Police above the law ?

Forums › Off topic › Police above the law ?

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

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1220914 23-Jan-2015 16:51

gzt: It seems to me the biggest problem here may be transparency.

Why did the Police decide not to charge? We don't know.

I suspect this is the case for any decision not to charge. Why is this so? Should it be different? Should it be different in the case of police members?

"Transparency" doesn't trump an individual's or agencies right to privacy. The idea that we are entitled to have things disclosed to us is something that has developed along with our "offence culture". The Privacy Act protects people's right to privacy, it's just a pity we can't tell people to f off when they are "offended".

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7831

Lifetime subscriber

#1220928 23-Jan-2015 17:16

Well yeah regardless of how you feel about it, transparency often does. Especially in the case of goverment agencies. More so in the maintenance of the law which is a matter of public record. Court cases etc.

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1220952 23-Jan-2015 17:25

gzt: Well yeah regardless of how you feel about it, transparency often does. Especially in the case of goverment agencies. More so in the maintenance of the law which is a matter of public record. Court cases etc.

I disagree. What you're talking about is accountability, communication, and record keeping. Transparency is a behaviour not a process. It is one of the favourite feel good words of secular humanisms (and secular Christianity). Concentrating on behaviours and not proper process is a way of devaluing our freedoms.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7831

Lifetime subscriber

#1221016 23-Jan-2015 19:11

Well ok I can see your point but how do you relate that to the topic?

Should the public know the reasons for not proceeding to prosecution? Even if the person was not identified?

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1221154 23-Jan-2015 21:47

gzt: Well ok I can see your point but how do you relate that to the topic?

Should the public know the reasons for not proceeding to prosecution? Even if the person was not identified?

If it has a function in prompting civil sociality then there may be a case for further disclosure, but given this thread is just another vehicle for the OP to make ill informed rants about guns and the police (and he's hardly likely to be a minority), I'd have to say that I think the bar that would need to be meet for it is probably higher than most people expect.

That being said. I pretty sure we know the reason. There wasn't significant confidence by the Police and\or Crown Prosecutor that a conviction could be achieved. Or in very simple terms it was a waste of tax payers money to try.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1221196 23-Jan-2015 23:11

heylinb4nz:
Geektastic:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:

You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population.

RE: Police legislating, they may not write \ sign off the legislation themselves but they are the ones that come up with the basis and for it to serve their agenda, and how quickly you forget the MSSA thumbhole stock saga, or the hand in policy, police policy sold to the public as law, even used our own money to advertise it. The judge in the case even quoted Police are there to enforce law not to make it.

honestly, you are just writing fantasy, unless I am missing the action of our totalitarian regime we have here.

As for military style rifles? the only place for them is in the hands of the military.

Oh hear we go. "My son was in the army so I know all about firearms" . Dont even get me started on NZ Police definition of MSSA and the misguided legislation they have forced onto us trying to control these so called "Evil Guns".

Dont misquote.

And again for the last time The Police DO NOT LEGISLATE that is done by the fine folks that occupy the fine buildings on Bowen and Molesworth streets

Read the case LINCOLN vs NZ Police and tell me that police didn't try to pass off policy as law (legislation).

From first hand experience I can say that the Police do in fact attempt to do this all the time when firearms are involved.

For example, they recently attempted to introduce a requirement that if travelling with a pistol (say to a match 200km away) you have to get a permit to do that. You don't. You already have one - it's called a Firearms Licence. They also claim you have to shoot 12 times a year at a pistol club to keep a B licence but the law actually says only that you have to be a member of a club.

Unfortunately the licence application process is administered by police and covered by police policy, they can make "conditions" on the endorsement. No doubt when you fill out and sign the application you are agreeing to these conditions.

What is wrong however, and some ignorant people here dont seem to get is that police extend some of these policies beyond licence conditions and start dabbling in the relm of interpreting law to the point where they are changing it to suit themselves.

Case in point a thumbhole stock = pistol grip thus MSSA.

As for minister of police putting forth legislation, people are dumb to think she "Ms Tolley" comes up with it or even understands it, the num nuts at police HQ advise (tell) her what they want, she puts it forth. Effectively they do make the legislation, just because they dont hold the pen that signs it into law doesnt mean they are no the primary driver behind some of the trollop they sign into law.

They can make whatever conditions they like, but in court what matters is the actual law, not what the Police decided worked best for them! This has been tested - I think in fact in relation to the stock issue.

Did they ever manage to get the Arms Act amended so they could just decide on a whim what was restricted? I know that was being floated at one point.

Personally I find the restriction based on what stock is fitted to be ludicrous. Same ammunition in one stock = legal and another illegal, but no difference in end result. Utterly pointless.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1221203 23-Jan-2015 23:25

Geektastic:
Did they ever manage to get the Arms Act amended so they could just decide on a whim what was restricted? I know that was being floated at one point.

Personally I find the restriction based on what stock is fitted to be ludicrous. Same ammunition in one stock = legal and another illegal, but no difference in end result. Utterly pointless.

