Police above the law ?

Forums › Off topic › Police above the law ?

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

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1219375 21-Jan-2015 18:28

heylinb4nz: http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/64937416/Whakatane-cop-not-charged-over-dog-shooting

I wonder what would happen in the exact same case with a civilian ? or if the bow and arrow was swapped with say an Air Rifle ?.

If he shot a civilian with an arrow he'd be in a bit more trouble.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1219433 21-Jan-2015 20:11

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.

Why would anyone make 30% of posts on something that does not interest them?

Surely they would have to be interested in order to want to comment?

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1219443 21-Jan-2015 20:18

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.

Ah. Well, mostly. They were trying (I can't recall if they succeeded) to obtain powers under the Arms Act that would permit them to decide unilaterally (with no need to explain and no appeal process) that a particular firearm was in a restricted category. That sounds like taking over something parliament used to do.

Of course, the restrictions on many things are foolish - a rifle is not more or less dangerous simply because of the type of gun furniture affixed to it, for example, and a knife is not more or less dangerous if a spring opens the blade rather than your hand or if it has two sharp edges instead of one.

These things have nothing whatsoever to do with safety or potential danger.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1219568 21-Jan-2015 22:52

heylinb4nz:
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 $$$,

For heaven's sake, stop making garbage up. One of the articles you quoted yourself told us the police DIDN'T drop the unlawful possession charge. Two Justices of the Peace refused to commit Greg Carvell to a substantive trial, in the days when we still had preliminary hearings. When you can't get such basic facts right, what value could any sane person possibly place on your "analysis"?

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1219614 22-Jan-2015 00:04

networkn:
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?

That he believes it's the truth about that particular case?

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219618 22-Jan-2015 00:29

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.

Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1219639 22-Jan-2015 01:10

Glassboy:
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.

Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?

Switzerland. From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate. Probably because, errr. They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August. From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. A phrase I'm sure many have heard before. People need to be trained to use them properly and to know when the situation is appropriate to use them. I agree some people shouldn't have guns, but the people you want to protect yourself against are the people that don't give a flying rats arse about the law, and own guns anyway. Right now, it would be easier to simply possess a firearm without a license, defend yourself with it and argue my way out of it in court. I'd end up with 3 months community service, maybe 6 if I killed the idiot and the loss of my unlicensed firearm (situation hypothetical...I'm a licensed firearm holder). Armed citizens have also stopped numerous crazy people in populated/crowded places all over the world last year. I'd suggest a Google search as it's 12:50AM and I'm going to bed.

Do you think your local ISIS extremist is going to care about the local New Zealand firearms laws? I'm probably going to get flak for that one. But in one thread, ISIS is real and a major threat and to suggest otherwise makes me stupid. Then when it comes to guns, all of a sudden the argument is we aren't a violent enough country, people arn't capable of looking after themselves, 20 minutes for police to respond is more than fast enough. Australia has ISIS but they are a long way away and everything here is peaches.

I think outright allowing conceal carry would be a stupid idea, it needs to be a slow frog on the burner kind of change. One where it's slow enough for people to easily slip by any changes and then hit them all at once when it's too late. You know, like how the government does it. Times will eventually change, perhaps this whole religious terrorism thing will take off, all the kids will get in to it and guns on hips will be a common sight in West Auckland.

I'm probably going to end up on a watch list after all those keywords. Better make sure: ISIS, terrorism, bomb, nuclear, attack, religion, 9/11, alalalalala...Oh hi John!

EDIT: No position on 1080. Don't know enough about it.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219677 22-Jan-2015 07:24

DravidDavid:
Glassboy:
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.

Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?

