Forms of government for New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › Forms of government for New Zealand

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

gzt

15197 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1031126 25-Apr-2014 14:22

Sidestep:
gzt:
Personally I did not find that funny in the slightest. At the same time, no one could take that as a serious contribution. It is close to an ad-hominum and does not address a point at all. Personally I'd rather see that removed than see more of the same thing. It appears you are calling Geektastic a racist, and without any cause or evidence.

I think you will reconsider this and I'm sure the mods will be happy to remove the original (and posts quoting it), at your request.

Nor is it supposed to be funny, and I don't see how it could be construed as ad-hominum.
I painted a picture, a valid circumstantial argument, of how Geektastic's idea would play out in this country.

He specifically mentions “Castle doctrine” - a doctrine which I do have some limited experience with, having lived in states with Castle Laws.

If introduced in New Zealand they'd open a Pandora's Box of armed vendetta, vigilante justice and summary executions, the detrimental and far-reaching consequences of which would destroy the social fabric of our country.

And Racist? - Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade.

Maori - as a race, and a people, are massively over represented in crimes of violence, property crime and in our prisons.

The cost of Castle doctrine here would be borne by young, male Maori.

In Florida not long ago George Zimmerman was aquitted of shooting to death a a young black man - Trayvon Martin, wearing a hoodie, who walked through his neighbourhood.
It struck a chord and was well publicised in the US, as there, young black males overwhelmingly suffer from the “stand your ground” laws which were invoked in his defense.

Those laws play to fear, and racism - not social justice.

Edit – I own firearms here – and overseas. I've nothing against guns per se, just believe they should not be used to kill humans. Ever.

Your point is now a lot clearer. A large number of people would never have guessed that was the basis of what you wrote earlier.

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

Sidestep

1003 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1031245 25-Apr-2014 17:30

Geektastic: I prefer this principle:

"A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states."

A number of countries in addition to the USA (including Germany and Australia) have express laws for this rather than simply relying on woolly case law and common law. Offenders should know that their are consequences to their actions - which anyone reading papers or watching NZ police shows will know is rarely true in NZ.

Geektastic, it's been pointed out that my attempt at satire back there could be construed as calling you racist. My apologies. I didn't mean that at all. I did mean to lampoon your idea of Castle Laws in New Zealand though.

You'll see by my lack of posts I'm new to this forum, and forums in general, and only have access while at work.

Between calls, emails and emergencies I can barely steal the time to peck out a couple of “stream of consciousness” lines, then a glance at the forum shows you've all produced pages of discourse and moved on..
It's hard to stop work interfering with my important Geekzone stuff.. and sometimes hard to get my point across clearly.

Through a Community Service organisation I'm sometimes involved with young offenders.

I see mental health issues, kids who've been so traumatised by neglect and violence they don't know right from wrong. I also see kids who've not long passed that fork in the road and still have time to go back.

I'm also involved with a rehabilitation and housing support scheme, where I meet similar people who've passed through the system and been excreted out the other end..

I see sparks of human decency, wry irony and intelligence among them. Many of them are filled with regret at the path they've taken, and dream of being able to fix their past mistakes.

I haven't yet met anyone I thought should be shot.

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1031252 25-Apr-2014 17:42

This thread is virtually divorced from it's topic.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1031494 26-Apr-2014 11:31

KiwiNZ: This thread is virtually divorced from it's topic.

Yes but only in "Internet World" are discussions expected never to veer from the point at which they started..!

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1031495 26-Apr-2014 11:33

Sidestep:
Geektastic: I prefer this principle:

"A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states."

A number of countries in addition to the USA (including Germany and Australia) have express laws for this rather than simply relying on woolly case law and common law. Offenders should know that their are consequences to their actions - which anyone reading papers or watching NZ police shows will know is rarely true in NZ.

Geektastic, it's been pointed out that my attempt at satire back there could be construed as calling you racist. My apologies. I didn't mean that at all. I did mean to lampoon your idea of Castle Laws in New Zealand though.

You'll see by my lack of posts I'm new to this forum, and forums in general, and only have access while at work.

Between calls, emails and emergencies I can barely steal the time to peck out a couple of “stream of consciousness” lines, then a glance at the forum shows you've all produced pages of discourse and moved on..
It's hard to stop work interfering with my important Geekzone stuff.. and sometimes hard to get my point across clearly.

