Machete vs Gun Store pt2

[Locust2000]

Just reading this mornings herald and on page A2 is an article about how one of the co-owners of the gun store who shot the man trying to rob them with a machete is at risk of up to 4 years in prison and up to $5000 fine. What a load of crap! Between that and Helen Clark wanting to charge ahead with the stadium after so far a 4:1 against it from a reader poll, it almost makes me with I couldn't read.

[BHybrid]

A P addict walks into the Gunstore with a Machete threatening to kill you, do you:

A) Pull your gun out and shoot him, go to Jail for defending yourself

or

B) Let him hack at you with the Machete, steal numerous guns, Kill you with one of those guns and lots of people out on the street.

[itekdu]

Originally Posted by BHybrid

A P addict walks into the Gunstore with a Machete threatening to kill you, do you:

A) Pull your gun out and shoot him, go to Jail for defending yourself

or

B) Let him hack at you with the Machete, steal numerous guns, Kill you with one of those guns and lots of people out on the street.

well, obviously if I was a pc wanker, like helan, I'd definately choose option B!

[Colza]

If my vague understanding of the legal system is correct, then wont he go to trial and have a jury decide whether he is guilty of whatever he is accused of?

I dont have a herald so i havent read the article.

[turbozxi]

Yep my old man was saying no one in this country has been found guilty by a jury yet for this sort of thing... So he will walk apparently already spent 10K defending himself which is BS.

[itza]

his father is the one paying out for his defence, i imagine the bill will be an insane amount if it goes to trial.

[Atenza]

First txt engrish and now this?

[M3_Power]

Originally Posted by turbozxi

Yep my old man was saying no one in this country has been found guilty by a jury yet for this sort of thing... So he will walk apparently already spent 10K defending himself which is BS.

Not true ... there have been people found guilty for these sort of things - it just doesn't happen very often.

In all honesty, from a pure legal perspective, the police are right in charging the man - in fact the police wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't charge the man. Unfortunately the mentality with these things is for the police to let the Courts sort it out one way or another rather than having themselves act as the Judge.

It sucks that he'd be out of a pocket several tens of thousand of dollars defending the charges, but that's the way the system works in a so called democratic society. What sucks more is the offender will probably get legal aid and have the tax payer pay for his defence and he'd probably hire the best QC out there and perhaps be found to be less culpable than he really should be.

That's the NZ Criminal justice system for you ... in my legal opinion it's pure bollocks ....

[EURO R]

and all thanks to the labour party...

[DrRubber]

he by legal definition should and will be found guilty....not that this is my opinion, i belive this to be :bs: he should walk......trouble is that the judge will instruct the jury to find him guilty....sounds crazy but thats what happens.......the best thing he could do is go guilty and he wont get jailed for it, remember the x amount of time in prison or the x amount of fines are the MAXimum penalty for the offence he has been charged....if he goes guilty,has a clean record etc(which he does) he's just gonna get some community work and a slap on the hand......thats what id do rather than cough up thousands and get the same result 8)

[turbozxi]

Originally Posted by M3_Power

Not true ... there have been people found guilty for these sort of things - it just doesn't happen very often.

.

Very rarely in clear cut circumstances like these. He won't be found guilty.

Having a loaded weapon would be a more likely charge, but they wisely claim to haave loaded it very quickly......

[Matty]

Originally Posted by badcf4

trouble is that the judge will instruct the jury to find him guilty

Eh? Since when could the judge tell the jury what decision they had to come up with? When I was on a jury we were told we had to decide whether the person was guilty or not.

I guess what the gun shop owner was supposed to do was let the guy get one good swing in with the machete, perhaps let him put a decent cut in, then shoot him, claiming self defence.

[DanSir]

Not wanting to stir, but from my quick read through it has nothing to do with the fact he shot the guy but that he had access to a loaded gun.

From what I understand, especially in a Gun Shop, for the very reason some mad idiot could come in you can't have ammunition and guns/loaded guns easily accesible.

I agree the suspect probably got what he deserved, but I doubt this has anything to do with the government be it Labour or National, the Police are simply following procedure, which is a whole lot better than the Police making their own judgement calls on an event.

[doo0T!doo0T!]

Meh...$10,000 is probably worth it to shoot a machete weilding mad P addict in the guts with a .357 magnum.
You dont get to do that every day.

[BHybrid]

As a result of all this I presume he wouldnt be allowed within 5 meters of a gun for the rest of his life?

If thats the case I think thats what the majority of the issue for him and his family would be as I could imagine their lives revolve around guns in a way.

[DrRubber]

Originally Posted by Matty

Eh? Since when could the judge tell the jury what decision they had to come up with? When I was on a jury we were told we had to decide whether the person was guilty or not.

I guess what the gun shop owner was supposed to do was let the guy get one good swing in with the machete, perhaps let him put a decent cut in, then shoot him, claiming self defence.

like i said it sounds crazy butr if you ever are unfortunate enough to stand trial (or do jury duty) after everything is said and done in terms of questioning etc......the judge then adresses the jury and makes sure they are aware of the definition of the law surrounding the charge........for example he will tell them that (i dont know what the charge is so exuse me) if the defendant has not done xxxxx then a not guilty verdict must be found, however if the defendant DID (with much gusto and perswasion) do xxxxxxx then he MUST be found guilty........
been there done it served time for it, would never go not guilty again unless it was rape or murder and in which case id defend myself..... :wink:

[Matty]

Ah, I get you. I thought you meant he'd tell them they MUST find him guilty "or else."

[Frost]

Damn! Poor guy should have finished the job!! One less P addict on the street!!!

[Ignition22]

right && wrong != legal && illegal


sadly

[DrRubber]

Originally Posted by Matty

Ah, I get you. I thought you meant he'd tell them they MUST find him guilty "or else."

no but they heavily perswade the jury one way or the other.

[CRX_VTiR]

On top of that, as well, the Jury are probably not going to be particularly clued up. I believe a line on Boston Legal once stated "The verdict of a Jury is not to be taken seriously- these are the people who were too stupid to get off Jury Duty"!

Fortunately, I am instantly banned from jury duty because according to certain members of the Victoria University branch of the Labour Party, I am a 'Sexist, racist bigot and hate-monger'. Funnily enough, I am in full support of the gun store owner.

[Nazgul]

all I'll say is : If I caught a burglar in my house, he wouldn't be leaving vertical.......

[GecKo]

Originally Posted by EURO R

and all thanks to the labour party...

I think you'll find that these laws have been around for quite some time, nothing has changed since the Labour party has come in to power afaik. Sure, they could have changed them back in the day.

Originally Posted by turbozxi

Very rarely in clear cut circumstances like these. He won't be found guilty.

M3_Power is our resident lawyer. I think I'll go with his word over "your dad" - Unless he is someone also in the profession?

[Moclov]

Originally Posted by CRX_VTiR

Fortunately, I am instantly banned from jury duty because according to certain members of the Victoria University branch of the Labour Party, I am a 'Sexist, racist bigot and hate-monger'. Funnily enough, I am in full support of the gun store owner.

You never fail to impress me with your posts

I've been in the situation of defending myself against a relatively minor charge essentially for the principle of it... Worst, most expensive experience ever

[george_me25]

Does New Zealand have a self-defense law? Are you allowed to protect yourself? Is that a plausabile(sp) defence?