Thread: Discharge Without Conviction

Given the Police are now "investigating a tree to see why it fell on some people" I think as a country we are fucked.

I wonder if they will charge it with "assault causing injury"

Originally Posted by Sako851

The judge hasn’t broken the law, but he has broken the trust of the average joe kiwi I imagine. Refugees can enter our country and shoot our people, and if it doesn’t kill them there will be no repercussions

Is your difficulty with this ruling a shooter got off, or that a refugee got off? If the shooter was a 3rd generation Maori farmer from Northland (also reacting to a racial insult) would you still be upset at the judge?

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Is your difficulty with this ruling a shooter got off, or that a refugee got off? If the shooter was a 3rd generation Maori farmer from Northland (also reacting to a racial insult) would you still be upset at the judge?

Didn't Tama Iti get a pass too?

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Is your difficulty with this ruling a shooter got off, or that a refugee got off? If the shooter was a 3rd generation Maori farmer from Northland (also reacting to a racial insult) would you still be upset at the judge?

Yes i would but a immigrant should be better behaved in his adopted country and not bring his countrys laws here

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Is your difficulty with this ruling a shooter got off, or that a refugee got off? If the shooter was a 3rd generation Maori farmer from Northland (also reacting to a racial insult) would you still be upset at the judge?

hell yes I would indeed, who it is matters not a jot but what they did does. Mind you as a middle aged male NZer of European decent I have learned that EVERYTHING is my fault and I better not try and defend myself just to apologise and move on

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

I am just telling you what the law is. I am not arguing that the victim "asked for it". The law is well established that the victim's poor or provocative conduct is a mitigating factor for the seriousness of the offence. This law has also been around for a very long time. I would think it was first established as a case law precedent, then adopted by the Parliament so now it is in a statute. If you do not like it, write to your local MP ask for an amendment to the law. Amendments to laws happen all the time, that is what we all pay the MP's salary for.

I understand and appreciate that you have taken the time to explain how the judge came to her decision and how this particular law is applied Ultimitsu.
We have been very concerned about a name caller being shot and now forum members want to 'shoot the messenger' a strange irony indeed...

If we as forum members wish to make our position known should we contact the Minister of Justice or someone else ??

Bearing in mind Kotuku's comments above from FFS

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I understand and appreciate that you have taken the time to explain how the judge came to her decision and how this particular law is applied Ultimitsu.
We have been very concerned about a name caller being shot and now forum members want to 'shoot the messenger' a strange irony indeed...

If we as forum members wish to make our position known should we contact the Minister of Justice or someone else ??

you have to write to your local MP to convince him that section 9 (2) (c) of the Sentencing Act 2002 is wrong and should be repealed, the section says this:

(2) In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following mitigating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:
(c) the conduct of the victim.

If you manage to convince him, he will start a member's bill asking the rest of the Parliament to agree with him. If over half of the parliament agrees with him the bill will be passed eventually and amendment to the law will be made.


Keep in mind, merely make your position known, without more, will not serve any purpose. Because in the end of the day this is democracy, you have to get over 50% support in the Parliament for a bill to pass into law, to have real change.

Provocation was in the past an actual defence. about 20 years ago following a case where a man killed a homosexual man for making an advance on him, the public had an outcry and the law was changed. Provocation defence was removed.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Is your difficulty with this ruling a shooter got off, or that a refugee got off? If the shooter was a 3rd generation Maori farmer from Northland (also reacting to a racial insult) would you still be upset at the judge?

I feel the same way, that it was a weak judgement.

The idiots who were throwing racial slurs in the first place, I think they need a telling off also which they did probably get by the judge but I’m not sure.

Oh and the messenger often gets “shot” for want of a better word. I value our ability here and as a country to have differing views, which is becoming more and more difficult. The more your view differs from the main stream the more people will want to take your ability to even have an alternative view away from you

Originally Posted by Sako851

I feel the same way, that it was a weak judgement.

The idiots who were throwing racial slurs in the first place, I think they need a telling off also which they did probably get by the judge but I’m not sure.

If it even happened, which I doubt, it's not illegal.

Originally Posted by Martin358

Yes i would but a immigrant should be better behaved in his adopted country and not bring his countrys laws here

Dont worry, WE WILL ADJUST!!

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

I am just telling you what the law is. I am not arguing that the victim "asked for it". The law is well established that the victim's poor or provocative conduct is a mitigating factor for the seriousness of the offence. This law has also been around for a very long time. I would think it was first established as a case law precedent, then adopted by the Parliament so now it is in a statute. If you do not like it, write to your local MP ask for an amendment to the law. Amendments to laws happen all the time, that is what we all pay the MP's salary for.

Im glad you helped me out with "why we pay the MPs salary" Ill sleep a lot better now. I was thinking most of them are just useless buggers!!

The only thing that I have learned from studying law, is that the sort of opinions expressed on here about the suitability or not of sentencing is almost always without any merit. It is certainly without proper understanding of either the actual incident or event (relying on the media in one breath when it suits while castigating them for not representing yours adequately about your interests in the next, is both typical and hypocritical) and shows no understanding of public policy considerations or sociological considerations.

It provides no understanding of externalities that affect the wider community or the families of those who deviate, nor the ongoing long stream effects of additional criminal creation, simply by the result of pandering to such expert public emotional response of the type that Utimitsu has valiantly tried to address on here.

It is an expert job, one that can never be done correctly because its always about tradeoffs. Your ignorant opinions don't matter, mine don't either and I know more about this than you do. I have no idea about what is the most appropriate outcome for this case, and the only thing I learn on here is that the ignorant somehow do know and somehow think that they should be contributing to making those decisions.

I must have not gotten the memo that said that ignorance was a prerequisite for the responsible role of becoming a judge.

PS if you are struggling with the meaning of any of the words in the first paragraph, you by the new measure of suitability are now even more qualified for determining the fate of any random matter that emotionally stirs you....

Originally Posted by Sidney

The only thing that I have learned from studying law, is that the sort of opinions expressed on here about the suitability or not of sentencing is almost always without any merit. It is certainly without proper understanding of either the actual incident or event (relying on the media in one breath when it suits while castigating them for not representing yours adequately about your interests in the next, is both typical and hypocritical) and shows no understanding of public policy considerations or sociological considerations.

It provides no understanding of externalities that affect the wider community or the families of those who deviate, nor the ongoing long stream effects of additional criminal creation, simply by the result of pandering to such expert public emotional response of the type that Utimitsu has valiantly tried to address on here.

It is an expert job, one that can never be done correctly because its always about tradeoffs. Your ignorant opinions don't matter, mine don't either and I know more about this than you do. I have no idea about what is the most appropriate outcome for this case, and the only thing I learn on here is that the ignorant somehow do know and somehow think that they should be contributing to making those decisions.

I must have not gotten the memo that said that ignorance was a prerequisite for the responsible role of becoming a judge.

PS if you are struggling with the meaning of any of the words in the first paragraph, you by the new measure of suitability are now even more qualified for determining the fate of any random matter that emotionally stirs you....

It's so obvious you legal types get paid by the word

Sent from my SM-G390Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Maca49

Dont worry, WE WILL ADJUST!!

3 clicks left and 2 up

Sent from my SM-G390Y using Tapatalk