Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

DPT Night Vision NZ


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 98
Like Tree343Likes

Thread: Police called out for Duck shooting

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Nth Otago
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Cigar View Post
    I think I would be responding to the letter (when it arrives) with one of my own, stating pretty much what you have said here.
    Get your family member's response on record with the police as soon as practical before any issues occur (e.g. don't wait until license renewal time).
    Thanks for your valued opinion, certainly where my thought process is at the moment.

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Nth Otago
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by gundoc View Post
    #4 steel shot would not exceed 300 metres, more likely about 250.
    I agree, I was prepared to allow for tail wind to cover that scenario even though conditions were calm.
    If 250mts is used then it is almost 3 times that to the house.

  3. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Nth Otago
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by gmm View Post
    Section 48 Arms Act

    Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place
    A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to—
    (a)
    endanger property; or
    (b)
    endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

    This is the legislation, the burden of proof is on the Police to prove that an offence has been committed.

    In this case they need to prove the following.
    - Without reasonable excuse
    -An intent to endanger property, endanger, annoy or frighten any person. The intent is cover by the words "so as to"

    The shooter had a reasonable excuse, proven by DOC permit and duck hunting licence.
    If there was no intent to endanger, annoy or frighten anyone, there is no offence.

    There is no such offence as discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction.

    If they do send you a letter I would challenge it as if the circumstances are as you describe (not questioning you at all), then it is clear there is no offence. If you do receive a letter I would dispute it. To be honest it sounds like the Police in this case are not fully aware of the requirements of the legislation and you should have no problems.
    Be interested to see how this goes.
    All the best
    Thanks for that.

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Nth Otago
    Posts
    122
    Another thought, what would the pattern spread be at 736mts....How many pellets would even hit the roof from a shot even if they got there. One or maybe two.

  5. #20
    Member outdoorlad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,027
    I’d be getting some proof the pellets couldn’t have gone that far, measure the distance on google Earth, etc. and the info above and then I’d go and see the Police and present it before he gets a letter saying his license is gone.
    rugerman, GWH, chainsaw and 5 others like this.
    Shut up, get out & start pushing!

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    4,613
    Since you weren't actually there... I would make darn sure said family member didn't happen to shoot at something Going to the shooting spot or didn't go for a wee wander and fire a shot somewhere you haven't considered, e.g getting a wounded bird or something. Otherwise it's pretty clear cut, but nothing is ever that clear cut...

    Also.dont bring the how wide the spread would have been argument into it... that just discredits the original argument as you are saying it's impossible for a single pellet to hit the roof based on distance
    tetawa, rugerman, GWH and 6 others like this.

  7. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Nth Otago
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by outdoorlad View Post
    I’d be getting some proof the pellets couldn’t have gone that far, measure the distance on google Earth, etc. and the info above and then I’d go and see the Police and present it before he gets a letter saying his license is gone.
    The 736mts comes from google earth, already have multiple world wide articles on steel shot max distances....thinking about having a chat with our local officer to make sure the lead officer involved has some insight.
    Micky Duck and dannyb like this.

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,753
    Did the police take any samples of the ammo you were firing? no? Probably means they recovered no samples from the complainants house and/or the complainant had no samples to present.

    Do everything in writing, as even if you do not get convicted it will all be on record.

    Ask for a copy of the complaint.

  9. #24
    Member Sako851's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Gore District
    Posts
    1,235
    Will need to do a offical information act request to get copy
    of complaint.

    The Journee formula is another statistical way to determine a shotgun’s shell distance. It says that if pellet diameter (calculated in inches) is multiplied by 2200, then the resulting figure is a hypothetical distance of pellet (calculated in yards). For example, a gun pellet with 0.11 inches diameter covers 242 yards.
    Moa Hunter likes this.

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,753
    Also there was something recently in the news about "written letters" and the legality of them, have a read here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...ormal-warnings
    Moa Hunter likes this.

  11. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Nth Otago
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by vulcannz View Post
    Also there was something recently in the news about "written letters" and the legality of them, have a read here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...ormal-warnings
    Thanks for that info and link.

  12. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,614
    I am no lawyer, but there are serious procedural issues here, if events occurred as reported.

    I would not be asking the police to look for any evidence so long after the fact. Indeed, if shot of any description is found, it just opens up a whole can of worms.

