National Gun Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
NZ law sounds like England and a couple of our anti-gun states in the US. If the criminal don't getcha, John Law will!

What do you know about this, Exxit???

Hawk's Bay Today
17 August 2007
http://www.hbtoday.co.nz/localnews/stor ... subsection

EDITORIAL: Self-defence is a right, not a wrong

17.08.2007

Louis Pierard
Police are attracting increasing criticism each time they investigate a citizen's armed response to a crime.

This week a Morrinsville farmer fired two shotgun blasts into the air to subdue two suspected petrol thieves, whom he forced to lie down until police arrived. Police are reported to be considering laying charges against the farmer.

The court of public opinion cannot be allowed to determine guilt or otherwise. Each case has to be examined objectively to determine whether a defender's response has been appropriate. While summary justice might appeal, vigilantism merely adds one kind of lawlessness to another.

Nevertheless, the public has good reason to suspect the worst when a victim is being investigated after taking action to defend his property.

Seared into recent memory are the two failed prosecutions of Northland farmer Paul McIntyre, who shot a thief on his property in October 2002.

Mr McIntyre was acquitted in the Kaikohe District Court, first on a charge of shooting and injuring a man with reckless disregard for the safety of others, then, of discharging a shotgun without reasonable cause in a manner likely to endanger the safety of others. The cost of defending the prosecutions brought him financial ruin in a case that provoked widespread sympathy, as well as deep indignation.

More recently was the unsuccessful prosecution of Auckland gun-shop owner Greg Carvell. Eleven months previously he shot a machete-wielding intruder who had demanded guns and threatened staff. Two JPs threw out the case that had caused a judge sentencing the intruder to wonder at the fact that Mr Carvell had defended himself only to be charged by police.

As we said at the time, Mr Carvell deserved the unqualified thanks of police and public; not to be dragged through the courts for his efforts.

Wise counsel says anyone faced with an intruder should lie low and call the police. For country folk, isolated and often far from help, reality dictates they must act themselves if criminals are to be defeated.

While police fear that a tolerance of armed responses could lead to escalation, with the likelihood that thieves will routinely arm themselves for potential shoot-outs, farmers and other vulnerable folk rightly insist that their security comes first. Many resent the fact that the advice to "do nothing" is imposed helplessness.

The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, their families and their property from violence. If it cannot, then it should acknowledge the entitlement of every citizen to fight back.

When police respond to a citizen's armed defence by raising the prospect of charges, they offend a sense of natural justice and increase public suspicion that, again, it is the victim who gets the worse deal.

If a person defending his property is in such grave risk of prosecution for breaking the law, it implies a moral equivalence that considers him to be as bad as the thieves who come calling.

Rightly or wrongly, the public perceives such police inquiries as enthusiasm by the coercive arm of the state to punish citizens for its own failures. And when the court system takes over, it ignores the further injustices that are created by the testing of a legal principle. All of which does little to maintain respect for either the police or for the courts.

There has to be a fairer, more humane way of evaluating citizens' defence.

A good start would be to recognise the right of every citizen to defend himself, instead of appearing to condemn him for it.
 
G

·
Hmmmm, I know if I ever catch someone breaking into my house, they will be confronted by me holding a gun. They will obey my every command until the police arrive. If they resist or make any hostile moves, then they WILL be shot.... Also, I'm the type of person who believes that if someone is worth shooting once, then there worth shooting twice......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
I dont want to sound like an Anti, but you cant shoot someone for stealing. Know matter how bad you want to, and I bet I would want to. Your only justified shooting someone in self defence or defence of others. Now I agree with holding a thief at gunpoint, and waiting for the cops, but if he gets up a walks away, are you gonna shot him in the back? That would make you a murderer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
This discussion has been conducted for umpteen years and there are so many ways to slice it. You are correct in your statement, obviously, that you can't legally shoot me when I'm yanking the stereo out of your car. You can hold me at gunpoint until the police arrive. If I decide to bolt, however, I become a fleeing felon and deadly force may (MAY!) be justified.

If you have me on the ground and I get up, disarm you and kill you with your own weapon, I have murdered a witness to a felony, which in my state may (MAY!) qualify as an aggravating circumstance which would warrant prosecution as a death penalty case. Of course in New Mexico, while we have capitol punishment on the books, only used it one time in the last 40 years, and that was on a child rapist/murder who essentially demanded to be executed. Not only did NM not know how to execute a prisoner, we had to rent a Texas Correctional Officer to come and do it for us. How humiliating!

Now, if you have me on the ground and I reach around to scratch my ass and you think I'm going for a gun, and you proceed to X-ring me, you may (MAY!) have just committed either second degree murder or aggravated manslaughter.
 
