Allegations are 'OK'

Forums › Off topic › Allegations are "OK"

kidsmith98789

24 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#43993 23-Oct-2009 13:29

I see the newspapers are not giving this new on the spot protection order any attention >

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=165019

In simple english, allegations are all the police need to remove you from your home for a few days. They don't even have to know if your the offender or not.

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty anyone?

rscole86

4973 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#266365 23-Oct-2009 13:35

I take it you beat your wife regularly and hence this bill will be a big problem for you?

I do not see your point here? If your wife/partner wants to make such allegations, then you should probably not be in a relationship with them anyway.

Please tell me if I am missing something here?

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#266367 23-Oct-2009 13:51

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty anyone?

It is not a conviction and therefore you are not being found guilty of anything.. It is an opportunity to let things settle, interesting that it says :woman and children", surely it should afford the same protection to males from abusive females?!

bjhoogs

183 posts

Master Geek

#266369 23-Oct-2009 13:54

How is this different from police making an arrest and holding the alleged offender in custody until a trial?

Note also that the article never mentions removing alleged offenders from their home, only removing the victims from the situation and issuing protection orders.

bjhoogs

183 posts

Master Geek

#266370 23-Oct-2009 13:59

itxtme: interesting that it says :woman and children", surely it should afford the same protection to males from abusive females?!

I think that males being abused by females are outside of the services Women's refuge offer (rightly or wrongly), not outside the law changes.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#266371 23-Oct-2009 14:12

bjhoogs: How is this different from police making an arrest and holding the alleged offender in custody until a trial?

simple.. they are not arrested or charged!! Therefore they are not in custody, they are allowed to go wherever the hell they like, just not back home for the period of time.. It is a new mechanism to afford protection where current law fails to deliver.

Ah thanks for that bjhoogs ;)

bjhoogs

183 posts

Master Geek

#266465 23-Oct-2009 20:43

itxtme:
bjhoogs: How is this different from police making an arrest and holding the alleged offender in custody until a trial?

simple.. they are not arrested or charged!! Therefore they are not in custody, they are allowed to go wherever the hell they like, just not back home for the period of time.. It is a new mechanism to afford protection where current law fails to deliver.

Ah thanks for that bjhoogs ;)

True

Last night I was driving home and I got pulled over by a policeman who told me I had to blow into a breathalyser to prove I wasn't drunk. This really hurt my feelings and I couldn't understand why he shouldn't have to prove in court that I was drunk before he could stop me going on my way until I proved I was sober.

Are common sense and the safety of the community once again becoming more important than the rights of the individual (which are brilliant at protecting the guilty)?

kidsmith98789

24 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#266498 23-Oct-2009 23:17

what you guys are forgetting is that where is the man going to go? does he have to use his own cash to pay for a motel or hotel for a few days if his friends don't have any room?
what if he doesn't have any cash to stay anywhere?
what if he has a home based business that can't be run from anywhere else?
what about if the man owns the house, shouldn't the person who doesn't own the house have to go otherwise your kicking someone out of their own home and letting a person stay in it who doesn't even own the house?
could the man just disconnect the power and turn off the water and then leave the property for a few days so the women who is allowed to stay won't have any power and water?

drink driving tests are done while a person is inside their vehicle and if a person passes they can drive off and do whatever they want. the breathalyzer is the proof if the person has commited a crime or not. the police have to prove the person has commited an offence before the person is punished.

even if there is no proof the person has commited a crime the police can order that person to stay away from that property for a period of time and if they return they will be arrested.

if we start punishing people without proof it will mean we're a police state.

