Absolute bollocks! (Self defence issue)

[scumdog]

Sorry dude, that's bullshit.

Looks all rosy if you include ALL crime - slice out violent crime and see how those stats look.

It's going up, not down.

I feel sorry for those cops who genuinely want to make a difference - they get screwed by the system, and their own management.

As for being a member of the public, you're pretty much left to your own devices. If you don't protect yourself, nobody else will....

I agree - 145% increase on assaults on Police over the last 10 years - but that's not the 'official' figure...you don't want to see the unofficial figure for other attacks/violence to the public by criminals.

[scumdog]

They still exist - in the provinces. At least down here in Otago and Southland. Had a guy formerly from South Auckland point this out to me yesterday - he was astonished at the cars sitting unlocked, keys in ignition at the local supermarket.

Scummy will have a more accurate idea.

I concur.

You would be amazed down here on a rainy day when you see the amount of cars with wipers going and/or indicators blinking and nobody in the car.

On fine days the doors are also left open too....

[scumdog]

So an armed criminal comes into your shop, stabs you and robs you.

According to the police your response should be "Please just wait a minute while I dial 111. The Police will take a while to send a taxi so you can continue to rob and stab me afterwards."

To hell with that. If a criminal comes into a shop, armed and intent on robbery, then don't even waste time with a hockey stick, blow him away with both barrels of a 12 guage.

There isn't a jury in the land that will find that shop keeper guilty, yet us tax payers will have to foot the bill for his defence and the defence of the criminals.

Yeah, we had a good (if drunken) discussion on the use of 'disuaders' a few weeks ago eh!

[Forest]

Mr Singh hasn't been charged for self-defence. He has been charged for getting in a couple of hits after the youth had been restrained and disarmed.

Personally I think the youth got what he deserved. Unfortunately the legal system sees things differently.

[devnull]

Mmmmm......

In 2006/2007 there were 102.5 recorded offences for every thousand people -- compared with 128.5 in 1996/1997.


However I do wonder about violent crime too and would like to see some more stats. P/Meth fuelled violence didn't exist years ago.

Maybe P and meth didn't, but plenty of others did.
PCP, for example. A very nasty drug.

Mr Singh hasn't been charged for self-defence. He has been charged for getting in a couple of hits after the youth had been restrained and disarmed.

Personally I think the youth got what he deserved. Unfortunately the legal system sees things differently.

Section 48 (self defense) is just something you can claim AFTER you get charged with assault and go to court.
So you still end up getting screwed with legal fees regardless.

Now if you could sue the crown for costs if found not guilty - that'd be somewhat better

[FJRider]

Some of the crim's make silly mistakes though...as ably demonstrated in the attempted robbery of a gunshop a while back. The mistake was taking a knife to a gun fight...

[Hitcher]

What's the problem here? The Police have charged this dude because they believe that he used excessive force. Surely it's the Police's job to prosecute people they believe to have broken the law? Whether Mr Dairy Owner is guilty or innocent is a matter for the Courts. Isn't that how our justice system is supposed to work?

[jrandom]

Surely it's the Police's job to prosecute people they believe to have broken the law? Whether Mr Dairy Owner is guilty or innocent is a matter for the Courts. Isn't that how our justice system is supposed to work?

You know as well as I do that the issues here are twofold:

(a) being charged with such an offense is stressful, expensive and time-consuming, and wouldn't it be nice if the Police just turned a blind eye and let the Goodies beat up the Baddies once in a while, like in comic books, not to mention that:

(b) 99% of Average Kiwi Males (tm) will automatically respond to any discussion on this subject with chest-thumping stupidity.

It's hardly worthwhile attempting to inject reason into the debate; the roar of testosterone in the ears of most of the participants will drown it out.

[FJRider]

You know as well as I do that the issues here are twofold:

(a) being charged with such an offense is stressful, expensive and time-consuming, and wouldn't it be nice if the Police just turned a blind eye and let the Goodies beat up the Baddies once in a while, like in comic books, not to mention that:

(b) 99% of Average Kiwi Males (tm) will automatically respond to any discussion on this subject with chest-thumping stupidity.

