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

Originally Posted by Solo

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.

@Solo

In deed, safety begins when we admit we are unsafe and fallible. Problem within that problem is that we treat hunters who do such things as criminals, and since WE are not criminals ourselves it leads to a very unhelpful disconnect. Some like Wayne Edgerton have been so certain of their immunity to error that they were prepared to throw fellow hunters under a bus. And we know what he ended up doing himself. Labeling those who make mistakes as bad eggs contributes nothing to safety, rather the opposite.

It would have been great to see Mr Edgerton in court supporting Mr Diack's reapplication. Now that would have been real gun safety promotion.

Putting aside for a moment the case of Mr Diack, I don't believe that current firearms training and licencing is sufficient at all. I have never met even one new firearms licence holder who is actually fully up to speed with safe firearms handling. Hopefully the new system under MSC will fix this.
Then as far as field target identification, well we are relying on some silly rods in our eyes to receive refracted/reflected light waves from an object and then for our brains to correctly interpret that information. It is easy for a mistake to be made with visual identification. We must be made aware of the potential for mistakes to be made, how they are made and have a check system. For example the Graf Boys ' Assume everything is Human until you prove otherwise' is vastly superior to Positively identify etc...
So back to Mr Diack if he had undertaken training courses with MSC, assisted at a range and talked at his local school about his mistake. Then he could put his hand on his heart in front of the court and say "this is how I made mistakes leading to the fatal accidental shooting" "I can promise the court and the public that if issued with a firearms licence I will never make a firearms mistake again". That to me would be rehabilitation. Instead he has punched someone over a small debt and even the aspirations to fire chief may have a dark side - We always have two reasons that we do something, The one that we tell everyone and the real one !!

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Putting aside for a moment the case of Mr Diack, I don't believe that current firearms training and licencing is sufficient at all. I have never met even one new firearms licence holder who is actually fully up to speed with safe firearms handling. Hopefully the new system under MSC will fix this.
Then as far as field target identification, well we are relying on some silly rods in our eyes to receive refracted/reflected light waves from an object and then for our brains to correctly interpret that information. It is easy for a mistake to be made with visual identification. We must be made aware of the potential for mistakes to be made, how they are made and have a check system. For example the Graf Boys ' Assume everything is Human until you prove otherwise' is vastly superior to Positively identify etc...
So back to Mr Diack if he had undertaken training courses with MSC, assisted at a range and talked at his local school about his mistake. Then he could put his hand on his heart in front of the court and say "this is how I made mistakes leading to the fatal accidental shooting" "I can promise the court and the public that if issued with a firearms licence I will never make a firearms mistake again". That to me would be rehabilitation. Instead he has punched someone over a small debt and even the aspirations to fire chief may have a dark side - We always have two reasons that we do something, The one that we tell everyone and the real one !!

@Moa Hunter

Yes, the presumption of human till otherwise established seems correct, except hunters are tuned in to look for non-human targets, so it is as unnatural/non-intuitive as using your middle finger as trigger finger (although in theory it is the ideal finger for the job what with a straighter tendon, better hold on gun between index/thumb etc, etc).

Blaze colour choice orange vs blue has been debated a lot, but perhaps at the expense of the role of SHAPE, or lack of shape. Whether blue or orange, the current blaze hunting clothes you can buy have unhelpful black disruptive patterns which break up shape. Not super clever if adrenaline charged brains tune into shape and movement. Read: adrenaline may effectively render us partially colour blind - similar to the animals who are supposed not to notice the blaze orange - by focusing attention away from colour and on to size/shape instead!

Never mind that colour vision is poorer in lower light dusk/dawn situations. Uniformly coloured orange or blue blaze is then more likely to save your life, because your shape is less broken up.

Blaze orange:


Blaze orange, grayscale, notice the effect of the disruptive black patterns in breaking up body shape:

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Putting aside for a moment the case of Mr Diack, I don't believe that current firearms training and licencing is sufficient at all. I have never met even one new firearms licence holder who is actually fully up to speed with safe firearms handling. Hopefully the new system under MSC will fix this.
Then as far as field target identification, well we are relying on some silly rods in our eyes to receive refracted/reflected light waves from an object and then for our brains to correctly interpret that information. It is easy for a mistake to be made with visual identification. We must be made aware of the potential for mistakes to be made, how they are made and have a check system. For example the Graf Boys ' Assume everything is Human until you prove otherwise' is vastly superior to Positively identify etc...
So back to Mr Diack if he had undertaken training courses with MSC, assisted at a range and talked at his local school about his mistake. Then he could put his hand on his heart in front of the court and say "this is how I made mistakes leading to the fatal accidental shooting" "I can promise the court and the public that if issued with a firearms licence I will never make a firearms mistake again". That to me would be rehabilitation. Instead he has punched someone over a small debt and even the aspirations to fire chief may have a dark side - We always have two reasons that we do something, The one that we tell everyone and the real one !!

I wonder if the situation has come about because no one wants to sign on the dotted line that this man is fit to regain his firearms licence. Imagine the public outrage if he was to have another incident in the future. The backlash towards the police and judge would be huge, especially with the media coverage that has been shown. NZ Police and justice system get a hard enough time as it is with leniant sentences. Maybe this is them making an example to all other firearms owners.
I think it's just a case of this being the easiest and safest option for the people involved. ARSE COVERING

Originally Posted by scottyrees

I wonder if the situation has come about because no one wants to sign on the dotted line that this man is fit to regain his firearms licence.

