with intent to rob that person or any other person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

[TheDemonLord]

Manslaughter does not fit the crime. Killing a person with a lethal weapon during the commission of a crime is murder and should always be treated as murder. Manslaughter is, "well, your honor, I didn't intend to kill him". What was the knife for then? (Rhetorical question).

Without reference to the rest of the thread - I do believe that there is a subtle difference (from a legal point of view) between the two.

The first subtle difference is intent - in order for it to be Murder, you have to have meant to kill someone.

Now for me personally - I don't always agree with this mindset, for example if you drink and drive and kill someone, we all agree that you may not have any intent (how can you, when it is most likely you do not know the victim) so legally, it isn't murder (I think vehicular Manslaughter is the charge?) but I don't think this should be correct - IMO it is Murder.

The next subtle difference is that the law allows for actions commited in the spur of the moment:

you go into a store with the sole intention to steal, you take a weapon to make it easier (now there is a point to be made about never pulling a weapon unless you intend to use it, but this isn't a legal principle) during the robbery you get into a scuffle with someone and in the Melee, you cut a major artery with the knife (which is possible to do when you are both struggling)

The law accepts that whilst you have killed the victim it was not your intent and nor was it something that was consciously done or something where the result was the desired one.

I'm not saying that the law is right - in some instances it is, in others I think it isn't - but at the moment it is the bench mark that we have.

[Banditbandit]

Manslaughter does not fit the crime. Killing a person with a lethal weapon during the commission of a crime is murder and should always be treated as murder. Manslaughter is, "well, your honor, I didn't intend to kill him". What was the knife for then? (Rhetorical question).

Poor Mr Kumar's family. They get victimized twice. They get a life sentence without their husband / father. The ferals who killed him will be living, and often enjoying, their lives long after Mr Kumar is a fading memory to all but his family.

Remember the RSA killer Bell? He will be out in 17 years. He "didn't intend to kill" either. He was on probation for a previous violent offence. 3 of his 4 victims are dead (one remains horribly crippled).

Yes - I agree with TDL .. the current law says that intent to kill must be present for someone to be convicted of murder ... clearly, the prosecution could not prove intent to kill.

Now, I also don't necessarily accept that either - but that is the current law.

[Daffyd]

The law is an ass... If you go on to somebody else's premises to commit a crime and you arm yourself with a lethal weapon, in my view there is intent!

[caseye]

That is not necessarily true - the maximum sentence for manslaughter is Life ... Dean Wickcliffe, originally convicted of murder after the shop owner was shot and killed during a robbery, appealed his conviction, arguing he had no intention to kill, had it reduced to manslaughter (the case is quite similar) but was still sentenced to Life in Prison ...

1) The jury made the decision and brought in their verdict.

2) No-one here was in court to here ALL the evidence and arguments.

3) The Judge has yet to sentence - and he can sentence up to Life ...

As to the 13-year-old ...

Go here

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/co...responsibility



He's a child ...

BB he went with his knife armed mate, he stood at the door, as much a guilty as the stabber, sorry, I've had enough of two laws for one country. Hang em both Oh and the fucking ganster parents and the rest of their spawn.

[JimO]

The law is an ass... If you go on to somebody else's premises to commit a crime and you arm yourself with a lethal weapon, in my view there is intent!

na it was self defence bro, the indian attacked me

[98tls]

What sentence?

Indeed,fingers crossed theres one handed out but wont hold my breath eh as theres an army of otherwise unemployable doing there best to ensure the accused learns little which in turn ensures that someone else will suffer down the line.

[Banditbandit]

BB he went with his knife armed mate, he stood at the door, as much a guilty as the stabber, sorry, I've had enough of two laws for one country. Hang em both Oh and the fucking ganster parents and the rest of their spawn.

Yes he did. I fail to see how this implies two laws ... there is only one law ... nothing I have ever said here suggests I am arguing for two laws - I have never argued that anywhere.

Unfortunately, because I do not necessarily agree with it, the law says to prove murder you have to prove intent ...

