Thread: Hunter shot in Kaimai Range near Te Aroha

Can anyone translate into English the last one....."It shall be no defence to the crime of manslaughter that the guilty act or omission proved against the person charged is an act or omission constituting an offence against this section."

Does this mean that if you are charged with manslaughter, that the punishments outlined above are not applicable?

Originally Posted by timattalon

Can anyone translate into English the last one....."It shall be no defence to the crime of manslaughter that the guilty act or omission proved against the person charged is an act or omission constituting an offence against this section."

Does this mean that if you are charged with manslaughter, that the punishments outlined above are not applicable?

Dunno! I thought I understood English until I read that.

Where did thank quote come from "opening weekend of the roar"? Really wish they would do just a little home work before sending this rubbish to print.

Originally Posted by timattalon

Can anyone translate into English the last one....."It shall be no defence to the crime of manslaughter that the guilty act or omission proved against the person charged is an act or omission constituting an offence against this section."

Does this mean that if you are charged with manslaughter, that the punishments outlined above are not applicable?

I think its
"It is no defence to the crime of manslaughter if the actions leading to the incident and proved against the person are the same as those listed in this section of the act."
Which appears to make no sense at all.

It means if you get done for "careless use of a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon", you don't get out of getting done for manslaughter, if the careless use caused a death. You can be charged twice, under two separate offences, for a single event.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by stretch

It means if you get done for "careless use of a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon", you don't get out of getting done for manslaughter, if the careless use caused a death. You can be charged twice, under two separate offences, for a single event.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Thank you. That makes sense. Why cant they write this shit so people can understand it ???????

Originally Posted by timattalon

Thank you. That makes sense. Why cant they write this shit so people can understand it ???????

So odd sausages like @Sidney can

like the man said, charged with two one being an alternative, but usually convicted of one as determined by the court.... same with murder/manslaughter as the default catch all...

"& these guys had a private hut to stay in & around 5000 hectares of private property to hunt yet the halfwits are creeping around our camp "

Fuktards for sure & dangerous ones at that. Rifle pointed at you ??!! wtf.
I'm guessing from your description you might have been in the Whitestone?

Remember the "school-teacher-death" ? that guy had just fallen asleep in his tent, when his mates woke him,telling him there were deer on the track. A few minutes later, they spot-lighted the school-teacher,and given in evidence, that someone said: "there's one ", and we all know the outcome. But, the person who pushed the most, for manslaughter and prison,through the Media, was the same guy who later shot a young fella by accident,down Wellington-way. That boy was wearing bright orange. He got home-Detention, from memory, and tried to pervert the course of justice by lying and denying he'd been there.He recently tried getting his licence back ! But the point is ; He said ALL the same stuff originally, that many are saying here, to sway those in power: It wasnt an accident, he didnt bother to identify target, I've been hunting for blah-years,member of nzda, I would know etc. etc And it worked; the young guy got 4 yrs..Then,common-sense-guy,does the same,in broad-daylight a few yrs later. We can get it wrong,He got it wrong, and he was the guy shouting the most,that there was NO excuse..just a thought...

I think it makes a difference whether you are shooting in areas where shooting is permitted.

I believe it could happen to anyone,given the cases I have read here and overseas. A good example is ex-branch-President of NZDA, . Like Ryan above, he screamed for blood when the school-teacher was tragically-shot by a spot-lighter in Turangi. His calls for manslaughter, led to a gaol-sentence...fast-forward a couple of years later, where he himself, in broad-daylight, shot a guy through the head. The young guy was wearing a hi-vis beany. I wonder how many of the shooters are colour-blind, as no coroners reports, appear to address or mention this. As another member said, its tragic, but we do have to get a greater understanding about it, because its obviously not going away..

colour blind has nothing to do with defining the difference between human and deer and yes I am colour blind but still know what a deer looks like.

Remember that NZDA-branch-President, who screamed for blood when a woman was tragically shot, while cleaning her teeth.? Turangi campsite ? A year or two later. he shot a 29yr old through the head, and fled the scene...It can POTENTIALLY happen !...and all your comments are pretty-much the same as his, at the time . We DO need to understand it more..Dave

Well mate,I’m not sure that’s the case,I tend to agree with rewa here,.......do you have any evidence or data etc that would disprove that......you being colour blind doesn’t nessacerily prove anything......across the board it may be a huge issue

Originally Posted by Paddy79

colour blind has nothing to do with defining the difference between human and deer and yes I am colour blind but still know what a deer looks like.