Printable View
yes, a good thrashing in 'self defense' you could make a case for IF it would even be prosecuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnwolf
What's happened here is quite another matter. @unmodified do you mind describing how this was 'more or less self inflicted'
Assuming that they did cut the brats finger off how many of you LFAO's think it was justified? And if it was justified, just what punitive action would you actually stop at? 'Cos thats the acid test - how good is our self control and rationality under testing circumstances.
I think some here watch too many action/retribution movies.
Fair enough if you're indulging in some flippant fantasy but if these are earnest sentiments....
Everyone saying that use of force is justified as self defence under S48 Crimes Act needs to remember that its not a blanket "I can do what I want".
"Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use."
That force needs to be reasonable and proportionate to the threat that the person is defending themselves from IE if the offender is lying on the ground at gunpoint and beaten is it reasonable and proportionate to step forward and cut off his finger to defend myself? That act doesn't seem like something I'd do if I genuinely feared for my safety and isn't exactly a reasonable way of defending myself, particularly if I'm saying things like "it's so people know you're a thief" etc and filming it.
Since we all agree that some force during this incident was authorised by law that naturally leads us to S62 of the Crimes Act
"Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."
Based on the above it seems the appropriate place for this discussion is indeed the Court because it appears on the face of it that there is a case to be heard. What that outcome may be will be the Judge or Jurys call. As an aside I see the offender has already been charged with aggravated burglary and some other bits so is also being held to account under the law.
Remember that in these cases it's not what we may wish to see but what the law is. Like @Thar has mentioned LFAOs we more than most need to understand our obligations under the law and if we don't agree with them to vote accordingly for change, not decide to do as we may wish in the moment less we lose our license or end up in the dock ourselves.
Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.
so %50 of the police at the wellington protest should be in court then ....
In my opinion anyone who REPEATEDLY breaks in to a house , armed with a weapon - be it a knife or a wine bottle or both , assaults/beats the owner , threatens to kill them (and openly admits it in court)have VOLUNTARILY removed any rights they might have as a normal human being in a decent society and deserve everything they get ... with bells on .
The problem there is that when our opinion differs from the law we end up in Court trying to defend those actions. And if there's no legal basis for our opinion we lose that defence. And rightly so, we all have differing opinions about all kinds of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftx325
Example - Maybe I disagree with hunting and taking the lives of poor innocent deers. In my opinion I should be able to use force against the nasty hunters to save the lives of those deers. Legally not so much.
If we can't make that distinction between opinion and the law we can't really call ourselves LAFOs..
absolutely opinion and law often go in seperate directions . And yes as law abiding firearm owners we have to be very careful not to mix the two up .
But why does it seem that nowadays the criminals have more 'rights' than the victims ?
that is wrong in so many ways .
But I do wonder if the farmer will be facing firearms charges for threatening with a shotgun ....
Again in my mind that was justified - they had just beaten him and threatened to kill him ....
but does that qualify as reasonable force in the eyes of the police and judge ? And if not , why not , and then what is considered reasonable force in that situation when you have already been beaten and threatened with death ... ?
what generally happens before someone's finger is intentionally amputated? Are they moving upon him with violent intent?Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
They are generally subdued and presenting no threat.
He has already plead guilty to several firearms charges (including possession of a firearm without a license).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftx325
Ok , did not realize he was not licensed .Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigar
What would the outcome be had he been licensed I still wonder ....
AS to the finger amputation , was he not lying on the knife waiting for a chance to stab the farmers , according to the news report , and as admitted in court ? Is that not why they cut the finger , for not moving his hand out from under him so visible or releasing the knife ?
So not exactly what I would call subdued if that is the case .
If that was the case a better option would’ve been to continue maintaining cover on him with the shotty from a distance. Or kick him. Certainly not to get right up close and cut off a pinky with a butter knife.. AND even if that was the thinking saying things like it’s so people know he’s a thief makes it kinda damning from an establishing intent point of viewQuote:
Originally Posted by Ftx325
If that is what actually happened, cutting his finger off with a butter knife was a stupid thing to do. Wasn't it?
If you say so. I will bet you $50 that he gets sentenced for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
You may well be right
Justice and "the law" do seem to be on divergent paths
Not feasible af all. He had brought his mobile phone and as such his movements to the farm could and would get traced. Only way to clean his DNA from the house would be to burn it down really well. And maybe feasible to bury bodies and a car on a farm, but pure fantasy to imagine you'd get away with that once someone comes looking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moa Hunter
Farmer Brown would ironically be in less trouble if he'd let this 140kg gang member get up with the knife and then shot him. But when people are frightened and out of their depth they do stupid things instead. I guess the shottie was unloaded.
victims in this type of situation should be able to fight back without consequence to themselves . We and the crims all know when left to the courts the guy is just going to be out on the streets again in short order , or at home , with no real consequence to his actions .
