Absolute bollocks! (Self defence issue)

[Ixion]

But -

Mr McVicar, however, did not retract his comments after also speaking to Mr Pizzini.

(same source)

[jrandom]

Mr McVicar, however, did not retract his comments after also speaking to Mr Pizzini.

Mr McVicar, as a spokesman for the Sensible Sentencing Trust, has obvious motivations and will not be free to state his own opinion.

His job is simply to make public noise to influence policymakers toward a particular goal.

I prefer to trust the word of the private citizen who was motivated to write to the Police of his own accord and then changed his mind after receiving an explanation.

Political lobby groups never 'change their minds'.

[Ixion]

Well, Mr Miller is not entirely a "private citizen'. He is a retired cop. And no doubt imbued after a lifetime of service with precisely the attitudes that would cause the cops to press the charges.

The public opposition is to an apparent frame of mind on the part of the police whereby any attempt to defend ones person or property will always end up with one facing charges. Mr Miller's retraction simply extends this from "on the part of the police " to "on the part of the police , past and present".

The police are one of the largest (and most effective) political lobby groups in the country.

I rather think that the present charges have nothing whatsoever to do with the guilt or innocence of the man charged. Since the recent fatal shooting of Mr Singh, the Asian community, and Sikhs in particular, have been openly questioning both the capability , and the motivation, of the police force to provide any measure of effective protection.

Given that the police do indeed lack both ability and motivation, this questioning scares them very much. Especially as Sikhs are renowned for the ability to "dish it out". So this charge is a warning shot, a statement that "We may not be able to protect you from dacoitry, but we can still punish you if you try to protect yourself."

In the hope that the Sikhs will adopt the same attitude as other New Zealanders, and meekly accept their role as victims.

Me, I'm for the Sikhs. Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal !

[Indoo]

Well, Mr Miller is not entirely a "private citizen'. He is a retired cop. And no doubt imbued after a lifetime of service with precisely the attitudes that would cause the cops to press the charges.[/I]

And yet wrote to the Herald actively criticizing the Police, hmmm..

The public opposition is to an apparent frame of mind on the part of the police whereby any attempt to defend ones person or property will always end up with one facing charges. Mr Miller's retraction simply extends this from "on the part of the police " to "on the part of the police , past and present".[/I]

And how many of the hundreds or thousands of 'civilians' who apprehend people committing crime each year and detain them often using force end up facing charges?

The police are one of the largest (and most effective) political lobby groups in the country.[/I]

So thats why we have such an overfunded and overstaffed Police force and not one in which cops are forced to buy their own Police issue socks, boots or radio ear pieces...

I rather think that the present charges have nothing whatsoever to do with the guilt or innocence of the man charged. Since the recent fatal shooting of Mr Singh, the Asian community, and Sikhs in particular, have been openly questioning both the capability , and the motivation, of the police force to provide any measure of effective protection.[/I]

Here we go, so its a vast consipiracy. The cops who attended, the witnesses who saw it, the detectives who investigated and the prosecutors who presented it in court all got their directive from Howard to show those pesky Sikhs a lesson. Do you reckon the ambulance staff who treated the kids injuries or the doctors who saw him at hospital and provided medical reports were part of it as well?

There is of course another far fetched alternative to the logical conspiracy theory.

Maybe, just maybe the guy did go completely overboard and the injuries he caused and the reasons why he caused those injuries went far beyond what the attending officers could turn a blind eye to. Setting a precedent that you can dish out whatever punishment you see fit at the scene regardless of the proportionately to the crime is a dangerous one and its precisely why we have a justice system in the first place. Although its clearly unfortunate to many on here that we do still have an independent Police force that isn't swayed by the call of the ignorant baying mob, the same mob who form opinions knowing none of the facts but are simply led by a media selling them a story that they want to hear.

[jrandom]

And yet wrote to the Herald actively criticizing the Police, hmmm..

Yes. Wot 'e said.

Ixion, you may choose to believe that Mr Miller retracted his public criticisms because he forgot to wear a tinfoil hat during the phone call and Mr Pizzini activated his long-dormant psychological programming designed to bring ex-cops back in line if they ever deviated from the official position.

