Thread: TV3 & Guncity mistake

Originally Posted by Beavis

This is my thinking on the matter. Her job is journalism. She needs viewers to have a show and make money. She does sensational stories to get viewers. She did a story where she broke multiple laws to create a sensational story = committing a crime for financial gain.

Committing a crime for financial gain, with a firearm involved being an aggravating factor

Originally Posted by R93

I can't believe all the support she is getting tho.
It is just wrong.

If it was anyone of us that did it.....

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

The logic implied seems to be - what she did was ok because guns.

https://twitter.com/barrysoper/statu...605440/photo/1
The search warrant was issued for Forgery and Obtaining by deception, I really hope the Obtaining by deception charge sticks and gets a decent sentence.

Prison sentence possible for Heather du Plessis Allan's gun control story - National - NZ Herald News

So it turns out the police asked to speak to the staff involved, by they shut up shop and refused to be interviewed, hence the search.

Hanging by the neck, drawing out of the viscera and quartering (as was seen in the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart) ought to be seriously considered.

For her next sting she plans to hold up a pharmacy with a knife, then tell us there is a "loophole" with regards to getting prescription drugs without a prescription, all you need is a knife.

Then when they arrest her for armed robbery and possession of controlled substances she will bleat that it was in public interest and demand leniency......

Sent from my SM-G360G using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by stug

An interesting take on was it a "loophole" by another journalist.

David Fisher: Did they prove a loophole? Or simply break the law? - Opinion - NZ Herald News

Far out a Journo who looks at things logically... Big ups to him.

I think you guys are missing the closure, here it is,

"It came after a former judge slammed the house raid, saying journalists who break the laws in pursuit of stories are acting as the "eyes and ears" of the public."

That strikes me as the closest thing to a judicial review / court case result where the police/Guncity have such a weak case the judge not only throws it out but awards costs against them.

Originally Posted by steven

I think you guys are missing the closure, here it is,

"It came after a former judge slammed the house raid, saying journalists who break the laws in pursuit of stories are acting as the "eyes and ears" of the public."

That strikes me as the closest thing to a judicial review / court case result where the police/Guncity have such a weak case the judge not only throws it out but awards costs against them.

Yeah it must be shithouse calling in favours from 'former' judges. The shame!

Originally Posted by steven

"It came after a former judge slammed the house raid, saying journalists who break the laws in pursuit of stories are acting as the "eyes and ears" of the public."

Wonder if they'd say the same thing if a journalist broke into their house looking for a story...

I think pretty much all the journos are hammering in the public head that what she did was for a good cause and that she should not be prosecuted. But that is plain wrong, I would love to see a down to earth judge sentence her behind bar and set a precedent ( or a reminder) to all those arrogant journos who think they can act above the law.

Would this not set a precedent that the signing of the form can be done by anyone? The law has to be inforced, at the very least with a conviction, it cannot be swept under the carpet I'm appalled with the carry on, she was merely going for ratings for her show

This sums up the issue nicely.
TV3's gun purchase story may have created a problem not fixed one, says barrister - National - NZ Herald News
There was no problem.
Plan and simple she has broken the law and should face the consequences.

This article says she can't use a "public interest" defence

Lawyer claims data shows criminals never interested in mail-order gun 'loophole' | Stuff.co.nz

Canterbury University media law expert Professor Ursula Cheer said journalists had to weigh up the risk of prosecution when they operated on the fringes of the law pursuing "public interest" stories.

Equally, police also had the discretion not to pursue a prosecution.

"Although the police have the power to search the homes of journalists, there is case law that states this should not be done in a heavy-handed way," Cheer said.

"So such searches should not be used unless truly essential and there must not be a substantial risk of journalistic sources drying up."

She added there was a common misconception that in cases such as du Plessis-Allan's, a journalist could claim a public interest defense.

That was only available in civil matters, such as when media defended themselves from defamation accusations

Originally Posted by Tommy

So it turns out the police asked to speak to the staff involved, by they shut up shop and refused to be interviewed, hence the search.

Just to put some perspective on this. You have the right, in New Zealand, to say "I am maintaining my right to silence" when question by the Police. This applies to you, me, your mate, your mother and everyone. This is the reason we have appropriate judicial law in NZ, rather than the ad-loc random legal process in Russia, Malaysia, Thailand, USA and many other countries. Want to live in a country where the answer to a Police question comes from the end of a baton ?

Just because you may disagree with the particular circumstances doesn't dilute the process you have the option to exercise.

The posts for death, evisceration, and avoidance of a legal process we all all entitled to, is today in NZ, somewhat sickening. Simply because of an opinion people have, publicly.

Discussion is one thing, rampant mob behaviour because of the belief and obsession one is right, is quite sad.