# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Wtf

## Munsey

Shooter breaks vow to dead man's mum - national | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## Rushy

Yeh I saw that on the news last night.  I don't reckon there is any way in hell that he will get his firearms license restored.  If the Police don't opposed that then it would make a mockery of the licensing process.

----------


## Munsey

> Yeh I saw that on the news last night.  I don't reckon there is any way in hell that he will get his firearms license restored.  If the Police don't opposed that then it would make a mockery of the licensing process.


My thoughts exactly , I'm not sure but is this the cocksucker that shot the poor bloke at like 16 mts then did a runner ( later to say he was going for help ) ?  :Omg:

----------


## Gibo

Personally I think 4 months improsonment is a joke. It hardly puts any fear up us (hunters) about being punished severely for not following the firearm rules does it. 
And to allow someone that has clearly not followed said rules to be back amongst the ones that do and other wildlife users would shameless.

----------


## 7mmwsm

I don't really suport his decision, but realistically, what is the difference between this case and a driver who has killed someone in a vehicle regaining their drivers licence?

----------


## nzfubz

Police have already said he won't be getting it, according to the news last night.

----------


## ebf

Read it this morning. Absolutely dumbfounded...

The problem is that he probably is already out there hunting with a mate's firearm.

When will we learn ?

----------


## ebf

Question for any members of the Welly Deerstalkers.

Has Dummer's membership been suspended or is he still around ?

----------


## Sidney

U think he's more or less dangerous to have out hunting now?  U know than someone who perhaps thinks that it can never happen to him?

I don't support him, but its less clear to me that his choices should be made by other people.

----------


## Scouser

No way should he be allowed near a firearm again......we all know the 7 'commandments' and he has broken no1 in my book, after taking someones life, it should be written into the law, that he is never allowed a FAL again....just my 2c

And as for  @7mmwsm question, i would not (just my opinion again) compare driving to shooting, if someone is found guilty of reckless driving causing death, they should also never be allowed behind a wheel again!!!!!!

----------


## Toby

I think he'd probably be safer having killed someone once he would be making damn sure it wouldn't happen again. imo

But then if he was to get his fal back then it's not very fair in the sense he has killed someone and gets to go back to doing what he loves so I think no for that reason. Not because he would shoot someone again.

----------


## Tahr

This is the worst thing possible, and I hope Chis Drummer reads this.
He displays a complete lack of self awareness and shouldn’t be allowed near a rifle again. Not even a toy one.
I know him, and he knows me. Others on here will too. I was once on a hunting trip with him, and hunted with him for a day. 
He was a disaster waiting to happen. 

What he had to say at the inquest was disgraceful.

----------


## Gibo

> U think he's more or less dangerous to have out hunting now?  U know than someone who perhaps thinks that it can never happen to him?
> 
> I don't support him, but its less clear to me that his choices should be made by other people.


He has proven he cannot make good ones for himself

----------


## dogmatix

> I think he'd probably be safer having killed someone once he would be making damn sure it wouldn't happen again. imo
> 
> But then if he was to get his fal back then it's not very fair in the sense he has killed someone and gets to go back to doing what he loves so I think no for that reason. Not because he would shoot someone again.


Thanks Tahr, your judgement on this, especially as you know the bloke is something we should all take note of, as I trust your opinion.

----------


## Tahr

> He has proven he cannot make good ones for himself


Agreed. He has displayed random behaviour in more than one facet of his life. It's mainly been kept below the horizon since the shooting. Now though, on the back of the inquest and on what others' know about him, he should be protected from himself.

This does does not make him a bad man, nor should it vindictive. It's a simple thing really; bar him from firearms to keep him safe, others safe, and to preserve the reputation of shooting sports.

----------


## wsm junkie

Man you gotta feel for the parents....1st they lose their son, then the guy who caused it only serves 4 months (pathetic in my opinion) and now he's saying I want my licence back so I can hunt again.....they probably going to inquest for some closure and get kicked in the guts instead!

----------


## Chop3r

It was interesting to read a wee bit more about Chris,s other problems, some people just continue to surprise you

----------


## PerazziSC3

his surname certainly seems to be quite adequate

----------


## Sidney

> Agreed. He has displayed random behaviour in more than one facet of his life. It's mainly been kept below the horizon since the shooting. Now though, on the back of the inquest and on what others' know about him, he should be protected from himself.
> 
> This does does not make him a bad man, nor should it vindictive. It's a simple thing really; bar him from firearms to keep him safe, others safe, and to preserve the reputation of shooting sports.



It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation.  I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability.  In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.

But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment?  It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again.  The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?

While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life.  People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.

Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.

----------


## Nathan F

I would hate to think that someone like this could be roaming public land with a firearm. An absolute slap in the face for the family. Extremely selfish behaviour at best thinking 
its a good idea to go hunting again. 

He should be serving a minimum of 5 years for manslaughter.

----------


## 308

About a month after the shooting I spoke to a guy who was on a hunt trip with this Dummer. The hunters had divvied up where they were going to go the night before and when setting out to his allotted area the next morning this guy smelled Dummers cigarette smoke in the area where he wasn't meant to be - when caught up with he said he'd changed his mind and thought it wasn't a big deal.

I've heard other rumours about this guy but that's the only one I know that I trust the speaker to be telling true.

I've worked way too hard to get my licenses to have my sport endangered by a dangerously foolish person like Dummer (with his road rage conviction)

To me he's like a recidivist drunk driver on the road - he's had his chances and fucked them up so it's time to take his toys away

----------


## Scribe

Never made a mistake, hell I once fired eighty rounds at two of our guys and completely missed them both.

So many rounds, that should be a lifetime without a FAL for me.

----------


## possummatti

> Never made a mistake, hell I once fired eighty rounds at two of our guys and completely missed them both.
> 
> So many rounds, that should be a lifetime without a FAL for me.


 seriously?

----------


## outinabout

I actually felt really sorry for the guy, What a thing for anyone to have to live with. That is untill I heard some of his reported comments at the inquest.
Seems like he is living with it just fine, can even manage hunting and Firearms again. Disrespectful to the Family and the poor young guy whos life he ended.
Just sad  :Sad:

----------


## wsm junkie

> Never made a mistake, hell I once fired eighty rounds at two of our guys and completely missed them both.
> 
> So many rounds, that should be a lifetime without a FAL for me.


With all due respect i disagree,  this guy didnt have other people trying to kill him or his buddies - he didnt identify his target and ended a man's life!

----------


## Scouser

> It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation.  I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability.  In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.
> 
> But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment?  It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again.  The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?
> 
> While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life.  People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.
> 
> Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.


Sydney, no personal offence, i know your a lawyer or about to become one, but that is total shite.....this man had his chance, he blew it, i dont give two fucks about his civil liberties, tell that to the dead mans widow and children.... :Angry:

----------


## Nathan F

> It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation.  I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability.  In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.
> 
> But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment?  It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again.  The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?
> 
> While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life.  People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.
> 
> Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.


What a load of shit.

----------


## Scribe

> With all due respect i disagree,  this guy didnt have other people trying to kill him or his buddies - he didnt identify his target and ended a man's life!


Experience has shown me over the years that the more times you go to the well the closer you are to falling in.

It could well be claimed that I never identified my target.

----------


## Scribe

> seriously?


Yep its a bit of a war-y story but it happened.

----------


## Gibo

> What a load of shit.


I deleted my post but it was similar to yours  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Nathan F

> I deleted my post but it was similar to yours


Well its just a whole lot of justification for inexcusable behaviour!

----------


## Maca49

That adds balance Tahr, some things you cannot get from reading the report in the paper, Thanks calmed me down and changed my opinion!

----------


## Gibo

> Well its just a whole lot of justification for inexcusable behaviour!


Something this country is too good at unfortunately.

----------


## wsm junkie

> Experience has shown me over the years that the more times you go to the well the closer you are to falling in.
> 
> It could well be claimed that I never identified my target.


Thats true but in my view I see your situation as justified - you were in combat and believed that YOUR life was in immediate danger and you acted accordingly, where the extra time took to clearly identify your targets could have cost you big time.
However this guy was hunting deer and the extra time taken to identify his target would at a worst case be a lost animal - big deal, get out and try again.
Just how I see it

----------


## Scouser

'tell that to the dead mans widow and children' by scouser

i have to apologise for this statement i made, the victim was single, i got him mixed up with 'another' poor victim who was married with children....too many, just too many....really sad

----------


## Scribe

Give me a man to hunt with who thinks he could kill someone than the one who thinks he never could.

----------


## Rushy

> Never made a mistake, hell I once fired eighty rounds at two of our guys and completely missed them both.
> 
> So many rounds, that should be a lifetime without a FAL for me.


In what are a Scribe?  If it was an arena of war then it did not require you to have an FAL in the first place and as scary as that sounds it would not have been a first time event in the heat of a battle.

----------


## Scribe

> Thats true but in my view I see your situation as justified - you were in combat and believed that YOUR life was in immediate danger and you acted accordingly, where the extra time took to clearly identify your targets could have cost you big time.
> However this guy was hunting deer and the extra time taken to identify his target would at a worst case be a lost animal - big deal, get out and try again.
> Just how I see it


yep that's true, but the circumstances were different than how you see it above.

But I have come close to killing two people since then. One myself.

----------


## Scribe

> In what are a Scribe?  If it was an arena of war then it did not require you to have an FAL in the first place and as scary as that sounds it would not have been a first time event in the heat of a battle.


Hello Rushy, Interesting discussion, aye what!!!. I don't know what you are saying in your first sentence. It was the arena of war you are right. And no a FAL was not required.. But I know human nature, if I had have killed those two soldiers people would have sat in Judgement on myself as they a doing here.

What I am trying to say is that if you do anything with a firearm long enough or often enough then one day the cards will fall bad for you and you are just as capable as the next person of killing someone.

Not just with Weapons, Chopper Pilots kill Passengers, Taxi Drivers run over people on pedestrian crossings. There's a whole raft of bad shit waiting to land on your head.

----------


## Sidney

> Sydney, no personal offence, i know your a lawyer or about to become one, but that is total shite.....this man had his chance, he blew it, i dont give two fucks about his civil liberties, tell that to the dead mans widow and children....


You boys need to take your noose and pitchforks and go home.  Legality has little to do with the your lack of emotional control.  Whether you understand it or not this man has been through due process and is entitled under the law to apply for his firearms licence.  Whether he is entitled to receive a firearms licence again isn't for you to decide, nor is it for you to decide what his attitude is about the victim, simply by his desire to go hunting again.  He simply has to establish that he is suitable from this point forward.  His history plays a part in that decision as it does for any of us.

You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same.  I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation.  To assume that he intends to disrespect the victims family just by feeling that he now wants to go hunting, places you fairly in the total bullshit part of the logical universe.  Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.

If you can't process or understand what I write, it doesn't make it shit.... it just means you don't have the capacity and you just can't deal with it emotionally.

The protections of the law for this man and for you, and the ability to make personal choices make this place a better place to live.  Go and live somewhere where they don't have them and see the difference.

----------


## Scouser

Sydney....you assume a lot too......pot, kettle, black......i have my opinion, you have yours.....hope this person does not kill one of your family or friends if he is allowed his FAL back.........

----------


## ebf

Ah yes, the law student is correct, we are all just dumb shits.

Debate sorted  :Grin:

----------


## BRADS

Shit the forum is a real nail bitter today :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Gibo

> Shit the forum is a real nail bitter today


Must be dirty laundry day  :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

> Ah yes, the law student is correct, we are all just dumb shits.
> 
> Debate sorted


If thats the strength of your argument.... self classification won't fix it for you....

The shit throwing started with someone else.... nothing in my original post has actually been challenged, contested with any semblance of logical contribution. The response was pure emotional bullshit.

If you want to not be classified with the hanging mob, then don't behave like them.

----------


## ebf

Well, since we've managed to turn what started as an emotional and moral debate into a legal one, here's a legal question.

If a person has had a FAL revoked, are they still able to handle a firearm under the close supervision of a FAL holder ?

----------


## Sidney

There is nothing to prevent them.  They are not banned from using.  They just don't hold a firearms licence.

----------


## Scribe

Well that quite clear thankyou Sydney.

 I thought some of the posts were starting to stray a little away from what is considered good manners.

----------


## ebf

Are there any provisions in the law for someone to be banned from using firearms for a period of time or indefinitely ?

----------


## Tahr

> You boys need to take your noose and pitchforks and go home.  Legality has little to do with the your lack of emotional control.  Whether you understand it or not this man has been through due process and is entitled under the law to apply for his firearms licence.  Whether he is entitled to receive a firearms licence again isn't for you to decide, nor is it for you to decide what his attitude is about the victim, simply by his desire to go hunting again.  He simply has to establish that he is suitable from this point forward.  His history plays a part in that decision as it does for any of us.
> 
> You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same.  I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation.  To assume that he intends to disrespect the victims family just by feeling that he now wants to go hunting, places you fairly in the total bullshit part of the logical universe.  Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.
> 
> If you can't process or understand what I write, it doesn't make it shit.... it just means you don't have the capacity and you just can't deal with it emotionally.
> 
> The protections of the law for this man and for you, and the ability to make personal choices make this place a better place to live.  Go and live somewhere where they don't have them and see the difference.


You are correct. Law and objectivity are important elements of this discussion. But so too is emotion. All human interactions have elements of emotion, our own values and our own truths. To deny their existence and to not give them credence is to demean your own level of EQ (emotional intelligence).

Please do not respond with an assignment. I will not grade it.  :Have A Nice Day:  A response that demonstrates that you are at least one legally trained person who can operate at both the objective and emotional levels would though be appropriate.  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Scouser

> If thats the strength of your argument.... self classification won't fix it for you....
> 
> The shit throwing started with someone else.... nothing in my original post has actually been challenged, contested with any semblance of logical contribution. The response was pure emotional bullshit.
> 
> If you want to not be classified with the hanging mob, then don't behave like them.



Sydney, thats because, to coin a phrase 'the laws an ass'.....i fully understand where you are coming from as regards the legal standpoint, the man in question has 'served' his punishment according to the sentence handed down!

But herein lies the problem, the vast majority of Kiwis in this country (im a pom by the way) are sick and tired of these limp sentences that are being handed down, where the rights of the convicted wrong doer are considered first

and not the 'rights' of the victims family!!!!...."arr the poor man will miss his hunting 'hobby' and probably end up depressed".......its people of 'your ilk' (stereotyping here) and mindset that are the problem.....

he should never be allowed to touch a firearm again, im sorry if your civil libertarianism is knocked out of kilter by my judgemental emotionalism, but this forum is all about opinions....guess everybody on here now knows were we both stand...

you didnt answer my question either!

----------


## Nathan F

> You boys need to take your noose and pitchforks and go home.  Legality has little to do with the your lack of emotional control.  Whether you understand it or not this man has been through due process and is entitled under the law to apply for his firearms licence.  Whether he is entitled to receive a firearms licence again isn't for you to decide, nor is it for you to decide what his attitude is about the victim, simply by his desire to go hunting again.  He simply has to establish that he is suitable from this point forward.  His history plays a part in that decision as it does for any of us.
> 
> You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same.  I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation.  To assume that he intends to disrespect the victims family just by feeling that he now wants to go hunting, places you fairly in the total bullshit part of the logical universe.  Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.
> 
> If you can't process or understand what I write, it doesn't make it shit.... it just means you don't have the capacity and you just can't deal with it emotionally.
> 
> The protections of the law for this man and for you, and the ability to make personal choices make this place a better place to live.  Go and live somewhere where they don't have them and see the difference.