Yep they sure did, ignored all the submissions

But to their credit they did add a clause that said the affected owner(s) could take the matter to high court if they felt their rifle wasnt an MSSA. Like we all have $30k laying around to stop our Ruger 10_22 with thumbhole stock being classified as one of these imaginary weapons.

What is truely laughable is they have got so hung up on appearance, 3 bills later they still haven't fixed the fact you can buy high capacity mags without a firearms licence. The pistol grip stock is the least of societies problems.

Bet the first one to classify will be the HK SL8, police getting back at Richard Lincoln for handing them their butts in court.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1221206 23-Jan-2015 23:35

heylinb4nz:
Geektastic:
Did they ever manage to get the Arms Act amended so they could just decide on a whim what was restricted? I know that was being floated at one point.

Personally I find the restriction based on what stock is fitted to be ludicrous. Same ammunition in one stock = legal and another illegal, but no difference in end result. Utterly pointless.

Yep they sure did, ignored all the submissions

But to their credit they did add a clause that said the affected owner(s) could take the matter to high court if they felt their rifle wasnt an MSSA. Like we all have $30k laying around to stop our Ruger 10_22 with thumbhole stock being classified as one of these imaginary weapons.

What is truely laughable is they have got so hung up on appearance, 3 bills later they still haven't fixed the fact you can buy high capacity mags without a firearms licence. The pistol grip stock is the least of societies problems.

Bet the first one to classify will be the HK SL8, police getting back at Richard Lincoln for handing them their butts in court.

Yes it is bizarre that they are obsessed with something which has precisely no impact whatsoever on criminal activity involving firearms, which surely is what they ought to be concerned with rather than writing endless rules for people who actually obey the law already!

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1221267 24-Jan-2015 09:27

Geektastic:
heylinb4nz:
Geektastic:
Did they ever manage to get the Arms Act amended so they could just decide on a whim what was restricted? I know that was being floated at one point.

Personally I find the restriction based on what stock is fitted to be ludicrous. Same ammunition in one stock = legal and another illegal, but no difference in end result. Utterly pointless.

Yep they sure did, ignored all the submissions

But to their credit they did add a clause that said the affected owner(s) could take the matter to high court if they felt their rifle wasnt an MSSA. Like we all have $30k laying around to stop our Ruger 10_22 with thumbhole stock being classified as one of these imaginary weapons.

What is truely laughable is they have got so hung up on appearance, 3 bills later they still haven't fixed the fact you can buy high capacity mags without a firearms licence. The pistol grip stock is the least of societies problems.

Bet the first one to classify will be the HK SL8, police getting back at Richard Lincoln for handing them their butts in court.

Yes it is bizarre that they are obsessed with something which has precisely no impact whatsoever on criminal activity involving firearms, which surely is what they ought to be concerned with rather than writing endless rules for people who actually obey the law already!

Oh believe me they have a devious purpose.

First they offered free E endorsements prior to the law change, once your A-cat rifle was registered as E it could never go back even if you put the orginal stock on it. They can simply change the law again to remove the E endorsement and mop up a pile of rifles out of public hands (AR15, Ak47 and HKSL8). But in the meantime they have created a handy firearms register for things previously categorised as A.

Secondary the classification at a whim part of the act allows them to quickly declare a pile of things as MSSAs as thus get them registered, surrendered or cleaned up.

Its alot of work for both police and owners and as you say for what ? nothing to make public any safer and more about police control for the sake of control.

I know alot you sheeple out there will say why do you need an AR15, AK47 or HKSL8, and how come a regular hunting rifle wont do ? fact is its a purely emotive response to how those things look, the function, caliber and mag size are identical to other regular looking rifles.

Its akin to saying everyone has to drive a Model T Ford becuase no one need a modern car. Car technology and design changes, so does firearm design and its not the military that is driving the design changes either..so the term MSSA is moot.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1221351 24-Jan-2015 13:22

heylinb4nz:
Geektastic:
heylinb4nz:
Geektastic:
Did they ever manage to get the Arms Act amended so they could just decide on a whim what was restricted? I know that was being floated at one point.

Personally I find the restriction based on what stock is fitted to be ludicrous. Same ammunition in one stock = legal and another illegal, but no difference in end result. Utterly pointless.

Yep they sure did, ignored all the submissions

But to their credit they did add a clause that said the affected owner(s) could take the matter to high court if they felt their rifle wasnt an MSSA. Like we all have $30k laying around to stop our Ruger 10_22 with thumbhole stock being classified as one of these imaginary weapons.

What is truely laughable is they have got so hung up on appearance, 3 bills later they still haven't fixed the fact you can buy high capacity mags without a firearms licence. The pistol grip stock is the least of societies problems.

Bet the first one to classify will be the HK SL8, police getting back at Richard Lincoln for handing them their butts in court.