Through a Community Service organisation I'm sometimes involved with young offenders.

I see mental health issues, kids who've been so traumatised by neglect and violence they don't know right from wrong. I also see kids who've not long passed that fork in the road and still have time to go back.

I'm also involved with a rehabilitation and housing support scheme, where I meet similar people who've passed through the system and been excreted out the other end..

I see sparks of human decency, wry irony and intelligence among them. Many of them are filled with regret at the path they've taken, and dream of being able to fix their past mistakes.

I haven't yet met anyone I thought should be shot.

Why do you suggest (or perhaps you don't) that in the US the laws do not have the same affect as you suggest they may have here?

Personally I care not a whit for the race of the criminal. If you are a criminal, you deserve whatever the law permits to be dished out to you. If you don't like the idea you might go to jail for 20 years or indeed get shot, stay home and watch the TV instead of making the choice to commit crime.

Sidestep

1003 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1031926 27-Apr-2014 11:03

Geektastic:
Why do you suggest (or perhaps you don't) that in the US the laws do not have the same affect as you suggest they may have here?

Personally I care not a whit for the race of the criminal. If you are a criminal, you deserve whatever the law permits to be dished out to you. If you don't like the idea you might go to jail for 20 years or indeed get shot, stay home and watch the TV instead of making the choice to commit crime.

I DO suggest that the effect of those laws in the US would be wildly different to the effect they'd have here.. Let me write a wall of text to say why..

You're out surfing. Sitting out the back waiting for a wave when you see two fins slicing towards you. At first glance they both look the same, but under the surface one's a dolphin and one's a shark.

Different evolutionary pathways have each come to a practical, similar looking design that works.

New Zealand's and the US's democracies are sharks and dolphins. On the surface, from a distance they might look the same but underneath they're completely different creatures.

The US founding fathers, like Plato - 2500 years ago - and many philosophers since, felt democracy would inevitably lead to tyranny.

Ray's benevolent dictatorship ends with him morphing into a power hungry tyrant. Not only banning squares, but all public gatherings, ruthlessly stomping out opposition, turning the citizenry into his slaves.

So the founders of the US thought democracy would overwhelm freedom.

Ben Franklin's “lambs and wolves” quote spoke to the democratic tyranny of the 51% over the other 49%. To prevent the US government enslaving the people the 2nd amendment was added.

The right to bear arms is not only a right, but an essential right - a requirement - of American democracy.

There, an armed population assures freedom. The powers of the state are balanced by a poweful citizenry.

New Zealand democracy comes down a different evolutionary pathway. We've a different history, racial composition and constitution. New Zealand's evolved into a kinder, gentler place.

Long ago our Democracies did share a proto ancestor - English common law. Then our paths diverged.

The Magna Carta, Trial by Jury, Common law statutes, all are just part of what we've modified and moulded into our own special NZ constitutional construct. The US went in a different direction.

We rely on Separation of Power to prevent unconstitutional acts, rather than armed uprising.

Our Sovereign's representative - The Head of State - is the final arbitor of decisions made by the Executive, the judiciary applies our laws, the courts enforce them.

NZ's “constitution” relies a lot on Convention, Gentlemen's agreements and fair play. The “intent” of an agreement is held as important as the written word.

The Treaty of Waitangi's one founding document. Giving up freedoms in return for the protections of a benevolent state, controlled devolution of individual rights for the greater good is part of our history.

Introduce armed Castle Doctrine here and you're not just talking about changing a law, but demolishing the foundation of our democracy - giving New Zealanders the right to bear arms and use them. Starting again.

You say, by breaking the law, the criminal deserves the consequences that result from their actions. I'd agree with that.

But we've chosen to allow the state to choose those consequences rather than dealing out arbitrary punishment ourselves.

Our Criminal courts reason whether a given situation mitigates the crime. Rather than summary justice, served impulsively at night, in fear, with a body full of adrenalin. Which is a recipe for injustice and collateral damage.

That's why I mention the rending of our social fabric. What you propose is anathema to New Zealand's form of democracy.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1032119 27-Apr-2014 17:27

Sidestep:
Geektastic:
Why do you suggest (or perhaps you don't) that in the US the laws do not have the same affect as you suggest they may have here?