Ummm ok. Ive read processed and understood your agument which has lead me to the conclusion that you are still a cock with an intellectual superiority complex!

----------


## stingray

this is the part .... sure it could be emotional biais and only the reporters spin on things... but it makes me see red all the same.  


In another sign that Dummer lacked remorse for the shooting, he questioned Cyndy McDonald about whether her son had a permit to be hunting in Aorangi at the time of his death. 

She referred him to a police report, saying it confirmed her son had a permit.

----------


## tararua

Dummer can still pick up a bow and arrow if he still wants to hunt shit.

He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot. That's why he wants a gun, so much easier work.

Didn't he keep insisting, he 'saw the shoulder of a deer'? When it was actually a blaze beanie 16 meters away? Fuck he probably has glaucoma from all that tobacco.

----------


## gadgetman

Actually these two little snippets are more close to each other than all sides realise. This fella SHOULD have a new respect for the consequences of pulling the trigger. One thing that I took from the process of obtaining my licence was when you look through the scope ask yourself, "Is this a person?"




> Give me a man to hunt with who thinks he could kill someone than the one who thinks he never could.






> Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.



I agree with both sides of the argument. Sidney is saying that Drummer has the right to apply, he is not saying that this application should be immediately accepted nor rejected. Everything should be weighed up and a decision made by those with all the information. Hence his suggestion that Tahr submit his experiences. There are a lot of questions that could be asked. Could loosing his FAL for life be considered serving his sentence, and that he is still serving it?

----------


## Scribe

Settle down you guys. Your victim has escaped your clutches for the time being. Put away your pointy hats and blazing brands.

Just remember in a few days time you can dig him up and do it all over again.

----------


## Maca49

Sydney has a point, the only prob I have is that, and im not just saying this guy, the past history of a person can be hidden or not told to the people making the decision to find guilty or not. Id be pissed if due process had occurred and I couldnt get on with what I legally allowed because of emotion. If you have previous convictions etc they should be laid on the table, a bad egg is usually a bad egg, not a born again virgin. Of course in the case of a raped woman the tables are turned with as much shit as possible about her, not the accused, being laid bare. Its a cocked up heap of shit!

----------


## gadgetman

> Sydney has a point, the only prob I have is that, and im not just saying this guy, the past history of a person can be hidden or not told to the people making the decision to find guilty or not. Id be pissed if due process had occurred and I couldnt get on with what I legally allowed because of emotion. If you have previous convictions etc they should be laid on the table, a bad egg is usually a bad egg, not a born again virgin. Of course in the case of a raped woman the tables are turned with as much shit as possible about her, not the accused, being laid bare. Its a cocked up heap of shit!


The difference between a legal system and a justice system. It does have a valid foundation though. Just because someone did it last time doesn't mean they did it this time. It must be proven that in the present situation they did it. Their history is meant to be taken into consideration for any punishment if found guilty of the latest transgression.

Trouble with jurisprudence is it does, with bad decision on top of bad decision, seem to eventuate in 


> a cocked up heap of shit!

----------


## Scribe

You know very time the subject of a shooting comes up and forum members wish for a harsher sentence for a loss of a life.

I wonder why 'Cave Creek' is never mentioned. 14 young lives were lost and others badly injured in this disaster. Just to refresh everybody's memories here. DOC ignored the need for a resource consent and built a platform out over a Gorge virtually relying upon screw nails to hold the structure together. It failed of course and collapsed down onto the canyon floor 40 metres below killing and maiming all that were on it at the time.

No one was ever charged with any offence at all on this matter nor was anyone penalised in any way. You see nobody at all was to blame for this, don't ask me why not, a school kid building it after school would have made a better job of it.

----------


## 308

Actually looking at Dummer's reputation and behaviour it's possible that he's had a head injury at some point in which case he is not a fit and proper person

----------


## Sidney

> You are correct. Law and objectivity are important elements of this discussion. But so too is emotion. All human interactions have elements of emotion, our own values and our own truths. To deny their existence and to not give them credence is to demean your own level of EQ (emotional intelligence).
> 
> Please do not respond with an assignment. I will not grade it.  A response that demonstrates that you are at least one legally trained person who can operate at both the objective and emotional levels would though be appropriate.





> While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life.





> You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same. I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation.


C'mon Thar..  thats a little patronising.  I am not your student.  Nor am I some 20 something with more conviction than understanding.

Perhaps you would like to identify empathy or emotional understanding in what is already written as above?  Sympathy for the victims for their loss is an absolute given.

But I'm actually not convinced that encouraging people to think that its OK to feel aggrieved about someone resuming hunting after such an event, is in fact much different than allowing people to not ban firearms for the same reason.

In fact you could well argue, that the intentional use of firearms is far more traumatic and provides far stronger argument for banning such, but we don't accept that sort of discussion or emotional response as being appropriate either.   Nor do we prevent drunk drivers returning to the road, careless drivers or dangerous drivers ..  unless they are likely to have continuing issues for other peoples safety.

That is the qualification, your knowledge of this man might indicate that is more likely, and that needs to be assessed and I have no issue with that.  Your posts were very sane but some of the following were not.

----------


## Maca49

> The difference between a legal system and a justice system. It does have a valid foundation though. Just because someone did it last time doesn't mean they did it this time. It must be proven that in the present situation they did it. Their history is meant to be taken into consideration for any punishment if found guilty of the latest transgression.
> 
> Trouble with jurisprudence is it does, with bad decision on top of bad decision, seem to eventuate in


You don't know many arseholes GM  :Thumbsup: or leopards

----------


## Maca49

> Well, since we've managed to turn what started as an emotional and moral debate into a legal one, here's a legal question.
> 
> If a person has had a FAL revoked, are they still able to handle a firearm under the close supervision of a FAL holder ?


Does the pope wear a funny hat?

----------


## Sidney

> Ummm ok. Ive read processed and understood your agument which has lead me to the conclusion that you are still a cock with an intellectual superiority complex!


In your world Nathan, there must be a lot of us around....   :Grin:

----------


## Rushy

Whoa bugger me this thread is charged with emotion.  See what happens when you don't hang guilty pricks!

----------


## Maca49

> Whoa bugger me this thread is charged with emotion.  See what happens when you don't hang guilty pricks!


I'll fu#king deal with you next weekend, how's the food looking?

----------


## Rushy

> I'll fu#king deal with you next weekend, how's the food looking?


Good for a Happy and I.

----------


## Maca49

Are you and Happy top and tailing?

----------


## Rushy

> Are you and Happy top and tailing?


Not for all the tea in China Maca.  I would have thought Happy would be bringing his little 30 cal cuddle buddy.

----------


## jakewire

> Actually looking at Dummer's reputation and behaviour it's possible that he's had a head injury at some point in which case he is not a fit and proper person


Rubbish, and that is as polite as I'm going to get.

----------


## Maca49

> Not for all the tea in China Maca.  I would have thought Happy would be bringing his little 30 cal cuddle buddy.


Only a 30 cal?

----------


## Tahr

> C'mon Thar..  thats a little patronising.  I am not your student.  Nor am I some 20 something with more conviction than understanding.
> 
> Perhaps you would like to identify empathy or emotional understanding in what is already written as above?  Sympathy for the victims for their loss is an absolute given.
> 
> But I'm actually not convinced that encouraging people to think that its OK to feel aggrieved about someone resuming hunting after such an event, is in fact much different than allowing people to not ban firearms for the same reason.
> 
> In fact you could well argue, that the intentional use of firearms is far more traumatic and provides far stronger argument for banning such, but we don't accept that sort of discussion or emotional response as being appropriate either.   Nor do we prevent drunk drivers returning to the road, careless drivers or dangerous drivers ..  unless they are likely to have continuing issues for other peoples safety.
> 
> That is the qualification, your knowledge of this man might indicate that is more likely, and that needs to be assessed and I have no issue with that.  Your posts were very sane but some of the following were not.


Yeah, it could have read as being patronizing. I actually thought I was being as funny as hell. A nice example of the difference between intention and impact. I need to up my EQ  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Sidney

The absence of tone and visual cues is a bitch...

----------


## Maca49

It's the far cues that are a prob!

----------


## silentscope

i hope he dosent get his licence, that shooting was in the areas near where i hunt, i sure dont want him anywhere near there while im out there

----------


## 308

Shit, sorry Mr Mod, He's obviously a great guy who wouldn't lie to a grieving mother

Yeah, a real prince





> Rubbish, and that is as polite as I'm going to get.

----------


## jakewire

> Shit, sorry Mr Mod, He's obviously a great guy who wouldn't lie to a grieving mother
> 
> Yeah, a real prince


The fact that somebody, anybody, has had a head injury is in no way a barrier to them being a fit and proper  person unless that head injury leaves them medically unfit.

----------


## 308

Fair enough, you are right

I am genuinely at a loss to explain this guy's behaviour in that case - maybe he is totally amoral or has no human empathy at all.

Whatever the cause may be I hope he doesn't get his license back






> The fact that somebody, anybody, has had a head injury is in no way a barrier to them being a fit and proper  person unless that head injury leaves them medically unfit.

----------


## Scouser

The whole point of this discussion, taking away the awful result of this persons action, is the fact that 'everybody' on this forum apart from Angus (to my knowledge) is in possesion of a FAL

Whether we hunt, punch paper, cull as a proffesion, eradicate pests, .........whatever.......when WE become legal firearm licence holders, we take on a huge moral obligation and a HUGE responsibility to society as a whole, to be SAFE in our said activity to peers and strangers alike...

It is not acceptable to me (IMHO) to say, 'sorry i screwed up, made a mistake' ect.....and then EXPECT to be able to carry on as if nothing happened......he has taken an innocent life.....I REPEAT, AN INNOCENT LIFE, not a near miss or a flesh wound......how?.....because he did not VERIFY his intended target......he did not have the patience to wait a couple of seconds to 100% make sure.......im a newbie, only took up the challenge of hunting last year.....i made my own personal vow to (hopefully, im only human after all) not pull the trigger until i have 
1) 100% verified i have recognised the target species and the backdrop is safe
2) double checked above when i have looked through my scope
i have had buck fever, and felt the adrenalin rush, but the overiding consequence (thank fuck) of not screwing up and causing tragedy for both sets of family & friends has held me back......im not trying to be Mr billy big bollocks who will never make a mistake as (hopefully) my ego is not that big......but this guy, to go back to the original reason im writing this, has NO 'right' to owning a FAL ever again.....whatever the legal right or wrongs

----------


## Sidney

its not up to you....

----------


## Scouser

> its not up to you....


Cheers Syd, if i may be so bold and ask what is your personal view on this, and not your legal view?

----------


## EeeBees

Sidney, it may not be up to Scouser or anyone, but everyone is permitted an opinion because everytime someone out there fucks up with a firearm, we all feel it...we all feel agrieved...

----------


## Sidney

> Cheers Syd, if i may be so bold and ask what is your personal view on this, and not your legal view?


I think that the realistic way to look at this is to imagine how it would affect you...

I think that its a little weird, and I can't imagine wanting to carry a rifle again because of that association with what happened.  But I also think that I would still want to hunt again, the whole experience, the outdoors, the pursuit is all therapeutic for me and I can imagine looking for that again.  I can't guarantee that I wouldn't feel like that again after some time had passed.

Personally I wouldn't consider it disrespectful to the victims, but neither would it be something that I considered doing again lightly.  If I did it, I would almost guarantee that it would be a solo experience, even if I did have mates who supported me in doing it again.  For me there is almost a spiritual connection to hunting and to deny that to somebody if they wanted to connect with that again, seems inequitable.

Maybe bowhunting or perhaps camera, possibly firearms but at this end of it its too hard to say.  That is sort of the point though.  The trauma of the event and the utter desperation prompts people to do and say things that they mean, but time passes.  Any human person seeks to restore themselves.  This isn't about excusing behaviour or justification.  But perpetuating punishment is not the role of the state or the rest of us.  

I genuinely believe that for most, they would be safer than any other hunter out there.  Now Mr Dumber might not be and that is not for me to say.  But I also believe its not for me to say whether he should hunt again, provided he can establish that he is suitable.  The level of scrutiny that he is obligated to satisfy is going to be greater than it is for the rest of us, and he should have to conclusively establish that he is suitable.  Part of that process might have to include psychological evaluation.

In many ways, going hunting again would provide constant reminders and that would not be easy.  It may actually be easier to not go hunting again.

All of this stuff isn't as simple as most would like it to be...

----------


## Chop3r

> About a month after the shooting I spoke to a guy who was on a hunt trip with this Dummer. The hunters had divvied up where they were going to go the night before and when setting out to his allotted area the next morning this guy smelled Dummers cigarette smoke in the area where he wasn't meant to be - when caught up with he said he'd changed his mind and thought it wasn't a big deal.
> 
> I've heard other rumours about this guy but that's the only one I know that I trust the speaker to be telling true.
> 
> I've worked way too hard to get my licenses to have my sport endangered by a dangerously foolish person like Dummer (with his road rage conviction)
> 
> To me he's like a recidivist drunk driver on the road - he's had his chances and fucked them up so it's time to take his toys away


Thats interesting, I have hunted with Chris just prior to the shooting and he didnt smoke

----------


## hanse

I think a lot of you guys need to get off your high horses, until you experience something similar you may not realise that this can happen to anybody. In my case my friend still sees the "deer" and I believe him. We all still "see" and remember a lot of things.

You can follow the seven rules, yet incorrectly i.d your target.

If this guy is deemed to be fit and proper again, there is no reason why he cant have his FAL. Whether or not he is fit and proper is not up to me to decide. I don't know the guy. 

I can guarantee that experiencing the accidental shooting of a mate, really drives home just important those seven rules are, and would also argue that it indeed made me a much more safety conscious  member of the community. Realising just how fragile life is really changes your perspective.

I just don't know if this Dummer guy has learnt anything by the sound of it  :Sick: 

My thoughts go out to anyone who has lost family, a friend or someone they love in tragic circumstances.

Like scribe said, I would rather hunt with someone who thinks they could kill someone, than someone who thinks it will never happen to them.

----------


## nor-west

> Thats interesting, I have hunted with Chris just prior to the shooting and he didnt smoke


Mmm there are a about 8 or so members on here including me that spent a week Tahr hunting with him, never saw him smoke, he did say and do some strange things though. Maybe there was someone else in the hunting area.

----------


## tararua

> You can follow the seven rules, yet incorrectly i.d your target.


No you can't cos identify your target is rule number 4.

I don't see how people can mistake their target unless someone is wearing an animal suit. If you can't identify an organ or head shot to cleanly kill it, you shouldn't shoot period.

I was parked up in a clearing one day, I hear something making noise so I stalk in to check it out. All I first see is the back of some dudes head moving then disappearing behind a bush. I 100% ID'd my target as a goat, and wondered wtf goats were doing in this area. I could have fired through the bush at movement alone with my semi auto, but that's just dumb. I waited for it to move out past the bush so I could get a front quarter organ shot (being a hunter and all). Alas it was no goat, just some dude wearing blaze. I hadn't even shouldered my rifle.

People need to check their enthusiasm and assume everything in the bush is another hunter. At one stage early on in my hunting, I had run into more people in the bush than game.