G

·
red-rider said:
I dont want to sound like an Anti, but you cant shoot someone for stealing. Know matter how bad you want to, and I bet I would want to. Your only justified shooting someone in self defence or defence of others. Now I agree with holding a thief at gunpoint, and waiting for the cops, but if he gets up a walks away, are you gonna shot him in the back? That would make you a murderer.
Come to Georgia red-rider;
We have the Castle Doctrine- If you have reason to fear for your safety (knife wielding idiot) you can blow hiz azz off. No longer do you have the obligation to retreat or cower down and pray he won't splash some of the stolen gasoline on your home and burn it down- speaking of down, I'll bet the next stats will show crime trending down.
Murders against unknowns is already down, it's gangstas against gangstas. Hope they kill each other off.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Whompuss, I understand what you are saying and I agree. I think that Red's position is that a property crime does not support use of deadly force. I don't think that that falls under the castle doctrine. Example would be someone ripping off a stereo from your parked car.

If the guy robbing you gives you cause to believe that your life is in danger, that would be another story. The example of a guy ripping off your stereo from your parked car would be a different story if you're sitting in the parked car at the time and you feel that your life is threatened.

But, does castle doctrine extend to you when you're in your vehicle? I think it would in my state because your car is considered to be an extension of your property. I'm not sure...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
I dont want to sound like an Anti, but you cant shoot someone for stealing. Know matter how bad you want to, and I bet I would want to. Your only justified shooting someone in self defence or defence of others. Now I agree with holding a thief at gunpoint, and waiting for the cops, but if he gets up a walks away, are you gonna shot him in the back? That would make you a murderer.
Do you think a simple thief would have the balls to just walk away and turn his back to a person with a loaded gun?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
You bet, many would. And that just takes into account the ones who aren't ripped on drugs. Some of these bastards know their rights better than a lawyer and many will dare even a cop to shoot them. I have seen it both as a cop and as a civilian.

The mistake many good guys make (often costing them their life) is that the BG thinks like he does, i.e., loves life, family, etc. Not so. Among the criminal and especially the "Gangsta" types, there is a loser, fatalistic mentality. That, along side the fact that they know that the good guy generally has something to lose and doesn't want criminal charges and/or lawsuits against him.
 
G

·
well people, in canada you cannot protect property with lethal force. you may self defend with lethal force, but when the boys in blue show up and you're the one packin' heat and there's a dead body lying face down, guess who going to be peekin' through the bars. when your trial for second degree murder starts, you'd damn well better be able to prove self defense or your going to be having christmas dinner away from home for a long time.pblsyd
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
This is what I continue to hear from Canada, GB, Australia, NZ and several of states in the US. Once again, as we discussed when speaking about SheNine's daughter protecting herself when left alone at home, the consensus is, "It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

But that doesn't address the fact that a law-abiding citizen of either my country, yours, or several others will have to bear a crushing financial burden of proving his/her innocence and may end up spending time behind bars alongside real criminals.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
SheNine said:
What the &%@*& is the world coming to when criminals have more rights than decent law-abiding citizens?!?!?!?
Well, we know this is not just a recent revelation. It's been over 30 years since the SPs have been siding with criminals over victims.

I recently had an ordeal with the law enforcement/judicial/criminal rights system in NM that set me back a bunch o' bucks after a confrontation with a BG, and it was an assault, not a property crime, situation. I did what I knew to be permissable in a self-defense situation and it ended up costing me nearly as much time, effort and money than it would have to just shoot the SOB. I didn't go to jail, but was threatened with it.

When I have more time and patience I'll discuss it fully, but suffice it to say I wasn't just politely asking the same question, She9, I was SCREAMING it!
 
G

·
part of the problem we deal with is emotionalism,the media,political pressure on the cops TO DO SOMETHING.solving crime is a tough job and sometimes it's easier to pass laws to shut up the public but do nothing to stop crime. there are enough idiots out there, that when they read someone has been charged with a serious crime,don't want to bother with the presumption of innocence, their guilty already. crimes against women,child abuse and such are very emotionally charged. i have a friend, whose wife believes that once a man is charged with rape, there should be no trial no due process, slap him in prison for life.she is anti gun , anti everything.will not even give you the chance to ask if she wants to live in a police state. she say's WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, and that is it. it doesn't matter that gun control does nothing for crime "she just wants to feel more secure".she will not accept the fact that in a democracy, the price we pay for freedom, is that murderers, rapists and child abusers will sometimes walk because of a lack of evidence. there's a difference between not guilty and being innocent.gun owners make easy targets, no pun intended,for politicians looking to score points in the large urban centers.to lay a charge of murderfor a case of self defense will be applauded in some circles out of pure ignorance.pblsyd
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top