Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
12549 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1643157 30-Sep-2016 10:12
Send private message

On a basic level, randomly beating up 4 people in the street, including stamping on at least one persons head by all accounts, is a serious offence.

 

The person on whose head he stamped could have died, particularly if they had a number of relatively common health conditions.

 

There is a legal rule (established in UK law which would I think be precedent here) in Smith v Leech Brain & Co (1962) if my memory of my law lectures 26 years ago is correct, called the 'Eggshell thin skull rule' in which it was held that a person was liable for the consequences of their actions if they were foreseeable and that arguing that the person was unusually susceptible due to their medical conditions was not a defence. (it's not restricted to head injuries despite the name - the original case dealt with molten metal causing cancer or something I think)

 

Normally applied to tort law (such as negligence) rather than criminal law but it seems reasonable that it ought to apply in both as I cannot see how it could apply in one and not the other.

 

Thus if the person whose head was stamped on were to die by some means connected to the stamping, he could be charged with manslaughter.

 

It seems to me therefore that an assault of sufficient severity to kill (even if it did not and even if that was not the intention) should at least result in some sort of custodial sentence and more reparation than a mere $5,000. 

 

It is to be hoped that a review of the case will arrive at a more appropriate conclusion.

 

I find it laughable that as a nation we can go on and on about violence being bad, wearing pretty ribbons and donating money, running expensive TV ads and so on and yet when someone indulges in outright thuggery on the street the result is punishment more appropriate for shoplifting.....!






19488 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5834

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1643159 30-Sep-2016 10:13
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

"It's not okay. Unless you play rugby."

 

 

 

 

Oh please. The list of people who get supposed "preferential" treatment is long and usually involves money. Having said that, Rugby is a supportive community, and prison doesn't work well with most young offenders, so if the Rugby community is going to take him under their wing and he is genuinely remorseful, then at the end of the day, I can see some of the reasoning behind it.


 
 
 
 


205 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 49


  Reply # 1643160 30-Sep-2016 10:15
Send private message

jonathan18:

 

An important point that I don't think has been raised here yet is again something discussed on the Panel yesterday: that the Police did not oppose the request for a discharge without conviction.

 

I took it that this could be part of the "something more behind the story", ie whether there were discussions between Police and Wellington Rugby that led them to not opposing the request.

 

The interviewee indicated this could make it harder in terms of the appeal of the sentence (why should the Police have a problem now if they didn't then?). Indeed, the way things have played out indicates to me that if there hadn't been the public outcry the sentence would not have been appealed; indeed, basically all actions since have been a result of this outcry.

 

The interview from the Panel (with lawyer /ex cop Tony Bouchier) is here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/201818042/losi-filipo

 

 

 

 

Yes I agree, that is a fair point, there must have been a reason why they didn't oppose the application.  

 

Again I will add that AFAIK the full judgement hasn't been released, so we've only heard the damning accounts from the victims side.  This is mere speculation, but I've seen posts where this incident may not have been entirely unprovoked, and also the assaulting of the some of the victims (the girls) was an indirect result of the assault on the main victim, they were pushed aside or something not directly punched in the face by him.  But of course assaulting 4 victims including girls sounds much more brutal than that. 


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1643164 30-Sep-2016 10:18
2 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

Geektastic:

 

"It's not okay. Unless you play rugby."

 

 

 

 

Oh please. The list of people who get supposed "preferential" treatment is long and usually involves money. Having said that, Rugby is a supportive community, and prison doesn't work well with most young offenders, so if the Rugby community is going to take him under their wing and he is genuinely remorseful, then at the end of the day, I can see some of the reasoning behind it.

 

 

Take him under their wing? Come on. 

 

Genuinely remorseful, no way, not with thug behavior like that. Genuiley P&^%ed off he got caught is more like it

 

End of the day if he got the same sentence as anyone else, it won't affect his rugby career, travel wise.


4033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1352


  Reply # 1643165 30-Sep-2016 10:19
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

Over the past few years, I have got the impression that rugby players get an easier time of it than Joe Public would in similar circumstances.

 

 

I think you get this impression because the media loves to print stories about rugby players escaping convictions due to rugby. 

 

Judges would take the same factors into account for trainee electricians for example.  Not really sexy news so doesn't get printed. 

 

My theory is that many people in the media are lefty/intellectual types who went through a school system that glorifies the first 15 and disses academic success (which i believe is true of our schools).   This causes some resentment against the dominance of rugby in NZ society. So, the media really puts the boot into rugby players when they get the chance. 

 

I might be wrong, just something I've noticed though. 

 

 


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1643173 30-Sep-2016 10:30
Send private message

surfisup1000:

 

Geektastic:

 

Over the past few years, I have got the impression that rugby players get an easier time of it than Joe Public would in similar circumstances.