----------


## Kscott

In an ideal world, Chris could be treated the same as someone with a drivers license who caused death via an accident/carelessness. No license ever again, either FAL or drivers. Unfortunately we live in the real world, so drivers do get behind the wheel again. 

Here's hoping Chris doesn't get ever his FAL, due primarily to Cam's rights being removed and his inability to have a say in the matter.

Cam's right to have Xmas dinner with his family should trump Chris's right to help return / integrate into society, which seems to be via his desire to shoot and hunt again.

Alas the current law in NZ simply doesn't allow that to happen.

----------


## Spanners

> He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot. That's why he wants a gun, so much easier work.
> 
> Didn't he keep insisting, he 'saw the shoulder of a deer'? When it was actually a blaze beanie 16 meters away? Fuck he probably has glaucoma from all that tobacco.


So smoking was the cause of everything?

Seriously ?? _He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot._

That is the most STUPID thing I have ever heard.

----------


## tararua

meh I'm just saying I think he has eye problems.

----------


## Spanners

> meh I'm just saying I think he has eye problems.


No you said he's a couch potato because he's a smoker and wants a gun for easier work. 
As I said - the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The last bit doesn't even make sense. 
Do you live on a commune?

_He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot. That's why he wants a gun, so much easier work._

----------


## Scouser

Thanks Sydney, i totally understand & comprehend you reasoning......

----------


## gadgetman

> No you can't cos identify your target is rule number 4.
> 
> I don't see how people can mistake their target unless someone is wearing an animal suit. If you can't identify an organ or head shot to cleanly kill it, you shouldn't shoot period.


Not quite. This has been studied many times and it has been shown that people often 'see' what they expect/want to see. That is why there is the suggestion we should all stop and think to ourselves, "Is this a person?"

Analogous to crashing a motor vehicle. If you concentrate on what you might hit the odds are that you will hit it. If you concentrate on the safe spaces your outcome is likely to improve.

----------


## GSP

Just as an aside to this topic, few years back bunch of youths got into a fight at local park.  One of them carried a gun up from Christchurch.  One youth got shot and killed with it.  A few of the youths went to jail for this.  I read in the paper tonight they had a second trial on appeal and were acquitted as jury believed "self defence"  (like the youth couldn't unload it to prevent exactly what happened).  I wouldn't be too harsh on the accidental shooting man after reading this outcome.  Police must be gob smacked.

----------


## Dundee

Just goes to show how corrupt the justice system is in this country.  There is  no justice for the victoms anyway.

----------


## ebf

DD, I don't think the justice system here is "corrupt". If you want to see what a corrupt system looks like, go look at several countries in Africa where you can buy yourself out of a spot fine by bribing a cop and make dockets "disappear" by paying the correct person...

What it is over here is liberal, limp-wristed etc, but not necessarily corrupt. But society gets the justice system that matches it's values and beliefs. We a reaping the rewards of softly-softly, don't be too harsh approach.

----------


## Dundee

Ebf I just think lawyers and judges in this country are a bunch of soft cocks.

I have been sitting back quietly reading this thread not wanting to participate. After 7 pages I hit the keyboard. :Sad:   Just another opinion shared. :Wink:

----------


## Rushy

> We a reaping the rewards of softly-softly, don't be too harsh approach.


To right ebf.  What we need is a massive swing to the right of Roy Bean and Genghis Khan with public floggings and a stock and gallows in every town square.

----------


## Sidney

> DD, I don't think the justice system here is "corrupt". If you want to see what a corrupt system looks like, go look at several countries in Africa where you can buy yourself out of a spot fine by bribing a cop and make dockets "disappear" by paying the correct person...
> 
> What it is over here is liberal, limp-wristed etc, but not necessarily corrupt. But society gets the justice system that matches it's values and beliefs. We a reaping the rewards of softly-softly, don't be too harsh approach.



Serious crimes stats lowest for 15 years... prisons fuller than ever?

----------


## tararua

Grain of salt fellas.




> Just as an aside to this topic, few years back bunch of youths got into a fight at local park.  One of them carried a gun up from Christchurch.  One youth got shot and killed with it.  A few of the youths went to jail for this.  I read in the paper tonight they had a second trial on appeal and were acquitted as jury believed "self defence"  (like the youth couldn't unload it to prevent exactly what happened).  I wouldn't be too harsh on the accidental shooting man after reading this outcome.  Police must be gob smacked.


That one was a bit iffy to claim self defense, the jury were obviously convinced though. To me it didn't seem like a black and white case like the guncity guy defending himself from machete man.

----------


## ExPoh75

'this is very interesting as i have first hand knowledge from a farmer that caught him poaching a week before it happened and found him very arrogant and very agressive when confronted.'  

Same subject in another forum.  The person caught and confronted was Mr Drummer.

Hope you guys don't mind me adding my 2 cents worth, me being an aussie.  Many years ago I was almost shot in NZ so this sort of thing hits a raw spot with me.  There is just no excuse whatsoever for not identifying your target or being complacent or just down right stupid with a firearm

This person should never have the privilege to have a FAL again.  

If this had happened here he would have automatically had his FAL cancelled and his firearms confiscated on the assault charge with a blunt weapon.  He would be deemed 'a prohibited person' for 5 years and then would have to reapply for permission to obtain a FAL through the court he was convicted in.  As part of the process ALL parties affected would be interviewed by the DFO (district firearms officer) as to the suitability of the applicant to be able to apply for a FAL.  The DFO would then notify the police public prosecutor who in turn would present to the court the police recommendation.  The police are known to err on the side of precaution.  Hiring a Barrister to represent you in court is rather expensive!

BTW, just being put on a good behaviour bond deems you to be 'a prohibited person'.

Rant over

Pete

----------


## mick

If he does get his F A L back he won't be the first bloke who shot someone to be back out there.

----------


## Rushy

> 'this is very interesting as i have first hand knowledge from a farmer that caught him poaching a week before it happened and found him very arrogant and very agressive when confronted.'  
> 
> Same subject in another forum.  The person caught and confronted was Mr Drummer.
> 
> Hope you guys don't mind me adding my 2 cents worth, me being an aussie.  Many years ago I was almost shot in NZ so this sort of thing hits a raw spot with me.  There is just no excuse whatsoever for not identifying your target or being complacent or just down right stupid with a firearm
> 
> This person should never have the privilege to have a FAL again.  
> 
> If this had happened here he would have automatically had his FAL cancelled and his firearms confiscated on the assault charge with a blunt weapon.  He would be deemed 'a prohibited person' for 5 years and then would have to reapply for permission to obtain a FAL through the court he was convicted in.  As part of the process ALL parties affected would be interviewed by the DFO (district firearms officer) as to the suitability of the applicant to be able to apply for a FAL.  The DFO would then notify the police public prosecutor who in turn would present to the court the police recommendation.  The police are known to err on the side of precaution.  Hiring a Barrister to represent you in court is rather expensive!
> ...


Welcome to the forum Pete.  Of course we don't mind you having your two cents worth, in fact help yourself and take a dollar's worth.

----------


## Rushy

> prisons fuller than ever?


And wouldn't we be a far lesser burden on our society if they were not?  Hell I might even become fairly taxed and only have to pay as much as the man next to me.

----------


## Sidney

i think you miss the point rushy.. the poster was sounding off about liberal legal system etc..  the reality is not so if that is the case...

----------


## Dougie

I've jumped in a bit late here, but  @ebf

Somebody fucks up enough time in a car, they are "indefinitely disqualified" from having a drivers licence. This actually means two years, then start from scratch (learner a again).

During that time of disqualification, if they are found driving, regardless of the owner the vehicle is impounded for 28days and the person can be put before the courts for Driving While Disqualified. 

......

Get your FAL revoked, it's just revoked. It's the same as if you don't have one. Really the only offences you can commit is Unlawful Possession of a Firearm; say storing it at your place or having it in your car without your mate with a FAL around. 

There is no legal precedents to ban an individual from handling firearms. 

Sorry to say it, but have a good read of the arms act and you will see it's not too different from 'Mercia I'm terms of "the right to bare arms". 

Anyway, good for thought. This has been discussed extensively at work. The only thing I can think of is a bail condition imposed of "not to be in possession of firearms" or "not to use a firearm for the purpose of hunting" etc but Dummer is not on bail, he has been sentenced. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Dougie

Edit: I can't fix my autocorrect fails on the iPhone, apologies. Do your best to understand my gibberish 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## ebf

Tx Dougie, seems bit crazy huh ?

I still struggle to get my head around the concept of handing a firearm to someone that does not have a license... If this happens on a designated range, under the supervision of a RO, all good, but out in the bush it just seems like an accident waiting to happen.

Of course most of these deaths are caused by folks who already have a license, so probably won't change anything changing that part of the law. But I would really like to see some provision preventing a person from handling a firearm (at least for a good wee while).

Just my 5c, I'm sure others will disagree  :Grin:

----------


## Rushy

Acknowledging that I am a barbaric SOB who is out of place in modern society and who has extreme views on such matters, I still can't help but think that the simple application of a no lesser retaliation policy would have a far greater impact.

----------


## Dougie

> Tx Dougie, seems bit crazy huh ?
> 
> I still struggle to get my head around the concept of handing a firearm to someone that does not have a license... If this happens on a designated range, under the supervision of a RO, all good, but out in the bush it just seems like an accident waiting to happen.
> 
> Of course most of these deaths are caused by folks who already have a license, so probably won't change anything changing that part of the law. But I would really like to see some provision preventing a person from handling a firearm (at least for a good wee while).
> 
> Just my 5c, I'm sure others will disagree


Yep I totally agree but am a realist and can see this not happening ever in NZ. 

I'm the same with you on the supervision thing, and as you well know I pick and choose my hunting buddies even when they DO have a licence! 

I've had a few people ask me to take their kids out. To be honest, nothing scared me more. I can take responsibility for my own shots and wounded animals, but not other's! 

I really don't like handing the rifle over to my other half either, even though it makes him pissy. 

It looks like a lump of plastic and metal but the reality is, that thing is a whole lot of responsibility. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## 308

Ah, Rushy - could you clarify what you mean by  a no lesser retaliation policy?

Either I've missed something or I'm a bit thick cos I don't understand what you mean by that




> Acknowledging that I am a barbaric SOB who is out of place in modern society and who has extreme views on such matters, I still can't help but think that the simple application of a no lesser retaliation policy would have a far greater impact.

----------


## Rushy

> Ah, Rushy - could you clarify what you mean by  a no lesser retaliation policy?
> 
> Either I've missed something or I'm a bit thick cos I don't understand what you mean by that


Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not  comment further beyond explaining my view to you.  I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

----------


## Dougie

Ah, I've just thought of a way for a person not to have possession or use of a firearm! 

Life long parole conditions. However again, this won't happen in this situation with Dummer. Life parole is usually reserved for someone who could be served with a life sentence and in extreme circumstances like a serial killer or serial "manslaughterererer" that involved weapons I guess. 

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I was wrong, there is a way other than bail conditions @ebf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## sharps no 1

Drummer. I don't know the dude but have decided he would not be welcome in the same  place as me if he had his hands on a firearm or maybe even a rock. The facts are that; He was an executive in the nzda and no doubt pounded home gun safety/ target idendification and whatever as they do. A case of "Do as I say, not as I do?".
He did not shoot the victim as a result of a rebounding bullet or an accidental discharge, 
He fired at a target he had not positively identified and that was a deliberate act.
He seems to shown remorse when it would undoudtedly help his case before the Court and his arrogance now is unexcusable, especially by asking the mother of his victim if he had a hunting permit. If he had not would that have made him a legitamite target? Holy Shit, you get a permit from DOC for Aorangis, Tararuas, Rimutukas and share those areas with heaps of others there on the same bloody day.
The question was asked if the NZDA would welcome him back to the fold but so far I can't find a reply anywhere. It would be nice to hear from them and Drummer himself if he has big enough balls to come on the forum and defend himself.

----------


## 308

Thanks Rushy - I completely understand your desire to stay positive on the forum









> Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not  comment further beyond explaining my view to you.  I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

----------


## dirtyhabit

Having your FA license revoked is actually completely different to not having it in the first place



> Offences
> 
> The following summarises offences under the Arms Act 1983 and the Arms Amendment Act 1992.
> 
>     dealing in firearms unless a licensed Dealer
>     selling firearms for a Dealer unless a firearms licenceholder
>     as a Dealer failing to keep a prescribed transaction register
>     importing firearms without a Permit to Import
>     being in possession of a firearm unless licensed
> ...


From COLFOs website.

----------


## dirtyhabit

Section 49a of the Arms Act



> Unlawful possession of firearm or airgun after revocation of firearms licence
> 
>     Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person whose firearms licence has been revoked, is in possession of a firearm or airgun at a time when that person is not the holder of a firearms licence, and is not a person authorised, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that firearm or airgun.
> 
>     Section 49A: inserted, on 1 November 1992, by section 26 of the Arms Amendment Act 1992 (1992 No 95).
> 
>     Section 49A: amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

----------


## Sidney

> Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not  comment further beyond explaining my view to you.  I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.


The prob with your logic in these type of cases... is that you cannot apply that intentionally, where the original event was unintentional.  It would not be the same thing.

----------


## Maca49

Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!

----------


## Dougie

Ah yep sweet cheers for the list of offences. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Koshogi

> Well, since we've managed to turn what started as an emotional and moral debate into a legal one, here's a legal question.
> 
> If a person has had a FAL revoked, are they still able to handle a firearm under the close supervision of a FAL holder ?


No they are not.




> Ah, I've just thought of a way for a person not to have possession or use of a firearm!


If your FAL is revoked you can no longer use or possess a firearm under any circumstances.

From the Police Arms Manual
_Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983 Unlawful possession of a firearm or airgun after revocation of Firearms Licence with a penalty of 1 years imprisonment or a fine
of $4000 or both was created in 1992. This was for the specific purpose of creating a substantial offence for firearm licence holders whose licence had been revoked
either for no longer being fit and proper or for failing to respond to their call-in notice.

This offence, unlike other offences or provisions of the Arms Act 1983, does not specifically allow a defence of being under the immediate supervision of a licence holder. It does provide for an authorisation expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of a firearm. Whether or not this allows by implication the defence of immediate supervision is a matter of opinion at this stage, as it has not yet been tested in Court.

The intent of the offence was to ensure that firearms were not possessed by revoked persons and would therefore be unable to continue to lawfully use them.

To suggest that the immediate supervision defence was available makes a mockery of the law and if a prosecution under Section 49A was properly presented then it
should succeed.

In the event, prima facie, an offence has been committed IF A REVOKED PERSON IS IN POSSESSION. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that their
possession was lawful if the defence of immediate supervision is used._

It would appear based on others comments that this individual has been hunting since the incident, if this is the case, he has committed an offence if he used a firearm at any time.

We don't need more laws. We need better enforcement of existing laws and appropriate punishments by the courts.

----------


## Savage1

Unlawful/unlicenced possession of ammunition in a private place is also an offence that's not listed there.