Personally I care not a whit for the race of the criminal. If you are a criminal, you deserve whatever the law permits to be dished out to you. If you don't like the idea you might go to jail for 20 years or indeed get shot, stay home and watch the TV instead of making the choice to commit crime.

I DO suggest that the effect of those laws in the US would be wildly different to the effect they'd have here.. Let me write a wall of text to say why..

You're out surfing. Sitting out the back waiting for a wave when you see two fins slicing towards you. At first glance they both look the same, but under the surface one's a dolphin and one's a shark.

Different evolutionary pathways have each come to a practical, similar looking design that works.

New Zealand's and the US's democracies are sharks and dolphins. On the surface, from a distance they might look the same but underneath they're completely different creatures.

The US founding fathers, like Plato - 2500 years ago - and many philosophers since, felt democracy would inevitably lead to tyranny.

Ray's benevolent dictatorship ends with him morphing into a power hungry tyrant. Not only banning squares, but all public gatherings, ruthlessly stomping out opposition, turning the citizenry into his slaves.

So the founders of the US thought democracy would overwhelm freedom.

Ben Franklin's “lambs and wolves” quote spoke to the democratic tyranny of the 51% over the other 49%. To prevent the US government enslaving the people the 2nd amendment was added.

The right to bear arms is not only a right, but an essential right - a requirement - of American democracy.

There, an armed population assures freedom. The powers of the state are balanced by a poweful citizenry.

New Zealand democracy comes down a different evolutionary pathway. We've a different history, racial composition and constitution. New Zealand's evolved into a kinder, gentler place.

Long ago our Democracies did share a proto ancestor - English common law. Then our paths diverged.

The Magna Carta, Trial by Jury, Common law statutes, all are just part of what we've modified and moulded into our own special NZ constitutional construct. The US went in a different direction.

We rely on Separation of Power to prevent unconstitutional acts, rather than armed uprising.

Our Sovereign's representative - The Head of State - is the final arbitor of decisions made by the Executive, the judiciary applies our laws, the courts enforce them.

NZ's “constitution” relies a lot on Convention, Gentlemen's agreements and fair play. The “intent” of an agreement is held as important as the written word.

The Treaty of Waitangi's one founding document. Giving up freedoms in return for the protections of a benevolent state, controlled devolution of individual rights for the greater good is part of our history.

Introduce armed Castle Doctrine here and you're not just talking about changing a law, but demolishing the foundation of our democracy - giving New Zealanders the right to bear arms and use them. Starting again.

You say, by breaking the law, the criminal deserves the consequences that result from their actions. I'd agree with that.

But we've chosen to allow the state to choose those consequences rather than dealing out arbitrary punishment ourselves.

Our Criminal courts reason whether a given situation mitigates the crime. Rather than summary justice, served impulsively at night, in fear, with a body full of adrenalin. Which is a recipe for injustice and collateral damage.

That's why I mention the rending of our social fabric. What you propose is anathema to New Zealand's form of democracy.

You assume no changes can be made. NZ democracy is about 5 minutes old and can be re-imagined at any point. Indeed several things have changed already since it began. Eg loss of an upper house.

It's all very well to assume that government sub-contractors in the form of the police can replace our right to defend ourselves but many NZers live far away from the Police. My nearest 24hr Police station is 60km away. If the Mongrel Mob break into our farm at 3am calling the Police won't get much of a fast response if we are in danger!

Neither do I really think the GG - nice chap that he is - would really be able to prevent tyranny. Armed resistance by the people or invasion by another party are the only things that stop that.

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1032132 27-Apr-2014 17:43

The right to self defence is something that should always be available, of course this must be coupled with reasonable and proportional force.

Sidestep

1003 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1032152 27-Apr-2014 18:29

Geektastic:

You assume no changes can be made. NZ democracy is about 5 minutes old and can be re-imagined at any point. Indeed several things have changed already since it began. Eg loss of an upper house.

It's all very well to assume that government sub-contractors in the form of the police can replace our right to defend ourselves but many NZers live far away from the Police. My nearest 24hr Police station is 60km away. If the Mongrel Mob break into our farm at 3am calling the Police won't get much of a fast response if we are in danger!

