Thread: Deferred justice ???

Originally Posted by Sauer

So you would be happy with someone without a car license who injured someone in a vehicle accident being treated more leniently than a licensed driver who did the same?

Suspect the emphasis was on the representation as being 'fit and proper' threshold .... is that a thing for drivers licensing?

Originally Posted by Andygr

The flip side of that is that it shows how tragic sending 19 year olds into war really was.

Indeed. Back then kids were disciplined from a young age, were taught practical stuff and were expected to contribute to society and family by that age ....Nowadays, discipline is farcical, education farcical and tit appears that half of them are not expected to contribute anything anywhere...

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

the only thing good about it - he will not get a firearms license - but what about those in the car with him -none appear to have tried to stop him

unfortunately maybe that is not the ccase..The last paragraph from the judge reads...

"But he considered that the two convictions would have consequences for Sinclair if he wished to travel in future and would hinder him from holding a firearms licence." so he was not given any conviction. He was ordered to coeme up for sentence if summoned within 12 months, so if he does anything that puts him in front of the courts, he will be sentenced, but if he behaves himself there will be no conviction and he could apply for a FAL later....

Originally Posted by Maxx

Suspect the emphasis was on the representation as being 'fit and proper' threshold .... is that a thing for drivers licensing?

The principle is the same - you are somehow less culpable if you don’t have the appropriate license.

As the Judge so rightly pointed out, there was potential for the victim to lose an eye.
So did the poor victim have to be blinded in one eye for this idiot to be appropriately sentenced ?

If you call a flogging with a wet bus ticket appropriate yes

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-d...K6RYMWJPLWMPQ/

Holy shit I was right 'Judge Hollister-Jones said the teen was 18 at the time of the shooting and despite describing it as “extremely serious and dangerous” he said it was well documented teen brains weren’t developed at such an age.'.

I feel like this is being blown out of proportion. Who among us didn't do stupid things as a teenager?

I look back at some of the things I did, which at the time didn't seem so bad, and think "what a moron".

The "air pistol" was probably a BB gun. The type you play airsoft with. It's not inconceivable for a 19 year old to think it's OK to shoot people with it.

Heck, I thought it was ok to egg people's cars and vandalise mailboxes when I was 19.

Do I look back it and cringe at my stupidity? Absolutely.
It doesn't make me a bad person.

Well thats not very fit and proper and youve got a fal

My younger brother shot me with an air rifle not a plastic bb one, I punched his lights out.

never ever have i pointed a firearm or air rifle at anyone, if someone did it to me, the wife or anyone else they would be dealt to very seriously

Originally Posted by blip

My younger brother shot me with an air rifle not a plastic bb one, I punched his lights out.

Well that's not very fit and proper of either of you.
Regarding the drivers licence requirements, it should be the same. Should have to provide a licence to purchase fuel, or an exemption cert to prove it's for off road use.
But imagine the uproar if that got suggested.
No one would have the balls to start that shit fight.
Petrol is more volitile than a box of bullets, yet a five year old can buy it.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Well that's not very fit and proper of either of you.
Regarding the drivers licence requirements, it should be the same. Should have to provide a licence to purchase fuel, or an exemption cert to prove it's for off road use.
But imagine the uproar if that got suggested.
No one would have the balls to start that shit fight.
Petrol is more volitile than a box of bullets, yet a five year old can buy it.

Stop it. Just stop it!
You're applying logic.

Funny thing is it seems its acceptable for someone to be unfit or proper to kill someone with a car and it happens far more than with a firearm

Originally Posted by blip

Funny thing is it seems its acceptable for someone to be unfit or proper to kill someone with a car and it happens far more than with a firearm

Often with a stolen car.
(Does anybody check vehicle security?)