----------


## gadgetman

> If your FAL is revoked you can no longer use or possess a firearm under any circumstances.
> 
> From the Police Arms Manual
> _Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983 “Unlawful possession of a firearm or airgun after revocation of Firearms Licence” with a penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment or a fine
> of $4000 or both was created in 1992. This was for the specific purpose of creating a substantial offence for firearm licence holders whose licence had been revoked
> either for no longer being fit and proper or for failing to respond to their call-in notice.
> 
> This offence, unlike other offences or provisions of the Arms Act 1983, does not specifically allow a defence of being under the immediate supervision of a licence holder. It does provide for an authorisation expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of a firearm. Whether or not this allows by implication the defence of immediate supervision is a matter of opinion at this stage, as it has not yet been tested in Court.
> 
> ...


Most of that is an opinion, much like the military pattern pistol grip saga. It would more be a matter of interpretation of possession I would have thought. If the above could be applied then no unlicensed person would be allowed to use a firearm even under supervision.

----------


## Koshogi

> Most of that is an opinion, much like the military pattern pistol grip saga.


True, I am not aware of this being tested in court. Maybe the Police should make this individual the test case?




> If the above could be applied then no unlicensed person would be allowed to use a firearm even under supervision.


Not true.

_Arms Act 1983
Section 22-Exemptions
(2) It is a good defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 20 or section 21 if the defendant proves,—

    (a) in the case of a prosecution relating to the possession of a firearm (not being a pistol or a restricted weapon) by any person,—

        (i) that the firearm was in the possession of that person for use under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence; and

        (ii) that at all times while that person was in possession of the firearm, that person was under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence; or_

You will note that this exemption does not apply to Section 49A.

_Section 49A- Unlawful possession of firearm or airgun after revocation of firearms licence

    Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person whose firearms licence has been revoked, is in possession of a firearm or airgun at a time when that person is not the holder of a firearms licence, and is not a person authorised, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that firearm or airgun._

----------


## gadgetman

> True, I am not aware of this being tested in court. Maybe the Police should make this individual the test case?


It even states that.





> Not true.
> 
> _Arms Act 1983
> Section 22-Exemptions
> (2) It is a good defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 20 or section 21 if the defendant proves,—
> 
>     (a) in the case of a prosecution relating to the possession of a firearm (not being a pistol or a restricted weapon) by any person,—
> 
>         (i) that the firearm was in the possession of that person for use under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence; and
> ...


Thanks, that is clearer.

----------


## Spanners

> True, I am not aware of this being tested in court. Maybe the Police should make this individual the test case?


There was one a year or so go with a guy from the wairarapa clay target shooting at the club under supervision after losing his license. 
He got done.

----------


## Sidney

> Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!


What does the "full force of the law" mean?  And what would its application actually do for the grieving and harmed, given that the situation is not repairable?

Do you think that slating some sort of vengeance requirement, is a legitimate role for the law to play?  Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate?  Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?

I can certainly understand how a person gets to be "intentionally outside of the law" when it comes to alcohol drugs and driving, but it seems to be a little less clear in the case of careless driving perhaps?  At what point does misidentification of a target become "acting intentionally outside the law"? 

Negligence and intention have the same level of culpabilty?  Recklessness is worse or better than negligence?  Now should just sentence on outcome perhaps?

----------


## Dundee

> What does the "full force of the law" mean?  And what would its application actually do for the grieving and harmed, given that the situation is not repairable?
> 
> Do you think that slating some sort of vengeance requirement, is a legitimate role for the law to play?  Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate?  Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?
> 
> I can certainly understand how a person gets to be "intentionally outside of the law" when it comes to alcohol drugs and driving, but it seems to be a little less clear in the case of careless driving perhaps?  At what point does misidentification of a target become "acting intentionally outside the law"? 
> 
> Negligence and intention have the same level of culpabilty?  Recklessness is worse or better than negligence?  Now should just sentence on outcome perhaps?



Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer :Grin:

----------


## Rushy

> Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer


Bullshit you can't count to ten Dundee, a cow only has four teets

----------


## Sidney

I'd hate to be accused of having all the answers..    :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## gadgetman

> Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?


Actually I would say yes. However we run more of a legal system than a justice system here.

----------


## Sidney

It was a rhetorical question, have a stab at how inequitable that would become.....  and how quickly we would descend into anarchy

----------


## gadgetman

> It was a rhetorical question, have a stab at how inequitable that would become.....  and how quickly we would descend into anarchy


We are. With the current lack of action at the bottom end, and over use of the wet bus tickets, the crims are lulled into a sense that nothing much will really happen. If you look at countries where the penalties are harsher for more minor crimes they tend to have less of the major crimes.

----------


## Sidney

I have a feeling that you don't really understand what anarchy is.  How do you explain a 15 year low in serious crime and overfull prisons in terms of your wet bus ticket theory...?

----------


## gadgetman

> I have a feeling that you don't really understand what anarchy is.  How do you explain a 15 year low in serious crime and overfull prisons in terms of your wet bus ticket theory...?


Changes in reporting and definitions? I'm not sure. There was a social experiment, implemented many years ago, where more emphasis was placed on lighter sentencing and other measures in order to correct behaviours with earlier offences in order to avoid people becoming career criminals. With this how do YOU explain why the prisons are fuller? To start with they think, "Wow, I'm treated pretty good. I's not so bad, ...", and they simply continue.

I know it is not a simple problem to solve. There are other factors:

Lack of corporal punishment in schools, for many a quick whack to put them in line worked. Some it didn't. The current situation where they don't want to be there and don't care if they are forced not to be doesn't really worry them.

Economic influences/unemployment. Sometimes people just have to survive, it has been happening for thousands of years now.

Drugs, often started as a release from social/economic issues. Being illegal they are driven underground which makes them expensive and crime is often the only means they can find to pay for it.

Social changes. It is instilled in the young that they have the right to be respected, to a certain extent yes. But in large true respect is something earned.

It is not easy, and I'm not sure you truly know the difference between a legal system and a justice system.

----------


## Sidney

perhaps you can tell me what justice is then...

----------


## gadgetman

It was a rhetorical question.

However, in my view, justice is skewed more towards punishments biased towards the impact of the crimes. This takes into account to a greater extent the effects on the victims, including the families and societies around them. Currently we have more what I call a legal system where the 'rules' are skewed more towards the rights of the perpetrators and their circumstances and a system of rules and processes.

It is not a black and white thing but a large grey scale. It is a matter of where the current position is on that scale.

Look at the likes of Malaysia where tolerances at the lower end of the crime spectrum are dealt with quite severely providing disincentives to the criminal path. More serious crimes are generally at a much lower rate than more lenient systems.

----------


## ExPoh75

> perhaps you can tell me what justice is then...


I'll tell you what justice isn't Sidney....the 10 years jail served of a life sentence by the 16 year old low life who shot my father in the back of the head, killing him.  It affected my whole life, but it seems that shouldn't matter.  Instead we should think of the perpetrator's well being and rights above those of the victim and family.  I wish I had been able to get up in court and express how this mongrel's actions had affected my family's lives.  

"Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?"

Why not?  Lawyers constantly appeal to the emotions of judges and juries. How many times do we have to hear of lawyers trying to mitigate the perpetrator's crime by stating 'the offender had an unfortunate upbringing, was socially and economically deprived, used alcohol/illicit substances etc. etc. ad nauseam.  I believe the courts really are doing a disservice to the victim, family and society if not taking into account how it affects them when sentencing the perpetrator.

I am so sick and tired of bleeding hearts sticking up for these scum.  Do the crime, do the time.  No second chance as far as I am concerned.  I am a big proponent of 'an eye for an eye', but I am a law abiding citizen that expects the courts to punish the offender accordingly.  Unfortunately I now have little faith in the legal system as I believe it is out of touch with community expectations.  The pendulum has now swung too far towards upholding the rights? of perpetrators as against society as a whole.

Am I emotional/bitter?  Too right I am.  

Pete

----------


## Rushy

Well said, and all power to your right arm Pete.

----------


## gadgetman

When this social experiment was set up what criteria to measure success or failure was put in place? What threshold was put in place to say that it was a failure and end the experiment? At either end of the grey scale we will have anarchy.

----------


## Savage1

Eye for an eye with no guilty intent?

I can understand 'eye for an eye' but only when there is a guilty intent and deliberate action.

Imagine you teenage kid going to jail for life because they took a corner too fast and killed another person, would the punishment fit?

The victim in this matter, his parents said on TV something along the lines of 'He should go away for a long time, I want his family to know what it's like to lose someone'. That to me is just vindictive and victimises the offenders family to make them feel a little better.

There's a big difference between people with guilty intent and people who've made and unintentional mistake, and people that're reckless.

I agree with most of Sidney's posts in this topic.

----------


## Sidney

> I'll tell you what justice isn't Sidney....the 10 years jail served of a life sentence by the 16 year old low life who shot my father in the back of the head, killing him.  It affected my whole life, but it seems that shouldn't matter.  Instead we should think of the perpetrator's well being and rights above those of the victim and family.  I wish I had been able to get up in court and express how this mongrel's actions had affected my family's lives.  
> 
> "Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?"
> 
> Why not?  Lawyers constantly appeal to the emotions of judges and juries. How many times do we have to hear of lawyers trying to mitigate the perpetrator's crime by stating 'the offender had an unfortunate upbringing, was socially and economically deprived, used alcohol/illicit substances etc. etc. ad nauseam.  I believe the courts really are doing a disservice to the victim, family and society if not taking into account how it affects them when sentencing the perpetrator.
> 
> I am so sick and tired of bleeding hearts sticking up for these scum.  Do the crime, do the time.  No second chance as far as I am concerned.  I am a big proponent of 'an eye for an eye', but I am a law abiding citizen that expects the courts to punish the offender accordingly.  Unfortunately I now have little faith in the legal system as I believe it is out of touch with community expectations.  The pendulum has now swung too far towards upholding the rights? of perpetrators as against society as a whole.
> 
> Am I emotional/bitter?  Too right I am.  
> ...


Pete...

You are correct, sentencing isn't justice.  You could say that sentencing is the execution of justice and it is a component of the system of justice.

I don't minimise the way your lives have been affected in any way.  But how would the way that you feel, and the way that you are affected by the loss of your father, actually change if the kid had got 20 years or the rest of his life, or even been hung by his neck?

I am not sticking up for anybody, accountability is the issue, but justice is simply being held accountable.  The sentence may be more or less equitable/fair in your opinion, but you are only considering it from your perspective.  Being a judge requires balancing perspectives, the victims, societal and the offender... whether you understand that or not this place is a better place because of it.

There are plenty of other places in the world  to live that don't balance those perspectives, but you and most of us would not want to live there.

What you are talking about is how that balance is prioritised or weighted.  That is always up for debate, but in spite of your understanding there is significant legal opinion that considers that our justice system has become too weighted towards the victim, and this distorts the application of the law.

I am always interested in the "rights of the criminal/perpetrator" comment.  People don't seem to connect that these are actually the same rights that apply to ordinary citizens, until guilt is established.  To reduce the "rights of the perpetrator prior to conviction" is to also reduce the rights of everybody else.  I'm certainly not comfortable with that, nor should anybody else be.

----------


## GravelBen

> I still struggle to get my head around the concept of handing a firearm to someone that does not have a license... If this happens on a designated range, under the supervision of a RO, all good, but out in the bush it just seems like an accident waiting to happen.


Doesn't the 'supervision' requirement mean that the person with a licence is supposed to be in a position to take control of the firearm at any time? One firearm in use per licence holder and so on. Obviously people don't always do it that way, but I think thats what the rules say.

So if you're using one rifle and giving your unlicenced mate one to use as well, you aren't supervising them.

----------


## ebf

> Doesn't the 'supervision' requirement mean that the person with a licence is supposed to be in a position to take control of the firearm at any time? One firearm in use per licence holder and so on. Obviously people don't always do it that way, but I think thats what the rules say.


Yes it does, but that is not what happens in the real world. On a range, maybe. Out in the bush or the back paddock it is a very different story.

----------


## BRADS

> Yes it does, but that is not what happens in the real world. On a range, maybe. Out in the bush or the back paddock it is a very different story.


For the real simple buggers can you explain how's it different in the back paddock?
Never been two a range but imagine some RO are Rambo dudes dealing with multiple range only shooters?

----------


## ebf

On a range it is reasonably simple to maintain "direct supervision". You have range officers, known range procedures etc. Not saying it can't go pear shaped, but unlikely.

On the farm or in the bush, mates shoot with a lot less formal rules. Very easy for a guy without a license who wants to try shooting to be handed a firearm, and then to wander off (away from direct supervision) or in a hunting scenario to split up and hunt the next valley etc.

Does that make sense ?

----------


## Dougie

> Yes it does, but that is not what happens in the real world. On a range, maybe. Out in the bush or the back paddock it is a very different story.


Still how I do it with the other half (one rifle, me and him) and it still scares the shit outta me sometimes!! He says I'm a rifle hog...I say I'm preventing an accident.

----------


## gadgetman

> I say I'm preventing an accident.


 :Grin:  :Grin:  :Grin:  :Thumbsup: 

I love the softly, softly, gentle approach Dougie. I'm the same. I am there and within very quick reach.

----------


## ExPoh75

> Pete...
> 
> You are correct, sentencing isn't justice.  You could say that sentencing is the execution of justice and it is a component of the system of justice.
> 
> I don't minimise the way your lives have been affected in any way.  But how would the way that you feel, and the way that you are affected by the loss of your father, actually change if the kid had got 20 years or the rest of his life, or even been hung by his neck?
> 
> I am not sticking up for anybody, accountability is the issue, but justice is simply being held accountable.  The sentence may be more or less equitable/fair in your opinion, but you are only considering it from your perspective.  Being a judge requires balancing perspectives, the victims, societal and the offender... whether you understand that or not this place is a better place because of it.
> 
> There are plenty of other places in the world  to live that don't balance those perspectives, but you and most of us would not want to live there.
> ...


Fair enough comment Sydney.  I apologise if you think my comments were a direct attack on you personally, that was not my intention.

I was trying to give an example of where, in my opinion, the legal system let not only my family but also society down.

Anyway we seem to have drifted away from the main thrust of the original post so I'll leave it that.

----------


## Sidney

No issues Pete.... I know and have seen....

Found this quote which is worth reflection...... the balance thing again.......


_Mercy in the absence of justice leads to weakness. Justice in the absence of mercy leads to tyranny._           St Augustine

----------


## Tahr

> No issues Pete.... I know and have seen....
> 
> Found this quote which is worth reflection...... the balance thing again.......
> 
> 
> _Mercy in the absence of justice leads to weakness. Justice in the absence of mercy leads to tyranny._           St Augustine


“Forgiveness has nothing to do with absolving a criminal of his crime. It has everything to do with relieving oneself of the burden of being a victim--letting go of the pain and transforming oneself from victim to survivor.” 
― C.R. Strahan

----------


## Dougie

> “Forgiveness has nothing to do with absolving a criminal of his crime. It has everything to do with relieving oneself of the burden of being a victim--letting go of the pain and transforming oneself from victim to survivor.” 
> ― C.R. Strahan


Yesssss I was trying to find this!

Not trying to diss the victims here, but what sentence would it take? I doubt, if they allow themselves to continue dwelling, that a life sentence or hanging or shooting or anything like that will make themselves feel better until they _decide_ to feel better and move on.

We are much better as people to take a deep breath and be sad, but know that we can't control other people's bad actions and continue with our lives.

----------


## Dougie

And trying to stay beyond the dirty P word here - now remember who I am and where I am coming from as well, I'm not the most clued up on this stuff but do have an interest and am coming from a genuine place - is prison and serving sentences not just about _punishment_, but also about the safety of others and the rehabilitation of the offender? 

