Gunshop employee charged

[ManDownUnder]

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Liar (sorry.. had to...)

[James Deuce]

See my previous ideas. Are you with me?

That's three signatures for my petition so far...

Good thing John Key's my MP, eh?

[Edit: He's MDU's, too. No accounting for taste...]

No. Anyone who commits an act of violence should be charged with a crime. Whether the justice system convicts them or not is another matter, just like the chap who got off killing his anancephalic daughter, or the chap who killed his own child with his four wheel drive.

The best point in this thread remains McJim's about making sure the person who has to defend themself against the charge and is acquitted or found not guilty doesn't then have to pay off the cost of defending themselves with 2 or 3 mortgages.

[silverado]

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Dishonest people should be shot.

[James Deuce]

Well, you know, I've always thought that not putting seatbelts in buses was a bit weird...



Nudge nudge. Want to buy a car nav GPS, bro?

I've repeatedly offered to send it back. Send me an address.

[jrandom]

In which case the solution then would be better training...

In my experience, it's pretty rare for an NZ firearms licence holder to not be fairly adept around guns, given that the hassle of getting a licence really isn't worthwhile if you're not serious about hunting or target shooting.

I don't think there's a problem there.

[James Deuce]

In which case the solution then would be better training... or send people off to war! There's no shortage of them!

It requires compulsory military service for all men and women. I'd have no trouble handing an M249 to a 19 year old Israeli female. A Kiwi chick would be utterly clueless.

You've repeatedly advocated for the clueless to have access to lethal weapons. You're not getting off that easy!

[jrandom]

I've repeatedly offered to send it back. Send me an address.

ROFL. Chill, dude, I don't want it back. It just never really belonged to me in the first place, was all.



I love 'engineering samples'...

[Bend-it]

The statistics are gathered from Police and Courts records. They aren't twisted.

TUI moment here...

It is the norm to expect to get through life in NZ without experiencing violent crime directed at you personally.

Really?

The FACT remains, you are more likely to be mortally injured in NZ by your motorcycle than you are by a violent offender.

Yup, but there's no law against me protecting myself from an accident is there?

The recent school bus accidents that generated a hue and cry for seatbelts to be fitted to buses is an example of the kind of hysteria that can be generated very easily by over representing a particular incident throughout the media.

Tell that to Mr Carvell who will soon be $50,000 out of pocket.

The calls to arm the Police are generated by incidents involving a minute sample of the population, who are recidivist offenders of one sort and another.

Tell that to the cop who gets shot in the line of duty BECAUSE he couldn't defend himself.

The most common form of crime in NZ remains crimes of dishonesty.

Alot less likely to get killed or physically injured from dishonestly isn't it? And for alot of cases, insurance would cover you. Also, the key point is, as above, there is no law that stops you from protecting yourself against dishonesty.

[jrandom]

Really? ... Mr Carvell who will soon be $50,000 out of pocket ...

Your disingenuousness is starting to annoy me. Pointing and laughing instead of properly refuting something is a primary-school tactic, and it's liable to get you thumped, or even worse, ignored. What is your position, anyway? I can't make it out, yet you still seem to be arguing for or against something or other.

Greg C's defense won't cost him $50K. He'll probably be in and out of court within a single day, including the time it takes him to write a cheque for the grand or two he'll be fined if convicted.

[Bend-it]

You've repeatedly advocated for the clueless to have access to lethal weapons. You're not getting off that easy!

FFS, I have never! Read my posts again... You are hereby ignored.

[Indoo]

You know, I think that the only people who have a problem with this situation are the numbnuts who haven't figured out that Greg C isn't being charged in relation to the shooting........The media have a lot to answer for with their rabble-rousing "GREG CARVELL CHARGED OMG WTF!!!!" bullshit.

I think it goes to show what a media led and brain dead society we live in. The media have little interest in presenting a perfectly balanced and fact led reporting of the news, it's far less appealing to the masses than putting a twist on a story to envoke outrage and interest.

They want Police to invent laws to arrest all the Kahui clan but ignore laws when it involves one of the 'good' guys. Which is fine, until your the one being tried by media.

[ManDownUnder]

No. Anyone who commits an act of violence should be charged with a crime. Whether the justice system convicts them or not is another matter, just like the chap who got off killing his anancephalic daughter, or the chap who killed his own child with his four wheel drive.

The best point in this thread remains McJim's about making sure the person who has to defend themself against the charge and is acquitted or found not guilty doesn't then have to pay off the cost of defending themselves with 2 or 3 mortgages.

Anyone committing an act of violence needs to be held accountable for it - yes.

Commits a crime? No. Use of force in reasonable defence of another or of yourself (as appears to be the case in the gun shop incident) is permissible by me personally. That's status quo for NZ law as it stands anyway.

The guts of this situation does appear to be the ability to be ready in the event of an act of violence, and now we have an ends justifying the means situation which seems acceptable in this situation but there are still some unknowns out there (would he really have hurt the gun shop guy, would he really have gone on to top himself or others, what would have hapened to the gun shop guy once the bad guy was armed with decent firepower...

... etc...

The real crime in this situation is the upcoming financial burden to be heaped squarely on the shoulder of he who has to justify and defend himself.

That sucks, and in the event he's acquitted I think he should be reimbursed in full, for lost wages, expenses incurred etc.

[ManDownUnder]

Greg C's defense won't cost him $50K. He'll probably be in and out of court within a single day, including the time it takes him to write a cheque for the grand or two he'll be fined if convicted.

There's a beer in it for ya if he gets away with expenses less than $10,000

[Bend-it]

Your disingenuousness is starting to annoy me. Pointing and laughing instead of properly refuting something is a primary-school tactic, and it's liable to get you thumped, or even worse, ignored. What is your position, anyway? I can't make it out, yet you still seem to be arguing for or against something or other.

Greg C's defense won't cost him $50K. He'll probably be in and out of court within a single day, including the time it takes him to write a cheque for the grand or two he'll be fined if convicted.

Ignore me then... ad then tell me how to do it...

I am not arguing for any position in particular, people can't seem to get it if someone is neither a libertarian (whatever the heck that is), or a whatever the other extreme is...

I am arguing that people should be allowed to be able to defend themselves without being penalised for it, that's all... My question was, Is there a way and how do we do that?

Your idea with the pistol in the finger-print activated box was feasible...

Why am I pissing you off?

[jrandom]

There's a beer in it for ya if he gets away with expenses less than $10,000

A $10K lawyer's bill is probably about right for a court case of that magnitude. That's more or less the point I was making.

You're still welcome to buy me the beer, of course.