Police above the law ?

Forums › Off topic › Police above the law ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 10

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218668 20-Jan-2015 22:18

heylinb4nz:
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.

Is this going to be another gun law rant?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218669 20-Jan-2015 22:22

dejadeadnz:
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.

In the case quoted in the post I responded to the Crown Solicitor was making the decisions as I said. So stop just stop the agrressive tones.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1218673 20-Jan-2015 22:25

heylinb4nz:

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.

They DIDN'T get Carvell - he was acquitted. The police or any other prosecution agency are entitled to bring charges to court if they believe a reasonable fact-finder can return a verdict of guilty. Stop engaging in silly ex post facto thinking all the time. That he was acquitted doesn't mean the original decision to prosecute on the unlawful possession charge was wrong.

That case created no precedent whatsoever on the law of self-defence. You're entitled to defend yourself. Being entitled to defend yourself AND even being excused for the act of using a potentially unlawful weapon in your possession for THAT moment DOESN'T and SHOULDN'T excuse you for having that unlawful weapon with you before and after the fact, which is what you are arguing for as a general proposition. Do you honestly not see how stupid an argument that is?

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1218842 21-Jan-2015 09:33

Inphinity:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Given that it was investigated etc then the answer to your question is no, they are not above the law

So the law says it is OK to shoot people's pets with arrows?

In this case, the decision appears to be that it was legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive animal that had entered his property, not on a leash and not being controlled by a handler.

Why is it not legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive burglar then? Seems only fair.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218845 21-Jan-2015 09:37

Geektastic:
Inphinity:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Given that it was investigated etc then the answer to your question is no, they are not above the law

So the law says it is OK to shoot people's pets with arrows?

In this case, the decision appears to be that it was legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive animal that had entered his property, not on a leash and not being controlled by a handler.

Why is it not legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive burglar then? Seems only fair.

In certain circumstances it is, however, you will need to show that the force used to defend was justifiable in the circumstances.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218848 21-Jan-2015 09:40

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
Inphinity:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Given that it was investigated etc then the answer to your question is no, they are not above the law

So the law says it is OK to shoot people's pets with arrows?

In this case, the decision appears to be that it was legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive animal that had entered his property, not on a leash and not being controlled by a handler.

Why is it not legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive burglar then? Seems only fair.

In certain circumstances it is, however, you will need to show that the force used to defend was justifiable in the circumstances.

and even if justified the police will quite happily use your tax dollars to charge you with whatever firearms charges they can muster up.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1218852 21-Jan-2015 09:42

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.

The only excuse for shooting the dog is if it was actually threatening him.

If he was concerned about the dog being there, he had the option to lock himself in the house and call the police (which is exactly what they would advise if you rang them in similar circumstances - not "go and get your bow and arrow and shoot it!") or Animal Control. Instead he shoots it with a weapon he is at best unlikely to have had to hand and which works best at long range, where a dog is not really a direct threat - and THEN takes 3 days to come forward and take responsibility.

Assumption based on press reports I will grant, but the man's character certainly does not seem like the sort I would expect from a policeman.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek

#1218855 21-Jan-2015 09:43

KiwiNZ:

Is this going to be another gun law rant?

Heylinb4nz has such awesome theories about how the governments of the world are there to persecute us .. makes for great entertainment! Keep it coming! ;-)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218856 21-Jan-2015 09:44

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
Inphinity:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ: Given that it was investigated etc then the answer to your question is no, they are not above the law

So the law says it is OK to shoot people's pets with arrows?

In this case, the decision appears to be that it was legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive animal that had entered his property, not on a leash and not being controlled by a handler.

Why is it not legal to non-fatally shoot a potentially aggressive burglar then? Seems only fair.

In certain circumstances it is, however, you will need to show that the force used to defend was justifiable in the circumstances.

and even if justified the police will quite happily use your tax dollars to charge you with whatever firearms charges they can muster up.

Of course they may, these things should be decided in court and not an office or the press.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218870 21-Jan-2015 10:02

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.

Actually I know US and NZ firearm law very well considering i've spent a good part of 7 years studying it.

The unlawful possession charge comes about from the fact it was self defense ready which according to Arms Code is not a valid reason to posses a firearm. Although the Arms Act doesnt specifically disallow it, its a police vetting policy and still could constitute Unlawful possession (circumventing the conditions of obtaining a licence).

There were a couple of places in the Act they could have pushed on around safe storage, but due to a number of factors the case was weak and would have required a lengthy court battle which would

a) cost police
b) cause financial devistation to Greg who was essentially the victim in all this...not a great look for police..and the media was watching with interest

Police dropped charges to save face and not waste any more $$$, but they achieved their goal of casting fear and doubt into public mind about using firearms for self defence. Fact is though if someone was in your house at night and you had ready access to your safe would you care more about the law or protecting your family ?. Regular people are forced into being criminals, financially ruined by the Police and then left to pick up the pieces...(victimized further) while the crim gets tax funded legal aid and a free ride in jail for 12 months.

Back to the original topic, police do think they are above the law, they manipulate the law to achieve their misguided goals and are quite happy to hang victims out to dry in order to achieve their goals.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218874 21-Jan-2015 10:06

Mark:
KiwiNZ:

Is this going to be another gun law rant?

Heylinb4nz has such awesome theories about how the governments of the world are there to persecute us .. makes for great entertainment! Keep it coming! ;-)

You should be thanking me for attempting to save you from the conditioning. :) , some people find it easy to live in the lie though, requires less thought, makes people feel in control of their lives to turn a blind eye and be Sheeple.

I want to die knowing that I didn't buy into it and tried to inform and make a difference.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218875 21-Jan-2015 10:08

heylinb4nz:
Mark:
KiwiNZ:

Is this going to be another gun law rant?

Heylinb4nz has such awesome theories about how the governments of the world are there to persecute us .. makes for great entertainment! Keep it coming! ;-)

You should be thanking me for attempting to save you from the conditioning. :) , some people find it easy to live in the lie though, requires less thought, makes people feel in control of their lives to turn a blind eye and be Sheeple.

I want to die knowing that I didn't buy into it and tried to inform and make a difference.

control, that is what those towers dotted around the place are for.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218901 21-Jan-2015 10:36

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
Mark:
KiwiNZ:

Is this going to be another gun law rant?

Heylinb4nz has such awesome theories about how the governments of the world are there to persecute us .. makes for great entertainment! Keep it coming! ;-)

You should be thanking me for attempting to save you from the conditioning. :) , some people find it easy to live in the lie though, requires less thought, makes people feel in control of their lives to turn a blind eye and be Sheeple.

I want to die knowing that I didn't buy into it and tried to inform and make a difference.

control, that is what those towers dotted around the place are for.

I find that the response of people like you is usually to make jibes about tin foil hats and cell towers when in reality its nothing like that. Pretty easy to take the blinkers off and use some grey matter to do some research.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1218914 21-Jan-2015 10:58

heylinb4nz:

I find that the response of people like you is usually to make jibes about tin foil hats and cell towers when in reality its nothing like that. Pretty easy to take the blinkers off and use some grey matter to do some research.

Oh I do use grey matter, my conclusions are orders of magnitude different to yours.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1218916 21-Jan-2015 11:05

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:

I find that the response of people like you is usually to make jibes about tin foil hats and cell towers when in reality its nothing like that. Pretty easy to take the blinkers off and use some grey matter to do some research.

Oh I do use grey matter, my conclusions are orders of magnitude different to yours.

And so we are destined to make another 30 page thread with you eventually throwing your toys out of the cot :)

No thanks.

Allow me to throw mine out first.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 10