Like...trying to help them to 1) not be in the position again and 2) if they are there again, make a better decision?

----------


## gadgetman

> “Forgiveness has nothing to do with absolving a criminal of his crime. It has everything to do with relieving oneself of the burden of being a victim--letting go of the pain and transforming oneself from victim to survivor.” 
> ― C.R. Strahan





> Yesssss I was trying to find this!
> 
> Not trying to diss the victims here, but what sentence would it take? I doubt, if they allow themselves to continue dwelling, that a life sentence or hanging or shooting or anything like that will make themselves feel better until they _decide_ to feel better and move on.
> 
> We are much better as people to take a deep breath and be sad, but know that we can't control other people's bad actions and continue with our lives.


A bit like that story about the two wolves fighting.


It is a very complex issue with no single answer. Some will straighten up quick sharp, others will not. There is more to it than just leaving the legislature, police and judicial system to deal with the problem. It is a society problem; it is *our* problem. Everyone is the victim and everyone needs to be part of the solution. It costs everyone in increased insurance costs or just accepting the inevitable losses.

Look at why so many are heading down this road. Find this out and fix the problems there and things will improve. This thread is really about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and deciding which side of the beach at the bottom to park. The majority of the problems stem from unemployment/financial stress, lack of father figures/role models in their lives and our tendency to not have such strong local communities. We need more people to put in an effort in their local communities and dare I say it better/new government approaches to economic development/welfare that will benefit the whole community.

And yes, I'm sorry, I was a bit of an internet troll stirring the pot earlier to bring out a few more views.  :Sick:

----------


## EeeBees

> Yesssss I was trying to find this!
> 
> Not trying to diss the victims here, but what sentence would it take? I doubt, if they allow themselves to continue dwelling, that a life sentence or hanging or shooting or anything like that will make themselves feel better until they _decide_ to feel better and move on.
> 
> We are much better as people to take a deep breath and be sad, but know that we can't control other people's bad actions and continue with our lives.


I see your point, Dougie, but as in all things human, it is not quite so simple...most people simply need a sense of justice to prevail...and it is the sense of justice that eleviates much of the pain and devastating loss...knowing that there is some justice in the whole ghastly abhorrant matter...as a democratic country, we have a perception and an expectation that justice and lawfulness will serve us and protect us...

The families are not the victims, the person lost is the victim; the family are the ones with holes in their hearts...which only TIME will ease...

----------


## Dougie

Yes I agree EeeBees, if only it were that simple! Sigh. 

Why aren't people just good to each other??!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## EeeBees

Well we all have different ideals, aspirations, sense of self,  and on and on and on...we, the human, are the most vicious of all animals...the atrocities that we will exact upon others has no bounds...thankfully, most of us never realise our capabilities...

----------


## Tahr

> I see your point, Dougie, but as in all things human, it is not quite so simple...most people simply need a sense of justice to prevail...and it is the sense of justice that eleviates much of the pain and devastating loss...knowing that there is some justice in the whole ghastly abhorrant matter...as a democratic country, we have a perception and an expectation that justice and lawfulness will serve us and protect us...
> 
> The families are not the victims, the person lost is the victim; the family are the ones with holes in their hearts...which only TIME will ease...


Well, sometimes time never heals. Often because we are hooked into wishing for a better past. Peace is likely to elude us until we let that futile hope go, and begin to construct a more hopeful future ourselves.

----------


## EeeBees

Yes, Tahr you are right, but it cannot happen overnight...

----------


## ExPoh75

Sorry guys, I have to disagree with some of the well meant and noble statements in the last few posts.  If only we lived in a perfect world.

I work as a psychiatric nurse in the public mental health system.  I have a Masters Degree in Mental Health Nursing so feel somewhat qualified to comment, not only on a professional level, but also from personal experience which I alluded to in an earlier post..

I see daily the devastation and complete loss of worth that a member or members of families of victims suffer.  It is not so cut and dried.  Families of victims become victims themselves and often suffer horrendously.  The mind is a complex organism and some people simply cannot cope with a life changing event in their lives.  Unfortunately, making a decision to "feel better and move on" is not an option that some people, through no fault of their own, are able to undertake.

Time does ease pain, however the pain will always be there.  Just depends on how well an individual can cope with it.

Most people need closure.  Justice needs to be not only seen and heard, but also delivered commensurate to the crime.  If the families of victims cannot comprehend the decision then their grief will only be compounded.  It's a difficult area, one of which I don't have an answer to.

What I do believe though is that if a person wilfully and callously takes the life of another person then they should forfeit their life.  An eye for an eye in my ideal just world.

Just saying....

----------


## Sidney

... "commensurate" is the world you used... and apparently to the satisfaction of the person so affected... and you think that would be a perfect outcome?

What about the community of people around the offender who might not feel that the victims subjectivity about what is "commensurate" might not be equitable...?

Do you think that might create ongoing problems for society if we rely on a victims perception of what is commensurate, and expect the state to execute that?  What about those innocent people around that offender...will you be working with them as a result of their perception of inequitable treatment as a result of relying on the subjectivity of victims?

Closure is not relevant to the length or type of sentence applied.  It is relevant to the ability of the person to reconcile the situation for themselves and the support to do so.  People will either achieve that or will never achieve that irrespective of the actual outcomes from the justice system..

----------


## ExPoh75

"commensurate" as prescribed by law.  You took it the wrong way and assumed I was stating otherwise.

----------


## 308

Good on ya ExPoh - things were getting way too lovey-dovey up in this thread.

The problem with "keeping an open mind" is that sometimes ya brain falls out

----------


## Tahr

> Sorry guys, I have to disagree with some of the well meant and noble statements in the last few posts.  If only we lived in a perfect world.
> 
> I work as a psychiatric nurse in the public mental health system.  I have a Masters Degree in Mental Health Nursing so feel somewhat qualified to comment, not only on a professional level, but also from personal experience which I alluded to in an earlier post..
> 
> I see daily the devastation and complete loss of worth that a member or members of families of victims suffer.  It is not so cut and dried.  Families of victims become victims themselves and often suffer horrendously.  The mind is a complex organism and some people simply cannot cope with a life changing event in their lives.  Unfortunately, making a decision to "feel better and move on" is not an option that some people, through no fault of their own, are able to undertake.
> 
> Time does ease pain, however the pain will always be there.  Just depends on how well an individual can cope with it.
> 
> Most people need closure.  Justice needs to be not only seen and heard, but also delivered commensurate to the crime.  If the families of victims cannot comprehend the decision then their grief will only be compounded.  It's a difficult area, one of which I don't have an answer to.
> ...


Your apparent objectivity was rather undermined by your last paragraph, and your first post. It seems that closure for you, in your particular circumstances, was dependent on the corporal punishment of the person who caused your father's death.

Your qualifications and professional opinion mean nothing if you can not remain objective. 
I have a PhD in life, and a few certificates, which include "50 yards freestyle".

----------


## scottrods

> Yes I agree EeeBees, if only it were that simple! Sigh. 
> 
> Why aren't people just good to each other??!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" - Jeramiah.

----------


## kotuku

expoh-hmmmy es like yourself im a psych nurse(43yrs) and i agree with your POV.my only comment on this whole thing is why this bloke makes an unequivocal statement about not going near firearms ever again ,then oops i forgot to mention Im intending to reapply for my FAL????????HYPOCRISYand self entitlement.  its a little like career crims whose lawyers tell the court about their letters of remorse etc etc .its blatantly obvious is a cover my own arse shorten my sentence tactic.I often hear em laughing about it on the shop floor.
 anyone who like my colleague and I has worked in institutions(me Im in the forensic psychiatric field) sees the human psyche unadorned and often at it very worstand often there are no answers ,apart from DEATH(which if you actually think about it is the ultimate answer to all lifes problems)
 Now sidney before you jump on me ,and seeing as you appear clued up ,google Dr  Ceri Evans -hes very well written on the psyche of criminals,the function of psyche in realtion to crime ,and the functioning of the psyche in relation to the after effects of crime. Ceri is my boss.

----------


## ebf

Thread is getting waaaay to sipholophical for this hillbilly hippie  :Psmiley:

----------


## kotuku

Laws are written for the guidance of the wise man,the obeyance of the fool

until such time as wise men may sit round a table and reasonably discuss their problems ,nothing in life will ever be resolved.(Dr P K Davison medical supt.seaview hospital hokitika)

----------


## Spook

> Thread is getting waaaay to sipholophical for this hillbilly hippie


I know what you mean, but it is good to know we have phyco nurses keeping an eye on us all.
I know of two killers of hunters who have gone back to hunting and one other that severely injured another hunter who has also gone hunting again...I guess it is a bit like automobile killers getting back behind the wheel.
At least when Dumber says he is going hunting everyone else will stay at home giving him a clear field.

----------


## Sidney

> expoh-hmmmy es like yourself im a psych nurse(43yrs) and i agree with your POV.my only comment on this whole thing is why this bloke makes an unequivocal statement about not going near firearms ever again ,then oops i forgot to mention Im intending to reapply for my FAL????????HYPOCRISYand self entitlement.  its a little like career crims whose lawyers tell the court about their letters of remorse etc etc .its blatantly obvious is a cover my own arse shorten my sentence tactic.I often hear em laughing about it on the shop floor.
>  anyone who like my colleague and I has worked in institutions(me Im in the forensic psychiatric field) sees the human psyche unadorned and often at it very worstand often there are no answers ,apart from DEATH(which if you actually think about it is the ultimate answer to all lifes problems)
>  Now sidney before you jump on me ,and seeing as you appear clued up ,google Dr  Ceri Evans -hes very well written on the psyche of criminals,the function of psyche in realtion to crime ,and the functioning of the psyche in relation to the after effects of crime. Ceri is my boss.


Firstly I am no expert in the area of mental health, nor do I have an in depth understanding of what is required for the individual to achieve reconciliation.  But I have some concerns with the ideas expressed because they tend to confuse individual desires and expectations, with the big picture issues and how they will affect society as  a whole.

I appreciate the point made about an victims journey, a feeling that the outcome is equitable may help with the process of personal reconciliation... but my concern is that a victims perception of equity is often not consistent with the laws interpretation, nor with the community societal view and expectation.

If our goal is an equitable society we cannot compromise the dispassionate application of the law, by a court system that is independent of political pressure and the understandable emotional response of victims.  

That being said, there is definitely a place for the offender to be confronted by the trauma caused, and that may provide assistance to all parties to deal with the ongoing issues of coming to terms with what has happened.

----------


## gadgetman

> but my concern is that a victims perception of equity is often not consistent with the laws interpretation, nor with the community societal view and expectation.


However there is a growing wave of feeling that the laws interpretation is way out of step with every other parties expectation, ... including offenders. Sure they plea for as low a sentence as possible as that is even how our economy runs; maximize profits and minimise losses (well the bit of the economy excluding governments that seem to go for the opposite). You could say that they feel the sentences are too low by the fact that they are not already dissuaded from their career path. 




> That being said, there is definitely a place for the offender to be confronted by the trauma caused, and that may provide assistance to all parties to deal with the ongoing issues of coming to terms with what has happened.


That really only works if they truly are remorseful. Many have shown utter disdain for their victims family, who are in themselves victims.

----------


## kotuku

first of all sidney lets face a coupla facts about your beloved law ok.
No1-the westminster system is an adverserial system ,and as has often been proven open to manipulation and abuse.
no2 -the arean of judicial process is an artificial one for gods sakes.with the absolute plethora of legislation ocvering every minute factor about the process ,what actually goes into proving a case is in all probablitiy a fraction of what in essence is the ungarnished truth ;what exactly went on at that very point in time of the act being committed ,what is relevant to the setting of the actions.
  Part of our forensic rehab process is getting those placed in psych hosptial to do violence prevention groupwork and individually offence chain work.this is often very painful andat least uncomfortable.In the words of one of my residents recently-"why the fuuck has it taken me so long to realise what I put people through."his actions -Obviously i cannot say due to privacy but hes well and truly up there in shagnasty rankings.
  yeah the victims suffer from the moment of the offence ,but the offender ,dependent on circumstances and moreso attitude ,may well go through like with "so what " or the mispent adulation of dysfunctional peer groups commonly referred to as "staunch"
  the work done by the offender ipsofacto is often never communicated to the victims due to legal process imposed barriers,mostly to do with the protective factor ,or usually the victims whanau wishing to forget the trauma., let alone the malfunctioning DNA sample who caused it.

----------


## Sidney

We aren't talking cross purposes here, and I don't pretend that the application of the law is rehabilitive very often.  Nor do I pretend that any system is perfect, but in my considered opinion, this one ain't as bad as I was expecting it to be.. everything is artificial if humans create it.....

Of course I see value in the sort of work you are doing.  The issues I have and was referring to are around an emotive response to sentencing, driven by victim perceptions. That is a can of worms with potentially very negative outcomes...

The lock em up and throw away the key approach is simple, satisfying at a rudimentary level and actually doesn't solve the problem... we have a ways to go to get to the american level of failure in that regard, but we are in second place....

----------


## gadgetman

> The issues I have and was referring to are around an emotive response to sentencing, driven by victim perceptions. That is a can of worms with potentially very negative outcomes...


If this requirement is not addressed then there are very major negative outcomes. At the moment it is skewed far too far towards the favour of the perpetrator with little regard to the victims. As you said earlier that all things must be weighed up, that means all things including the victims expectations.

----------


## Sidney

Gagetman

Again, we apparently have the lowest rate of serious offending for 15 years and the fullest prisons.  I would suggest that public perception is most likely inaccurate.

Deterence is a very subjective area and is not well understood by anybody, let alone the average poorly trained & environmentally challenged, under 25 yr old offender, with low empathy, and non complete frontal lobe development..... it doesn't occur to them that they might get caught, let alone how serious the sentence might be.

Confrontation of the damage caused is part of accountability, but you are correct, further damage to the victims is not appropriate and strict criteria for both parties has to be evident before any benefit can result...

----------


## Scouser

@Sidney whats your opinion on the NZ based Sensible Sentencing Trust........if we have the lowest rate of serious offending and full prisons, why do you think victims families and concerned citizens went to the trouble to set up this organisation?

There are many, many more ordinary citizens out there who think along the same lines....we all know we will never live in some crime free utopia, WE (the majority) just want them off our streets and 'punished' for their offence not given the "arr poor boy, its not his fault his parents/one parent, either didnt give him the love and upbringing he deserved, shite"....so put him 'right' inside, when hes doing his minimum 10 year stretch....not 10 months to be released and re offend.....

It wont work for the the vast majority of crims, but at least it keeps the bastards out of lives for longer.....their going to end up back inside sooner or later anyway (stereotyping again).....

----------


## R93

I would happily  support a Chinese style system for certain offenders😆

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

----------


## Sidney

If they took the word "sensible" out of their name, I would listen more.  If the only solution that organisation has is for longer sentences, then frankly they are just feeding off other peoples misery (the victims) and perpetuating the idea that that might actually work.

There is a place for preventative detention for those that cannot function outside.  I would just like to see less of those people being created by "sensible" people.

There is a logistical problem with prisons, if you accommodate larges numbers of the same sort of people, in a confined environment - you will not produce a different type of person when you let them go.... that would be the definition of stupidity wouldn't it?  - to expect something different?

We cannot continue to grow our prison population and not have cumulative and snowballing effect.... kids without fathers, families locked into single parenting.... a whole increasing generation of resentment...

