Shooter breaks vow to dead man's mum - national | Stuff.co.nz
Printable View
Yeh I saw that on the news last night. I don't reckon there is any way in hell that he will get his firearms license restored. If the Police don't opposed that then it would make a mockery of the licensing process.
My thoughts exactly , I'm not sure but is this the cocksucker that shot the poor bloke at like 16 mts then did a runner ( later to say he was going for help ) ? :omg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Personally I think 4 months improsonment is a joke. It hardly puts any fear up us (hunters) about being punished severely for not following the firearm rules does it.
And to allow someone that has clearly not followed said rules to be back amongst the ones that do and other wildlife users would shameless.
Police have already said he won't be getting it, according to the news last night.
Read it this morning. Absolutely dumbfounded...
The problem is that he probably is already out there hunting with a mate's firearm.
When will we learn ?
Question for any members of the Welly Deerstalkers.
Has Dummer's membership been suspended or is he still around ?
U think he's more or less dangerous to have out hunting now? U know than someone who perhaps thinks that it can never happen to him?
I don't support him, but its less clear to me that his choices should be made by other people.
No way should he be allowed near a firearm again......we all know the 7 'commandments' and he has broken no1 in my book, after taking someones life, it should be written into the law, that he is never allowed a FAL again....just my 2c
And as for @7mmwsm question, i would not (just my opinion again) compare driving to shooting, if someone is found guilty of reckless driving causing death, they should also never be allowed behind a wheel again!!!!!!
I think he'd probably be safer having killed someone once he would be making damn sure it wouldn't happen again. imo
But then if he was to get his fal back then it's not very fair in the sense he has killed someone and gets to go back to doing what he loves so I think no for that reason. Not because he would shoot someone again.
This is the worst thing possible, and I hope Chis Drummer reads this.
He displays a complete lack of self awareness and shouldn’t be allowed near a rifle again. Not even a toy one.
I know him, and he knows me. Others on here will too. I was once on a hunting trip with him, and hunted with him for a day.
He was a disaster waiting to happen.
What he had to say at the inquest was disgraceful.
He has proven he cannot make good ones for himselfQuote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Thanks Tahr, your judgement on this, especially as you know the bloke is something we should all take note of, as I trust your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Agreed. He has displayed random behaviour in more than one facet of his life. It's mainly been kept below the horizon since the shooting. Now though, on the back of the inquest and on what others' know about him, he should be protected from himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
This does does not make him a bad man, nor should it vindictive. It's a simple thing really; bar him from firearms to keep him safe, others safe, and to preserve the reputation of shooting sports.
Man you gotta feel for the parents....1st they lose their son, then the guy who caused it only serves 4 months (pathetic in my opinion) and now he's saying I want my licence back so I can hunt again.....they probably going to inquest for some closure and get kicked in the guts instead!
It was interesting to read a wee bit more about Chris,s other problems, some people just continue to surprise you
his surname certainly seems to be quite adequate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation. I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability. In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.
But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment? It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again. The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?
While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life. People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.
Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.
I would hate to think that someone like this could be roaming public land with a firearm. An absolute slap in the face for the family. Extremely selfish behaviour at best thinking
its a good idea to go hunting again.
He should be serving a minimum of 5 years for manslaughter.
About a month after the shooting I spoke to a guy who was on a hunt trip with this Dummer. The hunters had divvied up where they were going to go the night before and when setting out to his allotted area the next morning this guy smelled Dummers cigarette smoke in the area where he wasn't meant to be - when caught up with he said he'd changed his mind and thought it wasn't a big deal.
I've heard other rumours about this guy but that's the only one I know that I trust the speaker to be telling true.
I've worked way too hard to get my licenses to have my sport endangered by a dangerously foolish person like Dummer (with his road rage conviction)
To me he's like a recidivist drunk driver on the road - he's had his chances and fucked them up so it's time to take his toys away
Never made a mistake, hell I once fired eighty rounds at two of our guys and completely missed them both.
So many rounds, that should be a lifetime without a FAL for me.
[emoji15] seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe
I actually felt really sorry for the guy, What a thing for anyone to have to live with. That is untill I heard some of his reported comments at the inquest.
Seems like he is living with it just fine, can even manage hunting and Firearms again. Disrespectful to the Family and the poor young guy whos life he ended.
Just sad :(
With all due respect i disagree, this guy didnt have other people trying to kill him or his buddies - he didnt identify his target and ended a man's life!Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe
Sydney, no personal offence, i know your a lawyer or about to become one, but that is total shite.....this man had his chance, he blew it, i dont give two fucks about his civil liberties, tell that to the dead mans widow and children....:angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
What a load of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Experience has shown me over the years that the more times you go to the well the closer you are to falling in.Quote:
Originally Posted by wsm junkie
It could well be claimed that I never identified my target.
Yep its a bit of a war-y story but it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by possummatti
I deleted my post but it was similar to yours :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan F
Well its just a whole lot of justification for inexcusable behaviour!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
That adds balance Tahr, some things you cannot get from reading the report in the paper, Thanks calmed me down and changed my opinion!
Something this country is too good at unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan F
Thats true but in my view I see your situation as justified - you were in combat and believed that YOUR life was in immediate danger and you acted accordingly, where the extra time took to clearly identify your targets could have cost you big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe
However this guy was hunting deer and the extra time taken to identify his target would at a worst case be a lost animal - big deal, get out and try again.
Just how I see it
'tell that to the dead mans widow and children' by scouser
i have to apologise for this statement i made, the victim was single, i got him mixed up with 'another' poor victim who was married with children....too many, just too many....really sad
Give me a man to hunt with who thinks he could kill someone than the one who thinks he never could.
In what are a Scribe? If it was an arena of war then it did not require you to have an FAL in the first place and as scary as that sounds it would not have been a first time event in the heat of a battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe
yep that's true, but the circumstances were different than how you see it above.Quote:
Originally Posted by wsm junkie
But I have come close to killing two people since then. One myself.
Hello Rushy, Interesting discussion, aye what!!!. I don't know what you are saying in your first sentence. It was the arena of war you are right. And no a FAL was not required.. But I know human nature, if I had have killed those two soldiers people would have sat in Judgement on myself as they a doing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
What I am trying to say is that if you do anything with a firearm long enough or often enough then one day the cards will fall bad for you and you are just as capable as the next person of killing someone.
Not just with Weapons, Chopper Pilots kill Passengers, Taxi Drivers run over people on pedestrian crossings. There's a whole raft of bad shit waiting to land on your head.
You boys need to take your noose and pitchforks and go home. Legality has little to do with the your lack of emotional control. Whether you understand it or not this man has been through due process and is entitled under the law to apply for his firearms licence. Whether he is entitled to receive a firearms licence again isn't for you to decide, nor is it for you to decide what his attitude is about the victim, simply by his desire to go hunting again. He simply has to establish that he is suitable from this point forward. His history plays a part in that decision as it does for any of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouser
You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same. I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation. To assume that he intends to disrespect the victims family just by feeling that he now wants to go hunting, places you fairly in the total bullshit part of the logical universe. Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.
If you can't process or understand what I write, it doesn't make it shit.... it just means you don't have the capacity and you just can't deal with it emotionally.
The protections of the law for this man and for you, and the ability to make personal choices make this place a better place to live. Go and live somewhere where they don't have them and see the difference.
Sydney....you assume a lot too......pot, kettle, black......i have my opinion, you have yours.....hope this person does not kill one of your family or friends if he is allowed his FAL back.........