I am not saying that we can all start torturing anyone who crosses the gate and chopping off body parts , but the last thing I would want to be worried about in that situation would be trying to decide if I can legally defend myself without facing a trial myself on charges for something that was instigated by the criminal breaking in , on my own property in my own house in defence of myself/family and possessions .
Or in a high stress situation like that you may not get the chance to think with all the conflicting emotions and threats upon you or your families person and may just react without thought , which would be understandable and possibly not within the exact wording of the law , which in itself is vague at best .
The victim is legally on the back foot from the get go .
That is not how it should be .
Why should the rights of the criminal come first as they appear to nowadays ? The crim is the one in the wrong , not the victim . If the victim is able to turn the tide on the crim it always seems to be the victim also ends up on charges as mentioned earlier . That is wrong . I guess you could use the excuse of being abused as a child to get off like all these retards seem to do ....
Again , as I mentioned before , I wonder if the farmer would have still faced firearm charges if he was licensed ? Even though a trigger was not pulled ...
I for one believe my home is my castle , as the old adage goes , and would be prepared to do whatever it takes to defend it and those within it's walls .
???Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
You read his comment in court when he said if he could have stood up he would have stabbed the Burrs, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrun
I expect there is an additional layer, given he drove from Auckland 3 times to rob the same farm - there wasn't anywhere in the middle worth a look?
Something smells a little.
I think the moral of the finger story ( presumably it was the middle finger rendered inoperable ) is not to cut them off as per Old Testament, but to use a rubber hammer on the hand and possibly head as well until the crim is compliant ?
fair enough. Maybe the pair of them can do a u tube video on how to effectively disarm someone with a knife lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ross Nolan
I think you will find that fingerless is already in klink for other shite he has doneQuote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
Disarming, finger by finger ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrun
Here's a bit more of the story: More and more its painting a picture of a 150kg out of control phsyco with a vendatta.. I reckon anything you can do to stop being killed by such an animal goes.
As the saying goes: better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/piopio...V4V3ZZZJC2R5M/
Maybe eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moa Hunter
Forcing the shoulder or putting your thumbs under his jaw or in his ears maybe?
I couldn't have said it any better. They do not deserve to be treated as normal human beings because that's exactly what they chose themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftx325
This is what pisses me off big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftx325
If someone invades my father's house and attacks him, I will be removing A LOT MORE than just a finger.
You don't understand the idiot they where dealing with . To get to do what you have said means you have to get in close and in range of his knife . Add to that,that type of person would probably just ignore any pain as the knife or the threat of it was his only chance of escape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrun
Fingers is not a normal person and only has one thought , Himself.
Unlicensed firearm owner?!? Sweet, so they can't take his FAL off him, and also he'll not do jail time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigar
Also, gang members wishing to do a revenge invasion can't be quite certain he hasn't rearmed.
I know, it's f*cked up to say this, but isn't it reality?
Any home invading crims today should be aware that they will be mistaken for Ducks !Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic
What range do you think the son was in when he was beating him and cutting his finger off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tankd
Sounds like the fucker was beat, face down on the floor and covered by the dad with a shotgun.
In any event, its nothing to do with my life. I've shared my views in passing. This is the business of the courts.
I’m thinking ‘imagine the lawyers bill….’
Dunno how I’d react being woken up with a wine bottle over my head….most probably not too happy…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the old boy showed remarkable self control . 3-4 home invasions by this piece of shit. ( who by the way is on bail ) Wakes up not only to another home invasion but a repeated unprovoked physical assault with a weapon at 1am.
The farmer has also seen a knife and has been threatened he will be stabbed . His wife and family now live somewhere else out of fear of this happening again.
This whole scene could have ended very badly for the Farmer and to me this is a life threatening situation , he has every right to defend himself and end the event.
That butter knife amputation though... bizarre.
Putting spread on my toast will never be the same again. And I'll be reading with keen interest once it's all out there.
I guess it's hardly a normal home invasion either, these guys kept coming back. I do wounder how some of the members here who are judging the finger cutter would feel about that? Maybe they would just cower in the corner...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
I'm ambivalent toward the finger cutter and co. I'm just stating the reasons why I think they will be sentenced.
Given the repeated nature I wonder myself what history/altercations have passed between the parties or associates involved.
As for cowering, I always own capable dogs and will make use of a hockey stick if need be. I'd be happier taking responsibility for that than pairing off someone a finger in retribution and gloating about it afterwards.
These are the choices these chaps made and if they're happy taking responsibility for that then all power to them.
Ive read through the thread and haven't seen anyone say the guy didn't have a right to defend himself. Of course he did. The law allows it and for some its a natural instinct.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
The cowering in the corner snipe simply reflects a macho bullshit attitude. No one knows how they would react until they are in the situation.
But hammering a butter knife through a finger was truly bizarre.
Even after many Googlings. The most puzzling part to me about everything in this thread, is...
What on earth "many of you LFAOs" means.
The LFAOs bit is licensed fire arms ownerQuote:
Originally Posted by jakewire
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Licensed Fire Arm Owners. You know, rational and responsible people who ought to understand what a proportional response is :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jakewire