Christchurch Mosque Shooting

Forums › Politics › Christchurch Mosque Shooting

1 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68

2904 posts

Uber Geek

# 2260099 18-Jun-2019 10:46

2 people support this post

Just to be clear, Philip Arps was sharing the raw footage to 30 people on Facebook.

Everyone is obliged to contact the police as soon as they are aware of any threat to human life.

In my opinion that makes him an accomplice to murder.

In the States this would be equivalent of a "getaway driver" for a bank robbery. The driver faces the same degree of guilt and punishment as the bank robber who committed the crime.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html

I assume the same law is here in NZ, but I can't find it, except for gangs.

dejadeadnz

1555 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 2260536 18-Jun-2019 21:37

kingdragonfly: Just to be clear, Philip Arps was sharing the raw footage to 30 people on Facebook.

Everyone is obliged to contact the police as soon as they are aware of any threat to human life.

In my opinion that makes him an accomplice to murder.

In the States this would be equivalent of a "getaway driver" for a bank robbery. The driver faces the same degree of guilt and punishment as the bank robber who committed the crime.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html

I assume the same law is here in NZ, but I can't find it, except for gangs.

That's because the Crimes Act in NZ applies the concept of being a party to the commission of a crime (see Part 4). And this kind of debate is best left to actual lawyers with genuine knowledge/insight on the matters, rather than engaging in emotive discourse that is based on nothing but one's feelings.

It's hardly obvious that merely by sharing a live video of a murder in progress that the necessary elements under the Crimes Act for being a party to a murder, which includes many aspects of the traditional common law tests for being an accomplice, are established -- if the guy was cheering and actively reacting to the shootger and it could be shown (beyond reasonable doubt) that the shooter was encouraged etc, that would be another matter. Let's just leave it there - Arps is a total scumbag who got what he deserved but this kind of random legal ramble doesn't add anything to the debate. A getaway driver in NZ has the potential of being convicted as a party to an aggravated robbery and there's clear case law saying that just because you're "merely" a getaway driver, it will not automatically follow that you deserve any great sentencing discount. But sentencing is always based on an individualised assessment of one's culpability/seriousness of the offending by the sentencing judge and there is no sentencing "rule" of the sort that you've described in NZ and most western countries.

kingdragonfly

2904 posts

Uber Geek

# 2260641 19-Jun-2019 07:58

2 people support this post

I'm not a lawyer, but I still stand by my point that he had knowledge murders were happening, and did not inform the police.

Does his guilt as an accomplice to murder really revolve whether "if the guy was cheering and actively reacting to the shooter"?

Given that he told the police that he thought the Christchurch massacre was “awesome,” I would suspect he was actively commenting on the streaming video.

I don't think Arps ever indicated that he believed the video was fake, and that it was not happening as he watched.

He should have informed the police.

I'm glad he's in prison. His actions seem to beg for setting an even stronger precedent for anyone

* live streaming terrorist acts in New Zealand.
* knowing it was real (not a simulation / game) through comments
* knowing that it was in real-time
* failing to contact the police

If we were successful in setting an accomplice precedent, I'm sure Australia would follow our example.

I would support a trial on a separate charge of being an accomplice, and facing similar time as the shooter.

dejadeadnz

1555 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

# 2261160 19-Jun-2019 22:27

kingdragonfly: I'm not a lawyer, but I still stand by my point that he had knowledge murders were happening, and did not inform the police.

Does his guilt as an accomplice to murder really revolve whether "if the guy was cheering and actively reacting to the shooter"?

Nope. I didn't say that. Read what I said again... slowly. I gave an illustrative example of how some actions by him, if done, might possibly attract liability for being a party to a murder.

Given that he told the police that he thought the Christchurch massacre was “awesome,” I would suspect he was actively commenting on the streaming video.

Who cares what you suspect? Facts are the only things that matter when it comes to criminal prosecution. The police investigated and got to him very quickly for distributing the video. It follows that they must have examined his digital footprints. If he did anything to encourage the shooter or anything else that might attract further criminal liability, you don't think they would know?

If we were successful in setting an accomplice precedent, I'm sure Australia would follow our example.

I would support a trial on a separate charge of being an accomplice, and facing similar time as the shooter.

We aren't talking about what you feel like having for lunch. You don't just charge someone because someone feels like it.