Yes it is bizarre that they are obsessed with something which has precisely no impact whatsoever on criminal activity involving firearms, which surely is what they ought to be concerned with rather than writing endless rules for people who actually obey the law already!

Oh believe me they have a devious purpose.

First they offered free E endorsements prior to the law change, once your A-cat rifle was registered as E it could never go back even if you put the orginal stock on it. They can simply change the law again to remove the E endorsement and mop up a pile of rifles out of public hands (AR15, Ak47 and HKSL8). But in the meantime they have created a handy firearms register for things previously categorised as A.

Secondary the classification at a whim part of the act allows them to quickly declare a pile of things as MSSAs as thus get them registered, surrendered or cleaned up.

Its alot of work for both police and owners and as you say for what ? nothing to make public any safer and more about police control for the sake of control.

I know alot you sheeple out there will say why do you need an AR15, AK47 or HKSL8, and how come a regular hunting rifle wont do ? fact is its a purely emotive response to how those things look, the function, caliber and mag size are identical to other regular looking rifles.

Its akin to saying everyone has to drive a Model T Ford becuase no one need a modern car. Car technology and design changes, so does firearm design and its not the military that is driving the design changes either..so the term MSSA is moot.

It also runs the risk that something which is presently A and is then suddenly E will, rather than be handed in, simply 'disappear'....and since there is no record of A firearms the police will, in fact, merely have created a cache of illegal firearms. Hmmm.....good one.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3823

#1222428 26-Jan-2015 14:27

Back to the original topic ...

Under the Dog Control Act Anyone may seize or destroy a dog that is: -
- Attacking someone; or
- At large among stock/poultry; or
- At large among protected wildlife

The 'off duty' police officer may have had justification to seize and destroy the dog. Unfortunately, if that was the case, he did neither. He wounded it and then apparently did nothing for three days.

He could have done one of the following : -
- Followed the dog
- Informed animal control
- Informed his on duty colleagues
- Informed the SPCA

Any of these in order to: -

1) Ensure the now wounded dog was not still a danger to the public (what do we know about wounded animals).E
2) Ensure it was not in distress as result of it's injuries.

Would inflicting a serious injury on an animal and failing to try and ensure it was not suffering qualify as reckless ill-treatment?

Mike

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41091

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1248976 1-Mar-2015 19:00

Here: "922 cops issued speeding tickets"

922 drivers in police cars were caught speeding last year, almost double the year before.

Police are blaming a change in process, including the fact they are now asked questions when they speed with their emergency lights on.

343 officers have been forced to pay up for speeding unjustly with their flashing lights on.

"The cases where it's urgent duty driving and you can see the red lights on the car that are flashing and where it's not legitimate the staff have to pay the notices just like everybody else," Mr Cliff said.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1249030 1-Mar-2015 20:49

heylinb4nz:

True, but given the choice between life and prosecution a rational human would always choose life (or to defend someone else life). One would think our laws should be structured in such a way as to allow the defense of ones life or another without limitation (within reason) and without fear of prosecution.

The current system

a) limits your options by both method and level of force

b) victimizes further the victim

c) forces law abiding citizens to become criminals in the event they need to defend themselves

Sure police are governed by the same laws, but they do have a head start over the public where by

a) they have and are allowed to use firearms for self defence

b) they have the protection and support of the police association

c) they have tax payer funded legal aid via crown law

Does a police officer have a greater right to life than a regular citizen ?

i am late to the party and my greatest knowledge of legal system comes from Boston Legal and The Practice.

but i suggest that our cops are under more transparency than the cops in the states ... who seem to be able to get away with stuff ...

and the bit about police controlling the minister/lawmakers ... it's better than the minister/lawmakers controlling the police/courts

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#1249103 2-Mar-2015 00:08

freitasm: Here: "922 cops issued speeding tickets"

922 drivers in police cars were caught speeding last year, almost double the year before.

Police are blaming a change in process, including the fact they are now asked questions when they speed with their emergency lights on.

343 officers have been forced to pay up for speeding unjustly with their flashing lights on.

"The cases where it's urgent duty driving and you can see the red lights on the car that are flashing and where it's not legitimate the staff have to pay the notices just like everybody else," Mr Cliff said.

Unrelated, but really.

ONE News has learned that nearly a thousand police officers were issued speeding tickets lsat year, despite police constantly urging people to slow down.

You'd think they might use spell check once in a while, it's getting a bit crazy now.

I see police speeding all the time. It usually catches my attention when I see them flick their lights on a few cars behind me. We (being traffic) all pull over and less than 200 meters ahead, all of a sudden the urgency suddenly disappears like wind out of sails and it's back to normal every day driving.

I'd like to put it down to a dropped emergency, or units no longer being required and said officers being called off. But this makes me think differently. Usually when they are using sirens strategically through traffic, the lights remain on. But in these cases it's usually all and then nothing.

At least I know they are getting pinged for it now.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1249704 2-Mar-2015 18:21

Something to think about....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/66828142/police-officer-injured-in-alleged-attack-by-man-and-dog

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

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