Neither do I really think the GG - nice chap that he is - would really be able to prevent tyranny. Armed resistance by the people or invasion by another party are the only things that stop that.

I'm even more remote than you! The nearest 24 hour police station's in Whangarei, 200km South.

And you do have rights to defend yourself, New Zealand just doesn't have “castle laws” codified here.

For crimes solely against property you must be reasonable, and avoid injuring.

As for personal defense, The Crimes Act says:
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

In the defence of your dwellinghouse:
Every one in peaceable possession of a dwellinghouse, and every one lawfully assisting him or her or acting by his or her authority, is justified in using such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering of the dwellinghouse by any person if he or she believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that there is no lawful justification for the breaking and entering.

Even in cases where you've broken the law, the criminal proceedings take into account the situation.

In Kawakawa, Northland, October 2002, Paul McIntyre - a farmer - shot a thief stealing his quad bike, through the neck with a solid round from a shotgun.
He was charged with shooting and injuring the thief with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and discharging a shotgun without reasonable cause in a manner likely to endanger the safety of any person.
Went to court on the first charge, and a jury decided his intent couldn't be proved. He didn't have to face the second, as the judge directed the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty before the trial started.
The thief was critically injured, but recovered and was sentenced to 250 hours' community work and 12 months' supervision.

The law is aimed at discouraging the use excess force, and of firearms at all, rather than removing our right of self defense.

Here owning a gun is a privilege – not a right.
I keep mine as required by law locked in a gun safe, ammunition and action removed. I'd never have the time to assemble it to repel a burglar, I don't have the right to do that, and I won't shoot a person.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1032288 27-Apr-2014 23:22

Sidestep:
Geektastic:

You assume no changes can be made. NZ democracy is about 5 minutes old and can be re-imagined at any point. Indeed several things have changed already since it began. Eg loss of an upper house.

It's all very well to assume that government sub-contractors in the form of the police can replace our right to defend ourselves but many NZers live far away from the Police. My nearest 24hr Police station is 60km away. If the Mongrel Mob break into our farm at 3am calling the Police won't get much of a fast response if we are in danger!

Neither do I really think the GG - nice chap that he is - would really be able to prevent tyranny. Armed resistance by the people or invasion by another party are the only things that stop that.

I'm even more remote than you! The nearest 24 hour police station's in Whangarei, 200km South.

And you do have rights to defend yourself, New Zealand just doesn't have “castle laws” codified here.

For crimes solely against property you must be reasonable, and avoid injuring.

As for personal defense, The Crimes Act says:
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

In the defence of your dwellinghouse:
Every one in peaceable possession of a dwellinghouse, and every one lawfully assisting him or her or acting by his or her authority, is justified in using such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering of the dwellinghouse by any person if he or she believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that there is no lawful justification for the breaking and entering.

Even in cases where you've broken the law, the criminal proceedings take into account the situation.

In Kawakawa, Northland, October 2002, Paul McIntyre - a farmer - shot a thief stealing his quad bike, through the neck with a solid round from a shotgun.
He was charged with shooting and injuring the thief with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and discharging a shotgun without reasonable cause in a manner likely to endanger the safety of any person.
Went to court on the first charge, and a jury decided his intent couldn't be proved. He didn't have to face the second, as the judge directed the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty before the trial started.
The thief was critically injured, but recovered and was sentenced to 250 hours' community work and 12 months' supervision.

The law is aimed at discouraging the use excess force, and of firearms at all, rather than removing our right of self defense.

Here owning a gun is a privilege – not a right.
I keep mine as required by law locked in a gun safe, ammunition and action removed. I'd never have the time to assemble it to repel a burglar, I don't have the right to do that, and I won't shoot a person.

Would you keep to that view if you could see them advancing up your drive, firing at the livestock as they come and screaming "I'm goona kill you!"? Bet you could assemble that rifle PDQ then...!

Unless your firearms are restricted B, C or E weapons you are not actually required by law to keep them in a safe, you can keep them in a locked 'strongroom' or locked on a rack. Gun City sell less-than-lethal 12g rounds if you feel the need.

