Thumbs up in court
May 10th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David FarrarKay Blundell at the Dom Post reports:
Supporters of a 26-year-old man charged with murdering his 23-year-old partner raised heavily tattooed arms and gave him the thumbs up when he left the dock in Levin District Court yesterday.
The young mother of two children, believed to be aged three and six, was shot in Ngaio St, Otaki Beach, about 4pm on Sunday. She was flown to Wellington Hospital but died yesterday morning.
The man charged with murder and illegal possession of a firearm stood defiantly in the dock yesterday and was remanded in custody to reappear later this month. He and the victim were given name suppression.
I wonder what the correlation is between being having supporters turn up in court and cheer you as a hero, and being guility of murder. I suspect it is close to 100%.
Related posts:
- Court Ruling
- Headscarfs in Court
- No undue risk to the community
- Nick Smith found in contempt of court
May 10th, 2011 at 11:21 am
One thing you can bank on..Prior to his sentence his Legal Aid Lawyer will point out that he was filled with remorse and suffered abuse as a child.. That will cause the Judge to reduce the sentence he would otherwise have felt just.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 11:35 am
I suspect is significantly less than 100%. All sorts of punters have their bogan mates and families turn up to wave and offer encouragement who are guilty of crimes other than murder.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 11:36 am
The “heroism” is to do with tribalism and simplistic identification with a larger group, by weak low self esteem members. Unfortunately they don’t hold to any kind of stable moral code, just belonging and identifying with their mongrel association (“Sons of Anarchy” shows this). This is the problem with gangs and creating a society backing away from its collective social and moral framework. It’s no different than the raping and pillaging hordes of male warriors roaming the tundra centuries ago.
Same story in Perth, gang of biker males throws an innocent young Kiwi out a 2nd story window. Staunch. Probably wearing the wrong tee short or looked at them the wrong way…ie, not one of us, BASH.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Come on Rex, Toad and the rest of the criminal cuddlers, tell me why we should not be putting scum like this to death once they are found guilty?
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 11:53 am
The accused and his supporters are savages beyond hope. Just animals.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Big Bruv, while I would be quite happy for capital punishment to be re-introduced I would equally be satisfied if they got rid on concurrent sentences and put a minimum parole period of 80 years for criminals convicted of Murder, Rape or Child Sex offences.
I know the cost benefits of this kind of punishment doesn’t match the cost effectiveness of a .20c piece of lead but at least the hand wringers couldn’t complain if people were wrongly convicted.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
BB: As you know, I am no “criminal cuddler”.
Assuming this bloke is in fact guilty as charged, the problems would BEGIN with finding a jury in this PC “nothing is my fault” land we have created which would actually convict him, even if death was a discretionary rather than a mandatory sentence.
(We wont even go into whether we have Judges who would impose a death sentence even if it was an option rather than mandatory)
Then there would be the parade of civil libertarian lawyers such as Mr Bott only too keen to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court (and anywhere else which would give them a hearing). Then, once (if) you had got through all of that (i.e in about 15 years) there would be the civil disobedience which would accompany any attempt to actually carry out the sentence.
Under the law as it now is post the Sentencing and Parole Act 2010, this guy is eligible for LWOP. I suspect most offenders would find that a less appealing prospect than 20 seconds of terror before being hanged. LWOP would certainly be much less likely stir Bott and his fellow travellers into action, and avoids all the usual arguments against the death penalty, the best of them being the “wrong man” argument.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
“I wonder what the correlation is between being having supporters turn up in court and cheer you as a hero, and being guility of murder. I suspect it is close to 100%”
Plenty of people turned up and cheered for their hero David Bain in Court, and he was…not guilty…umm..apparently.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
MNBNZ
Re: ‘but at least the hand wringers couldn’t complain if people were wrongly convicted’.
No, butn they WOULD complain how the poor dear had had his rights violated and how unfair this was, and that it was all because he was Maori, etc, etc, etc (you know, ‘the usual’), and never, ever actually suggest that he might actually be (Gasp!!) RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS and should take the consequences . . .
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Komata: Spot on. Which is why LWOP for our worst murderers is a much better alternative in the real world which we all live in.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
And what would that civil disobedience tell you, Mr Garrett? Anything? Anything at all?
