Machete Shooting
July 29th, 2006 at 11:00 pm by David FarrarI doubt there is a jury in NZ which will convict Greg Carvell for shooting the machete wielding robber who tried to hold up his gun store. The NZ Herald reports on the issue.
Nevertheless I will not be surprised if the Police charge him either for the shooting, or on lesser firearm offences. But as I said, there is no way you’ll get 12 people to convict.
Related posts:
- ACC set to sue Affco for gang shooting in car park
- Arguments on Naitoko shooting
- Listen to the Judge
- de Menezes shooting
July 30th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Tricky,
Clearly the Carvell’s had an unloaded pistol with a loaded magazine right next to it just out of sight somewhere. Technically a marginal setup. The police are probably right to be looking at that aspect of the incident.
Clearly the machete weilding cretin had it coming to him. Nothing technical here. A text-book case of self-defence.
Out of this incident will flow all the standard pro and anti gun lobby arguments that we must have all seen. People will support whichever side their experience and inclination takes them. No prizes for guessing that although I’m not anti-gun per se (been in plenty of huts with plenty of highly skilled and capable hunters whose abilities I held in regard)…at the same time the model of the insane USA gun culture chills my blood. In principle, anything that turns NZ away from following that path, the better.
At the same time there is one new element that changes the old argument…P. We have seen enough to know that someone high on this drug is capable of anything. The police cannot defend you from them, they cannot be reasoned with and you are right if you expect the unpredictable worst from them. Faced with someone waving a machete at me and shouting…I would absolutely assume I am about to be cut to bloody ribbons.
Reluctantly I conclude that this new class of drug has created a new facet to the old pro/anti gun argument. If we do nothing about P dealers I expect that NZ will see more fear-driven gun ownership for the purpose of self-defence. This will have real consequences, more deaths by accident and more lethal suicides.
The alternative is to accept that the root of the problem are the scum who make and sell P. Normally I believe that we have to be very careful that the means we employ in society are justified by the ends, but in this case I make and exception, and I would support any and all possible measures that can be taken against P dealers…however draconian.
Vote:July 30th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Yeah, there’s a clear problem here.
Vote:It’s either choice of calibre or lack of proficiency.
The scumbag is still alive.
July 30th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Yeah, there’s a clear problem here.
Vote:It’s either choice of calibre or lack of proficiency.
The scumbag is still alive.
July 30th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Yes Logix you may well be correct in your assumptions. P is indeed a very dangerous drug just look at the new crime figues released much of this increase in crime must be P related. The only way to stop someone high on P is with a gun, try ringing the police in the country and see how long they take to respond.
This case will probably go to court as many in the present ruling elite beleive guns are plain and simply evil and should be BANNED, the right of people to bear arms is a no no and heaven help anyone that defends themself. Look at the case of the northland farmer, I bet this case heads the same way. The one defending themself may well indeed be found not guilty but how many thousands of dollars will it take to defend a charge. I watch with interest.
Vote:July 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I’ve long argued that we need a two-clause bill in Parliament:
1. A person who breaks the law may not claim or receive any compensation from anyone for anything that happens to them while they were breaking the law or as a consequence of that breach.
2. A person lawfully on premises who injures a person who is committing or intending to commit a crime shall be held immune from prosecution or civil action for causing the injury.
It needs better drafting, but ww should be able to agree on wording that says criminals forfeit the protection of the law when they go out and commit crime.
Crime is one of the biggest enemies of human rights and freedoms. We shouldn’t lose sight of that.
Philip
Vote:July 30th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
We all knew 10 or so years ago that P would become a major problem if it wasn’t dealt to totally back then.We didn’t fix it when it might have been posible.The problem is now out of control.WHY?And is “why” even important any more?We dropped the ball.How feeble and stupid are we?
Vote:July 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
prosecuting somebody for defending themselves from a potential attacker is a crime in itself – its the government waging war on the citizens they are meant to serve, i think its called treason or something along the lines of that.
But if a cop can shoot and kill a baseball welding drunk smashing windows and get away with it then why cant the rest of us, until 25 years ago anybody who even maced an attacker would have received a medal from the police and the attacker in addition to a lengthy prison sentance would have got a “serves you bloody right” from the judges, cops etc!!
Vote:July 30th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Logix – you and Cadmus get your meds mixed up?
Mr Carvell – I take my hat off to you, protected yourself and your family, your customers, and stopped the perp without killing him well done.
If the court appointed security for Judge Auguster Wallace back in 1990 had weapons we wouldn’t even be having this discussion now.
I don’t think the NZ police would handle the backlash from NZ general public if they did lay charges over this case, hell you’d think they’d be better off trying to find out who KILLED the Kahui babies?
Vote:I don’t have to venture into the Panmure RSA murders to identify that self defence is sometimes the only alternative to someone that is trying to reason with someone on P or any of the other class 1 drugs of choise today.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Auckland police can take the standard line pre prepared for any eventuality, most widely used in recent times on multiple occasions when dealing with the Labour party or Clark – It isn’t in the public interest to pursue this case.
Vote:I know we have heard it before but now we actually have an instance where it is applicable!
July 30th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
It might be good to have a precedent set by a jury though.
Vote:July 31st, 2006 at 7:16 am
Year Zero – the case in Waitara was still investigated and the cop involved had to go through the equivalent of a trial before the case was dropped.
I don’t think there should be an issue with the same occuring here. It is not up to the police to decide guilt / innocence – that is what the court is for.
Vote:I know we’ve had plenty of Labour examples where this hasn’t been done but it would be nice for that to start being the case.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:07 am
iig374
Guy wakes up brushes his teeth, kisses wife and leaves for work. Thinking about maybe what the weekend might bring. In walks another guy and threatens to kill him. He defends himself (Still quite keen on the picnic on Saturday with the wife perhaps?) Now in my book that is a shit of a day. Not probably in the top 100 of the “how you would like to spend your day” book.
But no, let us now compound that and have the guy go through months with court cases and media interest. By all means let the police determine what happened. But a court case? This guy just went to work.
Vote:August 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
This is a good way to deal with all crims, make them think twice about violent crimes, i applaud the gunsmith.
Hey David, the new blog pages are great and a lot faster,,hehehe thats Y U R getting a lot of double posts,the old one was so slow bloggers had to click twice 3 times???
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 6:31 am
works
Vote: