Thread: Gillespie shooting his mouth again

Common sense goes both ways no?
Your points are quite valid though!

Originally Posted by Jexla

Some of you really aren't thinking properly. You have to remember that police (the ones who work front line anyway) have to work within the law.

Yes they knew he had constructed a building of some sort made for shooting from. Yes they knew he didn't have a firearms license and of his violent record. But what can they do if he told them that his mate often comes around with his rifle and they have a shoot on his land? Nothing.

Is that illegal? No.

Does that give you reasonable suspicion to get a warrant to search his house? No.

You think if he asked him if he had guns he would have said yeah? No.

Come on guys, I know we like to bash the cops a bit, but a bit of common sense wouldn't go astray.

Some very good points.

And all the front line Police I have ever net have all struck me as pretty reasonable people. (Only thing that I just dont understand that if all the frontline Police are as good as all the ones I have met, how the hell did Cahill get to where he is now?? But that is a topic for another thread / discussion / day)

Originally Posted by Jexla

Does that give you reasonable suspicion to get a warrant to search his house? No.

In the aftermath of Aramoana, and a number of other incidents since, I would have thought YES to be honest! How many times must this happen with someone identified as unstable and the use of firearms? Proactive rather than reactive action is required. The result of waiting for something to happen is not good and usually results in some knee jerk reaction to create ineffective measures that will not lower the likelihood of a similar event in the future. If our boarder security can quickly profile likely candidates for a check then surely Police should be able to as well, even if it requires a request for a search warrant? At least Police would be able to say they tried.

This should clear up the question if they could have searched his house with out a warrant, Google is your friend

Do the Police have the power to search me without a warrant?

The Police can search you or your belongings without a warrant if you have been arrested or taken into Police custody, or you are present when the Police are performing some types of search of your vehicle or home.

They also do not need a warrant to search you or your belongings if they have reasonable grounds to believe that:

you have evidence relating to a serious offence (an offence which is punishable by 14 years or more imprisonment), or
that you have illegal drugs or an ingredient of illegal drugs, and the Police suspect that a drug offence has, is, or will be, committed with that substance.
The Police can also search you or your belongings without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that:

you are unlawfully in possession of an offensive weapon (e.g. knives, firearms) or disabling substances (e.g. a drug used to render someone unconscious), or
you have firearms when you shouldn’t - for example if you are breaching the Arms Act 1983, or have a physical or mental condition which stops you from being in proper control of firearms, or there is a protection order or police safety order against you.

If you read the findings of the guy in Ashburton who took the firearm out of the car into the toilet they searched his house on the grounds of his mental condtion. The judge said they had no reason to question his mental condition, so ruled the search illegal.

Originally Posted by stug

If you read the findings of the guy in Ashburton who took the firearm out of the car into the toilet they searched his house on the grounds of his mental condtion. The judge said they had no reason to question his mental condition, so ruled the search illegal.

Particularly after they had him assessed to be fit to be interviewed.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

In the aftermath of Aramoana, and a number of other incidents since, I would have thought YES to be honest! How many times must this happen with someone identified as unstable and the use of firearms? Proactive rather than reactive action is required. The result of waiting for something to happen is not good and usually results in some knee jerk reaction to create ineffective measures that will not lower the likelihood of a similar event in the future. If our boarder security can quickly profile likely candidates for a check then surely Police should be able to as well, even if it requires a request for a search warrant? At least Police would be able to say they tried.

Tell me, if you were the cop, what would you have written on the request for a warrant as the reason the warrant should be issued by the judge or JP?

Originally Posted by Jexla

Some of you really aren't thinking properly. You have to remember that police (the ones who work front line anyway) have to work within the law.

Yes they knew he had constructed a building of some sort made for shooting from. Yes they knew he didn't have a firearms license and of his violent record. But what can they do if he told them that his mate often comes around with his rifle and they have a shoot on his land? Nothing.

Is that illegal? No.

Does that give you reasonable suspicion to get a warrant to search his house? No.

You think if he asked him if he had guns he would have said yeah? No.

Come on guys, I know we like to bash the cops a bit, but a bit of common sense wouldn't go astray.

