Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 
2280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 370

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1092186 19-Jul-2014 21:56
Send private message

deadlyllama: Since when is someone stealing your stuff worth killing them over?


I'm not sure whether you're simply trying to stir debate, or whether you trying to justify theft, lets assume the former.

That said I'd be much less inclined to steal someone else's property if I knew I could get killed trying. Why should the property owner have to wear the risk of 'allowing' someone to steal off them, when theft and violent crime often go hand in hand. 


13130 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6162

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1092189 19-Jul-2014 22:03
3 people support this post
Send private message

A $500 or $3000 TV is not worth the taking of human life.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


gzt

10181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1560


  Reply # 1092234 20-Jul-2014 00:07
Send private message

insane:
deadlyllama: Since when is someone stealing your stuff worth killing them over?


I'm not sure whether you're simply trying to stir debate, or whether you trying to justify theft, lets assume the former.

That said I'd be much less inclined to steal someone else's property if I knew I could get killed trying. Why should the property owner have to wear the risk of 'allowing' someone to steal off them, when theft and violent crime often go hand in hand. 


I find this to be an extremely silly debate. The law as practiced already provides for self defense and the jury system is more than capable of dealing with any corner cases that occur. No change is needed.

3071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1551


  Reply # 1092299 20-Jul-2014 08:37
3 people support this post
Send private message

gzt:
insane:
deadlyllama: Since when is someone stealing your stuff worth killing them over?


I'm not sure whether you're simply trying to stir debate, or whether you trying to justify theft, lets assume the former.

That said I'd be much less inclined to steal someone else's property if I knew I could get killed trying. Why should the property owner have to wear the risk of 'allowing' someone to steal off them, when theft and violent crime often go hand in hand. 


I find this to be an extremely silly debate. The law as practiced already provides for self defense and the jury system is more than capable of dealing with any corner cases that occur. No change is needed.


Problem is the police in all their transparency put charges against the 'victim' to have an objective ruling by the court on if the level of defending ones self or property was 'reasonable'. Great idea and rarely does a conviction get entered, however the poor victim ends up 10's or even 100's thousands $ poorer and 6-12 months of stress for doing nothing but responding to some other degenerate. I think a tidy up on the current law or some clarity around the definition of reasonable defense could be in order. Police also need to be a bit more pragmatic, but as we have seen many time in the past they are damned if they do prosecute and damned if they don't.




Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 285


  Reply # 1092304 20-Jul-2014 08:59
One person supports this post
Send private message

insane:
deadlyllama: Since when is someone stealing your stuff worth killing them over?


I'm not sure whether you're simply trying to stir debate, or whether you trying to justify theft, lets assume the former.

That said I'd be much less inclined to steal someone else's property if I knew I could get killed trying. Why should the property owner have to wear the risk of 'allowing' someone to steal off them, when theft and violent crime often go hand in hand. 



I'm not trying for either.  I seriously believe that someone stealing my stuff is not worth killing them over.

I'm assuming that you're not a burgler or "home invader" as the more sensationalist elements of the media paint them.  So clearly either something in yourself, or the current justice system, is already dissuading you from stealing someone else's policy.  That's the problem with "well, it would cause me to think twice" responses to policy like this.  You're unlikely to be someone who would burgle/etc if it was easier to get away with.  So to someone in your position, this policy won't change the probability of you stealing things.

The question is, would this policy change the probability of people who would, absent this policy, steal/etc.  If it did, you'd expect to see a significant drop in crime in places where it was already law.  Yet in places like states in the USA with "castle laws", they haven't had a significant effect on crime levels.

If a person is in a position, for whatever reason, that they think stealing/etc is OK but won't do it because it's illegal, then we've already lost.

801 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 355


  Reply # 1092377 20-Jul-2014 10:46
Send private message

insane:
deadlyllama: Since when is someone stealing your stuff worth killing them over?


I'm not sure whether you're simply trying to stir debate, or whether you trying to justify theft, lets assume the former.

That said I'd be much less inclined to steal someone else's property if I knew I could get killed trying. Why should the property owner have to wear the risk of 'allowing' someone to steal off them, when theft and violent crime often go hand in hand. 



Best you stop driving then.

You are significantly more likely to be killed or severely injured while in a moving vehicle than you are by random crime.

as for " when theft and violent crime often go hand in hand.", no that is also untrue, what you have said is that media sensationalised crime gets noticed by people more than simple theft. It not only gets bashed out day after day by the media at the time, it then goes through weeks more at the trial, and gets regurgitated every time a parole hearing/ prisoner release is made.