No state killings on my behalf please, tempting though scum sometimes makes it the risk of getting it wrong cannot be eliminated and I’m not at all *relaxed* about that.
+1 What Mr Nobody NZ said. We need to start looking at longer-term safe storage for our toxic waste.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
@big bruv 11:47 am
You’re getting soft, bruv. From your comment on the other law and order thread this morning, I would have expected you to be advocating putting them to death BEFORE they are found guilty.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Lew @ Kiwipoliticao Says:
Despite not understanding the history or significance of the Treaty, the extent of historical breaches of it, the economic and social implications of those breaches, and the existing state of law and custom around them; and despite claiming to want to ‘get out of their way’ you presume to know better than Māori about their fundamental problem. In response you advocate a Pākehā-centric approach of the sort which, having been tried for the first 150 years of post-Treaty history, is regarded by Māori as worsening the problem; a response which meets what you think are their needs, rather than what they think are their needs. Ultimately, you favour a response which permits you to absolve yourself, the Crown and Pākehā culture in general of the many and documented historical breaches, — and permits you to blame Māori for their ongoing dysfunction, rather than taking responsibility for making right the wrongs committed. Moreover, a response which allows you to claim that it is an act of bad faith by Māori to insist that the black-letter law of a Treaty devised and written down by Pākehā to serve Pākehā interests be interpreted according to Pākehā standards of rigour. A response, in other words, which serves your needs, rather than the needs of Māori.
You have exhaustively proven my point. Your entire line of reasoning is a disgrace to the traditions of a enlightenment liberalism, to justice and the ideal of a fair go, of word being a person’s bond, the imperatives of holding oneself to high moral and ethical standards, and owning up to one’s misdeeds. It is fundamentally a testament to the atrophy of these characteristics in Pākehā culture. As a society we should mourn the loss of these qualities, and adherents of this mean and gutless view should be ashamed of themselves.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I assume the thumbs upper is a tangata whenua gone wrong thanks to being subject to the power structures of the settler state (i.e not honoring the treaty)?
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
The death penalty is going on all the time in our bodies, as when immune cells go around saying “f you, the state survives you die”.
Vote:Which shows we are rotten to the core.
May 10th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I’ve yet to see a definitive argument the clinches the reason there should be no death penalty under any circumstances.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
RRM: it tells me we have a large number of people who are unwilling to believe there are truly evil individuals among us; it tells me there are many good people who cannot countenance the idea of the state killing people; it tells me … oh silly me; you’re only interested in some ill considered “redneck” response so why bother?
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
It hardly seems a life sentence when you can kill someone when your 20 and be out in your early 30′s. You also wouldn’t get as many hicks calling for the death sentence if we actually had significant non-parole periods for murder.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Dexter: We do. 17 years is now the minimum non parole for murder with aggravating circumstances as listed in the Sentencing Act. LWOP is available for the worst of those.
Having the sentences available is one thing, whether they are applied is another…
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
I would argue that 17 years is not significant enough, but anyhow, watching these kinds of “supporter” displays on the TV never fails to disgust me and illustrates quite clearly the contempt some people have of society and our collective values. Once again, no consideration is given to the victims (in this case, the family of the murdered woman) who are usually in attendance as well and who are then revictimised by such repugnant displays.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
David Garret said: Assuming this bloke is in fact guilty as charged, the problems would BEGIN with finding a jury in this PC “nothing is my fault” land we have created which would actually convict him, even if death was a discretionary rather than a mandatory sentence.
This is why you should just disappear David, every time you hit the keyboard you shower yourself in further hypocrisy. You got a s106 because a Judge exercised a discretion (it was not mandatory to convict you), you said you were young and stupid (ie: not your fault) and yet you still preach, in the strongest terms, about how your brand of ‘hang ‘em high’ justice is the solution.
Have you no shame?
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“17 years is now the minimum non parole for murder with aggravating circumstances ”
Yep but the aggravating circumstances is the key there, look at Greg Meads for example a, 11 years non parole. That hardly fits the severity of the crime now does it, a base of 20 years up to 40+ would be much more appropriate.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
GPT1: When you identify yourself dickhead, as I do whenever I “hit the keyboard”, I’ll debate you
Dammit I can’t resist:…assume I had committed agg robbery 27 years ago (were you born then??) would it be hypocritical to advocate harsh sentences for agg robbers 27 years later?