 

 

I think you get this impression because the media loves to print stories about rugby players escaping convictions due to rugby. 

 

Judges would take the same factors into account for trainee electricians for example.  Not really sexy news so doesn't get printed. 

 

My theory is that many people in the media are lefty/intellectual types who went through a school system that glorifies the first 15 and disses academic success (which i believe is true of our schools).   This causes some resentment against the dominance of rugby in NZ society. So, the media really puts the boot into rugby players when they get the chance. 

 

I might be wrong, just something I've noticed though. 

 

 

 

 

I doubt a trainee electrician would have got off like this. Rugby is cool, many like it including me, but its not the be all and end all of NZ that many seem to think. Its just a popular sport

 

The issue is not sport or rugby, its the continual preferential treatment and name suppression for bogus reasons handed out to some. I thought we were over Animal Farm.

 

Inequality, discrimination, is alive and well in NZ

 

 


205 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 49


  Reply # 1643177 30-Sep-2016 10:36
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

surfisup1000:

 

Geektastic:

 

Over the past few years, I have got the impression that rugby players get an easier time of it than Joe Public would in similar circumstances.

 

 

I think you get this impression because the media loves to print stories about rugby players escaping convictions due to rugby. 

 

Judges would take the same factors into account for trainee electricians for example.  Not really sexy news so doesn't get printed. 

 

My theory is that many people in the media are lefty/intellectual types who went through a school system that glorifies the first 15 and disses academic success (which i believe is true of our schools).   This causes some resentment against the dominance of rugby in NZ society. So, the media really puts the boot into rugby players when they get the chance. 

 

I might be wrong, just something I've noticed though. 

 

 

 

 

I doubt a trainee electrician would have got off like this. Rugby is cool, many like it including me, but its not the be all and end all of NZ that many seem to think. Its just a popular sport

 

The issue is not sport or rugby, its the continual preferential treatment and name suppression for bogus reasons handed out to some. I thought we were over Animal Farm.

 

Inequality, discrimination, is alive and well in NZ

 

 

 

 

But is that not surfisup's point?  We really only hear about the cases of the rugby player/sports star or rich guy getting off, but we never read or hear about anyone else (i.e. your trainee electrician) getting off as it's not widely published.  No one would care about that. This gives the impression the that courts give preferential treatment, when in fact it could just be a case of the media feeding this 'preferential treatment' to us.

 

It would be interesting to know how many discharges without convictions are granted by the courts in general, and how many get granted to average joes.


7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4325


  Reply # 1643183 30-Sep-2016 10:43
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Fred99:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

A guy who does X to somebody but stands to lose (say) a future career of great prospects has a lot more to lose than a guy who (extreme example and argument ad absurdum used to illustrate the point) realistically might never earn much more than minimum wage. As such, the impact of a conviction is far higher for the first guy than the second.

 

 

I can't agree with that argument.

 

The guy who has more to lose (and also clearly has more to gain as a member and beneficiary of a cohesive law-abiding society) and is held in high regard by society in general as some kind of a "leader", surely has a greater moral responsibility to behave him/herself.  IOW if they betray society, they've committed a worse moral crime than the "serial loser" you portray above.

 

If you start letting people off or giving them easy sentences because they're already rich or have "great potential" then at the extreme you end up with a system totally rotten to the core with corruption, no respect by anybody for the laws, police - everybody "on the take" - morally justified by the observation that "everybody does it".  This is "normal life" for billions of people in the world. 

 

 

But arent you saying that you agree with varying punishments for different people?  In that if he got the same sentence as you or I would have, that his is a larger punishment. Its not right he got off, its also not right that he gets a higher punishment than anyone else

 

This stuff about a role model, etc etc is a crock. Richie is a role model. Sophie Pascoe might be a role model. If your a pro sports player you are not an automatic role model.

 

IMHO he should get a penalty that if it STOPPED him from being able to travel, it gets modified, but its also at the same level of penalty and hardship. 

 

However, I dont know what the sentence would have been but it would not have stopped him from travelling, so there was in fact no need to change his sentence

 

 

 

 

We already have vastly different punishments for different people.  A $50 speed camera ticket for example might mean saveloy soup for a week for one family, fewer teaspoons of beluga caviar for another.

 

I disagree that the stuff about "role models" is crock.  Even at a low level in the workplace for example, the best team leaders or managers lead by example.  You don't need to be a worshipped high-profile public figure to be held as an example to others.

 

The "fact" of whether sentencing was reasonable or not isn't what we're arguing here is it?  The public perception that it should be fair is the more important issue.  It's not a good thing when it seems like popular opinion is that the judge in that case was an idiot, nor the other suggestion that "the cops went easy".

