Thread: not again

Originally Posted by XR500

The H&S issue regarding trespassers does not wash. The Act is quite clear that if someone is on property illegally then the owner/manager/'Officer' is not responsible for their safety.

It is, however, a massive issue for the safety of yourself and others there legally.

Query check on that - I know of one case in a warehouse setting where a person wandered past signs without permission, no one who was working there new about them and they got clipped by a reversing machine. Site got the book thrown at them.

What I mean by the point that there hasn't been a test case to my knowledge on entering rural land without permission is that I don't know of a situation where a manager or owner of land has been taken to task over it. Up until that's done, there isn't a case law history on it so it could go either way depending on the circumstances. Under the law you need to take practical steps to ensure the safety of everyone (which might well includes those that don't get permission to enter). Where it gets crappy, is how do you ensure safety of people that won't do the right thing and get permission, as they have the intent to breach the law so signage won't work, fences and gates won't work, what else do you do?

Originally Posted by Tahr

What I understand is that the response must be justified and proportional to the severity of the breach. Legally and I think morally. It may not have happened if there had not been the breach, but the ends was a sickening over-reach perpetrated by a gun owner.

Speculating a lot there, until the details come out we just don't know. There sounds to have been a history of intimidation and threatening/violence towards the landowner, which changes the dynamic on safety and expectation. Still not justified if there was intent, but we don't know if the landowner stumbled over the two there without permission while carrying a firearm for other purposes and the situation developed or some other set of circumstances. I do agree it does not look good in general terms from what the media reported, but I'm not sure that the description there is at this point justified with how little has been reported so far.

Originally Posted by No.3

Speculating a lot there, until the details come out we just don't know. There sounds to have been a history of intimidation and threatening/violence towards the landowner, which changes the dynamic on safety and expectation. Still not justified if there was intent, but we don't know if the landowner stumbled over the two there without permission while carrying a firearm for other purposes and the situation developed or some other set of circumstances. I do agree it does not look good in general terms from what the media reported, but I'm not sure that the description there is at this point justified with how little has been reported so far.

My angst is that a theme here (on the forum) is that the justification or the inevitability of the shooting arises from the pre history, property rights and protecting the animals. Regardless of the what actually happened the only justification can be that he feared for own life. Whether or not that is what happened is immaterial to the "someone had it coming" thinking from some gun owners on here.

Originally Posted by Tahr

My angst is that a theme here (on the forum) is that the justification or the inevitability of the shooting arises from the pre history, property rights and protecting the animals. Regardless of the what actually happened the only justification can be that he feared for own life. Whether or not that is what happened is immaterial to the "someone had it coming" thinking from some gun owners on here.

I think that you are correct in holding some angst around the thinking that it was justified. However I feel that it was inevitable, sooner or later, given the growing number of miscreants and the corresponding feeling of helplessness in the population who are being victimised. I hope that the law makers and enforcers see the difference between those who seek to terrorise and the actions of one individual pushed, possibly over a number of years, beyond his level of tolerance.

Originally Posted by No.3

Query check on that - I know of one case in a warehouse setting where a person wandered past signs without permission, no one who was working there new about them and they got clipped by a reversing machine. Site got the book thrown at them.

What I mean by the point that there hasn't been a test case to my knowledge on entering rural land without permission is that I don't know of a situation where a manager or owner of land has been taken to task over it. Up until that's done, there isn't a case law history on it so it could go either way depending on the circumstances. Under the law you need to take practical steps to ensure the safety of everyone (which might well includes those that don't get permission to enter). Where it gets crappy, is how do you ensure safety of people that won't do the right thing and get permission, as they have the intent to breach the law so signage won't work, fences and gates won't work, what else do you do?

Different workplace environment. "all reasonable measures"... on a farm means locks on a gate, not 50 km of razor wire. In a warehouse it most probably means closed doors when not in use etc. A sign saying STAY OUT doesn't cut it these days, unfortunate though that may be.

Originally Posted by Andygr

I think that you are correct in holding some angst around the thinking that it was justified. However I feel that it was inevitable, sooner or later, given the growing number of miscreants and the corresponding feeling of helplessness in the population who are being victimised. I hope that the law makers and enforcers see the difference between those who seek to terrorise and the actions of one individual pushed, possibly over a number of years, beyond his level of tolerance.

Personally I haven't seen much thought that they had it coming, so to speak. What I have seen, not just on here, but on most platforms and not relegated to hunting groups either, Is a recognition that its horrible what's happened whilst maintaining sympathy and a high level of support for the farmer.

When you say it was inevitable, I kind of think- well, Its doesn't take a crystal ball to see this was a potential outcome, and with that, it was preventable. Society is not great. Probably exceedingly hopeless, in recognising when the man alone, needs help. In this case it seems locals were helping him with community, companionship and food etc. And it seems he's held in general high regard. But the authorities should have made it clear that targeting him and his lifestyle was a no no! Police presence at odd times. checking firearms licences and a few tough words and cautions. Maybe arrests if appropriate. Might well have gone along way too making Him feel listened too, more comfortable, and less likely to acting out himself.

Underlined to recognise this part is presumption, and My opinion on this might change if more info comes to light.

Why do I say this? Well in short my father was once a senior police officer. He became a farmer when, Ironically, His advocacy for effective rural support initiatives made his position untenable with the govt of the day.

