Thread: Man who shot teen dead in hunting accident 22 years ago loses firearms licence bid

Originally Posted by Frogfeatures

@Cordite fair point.
I guess 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Speaking personally if I’d shot another person through negligence, I doubt I’d ever want to handle a firearm again.
Just my take on the situation

@Frogfeatures

Yes, same here, plenty other hobbies to take up instead. Aren't we all glad this story is not about us.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@Solo


What makes me VERY uncomfortable about this whole affair is that the withholding of a firearms license is used as a de-facto ongoing punishment for him screwing up 22 yrs ago, likely made worse by living in a small community where some obviously hang on hard to their grudges and the local cops are too close to some parties to do their job properly and impartially (read Solo's article).

All legal penalties on this man got handed out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. NZ Police has no business engaging in vigilantism by seeking to impose further penalty on someone through declining his firearms license application. That should be done on no other basis than if he is/isn't (not was or wasn't) "a fit and proper person".

A court judge in Invercargill refused the licence on the grounds he's not a fit and proper person. After the police refused to give it back on the on the same grounds.

Judge Mark Callaghan refused Diack's bid to get his licence back, pointing to the 1996 tragedy and two incidents in 2013 and 2014 to show Diack was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

Doesn't sound like an ongoing punishment or seeking to impose a further penalty to me.

Originally Posted by systolic

Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence.

Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting.

He didn't accept the incidents in 2013 and 2014 were minor.

"Incidents involving violence aren't minor."

A long-time mate of Diack's, John Munro, said he did not get the feeling the Tuatapere community was divided over the 1996 shooting.

Diack was a respected member of the community and it was not in his nature to be aggressive, Munro said.

- The Southland Times

@systolic,

Sure, the judge concluded he was not fit and proper, but chiefly based on an accident he was involved in 22yrs ago.

One thing is what the judge concludes, the other thing is what brought the court case about. There would be no court case if the police just granted him his FAL on application.

The alleged feelings of people in the community that police are hiding behind has nada, zilch, zero to do with whether someone is fit and proper. Cops referring to other cops having said that some in the community may feel a certain way if a FAL was to be reinstated is echoes of fresh victim statements being read out but completely unchallengeable / unexaminable. Should not have been admitted to the court, but clearly it was the elephant in the room.

Police did throw in the kitchen sink with the more recent incidents, but that was all that was, they were not the reason police refused his license. In spite of chief cop saying incidents involving violence are not minor, in this case he contradicts himself insofar that he implies the violent incidents were not the police's major reason for declining the FAL application. In other words, they were minor in that regard.

Plenty FAL holders in the community are known by Police to have done similar stupid minor stunts but did not lose their FAL over it. No, this is about branding someone permanently and irredeemably unfit and improper.

Question, do we know of ANYONE successfully applying for reinstatement of his FAL after being involved in an accidental shooting?

B

Originally Posted by Cordite

Yes, and get to be in charge of a much deadlier weapon. Maybe some hypocrisy and inconsistency there, but society as a whole accepts that the road toll is an unfortunate and not entirely avoidable side-effect of motor vehicle use. For some reason society is reluctant to accept a much lower death toll, any death toll, to arise from gun use. But we are never going to have a zero accidental death toll from firearms.

I was interested to read the following:

"Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence."
"Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting."

In regard to the "fit and proper or not" test as per the Arms Act, the fact that you may be unpopular, with respect to the bereaved, is frankly irrelevant to whether you are fit and proper. And if you are fit and proper, unpopularity should not be used to block you getting a FAL. If you are fit and proper you SHALL be granted a FAL, that is the law.

Punching someone ... bummer, should not have done. Seems that should correctly be looked into when determining if someone is fit and proper. Violence towards men is (also) not OK.

IMHO shooting someone and having 22 yrs to reflect on it is plenty assurance that someone will now take excellent care around guns, it is also a great vaccination against the stupid notion of bringing a firearm to a fight. The guy is dedicating part of his life to saving lives, for goodness sake, what might be motivating him to do such a thing? No prizes given for correct answers.

And yet some one kings hits my son from behind in a non confrontal situation, knocks him unconscious on his feet, lucky not to smash his head on the concrete, but does go into hospital over night, judge gives diversion, go figure!!

yip Maca49 there are some glaring hypocracies in our legal system.....someone brought up rugby....do you fellas remember the case in Timaru a few years back where two chaps got into scuffle outside pub and one got punched then hit head on pavement and died..the young fella who hit him (once) was being charged with manslaughter...... as for heavyweight boxers...still think the best line Ive ever heard a comentater say was during world cup a few years back the ABs were versing Irish...scuffle broke out and "the captain is lining up with NZ heavyweight champ" it was rather comicle as SBW was just itching for excuse to let loose...thankfully the Irish chap saw sense and didnt throw punch.

Originally Posted by Frogfeatures

@Cordite fair point.
I guess 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Speaking personally if I’d shot another person through negligence, I doubt I’d ever want to handle a firearm again.
Just my take on the situation

If anyone has been driving a car and hit /killed someone in a crash ( I hesitate to use the word accident) would you expect them to give up their license for life and never drive again? If a racing accident ends in someone dying, it would be very hard to face driving again, but could that driver get back in a car and drive either competitively or asa normal person?