    I would be contacting a lawyer, and, based on the fact that evidence was not collected at the time of the complaint, and based on the fact that a shotgun cannot throw shot that distance, and since your mobile phone can be forensically examined to determine your precise location on the day, that there is grounds to believe that the complaint is spurious and any subsequent sanction by police is groundless.

    Any investigator worth their salt would have looked for evidence of shot in the gutter at the time of the complaint. Since the police inspected your weapons, they should have made a note of the exact type of ammunition you possessed at the time. That would be able to link you to any shot found in the gutter, if the shot matched the ammunition. It may be impossible to determine the weapon that discharged the shot, but the size of any shot found in the gutter, as well as metallic composition, degree of rust, etc. could have conclusively proved whether you could have been the origin of the shot or not.

    Without a record of the ammunition in your possession at the time they spoke to you and inspected your firearms, it would be very difficult to sustain your guilt even if shot was found in the gutter.

    The police could, however, simply point to the fact that the person was simply annoyed - the legal test for this is so wide open it would be virtually impossible to disprove such a claim, and the fact that they made a call to police probably means that they were. However, that is not why they called on you, and they never mentioned the person being annoyed - only that the complainant alleged that shot had struck their roof.

    Irrespective of the above, I would be very careful of shooting at that site again. If I were to do so, I would make sure that every member of the party had a GoPro recording everything that was said and done, every shot taken, and every word spoken to or by police, if that eventuated. Just like a dash cam, the footage could save your bacon, and serve as grounds for dismissal of the complaint against you.
    Moa Hunter, Sideshow and dannyb like this.

  13. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    459
    There is a lot to lose if this does not got correctly, without doubt I would contact Nick Taylor, specialist firearms lawyer. A letter from him wont be cheap but could easily put this to bed before it escalates.
    199p, mikee, Bol Tackshin and 7 others like this.

  14. #29
    Member Ground Control's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Australia / Marlborough Sounds
    Posts
    1,370
    Were you the only hunter that had access and was there that day ?
    Can the Police and complainant prove it was you and only you there if it’s a public / DOC area ?
    Did you admit/say that you shot in the direction of the neighbour ?
    Moa Hunter and Finnwolf like this.
    FALL IN LOVE WITH THE NUMBERS , NOT THE IDEA

  15. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Nth Otago
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin View Post
    I am no lawyer, but there are serious procedural issues here, if events occurred as reported.

    I would not be asking the police to look for any evidence so long after the fact. Indeed, if shot of any description is found, it just opens up a whole can of worms.

    I would be contacting a lawyer, and, based on the fact that evidence was not collected at the time of the complaint, and based on the fact that a shotgun cannot throw shot that distance, and since your mobile phone can be forensically examined to determine your precise location on the day, that there is grounds to believe that the complaint is spurious and any subsequent sanction by police is groundless.

    Any investigator worth their salt would have looked for evidence of shot in the gutter at the time of the complaint. Since the police inspected your weapons, they should have made a note of the exact type of ammunition you possessed at the time. That would be able to link you to any shot found in the gutter, if the shot matched the ammunition. It may be impossible to determine the weapon that discharged the shot, but the size of any shot found in the gutter, as well as metallic composition, degree of rust, etc. could have conclusively proved whether you could have been the origin of the shot or not.

    Without a record of the ammunition in your possession at the time they spoke to you and inspected your firearms, it would be very difficult to sustain your guilt even if shot was found in the gutter.

    The police could, however, simply point to the fact that the person was simply annoyed - the legal test for this is so wide open it would be virtually impossible to disprove such a claim, and the fact that they made a call to police probably means that they were. However, that is not why they called on you, and they never mentioned the person being annoyed - only that the complainant alleged that shot had struck their roof.

    Irrespective of the above, I would be very careful of shooting at that site again. If I were to do so, I would make sure that every member of the party had a GoPro recording everything that was said and done, every shot taken, and every word spoken to or by police, if that eventuated. Just like a dash cam, the footage could save your bacon, and serve as grounds for dismissal of the complaint against you.
    Agreed, reluctant to be bullied out of such a productive spot.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Duck shooting, Maybe!!
    By Rangidan in forum Hunting
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-04-2020, 04:38 PM
  2. Best duck shooting for 7 years
    By Bonecrusher in forum Game Bird Hunting
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 19-04-2017, 12:15 PM
  3. Duck shooting vid
    By Vapour in forum The Magazine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14-05-2015, 08:42 PM
  4. So called duck hunt?
    By dogmatix in forum The Magazine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14-05-2012, 08:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!