These are effectively children we are talking about .. yes, I agree they should both have been found guilty of murder - to get that would require a law change - a significant change to the Crimes Act.

But having said that, how should children be punished ? (And I don't give a flying fuck what race, ethnic group or religion we are talking about ... )

Hanging children seems a bit extreme.

[caseye]

Sorry BB, was more a comment on how this has panned out than on what you said, I understand that our system is as much at fault as our stupid judicial system, but this is really starting to open up some very nasty wounds.
The Indian community has said that from now on other Indians should not report actions to the Police here in NZ but to their own well organised, armed and definitely capable groups of, for lack of a better word vigilantes.
Never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with tis sort of behaviour either, but hell we can't go on not convicting on evidence because of age, gender, race, circumstance this is all after the fact!
I'm pissed off, not unhappy at you, I believe that you know exactly what the majority of NZ'ers are feeling here and that must be hard given your love of life,whanau and respect for all.

[Winston001]

I agree with everyone else. This was an abhorrent crime and the Kumar family are right to feel let down by our justice system. I'll address various points separately but for anyone interested, Prof Mark Henaghan gives as good an explanation as you'll find, to Jim Mora on The Panel. From 4:10 on.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...or-14-year-old

[Winston001]

na it was self defence bro, the indian attacked me

Yeah...actually you are spot on. The boy saw Mr Kumar had a bar/stick or something and struck out with the knife to defend himself.

Which makes it manslaughter not murder even if that sounds bloody wrong to you and me. My guess is the jury saw a 14yr child with diminished responsibility (not actually a lawful defence) and reduced the conviction.

FWIW a 20yr old offender would probably have gone down for murder.

[Winston001]

Judges decide what evidence is admissible, lawyers decide what charges will be laid and what deals will be done.

Jurors weigh up the evidence that is presented to them with instructions from the Judge as to what to consider and what to put aside.

Just for clarity, a judge instructs the jury on the law only. The jury decide the facts.

For example a few years ago a jury convicted an alleged dope grower who claimed he had been growing grafted tomatoes. But there was no evidence about the special characteristics of grafted tomatoes. A couple of jury members knew quite a lot about tomatoes and he was convicted on the basis of their knowledge.

Guilty verdict overturned on appeal. A jury can't use specialist facts known to themselves.

[husaberg]

Just for clarity, a judge instructs the jury on the law only. The jury decide the facts.

For example a few years ago a jury convicted an alleged dope grower who claimed he had been growing grafted tomatoes. But there was no evidence about the special characteristics of grafted tomatoes. A couple of jury members knew quite a lot about tomatoes and he was convicted on the basis of their knowledge.

Guilty verdict overturned on appeal. A jury can't use specialist facts known to themselves.

Yes correct. Grafted tomatoes
So how is it that defence that knew they had used their own knowledge though, its interesting?

[FJRider]

These are effectively children we are talking about .. yes, I agree they should both have been found guilty of murder - to get that would require a law change - a significant change to the Crimes Act.

Needed to be proved ... to ensure that ... it must be proved the children have a famililarity with death. Seen life ended ... by human hand. Not just computer gaming killing ..

But having said that, how should children be punished ? (And I don't give a flying fuck what race, ethnic group or religion we are talking about ... )

Hanging children seems a bit extreme.

Spanking children is frowned on ... apparently ...


I'd go for shooting though ... lead is cheap.

[Banditbandit]

Spanking children is frowned on ... apparently ...


I'd go for shooting though ... lead is cheap.

Spanking children has always been frowned upon ... there used to be a defense called something like "reasonable force" .. what Sue Bradford's bill (now law) did was NOT make smacking illegal - it already was .. Bradford's bill removed the defense of reasonable punishment ... so parents who illegally hit their children could not claim in court that it was reasonable punishment ... just as "provocation" can no longer be used as a defense in a murder trial ..

This was the old act

59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

It was up to the court (probably a jury) to decide the "question of fact" in this case the "reasonableness of the force"

Here's the new act ... Notice it says "is justified in using force" - so it is still allowable to spank a child.

59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

What it has done is tightened and clarified the reasons for spanking a child ...