Manslaughter charge for bloke who killed tagger

[MisterD]

While I posted earlier it was probably the right verdict I do have doubts.
But there is a wider issue here.

Three gangas were found guilty of 'murdering' Jhia' in the Wanganui drive by shooting, which was clearly an accident. So ganga's get found guilty of murder when the death is accidental but the respecatable buisness type gets a manslaughter verdict when chasing a tagger with a knife that results in death.
Am I missing soemthing here or what .

My POV on that is that they fired shots into the house in the full knowledge that people were in there and likely to be seriously injured or killed if hit - the fact that the actual victim was a baby that they wouldn't have wanted to kill is irrelevant.

[The Stranger:Me]

He was intent on revenge and on seriously hurting somebody. His attack was as premeditated as was his choice of weapon.

You know this?
You were there?
Perhaps he was determined to apprehend the perp and took the knife for self defence as he knew that should he corner a wild animal and it will often fight back and didn't feel confident his fists would suffice. I've held arsehole until the Police arrived before, this may have been his intent.

I don't know, I wasn't there, however your statements of "fact" are somewhat sensational.

[1 Free Man]

I feel sorry for the guy to be honest,sure he took a life etc but hey.Strangly i couldnt be bothered feeling anything for the tagger that signed off.Simple really,dont fuck with others stuff.

I'm sure the tagger didn't mean to deface the guys property just as the guy didn't mean to kill him so IMHO is just a case of "OOP'S sorry buddy didn't mean to kill Ya" and the guy should have been let off with a warning "Not to stab taggers" and maybe slapped with a wet bus ticket for good measure.
Your right "Don't fuck with others stuff".

[JimO]

for those that say ..he was ONLY tagging, what if he was ONLY fucking around with your bike, would you chase him 300m then deal to him...bet ya would

[PrincessBandit]

Such as. You're asleep at night. You hear noises. Someone's forcing your ranchsliders (or whatever). What are your "other options"

Allow your beloved dog to protect his family and then watch as that same dearly loved pet is put down for "attacking" the "alleged" intruder.

wbks: As for Manilow being a bit harsh, "they weren't actually on your property" (can't quite remember how you worded it, sorry) does that mean that we have no right to a peaceful night's sleep or to protect our neighbourhood because the donut boys are performing their "art" in a public place i.e.which they have every right to be in? With the way our laws seem to work these days anyone has every right to be wherever they damned well please, including those with ill intent on your private property!

[dipshit]

Allow your beloved dog to protect his family and then watch as that same dearly loved pet is put down for "attacking" the "alleged" intruder.

Thief Vs Pitbull... (warning, very graphic image)

Shame the person had to find out the hard way that their actions do have consequences.

[jrandom]

what if he was ONLY fucking around with your bike, would you chase him 300m then deal to him...bet ya would

I'm quite sure that a decent bellow from me would have pretty much any bike fucker-arounder-with sprinting away as fast as their little legs could toddle. And I doubt they'd return. Also, I would reconsider my security arrangements after such an incident.

Anyhoo, the criminal underclass is like one of those whack-a-mole carnival games - put one down and two more pop up.

So there's no point trying to wallop it into goodness one coconut at a time.

[wbks]

Thief Vs Pitbull... (warning, very graphic image)

Shame the person had to find out the hard way that their actions do have consequences.

Good god
I'm guessing he didn't get up again

[PrincessBandit]

Yes, well whip me with a feather duster, that's not quite the "family pet dog" I had in mind!!!

[MD]

How the hell do you get self defense when the dead boy was running away.

Skyryder

Correction to Skyryder's comment.
To me this may be the crux of the matter that swayed the Jury.
The Tagger (Kid) wasn't running away when stabbed. The tagger was stabbed in the chest, not the back, after he turned and ADVANCED with fists up on the Man, while his mate was trying to spray the Man in the face -as admitted by the mate in court. This changed of scenario and made the preceding tagging and chase secondary issues. The issue I suspect the Jurors had to decide on was that moment in the dark street where one Man was confronted by two. The Man would not know if they had other mates about to leap into the attack, he wouldn't know what weapons they were about to use. This makes a more compelling self-defence case.

I've done a few jury services and it's rarely a simple clear cut decision as it first appears.

Yes, as some have pointed out, he was enraged, he did grab a deadly weapon BUT, how are the jurors supposed to judge what was going through his mind at that instant. They can't. Maybe he only wanted the knife for show to scare them or genuinely for self-defence. The Man can't be sentenced for the crime of grabbing a deadly weapon and pursuing crims damaging his property. Had he stabbed them in the back- clear cut murder. There is no rule that a victim is only a victim within 299m of the offence, beyond that point the Victim's status changes to offender/attacker.

But in saying all this, to pick up a knife was a very stupid choice and letting the knife get stuck into a vital body part is beyond careless to me. If he was just scared then a quick flick across the attackers arms maybe, but not directing it towards the heart area.

I've just seen fresh tagging right across someones double garage doors locally, on a fairly recently painted house/garage!
It made me furious.
I've had my fence tagged. If the Police had come round and told me they ran under a bus I would have atleast been smiling as I spent hours repainting my fence.

[geoffm]

Legally, it might have been the right verdict, but I used to live along the road from the scene, until I managed to escape. I avoid going back. The old guy did the world and the taxpayer a favour. The kid had a long history and the only way was down.
It is pretty rich of the polcie to say that they should be called in cases like this. They never turn up, let alone investigate and catch anyone. the only way they ever solve "minor" crime is by the cons discovering religion then going and confessing. Soft justice system won't do anything anyway.

Interesting to see that tagging in that area is waaaay down..... It would have bene interesting to be on the jury for that one and what decision you would make. Look up "jury nullification"

[Kickaha]

Anyhoo, the criminal underclass is like one of those whack-a-mole carnival games - put one down and two more pop up.

So there's no point trying to wallop it into goodness one coconut at a time.

Just means someone needs to come up with an efficient way of killing a whole lot of them off at once

[Katman]

I've done a few jury services and it's rarely a simple clear cut decision as it first appears.

I have also done jury service and know for a fact that although instructed otherwise jury members often make decisions based on their own emotions and personal sentiments and whether they feel 'sorry' for the defendant.

[Skyryder]

My POV on that is that they fired shots into the house in the full knowledge that people were in there and likely to be seriously injured or killed if hit - the fact that the actual victim was a baby that they wouldn't have wanted to kill is irrelevant.

You raise and interesting and perhaps a valid point.


But where one veiw is expressed there is always the counter arguement.

As there was no intended victim other than a 'random' one it could be argued that any victim of a drive by shooting may at best get off a murder conviction with a manslaughter one as the indaviuals death coube argued as accidental. If this did happen then it would be a mockery of the justice system and on that basis I agree that a murder conviction would be the appropiate and only verdict of any drive by shooting. But and say but with some hesitation I make the assumption that the target of the drive by shooting would have been an adult. On this basis I still hold my original opinon that Jhia's death was an accident as she was not of an age to be the intended victim. On this basis I still hold the view that a murder conviction with the ganga's is at odds with a manslaughter conviction of the buisnessman who was also charged with the murder and in active pursuit of the victim with a knife.

Still your point is taken.

Skyyrder

[kevfromcoro]

Thief Vs Pitbull... (warning, very graphic image)

Shame the person had to find out the hard way that their actions do have consequences.

SHIT

Thats grafic allright
did a pitpull do that...