I'm glad he's in prison. His actions seem to beg for setting an even stronger precedent for anyone

* live streaming terrorist acts in New Zealand.
* knowing it was real (not a simulation / game) through comments
* knowing that it was in real-time
* failing to contact the police

Again, it's just useless emotive verbiage. Arps is a scumbag and I am not defending him but you can't make a criminal offence out of thin air. There's no general obligation to report a crime or justification to per se turn a failure to report criminal offending (however heinous) into a criminal offence (especially one that essentially equates him to being a murderer) just because a person's behaviour disgusts or outrages people, however justifiably. Hard cases make bad law.

Prosecutors (I've been one) don't prosecute to make a stunt or statement. A fundamental test under the Solicitor General's guidelines is whether a reasonably directed jury or fact finder will convict the accused of the charges that the prosecution brings forth. It's clear that the prosecutors did their job and Arps got what he deserved.

The law is a serious business; it doesn't exist to make you or anyone feel better.

kingdragonfly

2904 posts

Uber Geek

# 2261211 20-Jun-2019 08:25

One person supports this post

There's no general obligation to report a crime or justification to per se turn a failure to report criminal offending (however heinous) into a criminal offence (especially one that essentially equates him to being a murderer)

Perhaps we should consider a new law in New Zealand.

In the US, there are laws that you must report certain crimes, in particular if it involves children.

I'd say that law could easily include the murder of children. I doubt anyone would oppose that.

Hard cases do help set precedents, the same way deadly fires force changes in fire regulations.

tdgeek

17654 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2261214 20-Jun-2019 08:39

One person supports this post

kingdragonfly:
There's no general obligation to report a crime or justification to per se turn a failure to report criminal offending (however heinous) into a criminal offence (especially one that essentially equates him to being a murderer)

Perhaps we should consider a new law in New Zealand.

In the US, there are laws that you must report certain crimes, in particular if it involves children.

I'd say that law could easily include the murder of children. I doubt anyone would oppose that.

Hard cases do help set precedents, the same way deadly fires force changes in fire regulations.

I agree. Place terrorism at a different level. Not many people get murdered. Those incidents, sad as they are, are usually crimes of one person against another. Terrorism is a group crime against a group. While this loser acted alone, he is part of a wider group, directly or indirectly. Anyone with any awareness or who could warn, needs to be culpable.

kingdragonfly

2904 posts

Uber Geek

# 2261237 20-Jun-2019 09:20

kingdragonfly: In the US, there are laws that you must report certain crimes, in particular if it involves children.

I forgot to mention these laws are at the US state level, not the federal level. It varies wildly by state.

PsychoSmiley

49 posts

Geek

# 2261351 20-Jun-2019 10:55

One person supports this post

Living in the NT in Aus, I know there were requirements around reporting domestic violence to Police. You had to report if you observed anything otherwise you could face charges if they found out you were aware but did nothing. I'm not sure how this goes for the rest of Aus though.

Fred99

8600 posts

Uber Geek

# 2261580 20-Jun-2019 17:47

One person supports this post

I'm not quite sure about the sanity of that Arpes chap, if I've got this right, he;

Pleads guilty, claims before sentencing that he's the equivalent of Rudolf Hess, is sentenced, makes some statement that he's a loyal disciple of Hitler, then has his lawyer lodge an appeal about how harshly he's been sentenced.

Handle9

2373 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 2261584 20-Jun-2019 18:01

2 people support this post

Fred99:

I'm not quite sure about the sanity of that Arpes chap, if I've got this right, he;

Pleads guilty, claims before sentencing that he's the equivalent of Rudolf Hess, is sentenced, makes some statement that he's a loyal disciple of Hitler, then has his lawyer lodge an appeal about how harshly he's been sentenced.

Like most extremists his world view is so entirely skewed that it seems like he's mentally imbalanced. I think he's not insane in a medical sense but is so off the wall with his views it seems that way.

Sideface

5259 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 2267875 1-Jul-2019 17:16

On the front page of The Post ...

The Washington Post - New Zealand is trying to buy back the military-style weapons it banned in April. It’s not so easy.

June 30 at 5:35 PM

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — It was one of the defining moments as New Zealand grieved after a pair of deadly mosque attacks: a near-unanimous parliamentary vote in April to ban military-style rifles and similar weapons.