I can only hope there s more to his background that has not been published. Maybe there is something there that would preclude him from reinstatement. But if not, the after 22 years I think he would have been considered. Your situation can change over time and someone who was once suitable, fit and proper for a F/A license may no longer be fit and proper. Surely this goes the other way too. Someone who may not have been fit and proper 20 years ago may well be now a fit and proper person. (Think as an example a teenage boy racer with many speeding tickets and infringements modified cars and fluting the law as a teen would not be fit and proper as his judgement is clearly not capable of acting responsible enough for firearms, but n his 30s as an adult, with a couple kids, wife and career / profession and a clear change in direction of his life may now be the very definition of fit and proper) So to hold his status because of something that long ago seems off. But lets be honest, its not like the media to report the whole story and truth, just enough to push their own agenda....

@timattalon

Argument for driving license reinstatement is that people need to drive, it causes them hardship not to have a license, unable to work, do school run, take kids to violin lessons etc etc. Those are of course relatively minor concerns compared to the risk of death and injury - but people get their licenses back.

Same argument of necessity is not as readily made for a firearms license. Other hobbies available. Still, the unsuccessful FAL applicant here is a middle aged man in a rural area, well out in the sticks, and shooting sports is likely a major pastime for most of his friends. Excluded in a very real way, with predictable negative effect on his health. But the actual the risk to human life of him having a FAL, at least based on the 1996 accident, is minuscule - particularly compared to being a car driver.

I get it the two later incidents featured in the latest decision, but as he applied 5-6 times for his FAL, the first turn down at least was not done for any other reason than that 1996 accident.

To repeat, I take it nobody on this forum knows of anyone who got his license reinstated after an accidental shooting.

Wrong! Whaaaat?!? So OK if you are a drinking-and-shooting rugby player, not if you are a firefighter. Yes, the courts take their cues from the cops on this one.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105...-investigation

Originally Posted by ghosts

Knowing the family and what they still go through in terms of dealing with the loss of there son.
Also knowing a few more details on this case and the guy who shot Mark.
There is no way he should ever get a firearms license back.

I guess its easy to sit in front of a laptop and play judge and jury on a public forum without knowing any details.
Seems like he's got a few options to still get out there, without the need to have his fal reinstated. Lots of issues to consider but as a hunter, he's surely committed the worst crime there is.

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105...-investigation

Reading this quote in that article raises a whole new perspective..."Police Minister Stuart Nash has welcomed the decision, telling Stuff it set a legal precedent.

The Government was reviewing firearms policy: "I think the police need more powers." More powers? They are continually trying to overstep boundaries on the ones they have now.

Originally Posted by timattalon

Reading this quote in that article raises a whole new perspective..."Police Minister Stuart Nash has welcomed the decision, telling Stuff it set a legal precedent.

The Government was reviewing firearms policy: "I think the police need more powers." More powers? They are continually trying to overstep boundaries on the ones they have now.

If they really are Nash's words then he has contradicted himself to all FAL holder's. Using this case to set legal precedent? No thanks.

I see he mentioned the same old backwards meaning rhetoric that police policy implies:

"It's a privilege to have a firearms licence, not a right, and we need to ensure that those that do have the ability to own a firearm meet the good character test," Nash said. "Any time a decision like this is made for the first time, that can set a legal precedent judges can follow."

Hasn't taken him long to be brain-washed has it.

@Cordite the Andrew Hore case seems like double standards to me.

Originally Posted by Maca49

B
And yet some one kings hits my son from behind in a non confrontal situation, knocks him unconscious on his feet, lucky not to smash his head on the concrete, but does go into hospital over night, judge gives diversion, go figure!!

Diversion for an unprovoked violent assault. That really is a bullshit ruling and I think that is an outrage !! A few months of sodomy in the cells would have fixed that arsehole. Regarding the shooting case in this thread, the police may not have focused on the common assault but that does not mean that the Judge considered it minor. Diack did that, even though he knew the eyes of the law were or would be upon him in the future judging his actions with regard to FL applications. As men we can all loose our tempers at times and want to punch someone, that is just a part of being a man, but unless the situation is really serious we control ourselves. Seems to me like a small financial debt isn't justifiable provocation to loose control. I don't want a bloke who cant control his temper and make sound snap decisions joining the ranks of good honest firearms licence holders.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Still, the unsuccessful FAL applicant here is a middle aged man in a rural area, well out in the sticks, and shooting sports is likely a major pastime for most of his friends. Excluded in a very real way, with predictable negative effect on his health. But the actual the risk to human life of him having a FAL, at least based on the 1996 accident, is minuscule - particularly compared to being a car driver.

I think his obesity would have more predictable negative effect on his health than being a bit sad because he's not allowed guns.

I think a problem a lot of us are having here is that we can't really imagine ourselves accidentally shooting someone. We look at the level of negligence required, and we are certain that we couldn't make that number of consecutive mistakes. I know this is how I feel, and I hope I never have to re-examine that mindset. I fully accept that I am fallible, and I've certainly made mistakes due to negligence in other areas of my life. But I treat firearms safety with such reverence that it just doesn't seem possible.

In light of all that, I absolutely believe in rehabilitation, and that we shouldn't repeatedly punish someone for the same offence, but I'm sure the people who have these incidents didn't see themselves as irresponsible at the time, so I'd be wary to trust their own judgement of their safety again.