I think it's just a case of this being the easiest and safest option for the people involved. ARSE COVERING

It's simply a case of neither the cops or the judge wanting to give a licence to someone who is not a fit and proper person to have one.

His actions, 17 years after the fatal shooting, were irrational and violent and showed he had not learned how to control his aggression, the judge said.

Diack was "possibly a risk to others if he had access to firearms".

"His actions in 2013 and 2014 indicates he can't control himself properly and in my view he isn't a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence."

Originally Posted by systolic

It's simply a case of neither the cops or the judge wanting to give a licence to someone who is not a fit and proper person to have one.

His actions, 17 years after the fatal shooting, were irrational and violent and showed he had not learned how to control his aggression, the judge said.

Diack was "possibly a risk to others if he had access to firearms".

"His actions in 2013 and 2014 indicates he can't control himself properly and in my view he isn't a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence."

Totally agree with this also, I'm in the position that the licencing should be a lot tougher to get and penalties more harsh. But I wonder if the above factor did come into it also.

"His actions in 2013 and 2014 indicates he can't control himself properly and in my view he isn't a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence."

End of fucking story.

Originally Posted by Gibo

"His actions in 2013 and 2014 indicates he can't control himself properly and in my view he isn't a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence."

End of fucking story.

Here is the test then: Lets imagine that this licencing matter is to be decided by a Court Jury and we are the members of that Jury. Jury decision: Diack doesn't get his licence back. And yes Gibo and I would vote the same !!

The interesting point to me is that the judiciary are too frequently criticised for their “wet bus ticket” approach to consequences for breaking the law

In this instance the judge has felt otherwise; regardless of our interpretation of the media information provided, it serves to remind us all that the courts do view firearms misuse, and any associated anger management issues as serious, and our FAL is in serious jeopardy

Regardless of the ‘human’ side to this sad case where a young man lost his life; the law, our law is clear; there are consequences if you stuff up. If there’s any hint of lack of remorse or changed behaviours, the law steps up.

Good on the courts!!!

In reply to Cordite re 'presume Human until proven otherwise'. This is not our natural response or as Cordite says it is not our intuitive response BUT that does not mean that it cannot become our learned response and behavior. It should be taught to put a check on that intuitive response, slow it down just enough to make a definitive decision.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

In reply to Cordite re 'presume Human until proven otherwise'. This is not our natural response or as Cordite says it is not our intuitive response BUT that does not mean that it cannot become our learned response and behavior. It should be taught to put a check on that intuitive response, slow it down just enough to make a definitive decision.

@Moa Hunter

Yes. Maybe spelling out what "identify your target" means has more mileage in it. 'Identifying' a deer would include what sex it is.


@scottyrees @SiB @systolic @Gibo

In cheering the courts, do you also agree with the deference shown by NZ Police towards a drinking-and-shooting former All Black?

Do you agree with Society's comparatively lax attitude to allowing killer drivers back on the road? What's so much more bad about killing someone with a gun, not a car?

We either demonise these shooters as bad eggs (who didn't really make an honest mistake), or we learn from their mistakes in the knowledge that if they could do it so can we. Kick or learn, we can't do both.

I never kicked anyone. If he’s not fit and proper then thats that. Shit drivers is another matter

Originally Posted by Cordite

@Moa Hunter

Yes. Maybe spelling out what "identify your target" means has more mileage in it. 'Identifying' a deer would include what sex it is.


@scottyrees @SiB @systolic @Gibo

In cheering the courts, do you also agree with the deference shown by NZ Police towards a drinking-and-shooting former All Black?

Do you agree with Society's comparatively lax attitude to allowing killer drivers back on the road? What's so much more bad about killing someone with a gun, not a car?

We either demonise these shooters as bad eggs (who didn't really make an honest mistake), or we learn from their mistakes in the knowledge that if they could do it so can we. Kick or learn, we can't do both.

You are a difficult character Cordite forcing us to examine our prejudices. Why can't you just agree with Gibo and I and help us erect a gallows ??

Originally Posted by Cordite

@Moa Hunter

Yes. Maybe spelling out what "identify your target" means has more mileage in it. 'Identifying' a deer would include what sex it is.


@scottyrees @SiB @systolic @Gibo

In cheering the courts, do you also agree with the deference shown by NZ Police towards a drinking-and-shooting former All Black?

Do you agree with Society's comparatively lax attitude to allowing killer drivers back on the road? What's so much more bad about killing someone with a gun, not a car?

We either demonise these shooters as bad eggs (who didn't really make an honest mistake), or we learn from their mistakes in the knowledge that if they could do it so can we. Kick or learn, we can't do both.

In this case kick. Are there any instances of licences being returned after a shooting death? Would it be right to tar everyone with the same brush? Or is it dangerous territory to determine this on a case by case basis.
All I know is that by human nature, poeple make mistakes. Maybe use these cases as a learning oppurtunity for future licence applicants. Would not be hard to present half a dozen cases to them to show what basic mistakes can cause.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

You are a difficult character Cordite forcing us to examine our prejudices. Why can't you just agree with Gibo and I and help us erect a gallows ??

He heh, very funny mate. I'm not stopping anyone doing whatever erections they want. Just pointing out a known difficulty with gallows - if we build them we are not immune to later get put onto them ourselves, God forbid.