The lawmakers’ move was immediately acclaimed by gun-control advocates worldwide as an example of decisive collective action in a nation unified in horror by the March 15 assaults in Christchurch that left 51 people dead.

Then the momentum began to slow.

Growing opposition from New Zealand’s pro-gun groups has complicated efforts to round up the now-banned firearms under a buyback program. Lawsuits are threatened.

Gun-control advocates argue that compensation rates may not be fair and warn of a possible spike in black-market sales.

The government, meanwhile, is faced with a sobering set of challenges over how to enforce the new law.

There is no national registry for many of the weapons targeted by the ban, including the AR-15 - a semiautomatic rifle that has been used in mass shootings in the United States and is often at the center of American gun-control debates. ...

Meanwhile, the government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is moving ahead with plans to further tighten gun controls.

Measures could include a national firearms registry and a more comprehensive vetting process for gun ownership. ...

Sideface

Rikkitic

Fat bottom Trump
10575 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 2278615 17-Jul-2019 21:36

One person supports this post

This gives me hope for the future, however tenuous. When a synagogue was attacked in the USA, Muslims rallied to support it. Now the Jewish community in that city has just donated a million dollars to Christchurch Muslims to help their recovery. People of both faiths are touring the other's places of worship for the first time. This is how it should be. Thank goodness for people who understand what real values are. Bless them all.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

sir1963

956 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 2278691 18-Jul-2019 09:11

5 people support this post

Sideface:

On the front page of The Post ...

The Washington Post - New Zealand is trying to buy back the military-style weapons it banned in April. It’s not so easy.

June 30 at 5:35 PM

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — It was one of the defining moments as New Zealand grieved after a pair of deadly mosque attacks: a near-unanimous parliamentary vote in April to ban military-style rifles and similar weapons.

The lawmakers’ move was immediately acclaimed by gun-control advocates worldwide as an example of decisive collective action in a nation unified in horror by the March 15 assaults in Christchurch that left 51 people dead.

Then the momentum began to slow.

Growing opposition from New Zealand’s pro-gun groups has complicated efforts to round up the now-banned firearms under a buyback program. Lawsuits are threatened.

Gun-control advocates argue that compensation rates may not be fair and warn of a possible spike in black-market sales.

The government, meanwhile, is faced with a sobering set of challenges over how to enforce the new law.

There is no national registry for many of the weapons targeted by the ban, including the AR-15 - a semiautomatic rifle that has been used in mass shootings in the United States and is often at the center of American gun-control debates. ...

Meanwhile, the government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is moving ahead with plans to further tighten gun controls.

Measures could include a national firearms registry and a more comprehensive vetting process for gun ownership. ...

I have to have a licence to drive, it restricts me to what class of vehicles I can drive.

I have to register my car, and get a warrant of fitness for it every year.

My dogs have to be registered every year

I have to pay registration fees every 2 years to maintain my electrical registration (And have to attend a 1/2 day safety/first aid course) In fact many professionals have to pay fees to maintain their professional registration so they can continue to work in their chosen field , some such as Nurses not only have to maintain their professional status they also have to maintain all the add ons such as being able to administer a vaccine.

So I am left wondering why Gun owners think they should not be registered, nor should their guns.

tdgeek

17654 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2278694 18-Jul-2019 09:21

Gun owners are registered. Firearms Licence

Do gun owners not want registration of weapons? Ive not read that. I had a fireams licence, looked like a drivers ,licence, included written and oral questions, police report, police visit, so more intensive than a driver licence. I doubt many gun owners would care if there was a document that lined up their name and their guns. There is clear evidence of that match up for most anyway re a shop purchase. Im not sure now what happens for a private sale

sir1963

956 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 2278701 18-Jul-2019 09:31

2 people support this post

tdgeek:

Gun owners are registered. Firearms Licence

Do gun owners not want registration of weapons? Ive not read that. I had a fireams licence, looked like a drivers ,licence, included written and oral questions, police report, police visit, so more intensive than a driver licence. I doubt many gun owners would care if there was a document that lined up their name and their guns. There is clear evidence of that match up for most anyway re a shop purchase. Im not sure now what happens for a private sale

And gun owners have to do what to maintain that licence ?

AFAIK Guns themselves do not have to be registered , nor are there limits on how many guns or ammunition an owner can have.

Its harder the maintain registration as a Nurse than owning a gun.

1 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68