Sidney, it may not be up to Scouser or anyone, but everyone is permitted an opinion because everytime someone out there fucks up with a firearm, we all feel it...we all feel agrieved...
Printable View
Sidney, it may not be up to Scouser or anyone, but everyone is permitted an opinion because everytime someone out there fucks up with a firearm, we all feel it...we all feel agrieved...
I think that the realistic way to look at this is to imagine how it would affect you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouser
I think that its a little weird, and I can't imagine wanting to carry a rifle again because of that association with what happened. But I also think that I would still want to hunt again, the whole experience, the outdoors, the pursuit is all therapeutic for me and I can imagine looking for that again. I can't guarantee that I wouldn't feel like that again after some time had passed.
Personally I wouldn't consider it disrespectful to the victims, but neither would it be something that I considered doing again lightly. If I did it, I would almost guarantee that it would be a solo experience, even if I did have mates who supported me in doing it again. For me there is almost a spiritual connection to hunting and to deny that to somebody if they wanted to connect with that again, seems inequitable.
Maybe bowhunting or perhaps camera, possibly firearms but at this end of it its too hard to say. That is sort of the point though. The trauma of the event and the utter desperation prompts people to do and say things that they mean, but time passes. Any human person seeks to restore themselves. This isn't about excusing behaviour or justification. But perpetuating punishment is not the role of the state or the rest of us.
I genuinely believe that for most, they would be safer than any other hunter out there. Now Mr Dumber might not be and that is not for me to say. But I also believe its not for me to say whether he should hunt again, provided he can establish that he is suitable. The level of scrutiny that he is obligated to satisfy is going to be greater than it is for the rest of us, and he should have to conclusively establish that he is suitable. Part of that process might have to include psychological evaluation.
In many ways, going hunting again would provide constant reminders and that would not be easy. It may actually be easier to not go hunting again.
All of this stuff isn't as simple as most would like it to be...
Thats interesting, I have hunted with Chris just prior to the shooting and he didnt smokeQuote:
Originally Posted by 308
I think a lot of you guys need to get off your high horses, until you experience something similar you may not realise that this can happen to anybody. In my case my friend still sees the "deer" and I believe him. We all still "see" and remember a lot of things.
You can follow the seven rules, yet incorrectly i.d your target.
If this guy is deemed to be fit and proper again, there is no reason why he cant have his FAL. Whether or not he is fit and proper is not up to me to decide. I don't know the guy.
I can guarantee that experiencing the accidental shooting of a mate, really drives home just important those seven rules are, and would also argue that it indeed made me a much more safety conscious member of the community. Realising just how fragile life is really changes your perspective.
I just don't know if this Dummer guy has learnt anything by the sound of it :sick:
My thoughts go out to anyone who has lost family, a friend or someone they love in tragic circumstances.
Like scribe said, I would rather hunt with someone who thinks they could kill someone, than someone who thinks it will never happen to them.
Mmm there are a about 8 or so members on here including me that spent a week Tahr hunting with him, never saw him smoke, he did say and do some strange things though. Maybe there was someone else in the hunting area.Quote:
Thats interesting, I have hunted with Chris just prior to the shooting and he didnt smoke
No you can't cos identify your target is rule number 4.Quote:
You can follow the seven rules, yet incorrectly i.d your target.
I don't see how people can mistake their target unless someone is wearing an animal suit. If you can't identify an organ or head shot to cleanly kill it, you shouldn't shoot period.
I was parked up in a clearing one day, I hear something making noise so I stalk in to check it out. All I first see is the back of some dudes head moving then disappearing behind a bush. I 100% ID'd my target as a goat, and wondered wtf goats were doing in this area. I could have fired through the bush at movement alone with my semi auto, but that's just dumb. I waited for it to move out past the bush so I could get a front quarter organ shot (being a hunter and all). Alas it was no goat, just some dude wearing blaze. I hadn't even shouldered my rifle.
People need to check their enthusiasm and assume everything in the bush is another hunter. At one stage early on in my hunting, I had run into more people in the bush than game.