If gun carrying made you safe, why are you 10 times MORE likely to be shot in the USA than here ?
The USA has a significantly more punitive "justice: system than NZ, so why is there MORE crime, MORE rape, MORE assault, MORE murder per head of population than NZ (and for that matter most of the world).





gzt

10181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1560


  Reply # 1092401 20-Jul-2014 11:18
Send private message

scuwp:
gzt:
insane:
deadlyllama: Since when is someone stealing your stuff worth killing them over?


I'm not sure whether you're simply trying to stir debate, or whether you trying to justify theft, lets assume the former.

That said I'd be much less inclined to steal someone else's property if I knew I could get killed trying. Why should the property owner have to wear the risk of 'allowing' someone to steal off them, when theft and violent crime often go hand in hand. 


I find this to be an extremely silly debate. The law as practiced already provides for self defense and the jury system is more than capable of dealing with any corner cases that occur. No change is needed.


Problem is the police in all their transparency put charges against the 'victim' to have an objective ruling by the court on if the level of defending ones self or property was 'reasonable'. Great idea and rarely does a conviction get entered, however the poor victim ends up 10's or even 100's thousands $ poorer and 6-12 months of stress for doing nothing but responding to some other degenerate. I think a tidy up on the current law or some clarity around the definition of reasonable defense could be in order. Police also need to be a bit more pragmatic, but as we have seen many time in the past they are damned if they do prosecute and damned if they don't.

I agree it is a long process but believe it is necessary in a case where a life has been taken. I consider that the consequences of not doing this would be very high.

636 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218


  Reply # 1092440 20-Jul-2014 12:27
Send private message

deadlyllama: Since when is someone stealing your stuff worth killing them over?


absolutely this

the seeming lack of a reason in nzfs policy in terms of the use of a firearm against another person makes it frikin crazy and so open to tragedy and possibly abuse

what we have is fine - and in the case where you do claim self defence and have to face charges and a trial - that is exactly how it should be, it should not be at the discretion of the police to decide if the force used was justified - this can only be done through the courts

as others have said - more "populist" and poorly thought out cr%p from nzf

382 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 1093005 21-Jul-2014 13:58
Send private message

Current arms code regarding self defense

Important note: Firearms for self defence
Self-defence is not a valid reason to possess firearms. The
law does not permit the possession of firearms ‘in anticipation’
that a firearm may need to be used in self-defence.
Citizens are justified in using force in self defence in certain
situations. The force that is justified will depend on the
circumstances of the particular case. Every person is criminally
responsible for any excessive use of force against another person.
A firearm is a lethal weapon. To justify the discharge of a firearm
at another person the user must hold a honest belief that they
or someone else is at imminent threat of death or grievous
bodily harm.
Discharge of a firearm at another person will result in a Police
investigation and what ever the consequences of the incident


Some of the explanations given by officials is that use of firearm for self defense may be warranted if someone is wielding a knife approaching you with intent to harm you, but not if someone is running away with your xbox.



6063 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1831

Trusted

  Reply # 1093067 21-Jul-2014 14:51
Send private message

Same with a knife @hangon

I could carry a knife in public with the intent of self defence and get it taken off me by a cop, But if i use it like a tool for cutting rope etc i wont.
But then if i use in self defense same thing applies.
Same concept.
I dont think i have ever heard of self defense via fire arms that often if not ever.




 


382 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 1093111 21-Jul-2014 15:30
Send private message

TimA: Same with a knife @hangon

I could carry a knife in public with the intent of self defence and get it taken off me by a cop, But if i use it like a tool for cutting rope etc i wont.
But then if i use in self defense same thing applies.
Same concept.
I dont think i have ever heard of self defense via fire arms that often if not ever.

first thing pop in my head is Northland farmer Paul McIntyre

who shot some thieves from distance and wounded one on the neck - one could argue it's not self defense

not trying to hijack the topic - the rules around knives seem gotten a lot more strict in the last few years - it would be effectively banned from most public places, I don't even carry full sized multitools any more, just a keychain one.

ok -

 

The Summary Offences Act (s13A) provides for a penalty of up to three months in prison or a fine of up to $2000 for possession of a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse.

 

The Crimes Act (s202A) also makes it an offence to carry a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse, an offence which carries a penalty of up to two years in prison.


and "NZ laws basically say you can carry a knife if you have a legitimate reason for doing so. Of course, it's not you that gets to decide if your reason is legitimate."

1 | 2 | 3 
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.