 

 




1266 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 457

Subscriber

  Reply # 1643185 30-Sep-2016 10:47
2 people support this post
Send private message

In any case whoever it is and regardless of your life background or heritage , you should not get let off for doing something violent like that regardless. This has just made a mockery of the victims and their rights to fair justice.





Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1643188 30-Sep-2016 10:47
Send private message

Blurtie:

 

tdgeek:

 

surfisup1000:

 

Geektastic:

 

Over the past few years, I have got the impression that rugby players get an easier time of it than Joe Public would in similar circumstances.

 

 

I think you get this impression because the media loves to print stories about rugby players escaping convictions due to rugby. 

 

Judges would take the same factors into account for trainee electricians for example.  Not really sexy news so doesn't get printed. 

 

My theory is that many people in the media are lefty/intellectual types who went through a school system that glorifies the first 15 and disses academic success (which i believe is true of our schools).   This causes some resentment against the dominance of rugby in NZ society. So, the media really puts the boot into rugby players when they get the chance. 

 

I might be wrong, just something I've noticed though. 

 

 

 

 

I doubt a trainee electrician would have got off like this. Rugby is cool, many like it including me, but its not the be all and end all of NZ that many seem to think. Its just a popular sport

 

The issue is not sport or rugby, its the continual preferential treatment and name suppression for bogus reasons handed out to some. I thought we were over Animal Farm.

 

Inequality, discrimination, is alive and well in NZ

 

 

 

 

But is that not surfisup's point?  We really only hear about the cases of the rugby player/sports star or rich guy getting off, but we never read or hear about anyone else (i.e. your trainee electrician) getting off as it's not widely published.  No one would care about that. This gives the impression the that courts give preferential treatment, when in fact it could just be a case of the media feeding this 'preferential treatment' to us.

 

It would be interesting to know how many discharges without convictions are granted by the courts in general, and how many get granted to average joes.

 

 

My point is that the trainee electrician won't get off. He's an average Joe, not rich, not a sports player


15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1643194 30-Sep-2016 10:55
Send private message

Fred99:

 

tdgeek:

 

Fred99:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

A guy who does X to somebody but stands to lose (say) a future career of great prospects has a lot more to lose than a guy who (extreme example and argument ad absurdum used to illustrate the point) realistically might never earn much more than minimum wage. As such, the impact of a conviction is far higher for the first guy than the second.

 

 

I can't agree with that argument.

 

The guy who has more to lose (and also clearly has more to gain as a member and beneficiary of a cohesive law-abiding society) and is held in high regard by society in general as some kind of a "leader", surely has a greater moral responsibility to behave him/herself.  IOW if they betray society, they've committed a worse moral crime than the "serial loser" you portray above.

 

If you start letting people off or giving them easy sentences because they're already rich or have "great potential" then at the extreme you end up with a system totally rotten to the core with corruption, no respect by anybody for the laws, police - everybody "on the take" - morally justified by the observation that "everybody does it".  This is "normal life" for billions of people in the world. 

 

 

But arent you saying that you agree with varying punishments for different people?  In that if he got the same sentence as you or I would have, that his is a larger punishment. Its not right he got off, its also not right that he gets a higher punishment than anyone else

 

This stuff about a role model, etc etc is a crock. Richie is a role model. Sophie Pascoe might be a role model. If your a pro sports player you are not an automatic role model.

 

IMHO he should get a penalty that if it STOPPED him from being able to travel, it gets modified, but its also at the same level of penalty and hardship. 

 

However, I dont know what the sentence would have been but it would not have stopped him from travelling, so there was in fact no need to change his sentence

 

 

 

 

We already have vastly different punishments for different people.  A $50 speed camera ticket for example might mean saveloy soup for a week for one family, fewer teaspoons of beluga caviar for another. Fair point

 

I disagree that the stuff about "role models" is crock.  Even at a low level in the workplace for example, the best team leaders or managers lead by example.  You don't need to be a worshipped high-profile public figure to be held as an example to others. I was referring to every dang sports player being a role model. They arent. That dilutes the words Role Model. I agree, there are many role models in life doing good work, but portraying every sports person being a role model is wrong.

 

The "fact" of whether sentencing was reasonable or not isn't what we're arguing here is it?  The public perception that it should be fair is the more important issue.  It's not a good thing when it seems like popular opinion is that the judge in that case was an idiot, nor the other suggestion that "the cops went easy".

 

 

 

 

To me its about the sentence being reasonable. In rare cases it might be fairer to alter the sentence, but not to drop the sentence, thats terrible. And there is still no valid reason to, the travel reason is incorrect


5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2198


  Reply # 1643203 30-Sep-2016 11:10
One person supports this post
Send private message

I think the court outcome was way too light. I don't care that a conviction would stop him being professional rugby player.  I can't be a professional rugby player either (not good enough) and I seem to be getting by.