In an ideal world, Chris could be treated the same as someone with a drivers license who caused death via an accident/carelessness. No license ever again, either FAL or drivers. Unfortunately we live in the real world, so drivers do get behind the wheel again.
Here's hoping Chris doesn't get ever his FAL, due primarily to Cam's rights being removed and his inability to have a say in the matter.
Cam's right to have Xmas dinner with his family should trump Chris's right to help return / integrate into society, which seems to be via his desire to shoot and hunt again.
Alas the current law in NZ simply doesn't allow that to happen.
So smoking was the cause of everything?Quote:
Originally Posted by tararua
Seriously ?? He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot.
That is the most STUPID thing I have ever heard.
meh I'm just saying I think he has eye problems.
No you said he's a couch potato because he's a smoker and wants a gun for easier work.Quote:
Originally Posted by tararua
As I said - the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The last bit doesn't even make sense.
Do you live on a commune?
He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot. That's why he wants a gun, so much easier work.
Thanks Sydney, i totally understand & comprehend you reasoning......
Not quite. This has been studied many times and it has been shown that people often 'see' what they expect/want to see. That is why there is the suggestion we should all stop and think to ourselves, "Is this a person?"Quote:
Originally Posted by tararua
Analogous to crashing a motor vehicle. If you concentrate on what you might hit the odds are that you will hit it. If you concentrate on the safe spaces your outcome is likely to improve.
Just as an aside to this topic, few years back bunch of youths got into a fight at local park. One of them carried a gun up from Christchurch. One youth got shot and killed with it. A few of the youths went to jail for this. I read in the paper tonight they had a second trial on appeal and were acquitted as jury believed "self defence" (like the youth couldn't unload it to prevent exactly what happened). I wouldn't be too harsh on the accidental shooting man after reading this outcome. Police must be gob smacked.
Just goes to show how corrupt the justice system is in this country. There is no justice for the victoms anyway.
DD, I don't think the justice system here is "corrupt". If you want to see what a corrupt system looks like, go look at several countries in Africa where you can buy yourself out of a spot fine by bribing a cop and make dockets "disappear" by paying the correct person...
What it is over here is liberal, limp-wristed etc, but not necessarily corrupt. But society gets the justice system that matches it's values and beliefs. We a reaping the rewards of softly-softly, don't be too harsh approach.
Ebf I just think lawyers and judges in this country are a bunch of soft cocks.
I have been sitting back quietly reading this thread not wanting to participate. After 7 pages I hit the keyboard.:( Just another opinion shared.;)
To right ebf. What we need is a massive swing to the right of Roy Bean and Genghis Khan with public floggings and a stock and gallows in every town square.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Serious crimes stats lowest for 15 years... prisons fuller than ever?
Grain of salt fellas.
That one was a bit iffy to claim self defense, the jury were obviously convinced though. To me it didn't seem like a black and white case like the guncity guy defending himself from machete man.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSP
'this is very interesting as i have first hand knowledge from a farmer that caught him poaching a week before it happened and found him very arrogant and very agressive when confronted.'
Same subject in another forum. The person caught and confronted was Mr Drummer.
Hope you guys don't mind me adding my 2 cents worth, me being an aussie. Many years ago I was almost shot in NZ so this sort of thing hits a raw spot with me. There is just no excuse whatsoever for not identifying your target or being complacent or just down right stupid with a firearm
This person should never have the privilege to have a FAL again.
If this had happened here he would have automatically had his FAL cancelled and his firearms confiscated on the assault charge with a blunt weapon. He would be deemed 'a prohibited person' for 5 years and then would have to reapply for permission to obtain a FAL through the court he was convicted in. As part of the process ALL parties affected would be interviewed by the DFO (district firearms officer) as to the suitability of the applicant to be able to apply for a FAL. The DFO would then notify the police public prosecutor who in turn would present to the court the police recommendation. The police are known to err on the side of precaution. Hiring a Barrister to represent you in court is rather expensive!
BTW, just being put on a good behaviour bond deems you to be 'a prohibited person'.
Rant over
Pete
If he does get his F A L back he won't be the first bloke who shot someone to be back out there.