I, however, prefer to see it simply as a responsible individual expressing concern of their own free will and then retracting their statements after being provided with further facts.

... how many of the hundreds or thousands of 'civilians' who apprehend people committing crime each year and detain them often using force end up facing charges?

Well, so far this year, according to the media: One. Unless I've missed any earlier reports.

Maybe, just maybe the guy did go completely overboard and the injuries he caused and the reasons why he caused those injuries went far beyond what the attending officers could turn a blind eye to.

On second thoughts, no, I can't accept that. This is definitely all some sort of conspiracy.

[scumdog]

[ "It concerns me that [Mr Miller] formed his views after only seeing media reports, most of which have been grossly inaccurate."[/I]

Mwahahaha, ain't that the media all over?

And the source of a lot of the 'information' posted by quite a few on KB

[MSTRS:Me]

Mwahahaha, ain't that the media all over?

And the source of a lot of the 'information' posted by quite a few on KB

GIGO. We want the real facts, and then we can give our real opinions. (which will no doubt differ only slightly)

[BiK3RChiK]

The one time a hooded loser tried to steal my till, HE left with NOTHING!! but hopefully a few bruises... Tossers! I wouldn't hesitate next time either!

[Indoo]

GIGO. We want the real facts, and then we can give our real opinions. (which will no doubt differ only slightly)

Which will be presented in court.

[PrincessBandit]

Reasonable force is all well and good except that often the victim is not the equal of the offender, either in size, weight or weapons of choice. For me turning tail and running (if that were an option) would always be my survival method of choice. However if my kids or husband were in danger, or even a stranger for that matter, and I had a chance of helping them at the risk of harming the offender there would be no question of worrying about "hurting the poor criminal". Basically we lose our rights to a peaceful lawabiding existence because crims know they have a good chance of coming off looking like the victim instead when we fight back. Their rights to abuse us override everything it would seem.

[FROSTY:Me]

For a simpleton--IE me
Can someone explain this one.
A group of people walk into another persons place of business and threatens violence. The single person hits back.
Are charges being laid against the group that walked in?

[Hitcher]

Are charges being laid against the group that walked in?

Yes they are. And the law does allow self-defence, with a proviso of "reasonable force" used. In this case the Police believe that the amount of force used was excessive. It's now up to a jury to determine whether they agree with that proposition.

[avgas]

you guys are missing the point here.
he didn't kill him and hide the body.
I mean who is going to report :
"17 year old rangi kumara went missing today while holding up a 4-square"

either that or take the crim to the cop shop - tie his ankles to the tow bar.

[FROSTY:Me]

Yes they are. And the law does allow self-defence, with a proviso of "reasonable force" used. In this case the Police believe that the amount of force used was excessive. It's now up to a jury to determine whether they agree with that proposition.

Thanks dude.

Dunno about you lot but in the shopkeepers shoes I would have been scared shitless. I'd like to think I would have defended myself but if I did I"m pretty sure I wouldn't have stopped hitting untill someone stopped me.
Not because I'm a hero in any way but because its instinctive and I would have been totally shiting myself.

I think all the racial shit aside a bunch of "human beings" attempted to steal from another human being in a violent manor.

[Winston001]

Anybody know or understand the lack of accurate information here? I know the case is now sub judicae so the media are limited but you'd expect the correct facts to filter out.

So far as I can glean, these towrags had been in the shop or were hanging around - they were outside when events happened. They were suspected by Mr Singh of shoplifting - either right then, or on previous occassions. They were drunk and I imagine intimidating any regular customers on the footpath.

He seems to have confronted them, with hockey stick in hand. Possibly the knife was drawn by a towrag to defend himself. Singh somehow came to be in the position of getting the upper hand and instead of stopping, got in a few extra hits on a couple of the towrags heads, just for good luck. There lies the excessive force because at that point he is no longer defending himself.

Now - all of the above is drawn from hearing his wife speak, media reports, and bits and pieces in this thread. Every chance the "facts" I've set out are completely wrong.

Anyone have a clearer idea?