 

But ... I don't buy into the argument that the WRU (his employer) or the NZRU (his employer) should apologise to the victims.

 

If I seriously assaulted some people (I wouldn't but let's pretend) I don't see how my employer would in anyway be culpable?





Mike

15325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2968

Trusted

  Reply # 1643208 30-Sep-2016 11:21
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

I think the court outcome was way too light. I don't care that a conviction would stop him being professional rugby player.  I can't be a professional rugby player either (not good enough) and I seem to be getting by.

 

But ... I don't buy into the argument that the WRU (his employer) or the NZRU (his employer) should apologise to the victims.

 

If I seriously assaulted some people (I wouldn't but let's pretend) I don't see how my employer would in anyway be culpable?

 

 

But it wouldn't stop him being a pro rugby player. It just means he needs a visa.

 

It could mean his sentence might prevent rugby teams hiring him, in which case lets keep a secret, lets not tell the truth.

 

Maybe the WRU and the Police struck a deal? If so thats just great.


1754 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 362

Trusted

  Reply # 1643231 30-Sep-2016 11:35
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

On a basic level, randomly beating up 4 people in the street, including stamping on at least one persons head by all accounts, is a serious offence.

 

The person on whose head he stamped could have died, particularly if they had a number of relatively common health conditions.

 

There is a legal rule (established in UK law which would I think be precedent here) in Smith v Leech Brain & Co (1962) if my memory of my law lectures 26 years ago is correct, called the 'Eggshell thin skull rule' in which it was held that a person was liable for the consequences of their actions if they were foreseeable and that arguing that the person was unusually susceptible due to their medical conditions was not a defence. (it's not restricted to head injuries despite the name - the original case dealt with molten metal causing cancer or something I think)

 

Normally applied to tort law (such as negligence) rather than criminal law but it seems reasonable that it ought to apply in both as I cannot see how it could apply in one and not the other.

 

Thus if the person whose head was stamped on were to die by some means connected to the stamping, he could be charged with manslaughter.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, that didn't happen with the teenager at Kelston that got coward-punched, and died of a previously undiagnosed heart condition ..

 

 





My thoughts are no longer my own and is probably representative of our media-controlled government


12549 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1643235 30-Sep-2016 11:39
Send private message

SepticSceptic:

 

Geektastic:

 

On a basic level, randomly beating up 4 people in the street, including stamping on at least one persons head by all accounts, is a serious offence.

 

The person on whose head he stamped could have died, particularly if they had a number of relatively common health conditions.

 

There is a legal rule (established in UK law which would I think be precedent here) in Smith v Leech Brain & Co (1962) if my memory of my law lectures 26 years ago is correct, called the 'Eggshell thin skull rule' in which it was held that a person was liable for the consequences of their actions if they were foreseeable and that arguing that the person was unusually susceptible due to their medical conditions was not a defence. (it's not restricted to head injuries despite the name - the original case dealt with molten metal causing cancer or something I think)

 

Normally applied to tort law (such as negligence) rather than criminal law but it seems reasonable that it ought to apply in both as I cannot see how it could apply in one and not the other.

 

Thus if the person whose head was stamped on were to die by some means connected to the stamping, he could be charged with manslaughter.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, that didn't happen with the teenager at Kelston that got coward-punched, and died of a previously undiagnosed heart condition ..

 

 

 

 

I agree - that is on the face of it unfortunate.






1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Donate via Givealittle


Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

A call from the companies providing internet access for the great majority of New Zealanders, to the companies with the greatest influence over social media content
Posted 19-Mar-2019 15:21


Two e-scooter companies selected for Wellington trial
Posted 15-Mar-2019 17:33


GeForce GTX 1660 available now
Posted 15-Mar-2019 08:47


Artificial Intelligence to double the rate of innovation in New Zealand by 2021
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:47


LG demonstrates smart home concepts at LG InnoFest
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:45


New Zealanders buying more expensive smartphones
Posted 11-Mar-2019 09:52


2degrees Offers Amazon Prime Video to Broadband Customers
Posted 8-Mar-2019 14:10


D-Link ANZ launches D-Fend AC2600 Wi-Fi Router Protected by McAfee
Posted 7-Mar-2019 11:09


Slingshot commissions celebrities to design new modems
Posted 5-Mar-2019 08:58


Symantec Annual Threat Report reveals more ambitious, destructive and stealthy attacks
Posted 28-Feb-2019 10:14


FUJIFILM launches high performing X-T30
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:40


Netflix is killing content piracy says research
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:33


Trend Micro finds shifting threats require kiwis to rethink security priorities
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:27


Mainfreight uses Spark IoT Asset Tracking service
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:25


Spark IoT network now covers 98% of New Zealand population
Posted 19-Feb-2019 09:28



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.