This ain't about being soft on offenders, its about our future as a society.....

----------


## Rushy

This whole discussion winds me up far more than it should do but it is probably because I see the solution as being simple.  If we rid society of all inmates in our prisons that have been convicted for crimes such as murder, rape and causing harm etc by transporting them to Auckland Island and set up an exclusion zone patrolled by our navy,then we could leave them to their own devices without their being a burden on society.  Yes they would likely die quick from exposure or slowly from starvation but frankly I couldn't care less. The money saved from prison closures and from not catering for these scum could be directed toward feeding the many hungry children in our schools.

----------


## Spook

> This whole discussion winds me up far more than it should do but it is probably because I see the solution as being simple.  If we rid society of all inmates in our prisons that have been convicted for crimes such as murder, rape and causing harm etc by transporting them to Auckland Island and set up an exclusion zone patrolled by our navy,then we could leave them to their own devices without their being a burden on society.  Yes they would likely die quick from exposure or slowly from starvation but frankly I couldn't care less. The money saved from prison closures and from not catering for these scum could be directed toward feeding the many hungry children in our schools.


I have, for some time believed that our prison inmates should be housed in prisons on a Pacific Island...would be a great income earner for the Islands...their rules would differ from ours as far as growing their own food.
No good building prisons on remote islands near Antarctica as under our present rules only heating is provided for inmates and not their jailers.

----------


## Tahr

> This whole discussion winds me up far more than it should do but it is probably because I see the solution as being simple.  If we rid society of all inmates in our prisons that have been convicted for crimes such as murder, rape and causing harm etc by transporting them to Auckland Island and set up an exclusion zone patrolled by our navy,then we could leave them to their own devices without their being a burden on society.  Yes they would likely die quick from exposure or slowly from starvation but frankly I couldn't care less. The money saved from prison closures and from not catering for these scum could be directed toward feeding the many hungry children in our schools.


A society with the the capacity to do that, or behave like the Chinese do as suggested, would eventually turn on itself with the same vengeance and viciousness. That would then justify rule by a police state.

The book Lord of the Flies comes to mind.

----------


## Scouser

Oh come on Sid mate.....enough of the pseudo intellectual lawyer bollocks, first 'commensurate' twisted to serve your point of view, now youve hijacked 'sensible' from sensible sentencing........sure your not going to drop Law and become a politician........i recon your just arguing for arguments sake and taking the piss......

Quite simply, what we have is not working, the government cant afford to build more prisons, so if there full, that must mean the judges are being told to lessen the sentences.......you cant fool ALL of the people all of the time......

----------


## Dundee

13 pages of  :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## Rushy

> I have, for some time believed that our prison inmates should be housed in prisons on a Pacific Island...would be a great income earner for the Islands...their rules would differ from ours as far as growing their own food.
> No good building prisons on remote islands near Antarctica as under our present rules only heating is provided for inmates and not their jailers.


You misunderstood me Spook.  I would not build them anything nor give them anything.  Just drop them off and wave goodbye.

I heard on the news last night that some young prick tried to rob an elderly woman at an ATM.  Apparently a woman with a young family in tow tried to intervene so the young prick gets all violent on it and now this law abiding Good Samaritan has a skull fracture.  I don't want to hear that the little shit head wasn't cuddled. If he is found he should be bound and placed on his knees in front of the injured woman's husband, brothers, father, uncles, cousins neighbours and any other bugger that wants to be in the line up so they can kick the living shit out of his head.  If this sounds like I am angry then it is because I am sick and tired of this sort of shit happening in our society.

----------


## Sidney

> Oh come on Sid mate.....enough of the pseudo intellectual lawyer bollocks, first 'commensurate' twisted to serve your point of view, now youve hijacked 'sensible' from sensible sentencing........sure your not going to drop Law and become a politician........i recon your just arguing for arguments sake and taking the piss......
> 
> Quite simply, what we have is not working, the government cant afford to build more prisons, so if there full, that must mean the judges are being told to lessen the sentences.......you cant fool ALL of the people all of the time......


just read the post and process it...  maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing...  that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?

if you don't understand that increasing prison populations will have a negative and cumulative effect, then I would have to question just how "sensible" you are...

i got faith in you....  I'm sure you be able to get there with a bit of effort.... us pseudo intellectuals just get pissed off with people who appear to only know enough to know the solutions   :Grin:

----------


## Scouser

Touche.....im going to leave this thread alone now, ive said my 2c.....maybe more!!!!!....everyone knows where i stand.....society will never change, neither will i.......

----------


## EeeBees

Closure...strange expression really...how the blazes does it manifest itself...what is it...?  Its a cliche...

----------


## 308

Hahaha 3 strikes then Rushy double taps ya

----------


## gadgetman

> just read the post and process it...  maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing...  that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?
> 
> if you don't understand that increasing prison populations will have a negative and cumulative effect, then I would have to question just how "sensible" you are...
> 
> i got faith in you....  I'm sure you be able to get there with a bit of effort.... us pseudo intellectuals just get pissed off with people who appear to only know enough to know the solutions


Your details are lacking and what you have put up do not support your argument. The only statistic that would indicate the 'sensibility' of terms would be the length of sentences of those behind bars now compared to some other earlier time; not the fullness of the rooms. If beer dropped 66% in price, and twice as many people drunk 10% less, then less money would be spent on beer but the pubs would be fuller. Another way is that the sentences could be 33% less but 100% more people could be desperate enough to have to turn to crime to support themselves. Another useful measure could be the current rate of people appearing in court compared to earlier times and the length of the sentences they receive.

Maybe you should consider that the prisons are fuller for another reason than the stiffer sentences, that to everyone but you, are not being handed out?

----------


## ARdave

so pretty much everyone agrees to disagree and always will , the law is fucked but could be much worse , all lawyers are word ninjas , and always blow on the pie

----------


## EeeBees

Lawyers are like bandaids...we can knock them for all we like, until, we need one...

----------


## Sidney

Mr Gadget.. I am afraid that because I am opinionated and can argue, you might believe that I know what the answer is.   :Have A Nice Day: 

An increasing prison population could be a result of a few things....  longer sentences, more criminals per head population, increasing population for the same sentencing levels, or more imprisonable offences...

In the last 2o years, the latter has occurred, population has increased, legislative punishment has gotten tougher, and judges have sentenced more vigorously.  They actually are cognisant of societal expectations to some extent.

So its probably combination of all of the above, plus a few other things...  the nett effect being fuller prisons.  And despite statistical outliers that hit newspapers, the premise that judges are softer has had no evidence presented to justify that argument.  Full prisons may suggest that that actually hasn't been the case, at least until they are completely full.  So lets see data to show judges are sentencing more lightly......if thats your contention.... because plucking newspaper headlines aint evidence...

Sensibility is not an increasing prison population......

----------


## ARdave

> Lawyers are like bandaids...we can knock them for all we like, until, we need one...


haha horrible analogy but i feel what your saying . anyway fuck stressing about what this dickhead dummer dude might or might not do and go hunting/shooting. theres dickheads in every corner of society, huntings no different, some people get what they deserve, most dont. in this life anyway. thats why we got beers and mountains and stripclubs

----------


## gadgetman

> Mr Gadget.. I am afraid that because I am opinionated and can argue, you might believe that I know what the answer is.  
> 
> An increasing prison population could be a result of a few things....  longer sentences, more criminals per head population, increasing population for the same sentencing levels, or more imprisonable offences...
> 
> In the last 2o years, the latter has occurred, population has increased, legislative punishment has gotten tougher, and judges have sentenced more vigorously.  They actually are cognisant of societal expectations to some extent.
> 
> So its probably combination of all of the above, plus a few other things...  the nett effect being fuller prisons.  And despite statistical outliers that hit newspapers, the premise that judges are softer has had no evidence presented to justify that argument.  Full prisons may suggest that that actually hasn't been the case, at least until they are completely full.  So lets see data to show judges are sentencing more lightly......if thats your contention.... because plucking newspaper headlines aint evidence...
> 
> Sensibility is not an increasing prison population......


Sidney,

I have not plucked any newspaper headlines. I don't tend to bother with news as most of it is ill researched, ill written sensationalism. I am very un-opinionated and if you have followed what I've posted in various posts in this thread you will have noticed that I've put in a lot of arguments on both sides of your argument.

There is a lot more crime now, that cannot be denied. 30 years ago if a vehicle was stolen it was quite a thing; when mine disappeared earlier this year I got a letter from the police saying they are not looking for vehicles but is someone finds it it will be found. The whole level of what is investigated has moved even with more police about. Why is that? A mixture of the police not having the respect they once held, more crime, a lot more paperwork, higher levels of evidence needed, ....

If you look at periods of low crime levels it is when there is low unemployment and good economic times. When things go pear shaped in the economy and unemployment increases then more tend to turn to crime. Once they have a record it is hard for them to find employment; the guy with a clean slate will generally get the position first. Hey, we're in a vicious cycle. As I said earlier the issue is being looked at from completely the wrong angle. We need to get to a position where the severity of the sentencing isn't really the issue, ... it is the lower amount of sentencing due to lower crime we want to get to. 

Back in the day it was easy for the local bobby to put the 'fear of' up a young fella and steer him back on the right tracks. There were more fathers at home that would provide a good guiding influence, including a good clip round the ear when required, particularly with adolescent males. ... There are many things that have changed.

----------


## gadgetman

> Lawyers are like bandaids...we can knock them for all we like, until, we need one...


They are in their own self perpetuating world that we unfortunately must tread from time to time.

Actually most of the law jokes I've heard came from one of my law lecturers/tutors.

Q: What do you call 2000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.

Q: Why don't sharks eat lawyers that fall off yachts?
A: Professional courtesy.

Q: Why are scientists using lawyers for lab experiments rather than rats?
A: They grow less of a personal attachment.

----------


## Dougie

> Deterence is a very subjective area and is not well understood by anybody, let alone the average poorly trained & environmentally challenged, under 25 yr old offender, with low empathy, and non complete frontal lobe development..... it doesn't occur to them that they might get caught, let alone how serious the sentence might be....


Yes! This exact thing! That's what I was trying to say... 

There is absolutely no way that prison in Wellington anyway is a deterrence to offenders. Why do you think I can spell so many tricky names correctly? Repetition. This also has me believe that prison isn't a punishment either. 

For police anyway, the Bail Oppositions I've seen are all about public and victim safety, not "lock him up because he's an asshole and he did bad stuff"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Dougie

Ah, I've been too busy playing with my guns that I missed this boat... 

Anyway, good chat lol 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Scouser

"maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing...  that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?"

Oh Sid, had to come back in so all the 'pieces of shit' reading this on their laptops in prison will understand (front lobel development, withstanding).......

The 'piece of shit' gets his (reduced) sentence from the judge......the prisons are full.....dilemma, how do we lock this 'piece of shit' away?....easy....part 2 of our fantastic legal system comes into effect.....drum roll please!!!!!!!

the fukin Parole board.....they then release another 'piece of shit' early, from his reduced sentence to make way for the new 'piece of shit' to take his warm bed (and laptop) in prison.......and so the cycle revolves....kapish?

----------


## Sidney

C'mon mr gadget....

The whole tenor of this thread is that the justice system is soft on crime.  That reaction is solely based on various emotional stories and headlines but no actual data. It is a popular media and political sponsored idea that I am yet to see actually substantiated.   Scouser thinks that explaining his version of how the parol board works is somehow relevant... but again no actual data.

When I point out that out prisons are full its not be conclusive to say that prison sentencing is tougher, but it is at least indicative that it might not be as soft as is assumed.

All of these threads are the same... isn't it dreadful, lock em up forever, the justice system is soft, put em on an island to eat themselves.  That is simple emotional response and these issues are bigger than that.

The implication is that by being tougher, we would deter more offenders... that is not reality.  When I point out that increasing the prison population is not desirable, the short term view is that just as long as they are all locked up whats the problem?  The problem is that with a larger prison pop, we also have a larger rotation of freshly trained and resentful re-offenders cycling through our community, we have more frustrated and deprived kids growing up without fathers and we have a long term cumulative increasing problem.  That all spells increasing levels of crime which perpetuates the issue.

The "Sensible" Sentencing Trust don't offer anything apart from tougher sentencing, that is one dimensional thinking and we need better than that....  in fact don't call yourself sensible until your have the capacity to consider the issue from a larger perspective.

These are big issues, they deserve better thought and consideration, and the traditional emotive response doesn't actually work....

----------


## Scouser

"The implication is that by being tougher, we would deter more offenders... that is not reality."..........err Sid, we KNOW that.....the crims KNOW that....we just want the 'shite' locked up and out of our houses, cars, pockets, lives ect, ect, ect........

How many times do i have to say the same thing!!!!...the softly, softly kid gloves approach has/is not worked/working....the 'vast majority' of people who are currently in the prison system are not the 'Dummers' who made one ill judge mistake.....

NO...there in there because they have embraced that counter culture lifestyle of not 'working for the man'.....the staunch "ill make my living off the herd".......WELL FUK THEM.....if you cant live with us, we will lock you away from us......

as we are not allowed to castrate them to stop them making more crims, we as a society will just have to carry the burden.....

Sidney, lets hear your views on how we will make NZ into a crime free utopia......one that doesn't involve the government taxing me into the ground?.....there will ALWAYS be crime, so we have to do SOMETHING, the shite that do crime (for a living)
have no conscience, empathy, ect for their victims, thats why 'letting them out early' is not working.....tell me one, just one, thing you would change in the present system that would rehabilitate prisoners, because its not working at the moment, Dougie
and Kotuku are both 'nostril deep' in it at the coal face, i get the feeling you have all the theory but non of the practise?.....prove me wrong

----------


## Sidney

I used to put people into prison for a living Mr Scouser, I am well aware of re-offending, social issues around offending and intergenerational criminality, as well as having some legal training, and a whole lot of other life experience that I am not sure that you have...

Now how long is yours? :Grin: 

Your response seems rather irrational, given that my position is that we cannot simply rely on what you are proposing.  It doesn't actually reduce crime as the good ole USA shows us.

The interesting thing to me is Dougie and Kotuku don't seem to have a problem with my position, but you do?  Given that we all have some experience in these areas and you don't?

In so far as taxing us into the ground, that will happen if we have to continue building prisons... if you are interested in not being taxed into the ground you may have to consider the other options.

Not much is a short term solution, but that is all you got..... and somehow you resent the idea of thinking more widely that that?

----------


## Scouser

Oh well....looks like we will just have to agree to disagree........see you at the hanging, im bringing beer and cashews!!!!!! :Thumbsup:

----------


## gadgetman

> C'mon mr gadget....
> 
> The whole tenor of this thread is that the justice system is soft on crime.  That reaction is solely based on various emotional stories and headlines but no actual data. It is a popular media and political sponsored idea that I am yet to see actually substantiated.   Scouser thinks that explaining his version of how the parol board works is somehow relevant... but again no actual data.
> 
> When I point out that out prisons are full its not be conclusive to say that prison sentencing is tougher, but it is at least indicative that it might not be as soft as is assumed.


I've yet to see you show us some data that substantiates your claim, all I've done it propose another and more plausible means by which our prisons are full. There are is simply more people repeatedly committing crimes.




> All of these threads are the same... isn't it dreadful, lock em up forever, the justice system is soft, put em on an island to eat themselves.  That is simple emotional response and these issues are bigger than that.


