Police above the law ?

Forums › Off topic › Police above the law ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 10

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218622 20-Jan-2015 21:41

heylinb4nz:
scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

The Police don't make the decision to prosecute.

corksta

2397 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1218624 20-Jan-2015 21:43

scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

Absolutely agree with this 100%. It is far more sexy for the media to hint or suggest that police "close ranks" or "protect their own" when it couldn't be further from the truth. Of course, the truth isn't sexy now is it?

As others have pointed out there will be a lot more to the story than has been reported, and you can absolutely guarantee that if there were a reasonable prosepect of conviction and it met the evidential sufficiency test then he would have been charged, no doubt about it.

networkn

Networkn
32369 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1218625 20-Jan-2015 21:44

heylinb4nz:
scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

Evidence to support your outlandish claims?

corksta

2397 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1218627 20-Jan-2015 21:45

heylinb4nz:
scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

Right. Salivating at the opportunity? I knew a few of the guys investigating that, salivating was the last thing they were doing. What a stupid comment.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1218635 20-Jan-2015 21:52

scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

You're welcome to your opinion but I couldn't disagree more. And I have a fairly unique perspective in that I've worked for the judiciary, done some defence work, and also did prosecution work in Aus. The police frequently hide behind employment law/employment privacy issues to allow shockingly poor excuses for police officers to remain on the force. Last year, the IPCA documented (for example) the case of an off-duty police officer who used excessive force against a third party. The police came and quickly promised not to prosecute him if he would cooperate with an internal disciplinary hearing. The IPCA found that the police should have laid charges but that it was too late to do so since it would have been an abuse of process (i.e. the charges would have been thrown out in court since the officer essentially would have incriminated himself on the promise that he wouldn't be charged). If you don't think the police would have or should have realised the consequences of what they were doing, I have a bridge to sell you. There was also an example of a cop in Whangarei who ordered a restrained offender to jump over a fence and causing him to suffer from a fall, from which he received catastrophic, long term-disabling injuries. Again, he was merely dealt with by internal disciplinary procedures.

I personally had some tangential knowledge of a case where a police officer deliberately misused police computer systems to dig up dirt on his partner's ex, to be used in Family Court proceedings. On top of this being highly unethical per se, said cop would inevitably have had to either lie about or withhold the truth from the court in swearing any supporting affidavits to put forward this evidence to the court, since he couldn't exactly admit to doing an unauthorised search. The police took years to investigate the complainant's complaint and only compensated him when the guy took them to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The cop involved got what was described by the district commander as a stern punishment "short of dismissal". I've personally run and supported the dismissals of government department employees who have misused work PCs in a much less egregious way and other such cases have been upheld at the likes of the ERA.

People are simply naïve (and in many cases wilfully so) if they assume that merely because the police investigated someone and found that it wasn't justifiable to prosecute that such decision is necessary impeccable and beyond dispute. And I don't for one moment agree with the notion that the police don't favour their own.

KiwiNZ: Please stop embarrassing yourself. You don't know the law and policing and our liner that the Police don't make decisions on whether to prosecute proves it. Not every decision gets referred to the local Crown Solicitor. The notion that the police don't decide who to prosecute at all is simply laughable to anyone with actual legal background and knowledge. Just to offer you up ONE simple anecdote to prove that you are wrong: the police laid the solicitation charge against the AC/DC drummer (whatever his name is) without consulting the local Crown Solicitor. They admitted this and Paul Mabey QC (the man's lawyer) made a massive meal of it all over the media when the charges were later withdrawn.

People, you're entitled to your opinions but not your facts. Don't make them up unless you know how things work.

gzt

17165 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1218638 20-Jan-2015 21:54

Betteridge's law applies. Also the process is not complete, disciplinary action (ie; dismissal) may also occur. Without knowing much about it, my view is that this action was reckless and cruel. If the dog had been 'professionally' shot and killed with a (non police hopefully) firearm then my attitude would likely be different assuming other law is complied with.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218641 20-Jan-2015 21:56

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

The Police don't make the decision to prosecute.

Oh really ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10444307

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/my-view-karl-du-fresne/5458371/A-hit-to-our-confidence-in-police

I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1218642 20-Jan-2015 21:57

heylinb4nz:

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

No, they aren't really all that comparable.

Case One - a dangerous breed of dog on his property with no owner in site. Story woefully light on key details like how the dog was behaving, and whether he was afraid for the safety of young kids etc. Dog non-fatally shot with a bow and arrow - which is legal to possess.

Case Two - a person shot and killed (which is much more serious than injuring a dog) with a firearm (which is most definitley not legally allowed to be kept loaded behind a retail counter).

One is about injuring a potentially dangerous loose animal with a legal weapon, the other is about an actual homicide with an illegal (loaded and stored) weapon. Rightly, the Police treated them differently.

If the officer was gratuitously wounding harmless animals for the fun of it, I'm fairly confident that he would have been charged, as well as being internally disciplined.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218655 20-Jan-2015 22:01

JimmyH:
heylinb4nz:

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

No, they aren't really all that comparable.

Case One - a dangerous breed of dog on his property with no owner in site. Story woefully light on key details like how the dog was behaving, and whether he was afraid for the safety of young kids etc. Dog non-fatally shot with a bow and arrow - which is legal to possess.

Case Two - a person shot and killed (which is much more serious than injuring a dog) with a firearm (which is most definitley not legally allowed to be kept loaded behind a retail counter).

One is about injuring a potentially dangerous loose animal with a legal weapon, the other is about an actual homicide with an illegal (loaded and stored) weapon. Rightly, the Police treated them differently.