Switzerland. From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate. Probably because, errr. They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August. From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. A phrase I'm sure many have heard before. People need to be trained to use them properly and to know when the situation is appropriate to use them. I agree some people shouldn't have guns, but the people you want to protect yourself against are the people that don't give a flying rats arse about the law, and own guns anyway. Right now, it would be easier to simply possess a firearm without a license, defend yourself with it and argue my way out of it in court. I'd end up with 3 months community service, maybe 6 if I killed the idiot and the loss of my unlicensed firearm (situation hypothetical...I'm a licensed firearm holder). Armed citizens have also stopped numerous crazy people in populated/crowded places all over the world last year. I'd suggest a Google search as it's 12:50AM and I'm going to bed.

Do you think your local ISIS extremist is going to care about the local New Zealand firearms laws? I'm probably going to get flak for that one. But in one thread, ISIS is real and a major threat and to suggest otherwise makes me stupid. Then when it comes to guns, all of a sudden the argument is we aren't a violent enough country, people arn't capable of looking after themselves, 20 minutes for police to respond is more than fast enough. Australia has ISIS but they are a long way away and everything here is peaches.

I think outright allowing conceal carry would be a stupid idea, it needs to be a slow frog on the burner kind of change. One where it's slow enough for people to easily slip by any changes and then hit them all at once when it's too late. You know, like how the government does it. Times will eventually change, perhaps this whole religious terrorism thing will take off, all the kids will get in to it and guns on hips will be a common sight in West Auckland.

I'm probably going to end up on a watch list after all those keywords. Better make sure: ISIS, terrorism, bomb, nuclear, attack, religion, 9/11, alalalalala...Oh hi John!

EDIT: No position on 1080. Don't know enough about it.

I was reading your post right to the point when you pulled out the most inane line used by the pro gun lobby that is "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1219725 22-Jan-2015 08:27

KiwiNZ: I was reading your post right to the point when you pulled out the most inane line used by the pro gun lobby that is "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"

It was a pro gun statement as I am pro gun. It's not inane, it's logic.

Mainly because by any other logic, kitchen knives would be running around by themselves hacking and slashing people in shopping malls, while toolboxes around the globe built cars all by themselves.

A gun is a tool used by people. It's down to the person what they choose to do with it. If that's killing, then that's down to the person behind the trigger. The government does not have some magical law cure for for a trigger finger or gun ownership. I've seen plenty of evidence of that in the last few months just within a 10KM radius from my house in West Auckland.

I don't blame you for not understanding. It's a generational thing to rely on the government for comfort, protection and support. I see the other side of the coin. The side that sees through the lies and stupidity and knows that they can't be trusted.

With that, I think I'm done with this thread.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219732 22-Jan-2015 08:39

Glassboy:
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.

Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?

Ahhhh New Zealand for one.

1080 ?? dont care either way

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219756 22-Jan-2015 08:57

DravidDavid:
KiwiNZ: I was reading your post right to the point when you pulled out the most inane line used by the pro gun lobby that is "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"

It was a pro gun statement as I am pro gun. It's not inane, it's logic.

Mainly because by any other logic, kitchen knives would be running around by themselves hacking and slashing people in shopping malls, while toolboxes around the globe built cars all by themselves.

A gun is a tool used by people. It's down to the person what they choose to do with it. If that's killing, then that's down to the person behind the trigger. The government does not have some magical law cure for for a trigger finger or gun ownership. I've seen plenty of evidence of that in the last few months just within a 10KM radius from my house in West Auckland.

I don't blame you for not understanding. It's a generational thing to rely on the government for comfort, protection and support. I see the other side of the coin. The side that sees through the lies and stupidity and knows that they can't be trusted.

With that, I think I'm done with this thread.

It is inane, and the arguments postulated by the pro gun lobby only serve to reinforce that firearms should not be in the hands of the general public.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#1219794 22-Jan-2015 09:22

DravidDavid:
Switzerland. From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate. Probably because, errr. They are all packing!

Nope, the US does, double Switzerland in fact.. The actual ability to rank them is difficult because of the lack of regulation. It has been suggested that in fact Switzerland could rank anywhere between 2nd and 16th. Also Switzerland has conscription, meaning "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training".

Sorry dont buy that "everyone packing" is the answer. Care to explain how the US fits into this?