There are those that should be sentenced more heavily. Not the majority, but some. You seem to be assuming that we are talking about all. If the overall level of crime reduced then the prisons would not be so full and the few that do need putting away for longer could more easily be accommodated. If there is an overwhelming general public perception is that some are too light, then yes that does mean that the sentences are too light. There are quite a few cases each year where the sentence really is a wet bus ticket compared to the effects of their crimes.





> The implication is that by being tougher, we would deter more offenders... that is not reality.  *When I point out that increasing the prison population is not desirable, the short term view is that just as long as they are all locked up whats the problem?  The problem is that with a larger prison pop, we also have a larger rotation of freshly trained and resentful re-offenders cycling through our community, we have more frustrated and deprived kids growing up without fathers and we have a long term cumulative increasing problem.  That all spells increasing levels of crime which perpetuates the issue.*


Helloooo Mr Sydney, .... have you actually taken in what I've been writing? This is it!

But I've been approaching it from a totally different angle. Lower crime through better economic decisions and responsible social, yes we are all responsible. As I've said, "Why have they turned to crime?" The vast majority of the time it is through economic hardship. Many turn to drugs to 'dull the pain' of this hardship which just means they have to increase their level of crime to pay for that too.

There was a lot of discussion about 30 years ago about reducing sentences, and the statutes were actually changed to accommodate this and it did happen. The thought was that the prisons had just become a 'school for criminals' and that it was better to rehabilitate and release. Like they didn't talk to each other out of prison for training and setting up their black market connections.




> The "Sensible" Sentencing Trust don't offer anything apart from tougher sentencing, that is one dimensional thinking and we need better than that....  in fact don't call yourself sensible until your have the capacity to consider the issue from a larger perspective.
> 
> These are big issues, they deserve better thought and consideration, and the traditional emotive response doesn't actually work....


It is a valid part of an overall change. Perpetrators of crimes should be sentenced in proportion to the effects of their crimes. That quite frankly is what the justice system was set up to do. As I've mentioned on many occasions we possess the means to reduce a lot of crime through better governmental economic decisions and better communities. Changing overall sentencing in the current climate will have little effect of crime levels, it is just moving the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff from one side of the beach to the other. We need to look up and wider and stop people coming off that cliff, at the moment the ambulance crew are overworked.

----------


## Dougie

I haven't read any of this thread as "one side or another". Just wanted to put it out there that I've enjoyed reading it, for the most part people have played nice. I think it's really great to discuss these things as they are obviously impacting all of us!

I don't think the way things are are particularly correct - I'm pretty young and this is all new to me, it's all I've ever known - and I certainly don't have the answers. Just good to think about how changes could impact the future.

As for Dummer - I reckon this is something he has to nut out in his own head, the court has decided his fate and that's done and dusted no matter what I guess. As for him picking up a firearm in future, I have no doubts that he already has and will continue to do so. And most likely lawfully too, as where there is one Dummer there are others - who still have their FALs!

Anyway like I said, good chat  :Wink:

----------


## kotuku

sidney -another wee facet youve overlooked old chap and im bloody suprised you didnt produce it.In psychiatric institutions we face a n inescapable hurdle known as institutionalisation; sets in subtly but never completely erasable. 
 what is it .
 put simply its where the individual reaches a stage where he or she realises whilst theyre in detention all their so called life decisions are in fact made for them ,likewise all facilities -recreation ,food ,housing ,medical attention ,legal resources are on tap and free of charge. they need not worry about bills .mortgages, where to get bedding -all provided.likewise you have highly professional house staff ,they only downside being of course ,theyve got the authority to enforce routine and give orders. however after a few years you become used to that ,and if youre smart become "the grey man- completely innocuous(all care no responsibility) ,just doin time ,kickin back and woe is me surviving boredom.Mental illness is a little different as often psychosis (usually drug induced )means mood disorders ,hallucinations etcetc and self control has flown out the window and often completely incurable
release into the community means what exactly -what was previously free requires paying for -,and if in prison you were topdog or whatever-out in society it matters SFA-youre just another entity. fuck this is tough -all these choices and no monies to socialise with the bros etc etc.BTW -the above is sourced from conversations ive had over the years with those whove done a lag!!
   doesnt take einstein to realise which option mr crim is going to gravitate toward.
 now before you jump in -dont forget there are thousands out society already who face the same challenges daily -BUT-tough it out in a law abiding way and often with dignity barely intact but choosing to grind it out rather than offend against fellow man. 
In saying this Iaint forgotten that theres fucking rich crims and fucking poor ones ,but at the end of the day same applies.
   How to reduce crime _better self fucking discipline for starters!!!!- the last 20yrs have seen governmentally sponsored social engineering (clark was an exponent), producing a generation of "Iwant it now "type "Who you lookin at" types and last but not least if one arthur taylor is any measure a subsect of institutional bush lawyers who'd give a QC a run for his money.
 anyhow Ive laid out my POV so i thinks illleave it there as obviously some are overwhelmed by the plethora of info.,although if anyone has questions ,happy to reply .

----------


## Scouser

@Sidney lets hear your views on how we will make NZ into a crime free utopia

still waiting bro......

----------


## gadgetman

With you there @kotuku

Personal accountability. I someone does bad under the influence of drugs/alcohol then maybe a little leniency. Second time, 'Not on your Nellie!' If you have been there before and found that taking drugs/alcohol have a severe negative effect then second time around you were aware of that when you decided to use the drugs/alcohol. "Fool me once fool me. Fool me twice fool you."

There are many instances where too much leniency is given, where a decision was made in sound mind and not through desperation, and it has been out with the wet bus ticket. Sure the first time a wet bus ticket may be appropriate. Again, this is not the entire solution, but it should be to protect the general public and those that have to clean up the mess. The main solution is to change so there is less crime committed and changing the penalties will do diddly squat as far as that is concerned. However justice should be seen to be done, and I firmly believe victim/society impact must be a significant factor in that. At the moment we are not in a position to do it.

----------


## Sidney

> @Sidney lets hear your views on how we will make NZ into a crime free utopia
> 
> still waiting bro......


I'll give a response to a "sensible" question... ya want to rephrase?

----------


## Scouser

If you agree (im still not sure) that the present system is not working, and in your view rehabilitation is the way forward and not primitive emotive responce...what would YOU change to get NZ out of its current malaise, if you had the power to change the law?

----------


## Sidney

> With you there @kotuku
> 
> Personal accountability. I someone does bad under the influence of drugs/alcohol then maybe a little leniency. Second time, 'Not on your Nellie!' If you have been there before and found that taking drugs/alcohol have a severe negative effect then second time around you were aware of that when you decided to use the drugs/alcohol. "Fool me once fool me. Fool me twice fool you."
> 
> There are many instances where too much leniency is given, where a decision was made in sound mind and not through desperation, and it has been out with the wet bus ticket. Sure the first time a wet bus ticket may be appropriate. Again, this is not the entire solution, but it should be to protect the general public and those that have to clean up the mess. The main solution is to change so there is less crime committed and changing the penalties will do diddly squat as far as that is concerned. However justice should be seen to be done, and I firmly believe victim/society impact must be a significant factor in that. At the moment we are not in a position to do it.


How many times with the wet bus ticket?  What does "many instances where too much leniency is given" actually mean.  Do you know the facts of the cases?  Have you read the cases?  Have you read comparable cases and enough of them to have a statistical appreciation of whether this one is a "wet bus ticket" or not?

Given that the only ones that you hear about are the "wet bus tickets" do you think your perception is close to the reality?  You keep using the wet bus tickets as the basis for your argument, which is of course statistically non-relavent... but it sells newspapers...

The whole tougher sentencing mentality, is an easy sell if you can create fear.... its a simplistic response and the perception that it creates may not be the reality....




> The motion at last year’s Synod noted the “alarming increase in the New Zealand prison population”. We started by looking at the reasons for this alarming increase – 86% between 1995 and 20101 - and we concluded that underlying it was a flawed understanding of justice in New Zealand - an understanding that focuses almost exclusively on retribution/revenge and not on restoration/rehabilitation.
> The New Zealand public, in general, perceives that we live in a less safe place than in the past and that the answer to this is to “be tough on crime”. Over the last 20 years the main political parties have bought into this perception and the resulting bidding war on the issues of crime and punishment has increased prison sentences dramatically. This has caused the alarming increase in the prison population.1
> 
> _1 NZ Department of Corrections website and ‘Beyond the Holding Tank’, a Salvation Army Report, 2006_
> 
> INCARCERATION IN NEW ZEALAND TODAY
> “The number of murders in New Zealand dropped by nearly a quarter last year, while overall reported crime fell 6.7%.” (Headline in Waikato Times 1 April 2011)
> “Prison numbers are expected to grow to over 10,300 by 2017.” (Department of Corrections and Ministry of Justice 2010)
> “Whenever you send someone to prison you’re actually not holding them accountable if you’re removing them from those to whom they should be accountable.” (Kim Workman, TV One Interview, Oh My God, 14 March 2011)
> There appears to be a basic disconnect in the above quotes. Crime is going down yet the prison muster is expected to increase. No wonder there is confusion about our criminal justice system.


http://http://www.rethinking.org.nz/...tion_in_NZ.pdf

----------


## gadgetman

> How many times with the wet bus ticket?  What does "many instances where too much leniency is given" actually mean.  Do you know the facts of the cases?  Have you read the cases?  Have you read comparable cases and enough of them to have a statistical appreciation of whether this one is a "wet bus ticket" or not?
> 
> Given that the only ones that you hear about are the "wet bus tickets" do you think your perception is close to the reality?  You keep using the wet bus tickets as the basis for your argument, which is of course statistically non-relavent... but it sells newspapers...
> 
> The whole tougher sentencing mentality, is an easy sell if you can create fear.... its a simplistic response and the perception that it creates may not be the reality....


You now seem to have no grasp on the word *some*, and are completely ignoring the main point of my argument. Bloody one eyed Cantabrian  :Wink: 




> http


There are a lot of sensational statistics in that linked document where they are making something out of what should be, and statistically is, correct and expected. The old '50% of people in this country are below average' scenario. Again they are comparing figures of a relatively prosperous time with a tough economic time and not making any allowance for this. Statistically this has always been a link between the two yet no weighting has been applied, that is how the British provided labour for the West Island.




> Nearly half (48%) underestimated the average sentence imposed
> for rape, and nearly half (
> 47%) underestimated the average time a rapist serves in prison


And you accuse me of random statistics?  :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

The variation of 2-3% on a sample size of close to half might have more statistical integrity than the number of "wet bus tickets" that you know about in comparison to the total number of cases processed by the justice system...... :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## gadgetman

> The variation of 2-3% on a sample size of close to half might have more statistical integrity than the number of "wet bus tickets" that you know about in comparison to the total number of cases processed by the justice system......


A sample size of close to half? That means almost 1/2 of one opinion (I wont mention the old 'If you have half a mind to become a politician you are over qualified')! There are more on here that mentioned the 'wet bus ticket' than a half.

I do understand your point though. I could go and find a few but I wont; I need to rattle my daggs and get out for what I do in the community.

----------


## Sidney

i could have phrased that more clearly...   :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Dundee

I'm over this thread it is getting Dummer and Dummer signing off this thread :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## Scribe

> I'm over this thread it is getting Dummer and Dummer signing off this thread


So many Bush Lawyers out there.

----------


## kotuku

sidney -military detention centres old chap.bloody sight tougher than any civilian prison(as is the military law system).ya know whats funny -bugger all soldiers ever go back for secondsold boy,in fact a lot of one time transgressors were pretty unanimous"never a fucking gain"!seems a short sharp jolt can =lesson learned.
in fact im a great fan of ye old military orderly room-double marched in-details read criime read ,guilty -punishment awarded ,not guilty -double the punishment cause youre eyes are too close together ,and your average baggie couldnt lie straight in bed.doubled out of orderly room-straight into your sentence.10mins maxand you sure as hell didnt forget every little detail.reckon she'd go down a treat in the district court.charge em in batches and open a TAB book on sentences-all you ex RF buggers would make great bookies

----------


## Sidney

yeah borstals ran on similar lines, but had lousy re-offending rates

----------


## gadgetman

> yeah borstals ran on similar lines, but had lousy re-offending rates


Worked pretty well for a couple of my cousins who lost their fathers at a young age and ran off the rails in their teens. But like the rest of us, some will respond well to one thing, others to something else. And then there are others that will just never respond to anything.

With the youth work I do, and have done for 25 years now, we get a lot of single parent kids coming along that are quickly heading in the wrong direction. They push boundaries, get disruptive, destructive, obnoxious, ... but we never give up on them. Often it will take 6-7 years but with persistence, insistence, and leadership they do respond. The difficulty is that fewer and fewer are willing to put in the effort nowadays, but having seen the difference it makes to the lives of those we deal with the only way out for me will be feet first in a pine box.

----------


## Scouser

> If you agree (im still not sure) that the present system is not working, and in your view rehabilitation is the way forward and not primitive emotive responce...what would YOU change to get NZ out of its current malaise, if you had the power to change the law?


 @Sidney still waiting mate, you seem to be good at saying no to all suggestions/opinions, so what would you do?

----------


## Sidney

Pretty sure the most obvious one that I have already suggested is a reduction in imprisonment rates...

For every 100K pa prisoner, that could fund a case manager who could handle 20-50 cases pa, for home based detention/programs involving direct accountability and restitution programs for suitable cases, which at least would provide a possibility of less lifestyle based training that results from incarceration..... not just home D without obligation....

Reduction in alcohol availability for under 20's... a large percentage of crime is alcohol fueled...

Support based case managers for every family with dependants  for those we imprison.  Co-ordination with organisations like Pillars to achieve this...  Leaving those families with the state and the authorities as enemies simply breeds another generation of criminals.

I am not sure that you have offered any options  at all.... tougher sentencing isn't an option.... its an admission of failure.. it only addresses prevention of crime for that offender.  That approach multiplies the problem in the long term.

There is plenty of information about options available and plenty of work that has been done to make positive steps to addressing the issue... the ministry of justice has some previously focused Drivers Of Crime approaches that seem to have stalled... Rethinking Crime and Punishment - Rethinking Crime and Punishment has plenty of information..

Kotutu is obviously working in programs designed to address these issues.  So is Gadget by the sounds of it.




> “By 30 years of age a huge percentage of offenders will stop offending. 40% of prisoners serve terms of less than 6 months; 85% will be out in under 2 years; 5-7% should never come out, will never change – the public thinks this figure is more like 40%.” - Kim Workman


If this is the reality, we would be making efforts to keep offenders out of prison - they will grow out of offending if we don't keep putting them back into the training institutions.

There is plenty of information out there...

----------


## gadgetman

> Pretty sure the most obvious one that I have already suggested is a reduction in imprisonment rates...
> 
> For every 100K pa prisoner, that could fund a case manager who could handle 20-50 cases pa, for home based detention/programs involving direct accountability and restitution programs for suitable cases, which at least would provide a possibility of less lifestyle based training that results from incarceration..... not just home D without obligation....
> 
> Reduction in alcohol availability for under 20's... a large percentage of crime is alcohol fueled...
> 
> Support based case managers for every family with dependants  for those we imprison.  Co-ordination with organisations like Pillars to achieve this...  Leaving those families with the state and the authorities as enemies simply breeds another generation of criminals.
> 
> I am not sure that you have offered any options  at all.... tougher sentencing isn't an option.... its an admission of failure.. it only addresses prevention of crime for that offender.  That approach multiplies the problem in the long term.
> ...


