Thread: Wtf

Thanks Sydney, i totally understand & comprehend you reasoning......

Originally Posted by tararua

No you can't cos identify your target is rule number 4.

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.

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?"

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.

Originally Posted by ebf

We a reaping the rewards of softly-softly, don't be too harsh approach.

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.

Originally Posted by ebf

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.

Serious crimes stats lowest for 15 years... prisons fuller than ever?

Grain of salt fellas.

Originally Posted by GSP

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.

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.

'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.

Originally Posted by ExPoh75

'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

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.

Originally Posted by Sidney

prisons fuller than ever?

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.

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