It's hardly worthwhile attempting to inject reason into the debate; the roar of testosterone in the ears of most of the participants will drown it out.

Issue one answer...
Goodies have to get better at hiding the bodies...

Issue two answer...
More horsepower...or... more firepower... if those dont work...

[Winston001]

You know as well as I do that the issues here are twofold:

(a) being charged with such an offense is stressful, expensive and time-consuming, and wouldn't it be nice if the Police just turned a blind eye and let the Goodies beat up the Baddies once in a while, like in comic books, not to mention that:

(b) 99% of Average Kiwi Males (tm) will automatically respond to any discussion on this subject with chest-thumping stupidity.

It's hardly worthwhile attempting to inject reason into the debate; the roar of testosterone in the ears of most of the participants will drown it out.

Yeah, LOL agreed ,but ya know, sometimes enough is enough. There is a strange dichotomy here when one shopkeeper gets stabbed and arrested because he gave more than he got, and another shopkeeper gets viciously wounded in his shop. Its not hard to see where the public sympathy lies and the testosterone fuelled outrage is a reasonable reaction.

I can sit here and hypothesise about reasonable force, guarding against vigilantism, assessment of imminent threat, disproportionate response etc etc.............. but if my child/wife/mate was hurt by one of these vermin.......I'd find the shotty pretty quick and take my chances.

Guess I'm really a redneck deep down after all

[Murray]

What's the problem here? The Police have charged this dude because they believe that he used excessive force. Surely it's the Police's job to prosecute people they believe to have broken the law? Whether Mr Dairy Owner is guilty or innocent is a matter for the Courts. Isn't that how our justice system is supposed to work?

I would like to see your reaction if you caught someone stealing your bike!!!! (please don't do that or I will call the police will work really well). If you hit him your've broken the law, if he's armed and you hit him, your've still broken the law??) Gofigure!!!

Is using excessive force in the event of someone coming at you with a knife a prosecutable offence????

And unfortunately the Justice system does work but costs Mr innocent bigtime. I was involved in a case the police brought against someone and the case was thrown out after the prosecution (no defense required) still cost the defendent over $20k with no rights to compensation!!!! That Sux bigtime

[MSTRS:Me]

Is using excessive force in the event of someone coming at you with a knife a prosecutable offence????

And unfortunately the Justice system does work but costs Mr innocent bigtime. I was involved in a case the police brought against someone and the case was thrown out after the prosecution (no defense required) still cost the defendent over $20k with no rights to compensation!!!! That Sux bigtime

The force used to oppose (someone attacking you) is not allowed to be greater than the force used (or threatened by) that attacker. I would think that despite the greater reach of a hockey stick, it would be trumped by a knife with it's greater manoeuvrability and potential for more serious harm with less effort.
And if the prosecution had to pay the costs of the accused if found not guilty, then we'd see a much fairer system for victims who strike back.

[Ocean1]

And if the prosecution had to pay the costs of the accused if found not guilty, then we'd see a much fairer system for victims who strike back.

Only if the prosecution's budget depended on getting it right.

But it wouldn't, one of two things would happen, either the police would cherry-pick their cases in order to remain within budget, or their budget would be doubled overnight, at the taxpayer's expense.

[spudchucka]

The force used to oppose (someone attacking you) is not allowed to be greater than the force used (or threatened by) that attacker.

That's quite a simplistic overview. In reality force used against another person is only lawful when it is necessary, proportionate within the given circumstances and justifiable under law.

It becomes very difficult to argue that the extra couple of whacks around the ears are necessary or proportionate once the immediate threat of personal harm has been negated.

[Winston001]

That's quite a simplistic overview. In reality force used against another person is only lawful when it is necessary, proportionate within the given circumstances and justifiable under law.

It becomes very difficult to argue that the extra couple of whacks around the ears are necessary or proportionate once the immediate threat of personal harm has been negated.

Exactly.

IF - and I say IF, the shopkeeper bludgened this piece of vermin after it was being held down/tied up whatever, understandable as that might be, that's a step too far.

Even so, the odds of a jury acquitting hm are good.