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

Fat Fireman who shot teen dead in hunting accident 22 years ago loses firearms licence bid

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105...unting-tragedy

A Southland man who shot a teenager dead in a hunting accident 22 years ago has lost his bid to get his firearms licence back.

Brendon Diack took police to court in Invercargill on Friday, appealing a 2015 decision to refuse him a firearms licence.

In 1996, Diack admitted to a charge of careless use of a firearm causing 16-year-old Mark Whyte's death at Tuatapere and was sentenced to two months' jail and fined $3000.

He also lost his firearms licence at that time.

During Friday's hearing, Diack said he had applied for his firearms licence "five or six times" since 1996, but to no avail.

A hunter for years before the tragedy, he now wanted to go hunting with his sons and pass on his knowledge, he said.

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.

In 2013 Diack, who had a $300,000 a year contracting business, hit a man on the chin who owed him $300; and in 2014 he dug up gravel he had laid for another client because he was owed $500, the judge said.

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."

Earlier in the hearing, Diack said there had been a lot of angst in the community since the 1996 tragedy but he believed a lot of people had moved on except for Mark Whyte's family.

"Jimmy and Shirley [Mark's parents] are going to hate me for the rest of my days for what I done to their son, I am sorry about that."

No-one went hunting with the intention of shooting a person, he said.

When people asked him about the incident he always sat down and talked about it and "believe it or not it still brings a tear to my eye ... because it's tragic."

Apart from wanting to go hunting with his sons, he also wanted his licence back because it gave him the opportunity to speak with different hunters who were on the same page and he wanted to do trap shooting again, he said.

After the accident he had still gone out with hunters "videoing", but it wasn't the same, he said.

His lawyer, John Fraser said Diack was an honest and hard working man who in 1996 made a fatal error with a rifle.

Since that time, Diack had managed a business and had a stable home life, Fraser said.

Diack is the Tuatapere fire station chief which Fraser suggested would not be the case without the support of a large number of firefighters and a significant vetting process.

Fraser said the 2013 and 2014 incidents were minor and out of character for Diack and they did not demonstrate a pattern of behaviour.

However, police lawyer Sarah McKenzie said the offences in 2013 and 2014 tainted Diack's character when coupled with the the 1996 fatal shooting.

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

Hmmm! Police don't think he is fit and proper and the judge doesn't think he is either. Whether you look at this objectively or subjectively, he isn't getting an FAL.

So, if he had been a skinny fireman, you would have felt happier? Have an issue you would like to sit down and talk about? We of the forum shrink panel can be all fuzzy and sympathetic if we feel like it. Now just to get you started, here is a picture, what does it make you think of?

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

So, if he had been a skinny fireman, you would have felt happier? Have an issue you would like to sit down and talk about? We of the forum shrink panel can be all fuzzy and sympathetic if we feel like it. Now just to get you started, here is a picture, what does it make you think of?

1st thought...caterpiller
2nd thought...drunks in a waka paddling slowly.

Best thing he can do is wait for his kids to get there Fal , pass his knowledge on & explain to them why he is not aloud a fal back .

If the 1996 shooting is the one I'm thinking of, it was spectacularly dumb incident.

Yet repeat drunk drivers get their licenses back

Originally Posted by northdude

Yet repeat drunk drivers get their licenses back

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.

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!!

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.

Guilty for life by the sounds of it. Judge is a dickhead to even consider those other 2 minor incidents.

Wrote and deleted a few things to say on this then decided not too

Originally Posted by Blisters

Wrote and deleted a few things to say on this then decided not too

@Blisters

You are like Abraham Lincoln. He would write really nasty letters, drop them in his desk drawer, and discard them the next day once he'd calmed down.

Of course, once he had his encounter with Mr Wilkes-Booth, some nasty out-of-character letters were found in his desk. Well, they were in fact entirely in keeping with his character, at least until the next day.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@Blisters

You are like Abraham Lincoln. He would write really nasty letters, drop them in his desk drawer, and discard them the next day once he'd calmed down.

Of course, once he had his encounter with Mr Wilkes-Booth, some nasty out-of-character letters were found in his desk. Well, they were in fact entirely in keeping with his character, at least until the next day.

I thought that Abe had been lampooning Mr Wilkes-Booth by dropping humorous ditty's along country roads where he knew they would be found and that is what enraged WB and led to the Duel on the sandbar. But regardless Cordite are you saying that we should check Blisters desk for historical similarities and then make a judgement on his suitability to run for President ???

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I thought that Abe had been lampooning Mr Wilkes-Booth by dropping humorous ditty's along country roads where he knew they would be found and that is what enraged WB and led to the Duel on the sandbar. But regardless Cordite are you saying that we should check Blisters desk for historical similarities and then make a judgement on his suitability to run for President ???

@Moa Hunter

Yes, Abe, a very interesting character with dark sides that just go to make his good side shine. Actually he also left fake letters about to slander people, at least in his younger days, learnt a lesson when an old military man challenged him to a duel after taking severe exception to Abe's slanders. Abe was shitting himself, taking sword classes, but in the end was saved from the duel, as I said, valuable lesson learned about caring a bit more about not injuring others' feelings. He was just a typical jerk lawyer, who learnt to debate in an adversarial system and thought himself clever in his ability to put down others with his wit. But you just don't do that outside the court room - other rules apply there.

In viking society, no duel would have been challenged. The offended party would hold his temper (a matter of honour not to blow your lid hastily at anyone) and instead plot a cunning and severe revenge a year or so later. Sometimes involving torching the person's house and braining him when he emerges from the smoke, You don't go around offending people lightly in that sort of society, rather make the preservation of their honour your business. OK still not a great society what with slavery, rape, and virgin sacrifices etc.

Anyway, yeah, I reckon we could make @Blisters our leader. Surely investing him with absolute power would not corrupt him in the least.