Police above the law ?

Forums › Off topic › Police above the law ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 10

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219082 21-Jan-2015 13:43

dejadeadnz:
You're welcome to your opinion but I couldn't disagree more.

I'm pretty sure we have some sock puppets accounts that only comment on politics and gun control. I asked M. last year if he could pull out the stats on account creation as I wanted to see if there were spikes relating to the election cycle and particular issues being in the media. He didn't around to it so I can't entirely confirm it, but if you look at what particular accounts have posted on, it sure looks that way.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219120 21-Jan-2015 14:01

Glassboy:
dejadeadnz:
You're welcome to your opinion but I couldn't disagree more.

I'm pretty sure we have some sock puppets accounts that only comment on politics and gun control. I asked M. last year if he could pull out the stats on account creation as I wanted to see if there were spikes relating to the election cycle and particular issues being in the media. He didn't around to it so I can't entirely confirm it, but if you look at what particular accounts have posted on, it sure looks that way.

Mabey we need more monitoring on the forum and ban users that dont make 30% of their posts related to things that don't interest them.

Politics and Gun Control are great in-depth topics because they affect us all and are quite complex. I also find car related stuff interesting as well but that section isn't nearly as busy. Either way its more mentally engaging than playing Candy Crush or dealing with the Psychopaths on GPforums.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219134 21-Jan-2015 14:14

heylinb4nz:
Glassboy:
dejadeadnz:
You're welcome to your opinion but I couldn't disagree more.

I'm pretty sure we have some sock puppets accounts that only comment on politics and gun control. I asked M. last year if he could pull out the stats on account creation as I wanted to see if there were spikes relating to the election cycle and particular issues being in the media. He didn't around to it so I can't entirely confirm it, but if you look at what particular accounts have posted on, it sure looks that way.

Mabey we need more monitoring on the forum and ban users that dont make 30% of their posts related to things that don't interest them.

Politics and Gun Control are great in-depth topics because they affect us all and are quite complex. I also find car related stuff interesting as well but that section isn't nearly as busy. Either way its more mentally engaging than playing Candy Crush or dealing with the Psychopaths on GPforums.

I don't have a problem with people commenting, I have a problem with what they want to comment on from a position of anonymity. And I have a problem if someone has a second more anonymous account for saying things they don't want attributed to their better known identity.

tdgeek

29755 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1219141 21-Jan-2015 14:18

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?

What if you or I did this??

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219145 21-Jan-2015 14:21

Glassboy:

I don't have a problem with people commenting, I have a problem with what they want to comment on from a position of anonymity. And I have a problem if someone has a second more anonymous account for saying things they don't want attributed to their better known identity.

Does MF allow duplicate accounts? The last Forum I managed we had an absolute No on them, we stopped those when detected and scanned IP addresses to detect them, granted not foolproof but the scanning helped. Relying on language and posting styles was quite tricky and time consuming.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219151 21-Jan-2015 14:29

tdgeek:
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?

What if you or I did this??

Firstly, I wouldn't do it I am opposed to weapons in the hands of the public. Secondly, if I did do it I would expect to be investigated.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219157 21-Jan-2015 14:36

tdgeek:
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?

What if you or I did this??

Section 145 of the crimes act, Criminal Nuisance.

145Criminal nuisance

(1)Every one commits criminal nuisance who does any unlawful act or omits to discharge any legal duty, such act or omission being one which he or she knew would endanger the lives, safety, or health of the public, or the life, safety, or health of any individual.

(2)Every one who commits criminal nuisance is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year.

Compare: 1908 No 32 ss 158, 159

But then again its not unlawful to fire a bow and arrow on your property (only applies to firearms, Arms Act), which really says things like bow and arrows, hunting bows, crossbows need to fall under the arms act. Far to dangerous to be firing these things in residential areas. Some of these things have 320lb draws and will put a hunting tip arrow clean through a human at range.

But Police are to busy making sure that pistol grip stocks on rifles are controlled rather than working on meaningful improvements to the legislation.

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.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79323 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1219160 21-Jan-2015 14:41

heylinb4nz: But Police are to busy making sure that pistol grip stocks on rifles are controlled rather than working on meaningful improvements to the legislation.

Rightly so. Police does not legislate, police enforce laws.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219163 21-Jan-2015 14:43

KiwiNZ:
tdgeek:
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?

What if you or I did this??

Firstly, I wouldn't do it I am opposed to weapons in the hands of the public. Secondly, if I did do it I would expect to be investigated.

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)

Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219168 21-Jan-2015 14:46

freitasm:
heylinb4nz: But Police are to busy making sure that pistol grip stocks on rifles are controlled rather than working on meaningful improvements to the legislation.

Rightly so. Police does not legislate, police enforce laws.

Legislation , Selling police policy as legislation, makes no difference to them.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219171 21-Jan-2015 14:49

heylinb4nz:

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.

you have been reading too much US gun lobby garbage me thinks.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219181 21-Jan-2015 14:55

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.

you have been reading too much US gun lobby garbage me thinks.

Not really, history speaks volumes.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79323 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1219182 21-Jan-2015 14:57

Cop who used work phone to film teen in shower denied discharge without conviction.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219186 21-Jan-2015 15:00

freitasm: Cop who used work phone to film teen in shower denied discharge without conviction.

You broke their server :-)

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219370 21-Jan-2015 18:18

Animal Welfare Act 1999, Section 28A "Reckless ill-treatment of animals
(1) A person commits an offence if that person recklessly ill-treats an animal with the result that—
(a) the animal is permanently disabled; or
(b) the animal dies; or
(c) the pain or distress caused to the animal is so great that it is necessary to destroy the animal in order to end its suffering; or
(d) the animal is seriously injured or impaired.

(2) For the purposes of subsection
(1)
(d), an animal is seriously injured or impaired if the injury or impairment—
(a) involves— (i) prolonged pain and suffering;
or (ii) a substantial risk of death; or
(iii) loss of a body part; or
(iv) permanent or prolonged loss of a bodily function;
and
(b) requires treatment by or under the supervision of a veterinarian.
(3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction,—
(a) in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $75,000 or to both:
(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $350,000"
So let's break it down.
The cop fired at arrow an toward the dog which is reckless ill-treatment at the very least. Section 28 deals with wilful ill-treatment but I am giving the cop the benefit of the doubt that he did not wilfully ill-treat the dog, just recklessly ill-treated it.
The result of the reckless ill-treatment was a serious injury since there was a substantial risk of death (being shot in the chest with an arrow) thereby satisfying paragraph (d).

If I'd done it to a policemans pet dog and waited 3 days to tell him you can bet your bottom dollar things would be different.

The other question that might be relevant here is how did this straying do get into the cops section if it was properly fenced ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 10