Thread: Richard Lincoln

"Lincoln then filed a private prosecution against the senior constable alleging several crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perverting the course of justice.
The District Court declined to accept the filing of the charges saying Lincoln was using the criminal law to extract revenge."

Oh dear! Law is NEVER vindictive...

But should maybe have left it at the failed prosecution. Reading about the toilet case incl the judgment, there was some really bad behaviour and intransigent stupidity going on, and in the main not by Mr Lincoln.

Originally Posted by Cordite

But should maybe have left it at the failed prosecution. Reading about the toilet case incl the judgment, there was some really bad behaviour and intransigent stupidity going on, and in the main not by Mr Lincoln.

Weird that, I've taken firearms to gunsmiths on several occasions, even stopped for a pee , and have not once been stopped by the police. I wonder what was different in my case ? A tiny amount of common sense maybe ?

Originally Posted by ebf

Weird that, I've taken firearms to gunsmiths on several occasions, even stopped for a pee , and have not once been stopped by the police. I wonder what was different in my case ? A tiny amount of common sense maybe ?

Richard put his rifle over his shoulder and carried it into the public toilets (so that he obeyed the law and did not leave it unattended in a vehicle), people saw him carrying a rifle in public and called the Police.

Originally Posted by stug

Richard put his rifle over his shoulder and carried it into the public toilets (so that he obeyed the law and did not leave it unattended in a vehicle), people saw him carrying a rifle in public and called the Police.

Exactly. What would you do @ebf? I'm interested to know how you'd apply your tiny amount of common sense in this scenario? ;-)

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Exactly. What would you do @ebf? I'm interested to know how you'd apply your tiny amount of common sense in this scenario? ;-)

To strike a conciliatory tone, perhaps bring the rifle to the toilet but it in a case -- no law mandating a case however, but, like you say, common sense. I do recall a recent instance of AOS holding someone up at gunpoint, threatening his life, for having walked along the road with a gun in a case, you are nowhere safe from stupidity I'm afraid.

I have on at least one occasion had to visit the public toilet late at night and brought a bolt action with me from the car, over shoulder, not in case. Felt uncomfortable doing it, but as they say, in and out, dark, no-one around and back in car and off before any stupid calls could be made, law obeyed. I'm obviously not going to get accepted by the Christchurch Law Society either... but then again I don't have a law degree.

Originally Posted by ebf

Weird that, I've taken firearms to gunsmiths on several occasions, even stopped for a pee , and have not once been stopped by the police. I wonder what was different in my case ? A tiny amount of common sense maybe ?

Well your breaking the law leaving them unattended in your car??

Originally Posted by Maca49

Well your breaking the law leaving them unattended in your car??

Not 100% sure on that.
Have been informed recently that there will be clarification from the police in time on this.

As it was explained and I understand it, a firearm will be able to be left unattended in a vehicle if said firearm is locked to the vehicle.
Not sure if there will be a time-limit etc but have been told it is in the works.




Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by R93

Not 100% sure on that.
Have been informed recently that there will be clarification from the police in time on this.

As it was explained and I understand it, a firearm will be able to be left unattended in a vehicle if said firearm is locked to the vehicle.
Not sure if there will be a time-limit etc but have been told it is in the works. Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Bullshit!
Police cannot clarify anything. There has to be a change to the legislation.

We are all breaking the law when we leave a firearm in a vehicle. We do it because we are too afraid to comply with the law, and we know that the armed thugs in our police force can shoot us down with impunity to enforce their "grey policy", should we risk carrying a firearm in public.
Richard Lincoln was risking his life to obey the law, and was fortunate enough not to be shot while armed gun-thugs held him at gunpoint when they stopped him on the Queens highway. Having a firearm shoved in your face for obeying the law.

Police involved should be charged with presenting a firearm, and threatening to kill.
While the Arms act doesn't apply to police, the penalties in the Crimes act certainly do!

Originally Posted by JWB

Bullshit!
Police cannot clarify anything. There has to be a change to the legislation.

We are all breaking the law when we leave a firearm in a vehicle. We do it because we are too afraid to comply with the law, and we know that the armed thugs in our police force can shoot us down with impunity to enforce their "grey policy", should we risk carrying a firearm in public.
Richard Lincoln was risking his life to obey the law, and was fortunate enough not to be shot while armed gun-thugs held him at gunpoint when they stopped him on the Queens highway. Having a firearm shoved in your face for obeying the law.

Police involved should be charged with presenting a firearm, and threatening to kill.
While the Arms act doesn't apply to police, the penalties in the Crimes act certainly do!

Sorry! I didn't realise I had to clarify how law is changed in this country on a forum consisting of mostly intelligent people.

I will take it under advisement in future.

I/we heard it in a forum that has a vested interest in the act.
Also relayed by someone who deals with police and politicians every day.
Not even saying it will happen. Just that there is a push from police to clarify it.

I would also ask before you accuse police of presenting a firearm and threatening to kill, learn what an ROE is.

Might help with your understanding of situations like Lincoln found himself in.


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by R93

Sorry! I didn't realise I had to clarify how law is changed in this country on a forum consisting of mostly intelligent people.

I will take it under advisement in future.

I/we heard it in a forum that has a vested interest in the act.
Also relayed by someone who deals with police and politicians every day.
Not even saying it will happen. Just that there is a push from police to clarify it.

I would also ask before you accuse police of presenting a firearm and threatening to kill, learn what an ROE is.

Might help with your understanding of situations like Lincoln found himself in.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

So what DOES it mean when someone with a uniform points a gun at you? Is it not someone presenting a firearm and making an unmistakable threat to your life? The police ROE is surely not law, so should be open to the challenge of law. Gutless Law Society maybe not wishing to rock the boat, fair enough, but checks and balances my sphincter.

congratsR93-commonsense applied
JWB take a deep breath
look in the mirror


give yourself 6 bloody good swift uppercuts


then
slow


slow

sloowly

say

WTF WAS I THINKING??????????

hers me thinking you were an intelligent sort of cove

seems in this case I was that far out buses dont even fucking run there!

Originally Posted by JWB

Bullshit!
Police cannot clarify anything. There has to be a change to the legislation.

John, remind me which government agency in New Zealand is responsible for administering the Arms Act and Regulations ?

Are you saying that agency can not clarify aspects of how they are doing their job ?

Originally Posted by ebf

John, remind me which government [agency] in New Zealand is responsible for administering the Arms Act and Regulations ?

Are you saying that agency can not clarify aspects of how they are doing their job ?

Just correcting. I'm sure you are not really confusing police and government.

Originally Posted by Cordite

"Lincoln then filed a private prosecution against the senior constable alleging several crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perverting the course of justice.
The District Court declined to accept the filing of the charges saying Lincoln was using the criminal law to extract revenge."

Oh dear! Law is NEVER vindictive...

But should maybe have left it at the failed prosecution. Reading about the toilet case incl the judgment, there was some really bad behaviour and intransigent stupidity going on, and in the main not by Mr Lincoln.

Like the search warrant being obtained on mental stability grounds after they'd had him cleared for interviewing.