women sees a man swirving in and out of lane with car and calls police. police tell man not to drive for 24 hours even though man passes breathalyzer and can walk in straight line and no signs of drugs,even if police have no proof of man swirving. what if man needs to drive kids to school and to work. will he have to use his own cash to pay for taxis? not everyone is rich.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

bcourtney

652 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#266500 23-Oct-2009 23:44

kidsmith98789: what you guys are forgetting is that where is the man going to go? does he have to use his own cash to pay for a motel or hotel for a few days if his friends don't have any room?
what if he doesn't have any cash to stay anywhere?
what if he has a home based business that can't be run from anywhere else?
what about if the man owns the house, shouldn't the person who doesn't own the house have to go otherwise your kicking someone out of their own home and letting a person stay in it who doesn't even own the house?
could the man just disconnect the power and turn off the water and then leave the property for a few days so the women who is allowed to stay won't have any power and water?

drink driving tests are done while a person is inside their vehicle and if a person passes they can drive off and do whatever they want. the breathalyzer is the proof if the person has commited a crime or not. the police have to prove the person has commited an offence before the person is punished.

even if there is no proof the person has commited a crime the police can order that person to stay away from that property for a period of time and if they return they will be arrested.

if we start punishing people without proof it will mean we're a police state.

women sees a man swirving in and out of lane with car and calls police. police tell man not to drive for 24 hours even though man passes breathalyzer and can walk in straight line and no signs of drugs,even if police have no proof of man swirving. what if man needs to drive kids to school and to work. will he have to use his own cash to pay for taxis? not everyone is rich.

Man, wouldn't mind trying some of what you're on tonight! Simple point is, don't put yourself in a position where you might get accused of abusing someone else.

Let's not be stupid here - the Police aren't simply going to go around to random homes and pluck people out of them. Besides which, it's not the offender that is being taken away in this instance. The new bill gives police extra power to remove women and children from violent situations. Not sure why you're heading down the tangeant about "the man" having nowhere to go and having to fork out for a motel or hotel. The women and children would be taken to safe houses (refuge homes).

Not going to even start on your theories about driving offences - they're crazy and have no relevance to what has been passed in the bill.

Sounds to me like you've got some vendetta against women??

bjhoogs

183 posts

Master Geek

#266501 23-Oct-2009 23:52

When considering whether to issue a Police order against person A, the constable must have regard to the following matters:
•
whether, in the circumstances, he or she considers it is likely that person A has used, or is using domestic violence against person B or person A has used, or is using, domestic violence against any other person with whom he or she has a domestic relationship;
•
whether there is a serious likelihood that person A will use, or again use, domestic violence against person B;
•
the welfare of any children residing with person B;
•
the hardship that may be caused if the order is issued;
•
any other matters the constable considers relevant.

from here

corksta

2397 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#266513 24-Oct-2009 08:17

bjhoogs: Last night I was driving home and I got pulled over by a policeman who told me I had to blow into a breathalyser to prove I wasn't drunk. This really hurt my feelings and I couldn't understand why he shouldn't have to prove in court that I was drunk before he could stop me going on my way until I proved I was sober.

Are common sense and the safety of the community once again becoming more important than the rights of the individual (which are brilliant at protecting the guilty)?

Under the Land Transport Act 1998 (section 68) the police can require anyone driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle on a road to undergo a breath screening test, which is what you did. Thousands of people undergo the same test every week, and here's the rationale behind it: YOU are the driver of the vehicle, YOU are driving on the road, driving is a privilege not a right, so YOU have to prove you are not drunk and capable of driving.

Saying they should have to prove you were drunk before being allowed to stop you is just ridiculous! I bet the Council for Civil Liberties would love to have you as a member!

kidsmith98789

24 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#266578 24-Oct-2009 16:32

bcourtney:
kidsmith98789: what you guys are forgetting is that where is the man going to go? does he have to use his own cash to pay for a motel or hotel for a few days if his friends don't have any room?
what if he doesn't have any cash to stay anywhere?
what if he has a home based business that can't be run from anywhere else?
what about if the man owns the house, shouldn't the person who doesn't own the house have to go otherwise your kicking someone out of their own home and letting a person stay in it who doesn't even own the house?
could the man just disconnect the power and turn off the water and then leave the property for a few days so the women who is allowed to stay won't have any power and water?

drink driving tests are done while a person is inside their vehicle and if a person passes they can drive off and do whatever they want. the breathalyzer is the proof if the person has commited a crime or not. the police have to prove the person has commited an offence before the person is punished.

even if there is no proof the person has commited a crime the police can order that person to stay away from that property for a period of time and if they return they will be arrested.

if we start punishing people without proof it will mean we're a police state.

women sees a man swirving in and out of lane with car and calls police. police tell man not to drive for 24 hours even though man passes breathalyzer and can walk in straight line and no signs of drugs,even if police have no proof of man swirving. what if man needs to drive kids to school and to work. will he have to use his own cash to pay for taxis? not everyone is rich.