But when we first moved too the country from Wellington, and into a community with relatively high but normal crime for the time, he showed us that by getting out and showing interest in and preventing the small things, you prevented the big issues from occurring.
Simply just not turning a blind eye to the car stopped down the road, but driving down and asking what was up? Can we help you? Jumping in the car at 2 am when the dogs started barking and going for a drive with the spotlight. Showing up too support neighbours when they were uncomfortable in addressing someone found on their place etc. Not leaving them alone with their fears.
Within 2 years we and our neighbours stopped having problems. But when we decided to leave, putting ourselves in uncomfortable positions became not worth the effort. it became noticeable the effect within our last weeks when we realised that suddenly the local school grounds were being used for dealing drugs on weekends. That wouldn't have happened if we still cared.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Personally I haven't seen much thought that they had it coming, so to speak. What I have seen, not just on here, but on most platforms and not relegated to hunting groups either, Is a recognition that its horrible what's happened whilst maintaining sympathy and a high level of support for the farmer.

When you say it was inevitable, I kind of think- well, Its doesn't take a crystal ball to see this was a potential outcome, and with that, it was preventable. Society is not great. Probably exceedingly hopeless, in recognising when the man alone, needs help. In this case it seems locals were helping him with community, companionship and food etc. And it seems he's held in general high regard. But the authorities should have made it clear that targeting him and his lifestyle was a no no! Police presence at odd times. checking firearms licences and a few tough words and cautions. Maybe arrests if appropriate. Might well have gone along way too making Him feel listened too, more comfortable, and less likely to acting out himself.

Underlined to recognise this part is presumption, and My opinion on this might change if more info comes to light.

Why do I say this? Well in short my father was once a senior police officer. He became a farmer when, Ironically, His advocacy for effective rural support initiatives made his position untenable with the govt of the day.

But when we first moved too the country from Wellington, and into a community with relatively high but normal crime for the time, he showed us that by getting out and showing interest in and preventing the small things, you prevented the big issues from occurring.
Simply just not turning a blind eye to the car stopped down the road, but driving down and asking what was up? Can we help you? Jumping in the car at 2 am when the dogs started barking and going for a drive with the spotlight. Showing up too support neighbours when they were uncomfortable in addressing someone found on their place etc. Not leaving them alone with their fears.
Within 2 years we and our neighbours stopped having problems. But when we decided to leave, putting ourselves in uncomfortable positions became not worth the effort. it became noticeable the effect within our last weeks when we realised that suddenly the local school grounds were being used for dealing drugs on weekends. That wouldn't have happened if we still cared.

"Society is not great" sums it up.
Just look at during covid how people were having punch ups in the supermarket over shit house paper.
Those same people likely get on Facebook and the likes(even this forum perhaps) and go on about being model citizens.
I feel for the old guy involved. Not saying I agree with what he's done.
I do wonder if he has thought, I've had enough of these pricks, and decided to send a clear message, and secure himself three feeds a day and a warm bed for the rest of his days.

Part of the issue is the getting out into the rural areas. Rural areas are needing a lot more investment of enforcement officers and people to support the rural community, but the issue here is the voting base is urban now and the urban whingers that create a lot of the volume don't see/don't care/don't want to know about rural issues despite a large component of the GDP that funds their lifestyles comes from rural business. Not great.

Originally Posted by Tahr

My angst is that a theme here (on the forum) is that the justification or the inevitability of the shooting arises from the pre history, property rights and protecting the animals. Regardless of the what actually happened the only justification can be that he feared for own life. Whether or not that is what happened is immaterial to the "someone had it coming" thinking from some gun owners on here.

Yep. That is all correct too...

This is a really sad situation. While the actions of the land owner are in no way justifiable, I can see how it ended up happening. Unfortunately there looks to be a mental health issue that wasn't addressed as well (the living with pigs).

The guy involved had a mini doco made of him 6 years ago. Others may call it a mental health issue, but he was as happy as a clam living with his pigs, in the house and property he was born at in 1945.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4jbbPIQuJ8

Pig hunters tend to be younger relatively fit young guys, often armed with a rifle and with a knife on their hip. Tend to have some pretty rough tough dogs.

I can easily see how a 70 plus year old farmer who has had a lot of previous problems and harassment from poachers who is forced to confront two of such would fear for his life.

Originally Posted by Rich007

This is a really sad situation. While the actions of the land owner are in no way justifiable, I can see how it ended up happening. Unfortunately there looks to be a mental health issue that wasn't addressed as well (the living with pigs).

It is a sad situation, particularly sad in todays age that it was allowed to escalate to the point that an elderly gentleman feared for his life. Under the law, his actions may very well have been justifiable because under NZ law you are allowed to use equal and opposite force if you fear for your life, or those around you, particularly on your own property. It is now up to the court to decide if he feared for his life.
As for mental health issues, all I've seen so far is an old guy that enjoys having live pigs on his property, bit of a recluse, but well spoken and very popular. How he decides to live or how any pigs he may have doesnt constitute a "mental health" issue - hes just different to how you and I choose to go through life. The justice system also needs to be very careful that perceived "mental health" issues dont preclude the poor guy fearing for his life.

Just been on news indeed it is Stu the pig man. I can't see any positive coming out of this regardless of courts ruling.

Suppression orders on just about everything relating to this (including history of the man charged and the deceased , and what happened in the lead up and on the day ) apart from the names of the man charged and the deceased leave this thread walking a very fine line , maybe its time to let it go and the system run its course.
people in thames/coro are talking about it NOT publishing it.