Welcome to the forum Pete. Of course we don't mind you having your two cents worth, in fact help yourself and take a dollar's worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExPoh75
And wouldn't we be a far lesser burden on our society if they were not? Hell I might even become fairly taxed and only have to pay as much as the man next to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
i think you miss the point rushy.. the poster was sounding off about liberal legal system etc.. the reality is not so if that is the case...
I've jumped in a bit late here, but @ebf
Somebody fucks up enough time in a car, they are "indefinitely disqualified" from having a drivers licence. This actually means two years, then start from scratch (learner a again).
During that time of disqualification, if they are found driving, regardless of the owner the vehicle is impounded for 28days and the person can be put before the courts for Driving While Disqualified.
......
Get your FAL revoked, it's just revoked. It's the same as if you don't have one. Really the only offences you can commit is Unlawful Possession of a Firearm; say storing it at your place or having it in your car without your mate with a FAL around.
There is no legal precedents to ban an individual from handling firearms.
Sorry to say it, but have a good read of the arms act and you will see it's not too different from 'Mercia I'm terms of "the right to bare arms".
Anyway, good for thought. This has been discussed extensively at work. The only thing I can think of is a bail condition imposed of "not to be in possession of firearms" or "not to use a firearm for the purpose of hunting" etc but Dummer is not on bail, he has been sentenced.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Edit: I can't fix my autocorrect fails on the iPhone, apologies. Do your best to understand my gibberish [emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tx Dougie, seems bit crazy huh ?
I still struggle to get my head around the concept of handing a firearm to someone that does not have a license... If this happens on a designated range, under the supervision of a RO, all good, but out in the bush it just seems like an accident waiting to happen.
Of course most of these deaths are caused by folks who already have a license, so probably won't change anything changing that part of the law. But I would really like to see some provision preventing a person from handling a firearm (at least for a good wee while).
Just my 5c, I'm sure others will disagree :D
Acknowledging that I am a barbaric SOB who is out of place in modern society and who has extreme views on such matters, I still can't help but think that the simple application of a no lesser retaliation policy would have a far greater impact.
Yep I totally agree but am a realist and can see this not happening ever in NZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
I'm the same with you on the supervision thing, and as you well know I pick and choose my hunting buddies even when they DO have a licence!
I've had a few people ask me to take their kids out. To be honest, nothing scared me more. I can take responsibility for my own shots and wounded animals, but not other's!
I really don't like handing the rifle over to my other half either, even though it makes him pissy.
It looks like a lump of plastic and metal but the reality is, that thing is a whole lot of responsibility.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, Rushy - could you clarify what you mean by a no lesser retaliation policy?
Either I've missed something or I'm a bit thick cos I don't understand what you mean by that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not comment further beyond explaining my view to you. I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by 308
Ah, I've just thought of a way for a person not to have possession or use of a firearm!
Life long parole conditions. However again, this won't happen in this situation with Dummer. Life parole is usually reserved for someone who could be served with a life sentence and in extreme circumstances like a serial killer or serial "manslaughterererer" that involved weapons I guess.
Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I was wrong, there is a way other than bail conditions @ebf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Drummer. I don't know the dude but have decided he would not be welcome in the same place as me if he had his hands on a firearm or maybe even a rock. The facts are that; He was an executive in the nzda and no doubt pounded home gun safety/ target idendification and whatever as they do. A case of "Do as I say, not as I do?".
He did not shoot the victim as a result of a rebounding bullet or an accidental discharge,
He fired at a target he had not positively identified and that was a deliberate act.
He seems to shown remorse when it would undoudtedly help his case before the Court and his arrogance now is unexcusable, especially by asking the mother of his victim if he had a hunting permit. If he had not would that have made him a legitamite target? Holy Shit, you get a permit from DOC for Aorangis, Tararuas, Rimutukas and share those areas with heaps of others there on the same bloody day.
The question was asked if the NZDA would welcome him back to the fold but so far I can't find a reply anywhere. It would be nice to hear from them and Drummer himself if he has big enough balls to come on the forum and defend himself.
