Thread: Another disappointing sentence

Guys acts as a straw buyer, selling at least 4 firearms that police know of to people without FALs. Grinds serial numbers off (although not well enough apparently). One is a cut down shotgun sold to the guy that went nuts in the auckland cbd (killed 2 before he topped himself). Seller gets 12 months home D.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/...MLRSU7FKHMFJA/

I really feel sorry for the Police in this situation: the effort required to bring someone before the courts and the potential negative consequences for the public of this individuals' actions are not reflected in the sentence handed down by the courts.... there is no disincentive for others to carry out this sort of crime - rather: there is an instruction to properly remove serial numbers. This is a disgusting result all around.

Maybe Police, or the Crown Prosecution Service, could appeal the sentence as being manifestly inappropriate/inadequate?

Originally Posted by no1_49er

Maybe Police, or the Crown Prosecution Service, could appeal the sentence as being manifestly inappropriate/inadequate?

*SHOULD

Guy who painted over that pedestrian crossing around the corner from the shootings got 3 months.

Clown World.

Most likely he 'assisted police' in retrieving the three other firearms in return for a deal not involving prison time.

it makes one wonder if the judges get a number how many they can send to clink for the day just saying heres hoping he never ever gets a FAL again

Maybe he should do his home d sentence in the judges home....

I often wonder how the general public, can read an article in the news and then form concrete opinions, on a judicial matter, without having attended the hearings, the court case and the sentencing and surely not being in possession, of all the facts.

Much like I can form opinions, of other people's driving skills whilst assuming, that I'm the best driver ever.

However I do know, never having been a Judge or a lawyer, that those professions, have years and years and years of education, designed to allow them to arrive at the best conclusions.

Originally Posted by norsk

Guy who painted over that pedestrian crossing around the corner from the shootings got 3 months.

Clown World.

The stupidity of that episode of "wokism" is that legislation very clearly defines what a pedestrian crossing is, and how it must be marked on the road surface.
A "zebra" pedestrian crossing must be marked with white; multi (rainbow) colours are not provided for.

I thought FAL holders didn't sell guns to criminals?

...I'll get my coat

I thought they couldnt grind serial numbers off

Originally Posted by MarkN

However I do know, never having been a Judge or a lawyer, that those professions, have years and years and years of education, designed to allow them to arrive at the best conclusions.

I've known plenty of lawyers, I disagree with your conclusion.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

I've known plenty of lawyers, I disagree with your conclusion.

The conclusion was that their training is designed to allow them to arrive at the best conclusions. Not that they always do. The human condition is the invisible hand that distorts that possibility (the universal experience of being a human).
But the probability that the legally trained are more likely to make more robust legal decisions than the untrained is still a reasonable premise.

you are all going off on a tangent we are not questioning lawyers here we are questioning a judge slapping this sleeze bag with a wet bus ticket