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.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1219082 21-Jan-2015 13:43
Send private message

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.



659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1219120 21-Jan-2015 14:01
Send private message

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.

834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1219134 21-Jan-2015 14:14
Send private message

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.

13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1219141 21-Jan-2015 14:18
Send private message

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??

13141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1219145 21-Jan-2015 14:21
Send private message

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.




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.

 

 


13141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1219151 21-Jan-2015 14:29
Send private message

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.




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.

 

 




659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1219157 21-Jan-2015 14:36
Send private message

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.

BDFL - Memuneh
61323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12065

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1219160 21-Jan-2015 14:41
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.









659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1219163 21-Jan-2015 14:43
Send private message

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.




659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1219168 21-Jan-2015 14:46
Send private message

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.

13141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1219171 21-Jan-2015 14:49
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.




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.

 

 




659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 144
Inactive user


  Reply # 1219181 21-Jan-2015 14:55
Send private message

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.

834 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 260

Trusted

  Reply # 1219186 21-Jan-2015 15:00
Send private message
509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user


  Reply # 1219370 21-Jan-2015 18:18
Send private message

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
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.