Thanks Rushy - I completely understand your desire to stay positive on the forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Having your FA license revoked is actually completely different to not having it in the first place
From COLFOs website.Quote:
Offences
The following summarises offences under the Arms Act 1983 and the Arms Amendment Act 1992.
dealing in firearms unless a licensed Dealer
selling firearms for a Dealer unless a firearms licenceholder
as a Dealer failing to keep a prescribed transaction register
importing firearms without a Permit to Import
being in possession of a firearm unless licensed
being in possession of an airgun while under the age of 18 years (unless licensed)
failing to produce firearms licence when required by Police
failing to surrender firearms and airguns if licence revoked
failing to advise Police of a change of address
carrying a Pistol or Restricted Weapon beyond the dwellinghouse without specific written authority from Police
failing to give 4 days notice of an intention to remove a Pistol, MSSA or Restricted Weapon from N.Z.
failing to report the destruction, theft, or loss, of a firearm
not supplying name, address, and DOB on demand by Police
not surrendering any airgun or antique firearm when required by Police
altering a firearms licence
using another persons firearms licence
lending a firearms licence for another to use
supplying a firearm or ammunition to an unlicensed person
supplying a firearm or ammunition by mail order unless having specific written approval from Police
supplying an airgun to a person under 18 years of age (unless that person licensed)
supplying a Pistol, Restricted Weapon, or MSSA to a person who does not hold a ‘permit to procure’ that firearm
being in possession of a firearm or imitation firearm except for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose
being in charge of a firearm or airgun while under the influence of drink or drug
discharging a firearm in or near a dwellinghouse or public place so as to annoy, endanger, or frighten any person.
discharging or carrying a [bolt, flare, spear, net, tranquilizer gun etc.] except for a lawful and proper purpose
being in possession of firearm, antique firearm, or airgun after revocation of licence
unlawful possession of a Pistol, Restricted Weapon, or Military Style Semi Automatic firearm
unlawful carriage or possession of a firearm, airgun, or ammunition in a public place
presenting a firearm, airgun or an object resembling a firearm at another person unless for a lawful purpose
careless use of a firearm or airgun
use or attempted use of a firearm, airgun, imitation firearm or ammunition to resist arrest or commit an offence
carrying a firearm, airgun, imitation firearm, or ammunition with criminal intent
obstructing a member of Police
failing to report injuries caused by firearms
possession of an unsafe firearm (after notice given)
Section 49a of the Arms Act
Quote:
Unlawful possession of firearm or airgun after revocation of firearms licence
Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person whose firearms licence has been revoked, is in possession of a firearm or airgun at a time when that person is not the holder of a firearms licence, and is not a person authorised, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that firearm or airgun.
Section 49A: inserted, on 1 November 1992, by section 26 of the Arms Amendment Act 1992 (1992 No 95).
Section 49A: amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).
The prob with your logic in these type of cases... is that you cannot apply that intentionally, where the original event was unintentional. It would not be the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!
Ah yep sweet cheers for the list of offences.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
If your FAL is revoked you can no longer use or possess a firearm under any circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougie
From the Police Arms Manual
Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983 “Unlawful possession of a firearm or airgun after revocation of Firearms Licence” with a penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment or a fine
of $4000 or both was created in 1992. This was for the specific purpose of creating a substantial offence for firearm licence holders whose licence had been revoked
either for no longer being fit and proper or for failing to respond to their call-in notice.
This offence, unlike other offences or provisions of the Arms Act 1983, does not specifically allow a defence of being under the immediate supervision of a licence holder. It does provide for an authorisation expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of a firearm. Whether or not this allows by implication the defence of immediate supervision is a matter of opinion at this stage, as it has not yet been tested in Court.
The intent of the offence was to ensure that firearms were not possessed by revoked persons and would therefore be unable to continue to lawfully use them.
To suggest that the immediate supervision defence was available makes a mockery of the law and if a prosecution under Section 49A was properly presented then it
should succeed.
In the event, prima facie, an offence has been committed IF A REVOKED PERSON IS IN POSSESSION. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that their
possession was lawful if the defence of immediate supervision is used.
It would appear based on others comments that this individual has been hunting since the incident, if this is the case, he has committed an offence if he used a firearm at any time.
We don't need more laws. We need better enforcement of existing laws and appropriate punishments by the courts.