Just how are you expected, I wonder, to defend yourself and your family against someone threatening them with a gun if you cannot use your own gun? You have to wonder what the MP's thought people would do. You also have the illogical situation where an armed policeman threatened by someone can use a taser, baton or indeed firearm - but if you were to be threatened by the same person in exactly the same way, you could not because you would be unable to carry said items. It's all very well to write laws that ostensibly give people the ability to defend themselves but you surely cannot then legislate away their right to carry anything at all (even, say, pepper spray) with which to do so.

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1032317 28-Apr-2014 06:00

Geektastic:

Would you keep to that view if you could see them advancing up your drive, firing at the livestock as they come and screaming "I'm goona kill you!"? Bet you could assemble that rifle PDQ then...!

Unless your firearms are restricted B, C or E weapons you are not actually required by law to keep them in a safe, you can keep them in a locked 'strongroom' or locked on a rack. Gun City sell less-than-lethal 12g rounds if you feel the need.

Just how are you expected, I wonder, to defend yourself and your family against someone threatening them with a gun if you cannot use your own gun? You have to wonder what the MP's thought people would do. You also have the illogical situation where an armed policeman threatened by someone can use a taser, baton or indeed firearm - but if you were to be threatened by the same person in exactly the same way, you could not because you would be unable to carry said items. It's all very well to write laws that ostensibly give people the ability to defend themselves but you surely cannot then legislate away their right to carry anything at all (even, say, pepper spray) with which to do so.

Well then it's a good thing you live in New Zealand, where firearms crime is so rare that we don't need to be arming up the populace to protect against it and your scenario is laughably unlikely (and indeed, arming up the populace is highly likely to simply cause more of it. Oh, most of it would be in "self defense", but whats a few malcontents if it makes you feel better, right?)

I guess it's time for the weekly reminder that you aren't in the UK, New Zealand is not the UK, and we're not going to become like the UK to placate you.

Sidestep

1003 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1032453 28-Apr-2014 11:09

Geektastic:
Would you keep to that view if you could see them advancing up your drive, firing at the livestock as they come and screaming "I'm goona kill you!"? Bet you could assemble that rifle PDQ then...!

Unless your firearms are restricted B, C or E weapons you are not actually required by law to keep them in a safe, you can keep them in a locked 'strongroom' or locked on a rack. Gun City sell less-than-lethal 12g rounds if you feel the need.

Just how are you expected, I wonder, to defend yourself and your family against someone threatening them with a gun if you cannot use your own gun? You have to wonder what the MP's thought people would do. You also have the illogical situation where an armed policeman threatened by someone can use a taser, baton or indeed firearm - but if you were to be threatened by the same person in exactly the same way, you could not because you would be unable to carry said items. It's all very well to write laws that ostensibly give people the ability to defend themselves but you surely cannot then legislate away their right to carry anything at all (even, say, pepper spray) with which to do so.

At the risk of getting completely Off-Topic..

Your gun firing gang members wouldn't pass un-noticed at my place...
Perhaps you need the peace of mind provided by a security system.

I'm a pacifist by nature but not naive.
Protection of my property and family's important in such a remote area.

Modern low cost technology allows us non violent ways to deal with potential threats.

I run a simple secured perimeter several hundred meters out from my main residence, and basic surveillance system. Outbuildings can be secured remotely, and I've nominated a secure “safe room”.
My friends – who lovingly call me a “prepper” need to send send an IFF signal from the main road gate if they want easy access.

I'm sure if you started a thread on here about it you'd be overwhelmed with good ideas.

Edit - spelling!

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1032502 28-Apr-2014 12:02

Sidestep:

At the risk of getting completely Off-Topic..

Your gun firing gang members wouldn't pass un-noticed at my place...
Perhaps you need the peace of mind provided by a security system.

I'm a pacifist by nature but not naive.
Protection of my property and family's important in such a remote area.

Modern low cost technology allows us non violent ways to deal with potential threats.

I run a simple secured perimeter several hundred meters out from my main residence, and basic surveillance system. Outbuildings can be secured remotely, and I've nominated a secure “safe room”.
My friends – who lovingly call me a “prepper” need to send send an IFF signal from the main road gate if they want easy access.

I'm sure if you started a thread on here about it you'd be overwhelmed with good ideas.

Edit - spelling!

Why bother with security and surveillance when you can just shoot any trespassers. So much easier!

(/sarcasm)

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13