Gunshop employee charged

**Crazy Steve** · 12th November 2006, 12:33

If he gets charged..

Makes sense..to me..

Crazy Steve..

**JimO** · 13th November 2006, 15:58

unbefuckingleviable

**MSTRS:Me** · 13th November 2006, 16:03

What did you expect. We know it's a crock of shit, but the law does suggest that it is not a good idea to shoot someone.
Where do I apply to be on the jury. Or at least get close enough to give the guy a pat on the back.

**The_Dover** · 13th November 2006, 16:04

what a bunch of fuckwits.

Maybe Unkle Helen put some pressure on them so as to not upset her anti-gun, alpaca farming, vagitarian dole bludgers.

**Postie** · 13th November 2006, 16:06

NZ justice. Fantastic. I love this bit

Police said today they would charge the man with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes.

So a nutcase coming at you with a machete doesn't give you the right to defend your self. Fucking bullshit.

**ManDownUnder** · 13th November 2006, 16:09

With any luck this will turn into a test case... and with enough support we can influence that (i.e. we give the guy enough $$$, he gets a great lawyer that can raise the lid on it)

**Toaster** · 13th November 2006, 16:09

Originally Posted by The_Dover

what a bunch of fuckwits.

Maybe Unkle Helen put some pressure on them so as to not upset her anti-gun, alpaca farming, vagitarian dole bludgers.

Agreed, I'm sick of this crap. Poor bugger was defending himself but that counts for shit if you are a victim. Helengrade needs to go. She has her social engineering finger in everything.... so much for democracy.

**limbimtimwim** · 13th November 2006, 16:10

Consider it like this:

The police need to apply the law in a uniform fashion. If said gun shop owner pleads not guilty, it goes to trial.

Would you convict him?

Probably not.

Would the judge give him a slap on the wrist sentence if found guity? Probably.

Would the crown appeal a small sentence? Probably not.

Also, the guy with the machete will be found guity of assault (Or attempted assault HA HA) and that will probably help the 'self defence' defence.

**Toaster** · 13th November 2006, 16:12

Hopefully it'll be like the other recent cases where police had to charge cops that rightly got off their charges in court - drink driver cop went to fatal crash and also the cops driving the motorcade.

It's always the same issue... it's for the courts to decide as an independent body, not the cops.

**limbimtimwim** · 13th November 2006, 16:12

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

With any luck this will turn into a test case... and with enough support we can influence that (i.e. we give the guy enough $$$, he gets a great lawyer that can raise the lid on it)

Aye, good point.

But I think we've had this sort of thing before. Farmer shooting (at?) theives. I think they were acquitted.

Gah, can't remember.

**Toaster** · 13th November 2006, 16:13

Originally Posted by limbimtimwim

Consider it like this:

The police need to apply the law in a uniform fashion. If said gun shop owner pleads not guilty, it goes to trial.

Would you convict him?

Probably not.

Would the judge give him a slap on the wrist sentence if found guity? Probably.

Would the crown appeal a small sentence? Probably not.

Also, the guy with the machete will be found guity of assault (Or attempted assault HA HA) and that will probably help the 'self defence' defence.

Agreed. Good summary.

**sAsLEX** · 13th November 2006, 16:14

Originally Posted by Postie

Police said today they would charge the man with possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purposes.

Fuck pretty hard to own a gunstore now aint it.

**idb** · 13th November 2006, 16:14

That's the system but I'm not sure where Helen Clark comes into it.
The guy'll have to spend $50,000 and then be acquitted.
The other bloke'll get legal aid.

That's what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

**jrandom** · 13th November 2006, 16:15

You're all going off half-cocked, guys. Shut up and read the news carefully.

The shop owner is not being charged with an offense relating to actually shooting the guy. This is a most important point, IMHO, and indicates that the Police do not see a prima facie case for viewing the shooting itself as anything other than justifiable self-defense.

"Possessing a firearm without lawful, proper or sufficient purpose", though, means that Greg Carvell had that pistol somewhere he shouldn't have, in a state it shouldn't have been in.

Currently, yes, the law doesn't allow shop owners to carry loaded pistols, or stash them within reach. We all saw this coming, though, didn't we? No way could Greg have had that pistol in a legal storage configuration and still managed to load and fire it in time to stop the intruder.

If you don't like our laws relating to firearms storage, write to the NZ Harold and your MP with a succinct and meaningful argument against them.

In the meantime, though, applaud our Police for their careful evaluation of a difficult situation and impartial application of the law.