Friday, September 21, 2007
Self-defence
This really grinds my gears. Harassed and assaulted for wearing a sweatshirt of a particular colour on a public bus, then assaulted again outside the bus, and responded in a way that was, according to the judge, ""over the top", because "When you use a knife like this, you are literally millimetres away from causing a death," the judge said.
The final point is, undoubtedly, true. But it is also irrelevant.
I put it like this:
You are being harassed by a group of belligerent, drunken youth - who contrive to take offence to the colour of your sweatshirt. Well, they would have found a reason. You may have reason to suspect they are carrying a collection of weapons (this fear is well grounded, as they are later found to be concealing "hammers, spanners, a flick-knife and metal bars") They outnumber you, they are clearly a "gang" of sorts ("the Aranui Town Maori" as it turns out), and every indication is that they intend to bash the shit out of you.
You have a limited number of options:
(a) ignore them and walk away, and quite probably get the shit beaten out of you
(b) run away, and either escape or get a worse beating
(c) tell them to fuck off, and almost certainly cop a severe beating
(d) stand your ground, throw a punch or kick or two, and get a severe beating possibly resulting in your death or at least permnanent disability and disfigurement
(e) use a instrument you happen to by carrying as a weapon (a chef's knife in this case, but it could easily have been a builder's hammer or whatever) to level the playing field a bit, and likely stop all of your attackers by completely incapacitating one of them.
Hmm, I'd say (e) is a reasonable option by anyone's standard. As it happens (e) wouldn't be an option for me (a pen isn't much of a weapon), so I would have had to try (b).
Unlike the enthusiasts at Sensible Sentencing, I wouldn't recommend this guy for a medal, but his conviction and sentencing is absurd. But the real question is, which dumbass attorney advised the poor bastard to plead guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm? (Perhaps there was a deal here, since the original trumped up charge was attempted murder?).
Not guilty by reason of self defence I say.
The final point is, undoubtedly, true. But it is also irrelevant.
I put it like this:
You are being harassed by a group of belligerent, drunken youth - who contrive to take offence to the colour of your sweatshirt. Well, they would have found a reason. You may have reason to suspect they are carrying a collection of weapons (this fear is well grounded, as they are later found to be concealing "hammers, spanners, a flick-knife and metal bars") They outnumber you, they are clearly a "gang" of sorts ("the Aranui Town Maori" as it turns out), and every indication is that they intend to bash the shit out of you.
You have a limited number of options:
(a) ignore them and walk away, and quite probably get the shit beaten out of you
(b) run away, and either escape or get a worse beating
(c) tell them to fuck off, and almost certainly cop a severe beating
(d) stand your ground, throw a punch or kick or two, and get a severe beating possibly resulting in your death or at least permnanent disability and disfigurement
(e) use a instrument you happen to by carrying as a weapon (a chef's knife in this case, but it could easily have been a builder's hammer or whatever) to level the playing field a bit, and likely stop all of your attackers by completely incapacitating one of them.
Hmm, I'd say (e) is a reasonable option by anyone's standard. As it happens (e) wouldn't be an option for me (a pen isn't much of a weapon), so I would have had to try (b).
Unlike the enthusiasts at Sensible Sentencing, I wouldn't recommend this guy for a medal, but his conviction and sentencing is absurd. But the real question is, which dumbass attorney advised the poor bastard to plead guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm? (Perhaps there was a deal here, since the original trumped up charge was attempted murder?).
Not guilty by reason of self defence I say.
Comments:
I agree. That is fucken ridiculous.
If you are a member of a violent gang and carry a weapon around and harass people then you forfit the right to a safe existence. Simple as that.
If you die whilst in that 'mode' then stiff fucking shit.
We need a law regarding carrying weapons in public and anti-social behaviour that involves instant jail time regardless of whether or not somebody beat the crap out of you or you didn;t actually hurt somebody.
You have a knife, you were being a prick to a stranger, bang, here's 3 months jail.
If you are a member of a violent gang and carry a weapon around and harass people then you forfit the right to a safe existence. Simple as that.
If you die whilst in that 'mode' then stiff fucking shit.
We need a law regarding carrying weapons in public and anti-social behaviour that involves instant jail time regardless of whether or not somebody beat the crap out of you or you didn;t actually hurt somebody.