I agree totally with the vast majority of that.

My only issues are minor:

Prison is not the only training ground. There is more training, particularly hands on practical, available outside of prison.

There is still room for increases sentences for *SOME* recidivists. Like the guy that was constantly getting caught drunk driving, killed people on a couple of occasions and was still doing the same thing. I believe he had been on numerous retraining schemes. For everyone's safety the likes of this case should be put away for a very long time.

And of course I'd add the one I've been proposing all along, sort out the economy so that there is no need for so many to turn to crime for survival. "Idle hands, ...". If you look at the places with lower crime rates it tends to be those with lower unemployment rates and often greater state input, such as the Scandinavian countries.

----------


## Scouser

Thanks for that reply Sidney, as you say the information is out there if you try, i obviously dont.....as you have already probably gathered im from the oldskool 'hang em high' philosophy......yeah, you know....the good old days.....

I know its only high 'media attention' cases, but when my friends and i talk about retribution from certain incidents, we are mainly all of the same opinion, we are not 'middle class whites' blaming it all on the welfare classes!!!

Ive been on the bottom rung of the class ladder to many times to think of myself otherwise, 2 years on the dole (welfare) under the bitch thatcher (plenty of coal where she is now) taught me that!

Its just that we get totally pissed off to see regular offenders given an easy ride, im not talking about the one off people who make an mistake (Dummer) you know who im talking about, the ones who have taken crime up as a lifestyle!

We (society) are paying for them whether they are inside or not, at least when they are inside they cannot harm us anymore!!!

good luck in your endeavours and career, i can tell from your posts your are very passionate about this subject, thanks for sharing!!!!

----------


## Savage1

I believe there are not there aren't enough consequences for the youths, the current system with Family Group Conferences work for 80% of the youth offenders but the recidivist offenders just laugh at the whole process and continue to offend, then get taken by CYFs but then run away and continue to offend. A lot of these kids don't come from broken homes either, it's not always the parents doing.

I'd like to see some kind of reparation law bought in where any person who causes damages must pay for them at a minimum. Eg, I know a guy that burnt out a $50k vehicle and only got 100hrs of community service! I think they should be paying the full amount whether it's insured or not. Another that I see all the time is people causing thousands of dollars in damage ripping copper piping and cylinders out of houses for a couple of hundred in scrap, do you think they're made responsible for all the damage they've done? Nope, it comes back on the owner or insurance company if they have one. I could go on and on and on with examples of damage done yet they're not held accountable for it. 

A lot of the criminal youth and adults you cannot reason with, no amount of our new age punishments will turn them.

I think another good start would be making our prisons a lot less comfortable and make them more like a military prison to discourage people from going back. 

A culture change is what is needed, we will never be like the Scandinavian countries. Most of the people I deal with don't want to work and have a sense of entitlement from the government and absolutely no care or respect for anybody else, they also have a below average IQ. How to change this? I don't know. It pisses me off going into their houses and they have big TVs and Sky TV, which most of them do, especially because I can't afford it.

I'm no expert in the matter but I don't believe that giving out longer sentences will do anything, but maybe changing the content of the sentence will. An end to the Police budget freeze would be a bloody good start to.

----------


## gadgetman

I agree Savage1, you guys are way under resourced at the sharp end. I'm all for making it easier for those that do fall back into line, but also come down heavy on those that don't. One thing that police HQ feared with the three strikes was some muppet thinking "I've got nothing to lose, if I get caught I might as well be dead." and going out in a hail of fire.

----------


## kotuku

sidney -have you got any bloody idea whatsoever about the realities of case management -youre ratios are fucking laughable .i have communtiy based colleagues who case manage up to 20 persons at any time and frankly theyre run off their bloody feet!  jesus wept- to renew a recent quip["allsmoke no hangi!. case management properly executed requires unlimited resources and minute attention to detail ,cause beleive me ,one small oversight and the whole lot willgo down the dunny .been there done that more than once ,and humble pie aint my fuckin meal of choice
 number 2 sidney -if a bloody individual does not want to change ,nothing ,i repeat nothing will make em change ,despite all the optimists in this firiggin world holding hands and gently farting on em.
 you can quote all the statistics hypotheses etc etc you like but im coming from butt ugly naked unadorned humanity at its lowest point and my own paddling in it for four decades.
 gadget I bleive in -i know him ,Ive seen him in action ,and when it comes to good old fashioned plain garden commonsense he has it in spades,unlike a lot who profess to be expert in this subject(that incidentally is not a crack at you OK>

----------


## Scouser

> sidney -have you got any bloody idea whatsoever about the realities of case management -youre ratios are fucking laughable .i have communtiy based colleagues who case manage up to 20 persons at any time and frankly theyre run off their bloody feet!  jesus wept- to renew a recent quip["allsmoke no hangi!. case management properly executed requires unlimited resources and minute attention to detail ,cause beleive me ,one small oversight and the whole lot willgo down the dunny .been there done that more than once ,and humble pie aint my fuckin meal of choice
>  number 2 sidney -if a bloody individual does not want to change ,nothing ,i repeat nothing will make em change ,despite all the optimists in this firiggin world holding hands and gently farting on em.
>  you can quote all the statistics hypotheses etc etc you like but im coming from butt ugly naked unadorned humanity at its lowest point and my own paddling in it for four decades.
>  gadget I bleive in -i know him ,Ive seen him in action ,and when it comes to good old fashioned plain garden commonsense he has it in spades,unlike a lot who profess to be expert in this subject(that incidentally is not a crack at you OK>



Oh Kotuku.....mate.......if i could get all of that printed on a t-shirt i would mate.....priceless!!!!!!!!

----------


## sako75

As a high media case, look at the teenager who attacked the lady at the ATM machine. The woman who came to her rescue is in hospital with serious head injuries. As an aside she has been gifted a large some of money by some very caring people either through generosity or feeling of guilt. This should not be seen by the judicial systems as compensation for what she is going through.

Now to the scumbag offender (and his mate the getaway driver)
Is this his strike one?
Will he be given a group hug and placed back in society?
Will he do a short stint with a warm bed and 3 meals a day?
Who deems him fit to go back into society if he has not reformed during his short stint?
What is there to prevent him from getting more aggressive in future attacks?

I believe that he should be detained until such a time his victim is fully recovered, and living their normal life, then carry out the sentence from that date.
If the victim never fully recovers then he/she is never released. If the prisons are overloaded, stop wasting money on 1080 etc and build more prisons.

As kotuku says, if they are bad, they are bad. There is no deterrent. If the risk of a death penalty does not stop murders or drugs dealing in other countries then nothing will

----------


## sako75

When I say "until such a time his victim is fully recovered" I mean from physical injury or severe emotional distress (Kotuku can be on the assessment panel).
Not like the Queenstown taxi driver who says he cannot work at night any more because a off duty copper racially abused him. The copper paid him out $400 as ordered by the court FFS

----------


## Scouser

Fuk....ive been called 'scottish' & 'irish' and i didnt get a sausage!!!!!.....not even a pint!!!!!!!!.....now wheres that lawyers number?

----------


## gadgetman

> Fuk....ive been called 'scottish' & 'irish' and i didnt get a sausage!!!!!.....not even a pint!!!!!!!!.....now wheres that lawyers number?


But that wouldn't be an insult, that would be talking you up.  :Grin:

----------


## Rushy

> But that wouldn't be an insult, that would be talking you up.


To true GM

----------


## Pengy

Ouch!

----------


## Scouser

Oh fuk......just scored another own goal........ :XD:

----------


## Rushy

> Oh fuk......just scored another own goal........


Yup

----------


## gadgetman

> Oh fuk......just scored another own goal........


It's OK Scouser, I don't think anyone has noticed.

----------


## Sidney

> sidney -have you got any bloody idea whatsoever about the realities of case management -youre ratios are fucking laughable .i have communtiy based colleagues who case manage up to 20 persons at any time and frankly theyre run off their bloody feet!  jesus wept- to renew a recent quip["allsmoke no hangi!. case management properly executed requires unlimited resources and minute attention to detail ,cause beleive me ,one small oversight and the whole lot willgo down the dunny .been there done that more than once ,and humble pie aint my fuckin meal of choice
>  number 2 sidney -if a bloody individual does not want to change ,nothing ,i repeat nothing will make em change ,despite all the optimists in this firiggin world holding hands and gently farting on em.
>  you can quote all the statistics hypotheses etc etc you like but im coming from butt ugly naked unadorned humanity at its lowest point and my own paddling in it for four decades.
>  gadget I bleive in -i know him ,Ive seen him in action ,and when it comes to good old fashioned plain garden commonsense he has it in spades,unlike a lot who profess to be expert in this subject(that incidentally is not a crack at you OK>



Oh please if you are going to get excited you should learn to read first...... you might notice I said per annum... not at once...... 

2  its not perscriptive, its descriptive... so try not to get your fanny pack knotted...

3  if the average length of sentence is around 6 months (which as I understand it is about correct), for a 20 case load pa, then would have 10 on the go at once.

4  you cannot definitively talk about case load numbers until the amount of workload for each case is defined, and we haven't done that yet have we?

Finally in reference to your obvious change/suitability issues.... are you serious?... that goes without saying... not everyone is suitable nor will be...

Of course the system has to be designed, but we don't work this way in justice yet.... there may some benefits to thinking about the concept though... that is if we can think conceptually rather than focussing on the details which aren't worked out yet...

Can you print that on your t-shirt.....   :Grin:

----------


## ExPoh75

> sidney -have you got any bloody idea whatsoever about the realities of case management -youre ratios are fucking laughable .i have communtiy based colleagues who case manage up to 20 persons at any time and frankly theyre run off their bloody feet!  jesus wept- to renew a recent quip["allsmoke no hangi!. case management properly executed requires unlimited resources and minute attention to detail ,cause beleive me ,one small oversight and the whole lot willgo down the dunny .been there done that more than once ,and humble pie aint my fuckin meal of choice
>  number 2 sidney -if a bloody individual does not want to change ,nothing ,i repeat nothing will make em change ,despite all the optimists in this firiggin world holding hands and gently farting on em.
>  you can quote all the statistics hypotheses etc etc you like but im coming from butt ugly naked unadorned humanity at its lowest point and my own paddling in it for four decades.
>  gadget I bleive in -i know him ,Ive seen him in action ,and when it comes to good old fashioned plain garden commonsense he has it in spades,unlike a lot who profess to be expert in this subject(that incidentally is not a crack at you OK>


As a community case manager I have to agree with you.  Some of our case managers have up to 40 clients to look after.  The system is so under resourced.    

As the old saying goes...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

----------


## Rushy

What doesn't change is that scum, whether it is scum that kills women while they are working or scum that cracks the skull and causes a brain bleed to a good woman helping out another elderly woman being robbed or scum that kidnaps the newly born child of a woman in a maternity hospital and that scum just like the scum on a shower floor needs to be cleaned up and in my opinion preferably permanently removed.

----------


## Ryan

Personally I'd like to see the introduction of conscription.

I must emphasise that it's not a panacea for society's ills, but it does instill a sense of discipline, responsibility, self respect, teamwork, pride and a respect for authority. Learn how to push themselves beyond what they thought was possible, learn skills that they didn't have.

For those who are ineligible (physical, objectors etc), a model similar to Germany's _Zivildienst_ where non-soldiers would serve the community working in retirement homes, hospitals etc. I am aware that Germany no longer has a conscript army.

Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me, it would be expensive to implement initially but I think that in the long term society would benefit from a skilled, productive, professional and caring young generation.

----------


## kotuku

no im not printing anything on a Tshirt -merely pointing out to your good self that some of your hypotheses are well wide of the mark.its obviously slid home -the tone of your replies and the rising sarcasm suggests to me the emergence of the cunliffe style defence.
 lets just lay it to rest eh -its run its course .

----------


## gadgetman

> Personally I'd like to see the introduction of conscription.
> 
> I must emphasise that it's not a panacea for society's ills, but it does instill a sense of discipline, responsibility, self respect, teamwork, pride and a respect for authority. Learn how to push themselves beyond what they thought was possible, learn skills that they didn't have.
> 
> For those who are ineligible (physical, objectors etc), a model similar to Germany's _Zivildienst_ where non-soldiers would serve the community working in retirement homes, hospitals etc. I am aware that Germany no longer has a conscript army.
> 
> Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me, it would be expensive to implement initially but I think that in the long term society would benefit from a skilled, productive, professional and caring young generation.


That has been trialled in the past Ryan. The trouble was they then ended up fitter and about as well trained and better organised than your average copper. Looking at the shapes of a lot of our 'Boys in Blue' these days, ... I'll say no more. Oh, but I did hear some great stories from days of yore.

----------


## 308

It's certainly true that it is an immense benefit to police that crims are so short-sighted and just plain thick - we don't want to train them up to become smarter

As pointed out earlier in the thread, even having the worst penalty available would not stop something like that bag-snatching streak of piss that has been in the news lately - these wee scrotes just do not connect cause and effect at all.

I don't give a shit about their pathetic little lives of crime - I despair at how much $$$ they cost society - maybe we should start lacing P with rat poison? Is it wrong that I find that amusing?

----------


## Rushy

> It's certainly true that it is an immense benefit to police that crims are so short-sighted and just plain thick - we don't want to train them up to become smarter
> 
> As pointed out earlier in the thread, even having the worst penalty available would not stop something like that bag-snatching streak of piss that has been in the news lately - these wee scrotes just do not connect cause and effect at all.
> 
> I don't give a shit about their pathetic little lives of crime - I despair at how much $$$ they cost society - maybe we should start lacing P with rat poison? Is it wrong that I find that amusing?


Cunning plan

----------


## ebf

> Personally I'd like to see the introduction of conscription.
> 
> I must emphasise that it's not a panacea for society's ills, but it does instill a sense of discipline, responsibility, self respect, teamwork, pride and a respect for authority. Learn how to push themselves beyond what they thought was possible, learn skills that they didn't have.
> 
> For those who are ineligible (physical, objectors etc), a model similar to Germany's _Zivildienst_ where non-soldiers would serve the community working in retirement homes, hospitals etc. I am aware that Germany no longer has a conscript army.
> 
> Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me, it would be expensive to implement initially but I think that in the long term society would benefit from a skilled, productive, professional and caring young generation.


No thanks, been there, got the T-shirt (and the mental scars).

Ryan, we probably won't agree on this, but IMHO a whole generation of our pale compatriots ended up with a significant number suffering from PTSD in varying degrees and major anger management issues exactly because of the fact that they were conscripted...

I have a lot of respect for people willing to make sacrifices and serve in the armed forces, but conscription is not the answer.

----------


## keneff

> If thats the strength of your argument.... self classification won't fix it for you....
> 
> The shit throwing started with someone else.... nothing in my original post has actually been challenged, contested with any semblance of logical contribution. The response was pure emotional bullshit. Ahhhh yes, Sydney - however this is not a court of law, nor even a debating chamber, It is, if you like, a court of personal opinion, to which we are all entitled  and you are as wong in saying everyone else is wrong as everyone else is, in saying you are wrong. OPinions are like arseholes - we all have one.
> 
> If you want to not be classified with the hanging mob, then don't behave like them.


I I I I

----------


## Ryan

> I I I I

----------

