Thread: unlawful hunting and having a firearm without a licence

Originally Posted by gimp

I'd rather not, can you summarise?

@Sidney should, most of the text was his.

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Wait till you see the debate on:

If shooting a deer at 600m or more is hunting or shooting.
FishnHunt - New Zealands Famous Hunting and Fishing Forum Since 1995 - Long Range Shooting

You'll be waiting a very long time if you expect me to read thirty eight pages of that

Originally Posted by screamO

All I'm trying to say is there's always two sides of a story. Reporter's are very good at not telling the whole story.
As for pulp fiction, I don't think I ever made it through the whole movie.

FYI apart from closed hearings (this wasn't) transcripts from the Judiciary are public knowledge, so it's pretty tough for a reporter to hide the facts in this case. And that the hearing is open to the public, so that any member of the public can walk into the court room and observe the proceedings.

I'm just trying to figure out what you've said, that's all.

Originally Posted by screamO

Do you not think it's strange that a convicted poacher and illegal firearms criminal only got 90 hrs?

So the Judge is giving his friend a gentle sentence ?

Originally Posted by screamO

And I'm sure you guys have noticed how there's no mention of the "associate" that was also involved! Who just happened to be a licensed firearms user. Well fuck me, he still has his FAL and his firearms.

So the Police chose to not lay charges because they're friends or a big name in the area and didn't want to embarrass him ?

Originally Posted by screamO

Oh did I mention how the associate just happened to be the occupier of the.........sorry can't say anymore.

Associate is the occupier of the ... land ? Car ? Donkey ? Gimp club that the Judge frequents ? What ??

Originally Posted by screamO

If anybody tried to Google poaching in this area they might see a certain...........try and work t out.
Yes there's still more to it, there always is. Are we still all keen on hanging now?

So you're suggesting Michael Reedy, Dennis Long, Mike McDougal and Tony Tapper are working with the Police to keep the area just for themselves ? Including Karyn Malthus, Steve Greally, and a few others ?

I'm actually keen to try and figure out what you're saying that's all.

Without getting into the law... I have found that most judges are a law unto themselves when it comes to sentencing. That plays both ways... in perceived light sentencing and knee jerk excessive sentencing.

I would be astounded if there was any co-ordination in the laying of charges/lack of the laying of charges and or sentencing decisions in any cases. Judges are relatively isolated from the police, the prosecution and the defence. Bridging that gap would be a risky business for any interested party.

Interesting. This guy didn't sound like he had an animal or got caught with one. I don't doubt he was poaching, and is probably a serial offender like many other opportunist hunters in the SI - will have a shot if he see's one, always on the look out for an easy road side kill. (easy to get away with, there are not that many people around some of these places)
I have hunted a lot around the Nelson Lakes, Kahurangi areas. There is a lot of land locked park in these areas that you just cant get access to the higher ground behind which are parks, and they do hold a lot of animals. These spots would require entrance at some point miles away and a big ole bush walk along ridges or similar.
Because of these types of blokes who fuck it up for honest hunters many of the cockies aren't that approachable about gaining access to these areas. Maybe there could be more access points a bit like fish and game park up points to have a crack at a trout, but for hunting access.
Id be interested to what you guys think is a suitable punishment for this guy? Probably not a death sentence.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Without getting into the law... I have found that most judges are a law unto themselves when it comes to sentencing. That plays both ways... in perceived light sentencing and knee jerk excessive sentencing.

Yup completely agree. It would also be a challenging job where the dregs of society are presented to you each day. But then if they're the people who see those guilty people (of course those who are found guilty) they're probably in the best position to decide appropriate punishment. Even when that sentencing raises the eyebrows of many others.

Originally Posted by Kscott

FYI apart from closed hearings (this wasn't) transcripts from the Judiciary are public knowledge, so it's pretty tough for a reporter to hide the facts in this case. And that the hearing is open to the public, so that any member of the public can walk into the court room and observe the proceedings.

I'm just trying to figure out what you've said, that's all.


So the Judge is giving his friend a gentle sentence ?


So the Police chose to not lay charges because they're friends or a big name in the area and didn't want to embarrass him ?


Associate is the occupier of the ... land ? Car ? Donkey ? Gimp club that the Judge frequents ? What ??


So you're suggesting Michael Reedy, Dennis Long, Mike McDougal and Tony Tapper are working with the Police to keep the area just for themselves ? Including Karyn Malthus, Steve Greally, and a few others ?

I'm actually keen to try and figure out what you're saying that's all.

What I was really trying to get at was there is normally more to it than what is seen in the papers. Most of the replies on here had the guy hanging, from only reading the article. My statements where made to slow down the bashing and to make people think a bit more about it, maybe I went the wrong way about it.
Judges normally sentence according to the crime that took place and this is presented to the judge by the police, so maybe the police had a weak case to present?
I know myself when you see some of the sentencing's dished out that it all ways looks like the serious crimes get let of light even when they are caught red handed, and some times the lesser crimes look like they get hammered.

Slightly off topic here but,
I actually struggle with our legal system a bit and how they conduct some practices (police, judges, lawyer's).No offence intended.
Not that long ago I brought a stolen chainsaw from the pub. I knew it was stolen (well a fair idea) as it was brand new, I also knew the people of the chainsaw shop it was likely stolen from. So I brought it, took pictures of the guy and his vehicle, rung the police the following day and told them what happened. Two weeks later they made contact and had to deal with three different cops over the next three weeks. Anyway long story cut short....They got the guy (he had stolen 5 chainsaws), I think he got put on curfew and had to pay $500 odd for compensation or what ever and then when it came to getting my money back for the chainsaw it got thrown out since I was now a criminal for buying stolen goods WTF.
Now I gave them all the information to get this prick and I'm the one that got dicked.
But I did learn something through this experience and I hate to say it but if it happens again I will be keeping it.

You've highlighted the issues that exist with law enforcement, and punishment handed out by the judiciary. It isn't clear cut and can't be judged by a 200 word article. It was just worded that you were implying corruption by some of the parties, which in this day and age happens so rarely.

Buying stolen goods - you've got no comeback as you're a member of the public knowingly committing the act. NZ Police force don't have the resources to chase every crime that has happened unfortunately. Instead resources are thrown in when there's a serious crime. We have a decent conviction rate with serious assaults, murder, rape (thank god).

90 hours community service for the poacher - so some gardens on a roundabout gets a tidy up, or some graffiti getting scrubbed off a wall. Plus loss of firearm and equipment. Will it change the behaviour of the poacher ? Not really, as he's already been convicted of it before. So he's demonstrated he doesn't want to live by society's rules. Chances are he'll keep doing it, try to not get caught, and probably will - bit like drink drivers, some people just feel the need to do what THEY want,and stuff everyone else. Which opens the door to another question - punishment for crime, is it to be just a pure punishment, deterrence for others, or punishment with rehabilitation to prevent it happening again.

The reality of the legal system is the check and balances in place make this a great country to live in IMO. An actual example of where the rule of law changes day by day and immediate punishment that doesn't appear to match the value of the crime is happening in places like Syria and Iraq where ISIS are in control. Handcuffing people and throwing them off a building because someone points a finger at them and says "you're gay".

ps: don't buy stolen good mate, ever. You'd be pissed when someone wants to buy your stolen gear

ps: don't buy stolen good mate, ever. You'd be pissed when someone wants to buy your stolen gear

I do agree with you on that, and I've had a few things stolen in the past. I would like to think if someone brought my stolen gear they might go to the police, which in turn would help catch the criminal, which I had done and in return got shafted.