Valid points @Jexla, however, it was Gillespie I was most pissed-off about, and the way the media always seem able to drag out some more bullshit from him and other dickheads any time there's firearms incident.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Tell me, if you were the cop, what would you have written on the request for a warrant as the reason the warrant should be issued by the judge or JP?

Pretty much what I put in that post. It would be known that he did not have a license and likely had possession of firearms. If it was denied then I would be able to show that I tried.

Though looking at the post above it would not be necessary. http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...tml#post624969

The thing is that if Police do not try then they really have absolutely no grounds to ask for any tougher regulations. They are not using the tools that they have and effectively signalling that the attrition is acceptable. They should then not make a big commotion that it is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Pretty much what I put in that post. It would be known that he did not have a license and likely had possession of firearms. If it was denied then I would be able to show that I tried.

Though looking at the post above it would not be necessary. http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...tml#post624969

The thing is that if Police do not try then they really have absolutely no grounds to ask for any tougher regulations. They are not using the tools that they have and effectively signalling that the attrition is acceptable. They should then not make a big commotion that it is not acceptable.

You'd make a horrible cop spending tax payer money to apply for warrants where you knew you didn't have any evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by Jexla

You'd make a horrible cop spending tax payer money to apply for warrants where you knew you didn't have any evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

You'd be an even more useless cop if you turned a blind eye, you might as well resign and stop being a leach on the tax payer. There is way too much taking the easy route as shown with revenue gathering from speeding motorists rather than positioning themselves to ensure slow motorists pull over and let the pile up of vehicles behind pass and maintain a better speed. The only place I see them waiting is the few straight sections. Time they got back to the core of their business of solving crimes. This is all controlled by the seat polishers rather than the lads on the street.

I do know one cop that was annoyed at the lack of action after his own vehicle was stolen so he did a bit of leg work himself and ended up shutting down a syndicate stealing and wrecking for he overseas market. They have the ability, it is over due for that ability to be used more effectively.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

You'd be an even more useless cop if you turned a blind eye, you might as well resign and stop being a leach on the tax payer. There is way too much taking the easy route as shown with revenue gathering from speeding motorists rather than positioning themselves to ensure slow motorists pull over and let the pile up of vehicles behind pass and maintain a better speed. The only place I see them waiting is the few straight sections. Time they got back to the core of their business of solving crimes. This is all controlled by the seat polishers rather than the lads on the street.

I do know one cop that was annoyed at the lack of action after his own vehicle was stolen so he did a bit of leg work himself and ended up shutting down a syndicate stealing and wrecking for he overseas market. They have the ability, it is over due for that ability to be used more effectively.

I too would probably be a useless cop, I agree. Especially when neither of us knows exactly how they work.

Can't say I don't agree with cops worrying less about revenue gathering and more about actual crimes.

Originally Posted by Jexla

I too would probably be a useless cop, I agree. Especially when neither of us knows exactly how they work.

Can't say I don't agree with cops worrying less about revenue gathering and more about actual crimes.

Yeah, the guys on the ground are coping it from all directions. What they need is backing and leadership from the paper shufflers further up the tree to do some real policing work. And the backing of the community too. That last one is probably the most important really, there has been a major disconnect with the community in general over the years.

cops have now arrested/charged a 3rd person for supply of firearms to this individual. Man arrested for allegedly supplying guns to Northland shooter Quinn Patterson - NZ Herald

That's good see and positive news about the police force doing their job effectively.
Cant wait to see Gillespie or Cahill's spin on it though. (NOT !)
And the media still have not retracted their B...S.. stories about "grenades" & "importing firearms" etc. They present innuendos and half truths as facts but NEVER bother set the record straight.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

cops have now arrested/charged a 3rd person for supply of firearms to this individual. Man arrested for allegedly supplying guns to Northland shooter Quinn Patterson - NZ Herald

That's good see and positive news about the police force doing their job effectively.
Cant wait to see Gillespie or Cahill's spin on it though. (NOT !)
And the media still have not retracted their B...S.. stories about "grenades" & "importing firearms" etc. They present innuendos and half truths as facts but NEVER bother set the record straight.

Spot on mate, they know the police have already said none of those items were present and only 2 firearms were found, but the reason they can keep saying it is because they're just quoting what someone said to them. (Maybe even the same person being charged?)