And there is the whole crux of the matter " Proportional response " what will the law and this judge decide is a justified and allowable response to the situation under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Printable View
And there is the whole crux of the matter " Proportional response " what will the law and this judge decide is a justified and allowable response to the situation under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
I've probably missed it somewhere, but, why did the perp keep making the journey to this guy's place time and time again. Did he have a chip about the old boy or just cos he appeared an easy target?
Faced with the same situation and gaining the upper hand by getting to a shotgun, I would have shot them both and worried about the consequences later.
I have asked several Police Officers over the years " Why dont Police aim to immobilize instead of aiming for centre mass"? Ans - ' I am putting my life at risk when facing an armed ( Knife, club, Machete etc) wielding crim so I will shoot to kill. This is just a job and am going home to my family when I finish my shift'
I am sure that faced with the same situation - knife and bottle wielding nut job, the Police would have shot him and that would be that.
Cops don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop, which is centre-of-mass aim. That's of course also shooting to kill, but only incidentally.
Get this order right before you make any statement after such a situation, God forbid.
Yes. And the answer is pure terror.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidmac42
Were is the logic in this? You would have shot them after gaining the upper hand because the Police can or do? Well, you sure would suffer the consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moa Hunter
As the saying goes "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
No not because the Police can or do do it. However the Police logic and training is to protect themselves whilst a threat still exists. They have training in these situations and we dont. The Police have examined how these situations play out and how to best handle them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
The crim still had a knife which he had not surrendered and would kill the farmer the instant positions were reversed which may well have happened had the crims mates (who had dropped him off) re-appeared. In that situation the farmer would certainly have lost his life.
What I am wishing to express is, that although I am not at all a violent person, if faced with a situation such as the farmer did with being attacked and traumatised, a bottle smashed over my head and told that I would be killed if I didn't hand over my keys, I know that I would be that wound-up and agro as well as protective of my family that I would shoot them as soon as I got the shotty. It is not a situation any of us who have not been in the services could handle rationally. If you yourself shot an intruder after that type of episode I would not think less of or judge you for it. In fact I am sure that most of us would shoot in the same situation - but then I also have a Trump sticker on display ... !
A knife is a very fast and lethal weapon at close range. Even if you have a gun in hand, a retained knife is very much a threat. God forbid I would have to face such a situation but in training I have definitely seen it demonstrated.
There's no question the butter knife thing is strange, but who knows, the truth will either come out in court or it will remain known only to those who were there.
It's not impossible that one or both parties in court could be lying about the events of the night either.
That does happen occasionally, and it isn't unheard of for the Herald to misrepirt it either.
Should have proof read. Try misrepresent or misreport, either would do.
yeah theres usually three versions of a storyQuote:
Originally Posted by Ross Nolan
the "defender turned attacker" trying to justifying loosing his mind after bieng attacked in his bed by multiple attackers
the attacker turned "victim"
and then there is the truth and the truth you can prove
Common sense has prevailed I see
There is hope for NZ yet.
How bizarre how bizarreQuote:
Originally Posted by paremata
What a great result.
My thoughts too.Quote:
Originally Posted by nevereadyfreddy
As it was reported the stranger it got.
Listening to the guidance the judge gave the jury before they retired I am fairly sure he was gunning for a Not Guilty verdict too.
Its all nice and rational to pick to pieces a situation like this from the comfort of your laptop at 7pm.
But get woken at 1am by someone smashing you over the head with a wine bottle, and threatening to kill you, and rationality can go out the window and survival should hopefully kick in.
The Burrs likely wont have to buy any rounds at the local for a considerable period thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
It would be interesting to see what sentence Snr gets for the firearms charges (dunno if he's been sentenced already or still to come). The charges seemed to about the fact he had the shotgun, not how it was used (possession of a firearm without a licence, and two charges of unlawfully carrying a firearm).
If you go on the sentences given out to other unlicensed people (e.g. the guy who had 19 MSSA's and got 9m home detention), it shouldn't be more than a slap on the wrist and a warning.
Someone injured during the course of committing a crime will have ACC pay for treatment and rehabilitation. It's a no-fault system. The line is drawn at paying compensation. Won't get a finger's worth.
Yep. Will show everyone if him getting a FAL would have been worth his trouble. Watching too how any fine stacks up against the cost of FAL + gun safe. The story continues....Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigar