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.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Doesn't Sound So Bad
Pre-script? This is our 993rd post. We intend on making the next 8 the same as the other 992. Real and nothing but the real.
So Paris Hilton is off to the LA Hilton in June. 23 hours with nobody to bother you. Plus three square meals brought along at the appropriate times.
Man I'd catch up on some reading. I assume she can read.
Went to watch the Warriors on Saturday night. Without a doubt the worst 80 minutes of League I can recall seeing since I was playing for Te Atatu in the under 6's in 1982.
Forget signing Tate for 450,000 dollars. You actually need decent halves before you can go spending up on backs who will never get any decent ball.
Sack Witt asap and spend the 450,000 plus his salary on somebody with a decent running and passing game.
All we ever do is
a) bomb for the corners on the last tackle
b) shovel the ball along the backline
c) put runners in motion with the same move that Jones used (very successfully) to free up space out side.
But there just never seems to be anything spontaneous or creative from our number 6. Rovelli has his moments in the 7 jersey but he needs some help. And christ did Rovelli have a shocker on Saturday. What the fuck were those grubber kicks in behind the line early in the count with not a single chaser? You wouldn't expect that from a reserve grade halfback in club football and even coaches in shitty grades I played in would have screamed out "what the fuck was that?!".
Nevermind, at least the Blues are a cohesive unit.
So Paris Hilton is off to the LA Hilton in June. 23 hours with nobody to bother you. Plus three square meals brought along at the appropriate times.
Man I'd catch up on some reading. I assume she can read.
Paris Hilton heads for real 'simple life' in jailShucks, 4 hours and 20 minutes of a 60 day sentence?? Hardly enough time to even get beaten up in the showers. Or worse.
By Steve Gorman
Paris Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for violating probation.
LOS ANGELES - Hotel heiress Paris Hilton, star of the reality TV show The Simple Life, will really be going back to basics when she checks into a Los Angeles County jail next month to do time for violating her probation.
Unless her lawyers win an appeal, she will forsake her designer clothes, cell phone and other accouterments -- along with her freedom and privacy -- for an orange jumpsuit and a small, spartan cell with twin bunks.
"She's going to be assigned a two-person cell, and most likely have another inmate in the cell with her," Los Angeles County sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said today, adding Hilton, like all inmates, would be confined to her quarters 23 hours a day.
She will be allowed out of her cell once a day for an hour to shower, stretch her legs, use the telephone or watch television in a jailhouse day room, he said.
The cell -- 2.4 metres wide by 3.7 metres deep, with an 2.4 metre ceiling -- contains "two bunks, a table, a sink, a toilet and a sliver of a window." Hilton's cellmate, if she gets one, will be another individual serving time for a serious driving infraction or other nonviolent offense, he said.
While the facility houses roughly 2,200 women, Hilton will be segregated from the general population in a "special-needs" unit designed for such high-profile prisoners as celebrities, former police officers and public officials, Whitmore said.
Hilton will get three meals a day, all taken in her cell, but like the jail's furnishings, nothing fancy -- cereal or yogurt with fruit for breakfast, a sandwich or hamburger for lunch, and a hot meal such as chicken for dinner.
"She'll be given the same food that is served to every inmate in the jail, he said.
The jail's schedule also will make it hard for Hilton to keep the late hours she is accustomed to. Breakfast is served between 6 and 7.30 am, and lights are turned out at 10 pm
Whether Hilton will serve all 45 days of her sentence is unclear. Under state sentencing guidelines, inmates receive one day credit against their sentence for each day they serve. This means Hilton would effectively complete her term after 22.5 days in jail, unless the judge's order stipulates otherwise.
She also could get out early due to overcrowding, as was the case with actress Michelle Rodriguez of the TV show Lost, who was reported to have served just four hours and 20 minutes of a 60-day sentence for a probation violation last May.
- REUTERS
Went to watch the Warriors on Saturday night. Without a doubt the worst 80 minutes of League I can recall seeing since I was playing for Te Atatu in the under 6's in 1982.
Forget signing Tate for 450,000 dollars. You actually need decent halves before you can go spending up on backs who will never get any decent ball.
Sack Witt asap and spend the 450,000 plus his salary on somebody with a decent running and passing game.
All we ever do is
a) bomb for the corners on the last tackle
b) shovel the ball along the backline
c) put runners in motion with the same move that Jones used (very successfully) to free up space out side.
But there just never seems to be anything spontaneous or creative from our number 6. Rovelli has his moments in the 7 jersey but he needs some help. And christ did Rovelli have a shocker on Saturday. What the fuck were those grubber kicks in behind the line early in the count with not a single chaser? You wouldn't expect that from a reserve grade halfback in club football and even coaches in shitty grades I played in would have screamed out "what the fuck was that?!".
Nevermind, at least the Blues are a cohesive unit.
Labels: blues, paris hilton, prison, te atatu, warriors