Man, wouldn't mind trying some of what you're on tonight! Simple point is, don't put yourself in a position where you might get accused of abusing someone else.

Let's not be stupid here - the Police aren't simply going to go around to random homes and pluck people out of them. Besides which, it's not the offender that is being taken away in this instance. The new bill gives police extra power to remove women and children from violent situations. Not sure why you're heading down the tangeant about "the man" having nowhere to go and having to fork out for a motel or hotel. The women and children would be taken to safe houses (refuge homes).

Not going to even start on your theories about driving offences - they're crazy and have no relevance to what has been passed in the bill.

Sounds to me like you've got some vendetta against women??

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0B2B7F6D-C857-4249-B85A-9A356ECF7EBC/114518/1655DomesticViolence3.pdf

"The key enforcement initiative is the introduction of an "on the spot" order issued by the Police for the purpose of protecting victims of domestic violence. These Police orders are most likely to be made when the Police have been called to a domestic violence incident in the home. The purpose of the Police order is to ensure the immediate safety of the victims by removing the alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to five days. The order will provide a period of safety in which victims can consider their future options. The victims' consent to the order will not be required.

Wow, even if the victim doesn't want the so called offender to leave the police can still require the so called offender to leave. So the police can actually go against the victim's wishes now.

The Police order may be made by Police in situations where there is insufficient evidence of an offence to arrest,but where the Police believe there is a likelihood of domestic violence occurring and a Police order is necessary to protect the safety of the victim.

So police can remove a person based on a guess now aye.

bcourtney

652 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#266580 24-Oct-2009 16:46

kidsmith98789:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0B2B7F6D-C857-4249-B85A-9A356ECF7EBC/114518/1655DomesticViolence3.pdf

"The key enforcement initiative is the introduction of an "on the spot" order issued by the Police for the purpose of protecting victims of domestic violence. These Police orders are most likely to be made when the Police have been called to a domestic violence incident in the home. The purpose of the Police order is to ensure the immediate safety of the victims by removing the alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to five days. The order will provide a period of safety in which victims can consider their future options. The victims' consent to the order will not be required.

Wow, even if the victim doesn't want the so called offender to leave the police can still require the so called offender to leave. So the police can actually go against the victim's wishes now.

The Police order may be made by Police in situations where there is insufficient evidence of an offence to arrest,but where the Police believe there is a likelihood of domestic violence occurring and a Police order is necessary to protect the safety of the victim.

So police can remove a person based on a guess now aye.

You still don't get it do you? If the victim didn't want the offender to be removed then there would never have been a phone call put through to the police by them in the first place. If the initial call to the police didn't come from the victim, then it would have come from someone else worried for the safety of the victim. Either way, if the police conclude that the offender must be removed then it is for the good of everyone. What victim wouldn't want to have a violent offender removed after being abused by them? Your arguments are appalling.

Of course the police have to listen to both sides of the story before making a decision. I would suggest that this is more of an educated decision than an outright random guess as to whether or not to remove the victim.

I get the impression that you're either under the assumption that the police will be making random calls to peoples houses to pluck innocent people away without any reason OR you're concerned about the extra powers because you may be nervous about your own situation??

This is ridiculous. Don't beat or abuse your wife/girlfriend and you have nothing to worry about. End of story. If you're with someone that is likely to make false accusations about you then you are best to leave them.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79280 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#266584 24-Oct-2009 17:24

I am locking this "richgamer" discussion.