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219806 22-Jan-2015 09:34

KiwiNZ:
DravidDavid:
KiwiNZ: I was reading your post right to the point when you pulled out the most inane line used by the pro gun lobby that is "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"

It was a pro gun statement as I am pro gun. It's not inane, it's logic.

Mainly because by any other logic, kitchen knives would be running around by themselves hacking and slashing people in shopping malls, while toolboxes around the globe built cars all by themselves.

A gun is a tool used by people. It's down to the person what they choose to do with it. If that's killing, then that's down to the person behind the trigger. The government does not have some magical law cure for for a trigger finger or gun ownership. I've seen plenty of evidence of that in the last few months just within a 10KM radius from my house in West Auckland.

I don't blame you for not understanding. It's a generational thing to rely on the government for comfort, protection and support. I see the other side of the coin. The side that sees through the lies and stupidity and knows that they can't be trusted.

With that, I think I'm done with this thread.

It is inane, and the arguments postulated by the pro gun lobby only serve to reinforce that firearms should not be in the hands of the general public.

I think history has provided examples where governments shouldn't be allowed them either, but given the choice and the fact that it is people that should hold the balance of power not government I think id rather see the public with them with appropriate measures to ensure safety and the right people get them.

Fact is NZ Police dont want the public to have them and are slowing legislating them out with law changes under the radar and by using devious means.

As much as you cant fathom the public having firearms, I cant fathom why you would support taking them all away and giving unlimited power and trust to the government, its mental.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1219812 22-Jan-2015 09:44

itxtme:
DravidDavid:
Switzerland. From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate. Probably because, errr. They are all packing!

Nope, the US does, double Switzerland in fact.. The actual ability to rank them is difficult because of the lack of regulation. It has been suggested that in fact Switzerland could rank anywhere between 2nd and 16th. Also Switzerland has conscription, meaning "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training".

Sorry dont buy that "everyone packing" is the answer. Care to explain how the US fits into this?

To many factors to reliably compare countries, the only example the USA serves is for Anti's to push their agenda. Factors being

- social economic
- existing laws
- politics
- geography (proximity to other countries)
- gang and drug

What may not work for one country may very well work in a more isolated country where laws can be unified, simplified and more controlled. NZ at the very least needs to adjust its laws to allow (without fear of secondary charges) a person to defend their home or business from attackers, or thieves with intent to attack. Castle law for homes and high risk business.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1219875 22-Jan-2015 10:44

heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
DravidDavid:
KiwiNZ: I was reading your post right to the point when you pulled out the most inane line used by the pro gun lobby that is "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"

It was a pro gun statement as I am pro gun. It's not inane, it's logic.

Mainly because by any other logic, kitchen knives would be running around by themselves hacking and slashing people in shopping malls, while toolboxes around the globe built cars all by themselves.

A gun is a tool used by people. It's down to the person what they choose to do with it. If that's killing, then that's down to the person behind the trigger. The government does not have some magical law cure for for a trigger finger or gun ownership. I've seen plenty of evidence of that in the last few months just within a 10KM radius from my house in West Auckland.

I don't blame you for not understanding. It's a generational thing to rely on the government for comfort, protection and support. I see the other side of the coin. The side that sees through the lies and stupidity and knows that they can't be trusted.

With that, I think I'm done with this thread.

It is inane, and the arguments postulated by the pro gun lobby only serve to reinforce that firearms should not be in the hands of the general public.

I think history has provided examples where governments shouldn't be allowed them either, but given the choice and the fact that it is people that should hold the balance of power not government I think id rather see the public with them with appropriate measures to ensure safety and the right people get them.

Fact is NZ Police dont want the public to have them and are slowing legislating them out with law changes under the radar and by using devious means.

As much as you cant fathom the public having firearms, I cant fathom why you would support taking them all away and giving unlimited power and trust to the government, its mental.

WOW, You do know where we live, its not 1775 and revolution is not on the horizon.

Again the Police DO NOT legislate.

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