If the officer was gratuitously wounding harmless animals for the fun of it, I'm fairly confident that he would have been charged, as well as being internally disciplined.

I was responding to the Ex police officer that said Police are scrutinized even more than the public. This was an example where the Police went out of their way to make an example of a member of the public, when they themselves do hideous things and we hardly hear of any ramifications for them, other than being stood down.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218657 20-Jan-2015 22:04

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

The Police don't make the decision to prosecute.

Oh really ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10444307
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/my-view-karl-du-fresne/5458371/A-hit-to-our-confidence-in-police

I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.

The Crown Solicitors and CrownLaw office makes the decision

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1218660 20-Jan-2015 22:08

heylinb4nz: I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.

Although I agree (based on professional knowledge and experience) that the police can/do decide alone to lay charges, especially on lower level charges, your Greg Carvell rant is just bizarre and based on crappy logic. That guy wasn't ever charged for shooting the robber. He was charged with unlawfully possession of a gun, the elements of which involve the man having physical possession of a gun, intending to have physical possession AND lacking a legal justification for having the gun at the relevant time. Now I don't know the timeframes involved for the charge but if, for example, he was charged with unlawfully having the gun in his possession for time periods BEFORE the shooting (which can certainly happen), the fact that he found it necessary to shoot the robber subsequently is just irrelevant at worst or significantly irrelevant at best for the man.

That he might have been justified in shooting someone does not mean he was for ever justified in having a gun in his possession. You can't just link these two things together. Again, people, for the love of all things good and holy: try not to comment on the specifics of charges, actual legal practice, and the like unless you actually know some law.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218661 20-Jan-2015 22:08

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
scuwp:
NZtechfreak: The evidence is quite clear that to an extent the Police are above the law. That's just what happens when the agency charged with being their watchdog is internal.

This may be what the media portray, but having previously been in the force, I can say that in almost all instances that is simply a load of bollocks. Police bosses take no prisoners when dealing with their own, and staff generally get a much harder deal than any member of the general public.

Bit like Greg Carvell who had to spend $30,000 of his own money defending charges when he shot a machete wielding attacker in his gun shop. Although the self defence was legal, the police were salivating at the opportunity to gain some case law on firearms charges that they could use in future (a runner-up prize they were seeking).

Sure they could have let it go, but no they had to make an example.

Yet somehow we rarely see police made example of in all but the most extreme cases, half the time the system covers up or turns a blind eye.

The Police don't make the decision to prosecute.

Oh really ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10444307
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/my-view-karl-du-fresne/5458371/A-hit-to-our-confidence-in-police

I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.

The Crown Solicitors and CrownLaw office makes the decision

Yeah but its the POLICE that initiate it, and you know my thoughts on "the system" crown law, crown solicitors, police and politicians..all in bed with each other...Joe Public doesnt stand a chance when they want to enact their agenda.

Change case law no problem, set new case law \ precedence no problem.

They are all part of one big system.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218664 20-Jan-2015 22:17

dejadeadnz:
heylinb4nz: I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.

Although I agree (based on professional knowledge and experience) that the police can/do decide alone to lay charges, especially on lower level charges, your Greg Carvell rant is just bizarre and based on crappy logic. That guy wasn't ever charged for shooting the robber. He was charged with unlawfully possession of a gun, the elements of which involve the man having physical possession of a gun, intending to have physical possession AND lacking a legal justification for having the gun at the relevant time. Now I don't know the timeframes involved for the charge but if, for example, he was charged with unlawfully having the gun in his possession for time periods BEFORE the shooting (which can certainly happen), the fact that he found it necessary to shoot the robber subsequently is just irrelevant at worst or significantly irrelevant at best for the man.

That he might have been justified in shooting someone does not mean he was for ever justified in having a gun in his possession. You can't just link these two things together. Again, people, for the love of all things good and holy: try not to comment on the specifics of charges, actual legal practice, and the like unless you actually know some law.

I was meaning the secondary charge that they pursued months later after dropping the first charge. Thats the problem with NZ law though

a) you can legally use a firearm to enact self defence (provide force justified)

b) they get you on firearms charges

Laws are wrong if they contradict each other, defending ones life legally should not line you up for a lesser charge on the flip side.

Notice to how the law (Arms Act) doesn't explicitly prohibit a firearm for self defence (its only mentioned in The Code which is essentially police policy not law). It does however contain a pile of other gotchas.

FYI you cannot deny people the right to self defence (its a breech of human rights). Police will just keep trying for case law on the lower charges to make people think twice.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1218665 20-Jan-2015 22:17

KiwiNZ:
The Crown Solicitors and CrownLaw office makes the decision

STOP! Just stop. I've already shown you that you aren't right -- this simply ISN'T correct as a general, absolute proposition that you were trying to present. For heaven's sake, just read the damn Crown Law Prosecution Guidelines and you'd know you're wrong. If what you say is true, the passages below would make zero sense.

3.1 Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 codifies the Solicitor-General’s longstanding
responsibility to maintain general oversight of the conduct of public
prosecutions. The discharge of this duty includes the issuing and maintenance of these
Guidelines, and the provision of general advice and guidance to government agencies as
required.

3.2 In respect of prosecutions by government departments to which the Cabinet Directions
for the Conduct of Crown Legal Business 2012 apply, the Solicitor-General retains oversight
of legal services provided by Crown Solicitors, departmental lawyers or other instructed
counsel and may direct the manner in which those services are provided.

And if you really knew anything substantive about these issues, you'd know that the Crown Solicitors have suffered from huge costs cutbacks, so the notion that they would make every little prosecutorial decision ought to be laughable even to someone with only limited appreciation of the issues.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1218667 20-Jan-2015 22:18

heylinb4nz: ...

yawn

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 10