You have a knife, you were being a prick to a stranger, bang, here's 3 months jail.
F*ck me, don't you guys realise that those youths acted the way they did because of how society has treated them?
If you are a member of a violent gang and carry a weapon around and harass people then you forfit the right to a safe existence. Simple as that.
If you die whilst in that 'mode' then stiff fucking shit.
We need a law regarding carrying weapons in public and anti-social behaviour that involves instant jail time regardless of whether or not somebody beat the crap out of you or you didn;t actually hurt somebody.
Simon Power is your man then. I don't think the Green hierarchy would agree
I'm just taking the piss guys, but you guys appear to be moving more to the right each day. ASBO or whatever that acroynm have been used in the UK, but the bleeding heart liberals are opposed to them. To much police and judicial power. I don't want to go on a rant about searching in the car boot, but it could make some evidence inadmissible if they didn't get a warrant. Given the other factors, they were right to seek a warrant, but they could have done so much more quickly than this.
I am sure Hill will appeal the decision because in my humble legal view, the response sounds proportional given the factors that DC outlines from the article. I suspect though there are some things missing from the story.
Hopefully, in a week or so the decision will be up on NZLII - the bail decision from last month is up there. I wouldn't rely on a mother's statements to the media or a journo's selective quoting.
btw, no mention of the cricket and Macca's heroic efforts?
If you are a member of a violent gang and carry a weapon around and harass people then you forfit the right to a safe existence. Simple as that.
If you die whilst in that 'mode' then stiff fucking shit.
We need a law regarding carrying weapons in public and anti-social behaviour that involves instant jail time regardless of whether or not somebody beat the crap out of you or you didn;t actually hurt somebody.
Simon Power is your man then. I don't think the Green hierarchy would agree
I'm just taking the piss guys, but you guys appear to be moving more to the right each day. ASBO or whatever that acroynm have been used in the UK, but the bleeding heart liberals are opposed to them. To much police and judicial power. I don't want to go on a rant about searching in the car boot, but it could make some evidence inadmissible if they didn't get a warrant. Given the other factors, they were right to seek a warrant, but they could have done so much more quickly than this.
I am sure Hill will appeal the decision because in my humble legal view, the response sounds proportional given the factors that DC outlines from the article. I suspect though there are some things missing from the story.
Hopefully, in a week or so the decision will be up on NZLII - the bail decision from last month is up there. I wouldn't rely on a mother's statements to the media or a journo's selective quoting.
btw, no mention of the cricket and Macca's heroic efforts?
# posted by 
: 21 September 2007 at 20:39
: 21 September 2007 at 20:39
If he does it in a test then I'll give him mad props. Not this 20/20 roulette wheel.
yamis (green voter)
* I differ with them in a few areas concerning crime/punishment but am in their court for most other key stuff.
yamis (green voter)
* I differ with them in a few areas concerning crime/punishment but am in their court for most other key stuff.
Dinkas said:
"I am sure Hill will appeal the decision because in my humble legal view, the response sounds proportional given the factors that DC outlines from the article. I suspect though there are some things missing from the story.
Hopefully, in a week or so the decision will be up on NZLII - the bail decision from last month is up there. I wouldn't rely on a mother's statements to the media or a journo's selective quoting."
Yeah, a couple of hours after I posted my rant I did reflect a bit more critically on the article, which is written in a very unclear style. A bit of a dog's breakfast actually.
I didn't know the self-defence argument was a "left" or "right" political position though Dinkas. :)
Especially if, as we are led to believe from this article, the would-be gang bangers were actually in the defendant's face (and not, say, fleeing a shot-gun wielding farmer).
"I am sure Hill will appeal the decision because in my humble legal view, the response sounds proportional given the factors that DC outlines from the article. I suspect though there are some things missing from the story.
Hopefully, in a week or so the decision will be up on NZLII - the bail decision from last month is up there. I wouldn't rely on a mother's statements to the media or a journo's selective quoting."
Yeah, a couple of hours after I posted my rant I did reflect a bit more critically on the article, which is written in a very unclear style. A bit of a dog's breakfast actually.
I didn't know the self-defence argument was a "left" or "right" political position though Dinkas. :)
Especially if, as we are led to believe from this article, the would-be gang bangers were actually in the defendant's face (and not, say, fleeing a shot-gun wielding farmer).
Post a Comment