One of your mates will have the affidavit….direct me to where it says – anywhere in any way – “it wasn’t my fault”….
The HoS was forced to print a retraction last week after claiming I had “campaigned against name suppression”…now THAT would have been hypocrisy..
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Toad
So if I find somebody stealing from me I should let him go?
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Dammit I can’t resist:…assume I had committed agg robbery 27 years ago (were you born then??) would it be hypocritical to advocate harsh sentences for agg robbers 27 years later?
Yes.
One of your mates will have the affidavit….direct me to where it says – anywhere in any way – “it wasn’t my fault”….
Your comments to news media sought to excuse your actions of 27 years ago. In some ways I have some sympathy for that (although it was an odd youthful indiscretion).
Your hypocrisy is that you now demand mandatory sentences and, in your rhetoric, appear to promote a position where anyone charged with a crime should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
Although, by your logic, as an unidentified dickhead clearly you have the moral highground…
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Animals is apt. Here in Wanganui we had them barking like dogs in support. This guy in Otaki will be another product of the feral welfare under-class that Helen Clark said didn’t exist..
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
David Garrett, you shouldn’t be calling a colleague names like that (whether he comments under his own name or not). Strong words, fine; insults like ‘dickhead’ (which GPT1 is most certainly not), no. Judges are fair game, however…
Plus, your comments re Bott and co are a bit unfair. You know full well that appeals are taken on the instructions of the convicted person, not at the preference of the lawyer. I know there are always exceptions, but I have had enough clients instruct me that they do know want to appeal even after I have advised them that they have a point of appeal to know that it can go both ways. But you do know that the decision is ultimately the defendant’s. Anyway, who would really want to take a regular High Court or CA appeal these days, considering the derisory amount we are paid to do it?
But this is an odd question from DPF. I have seen defendants being cheered, but they were gang members and the gallery contained a fair number of his gang friends. That wasn’t for murder, though, and it wasn’t for the crime he had committed. It was just because he was one of them and they were giving a middle finger to the Court and the Cops. I would think that, logically, there is very little correlation between the defendant being cheered and him being guilty, because one does not in any way confirm the other. What it shows is a correlation between his supporters and their support of him, however inappropriately displayed in Court. As GPT said, all sorts of people turn up to show support for defendants. Some wave, some cry, some call out their support. None of that indicates guilt or innocence. At the same time I have seen defendants vilified in Court by supporters of the complainant. Sometimes threats are made by those same supporters. That doesn’t indicate guilt or innocence either.
Backster: that is rubbish, and you know it.
Arthur Dent: Of course such displays are inappropriate, but as I note above, they are not always limited to the defendant’s supporters. The ‘victim’s’ supporters can be just as vile in what they say from the gallery. Doesn’t make either party right.
Edit: GPT, you too!
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
surely the poor bloke just mistook his bird for a duck, ok he didn’t properly identify his target, but I’m sure if he enters an early guilty plea to a lesser charge the judge will look kindly on him …
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
I am with you GTI He is an enormous hypocrite and he seems to think that if her puts his real name..all will be fine..Who knows if it is really his real name? He should just do the decent thing and STFUP.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
You are a nasty piece of work Joanna.
Vote:Garrett is entitled to his view and his say and its not your blog.
Don’t like that go back to the sewer at the Standard and fill in your day.
May 10th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
GPT1 and joana
I welcome David Garrett’s contributions to this blog, unlike any other former MP he is prepared to debate with all of us what he believes in (personally in the area of crime I think he is a bit soft) and he is prepared to justify his beliefs.
Sadly it seems that you two are using the usual left wing tactic of attacking the man instead of the issue because you have no real counter argument, if you want heavily censored or controlled blogs go to the EPMU and Labour party funded Standard or Mallards own Red Alert.
Or….you could just do what lots of other people do and not read the contributions of people you do not agree with.
Vote:May 10th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Actually joana
Why don’t you just piss off and go and find something else to do, I am sure there are dishes that need to be washed or some ironing that needs doing, hell, you could even give the carpet a vacuum for the first time this year if you are really stuck for something to do.
Vote:May 11th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Oh dear Big Bruv you really do struggle with consistency at times. You have just told me to leave the blog because I had the temerity to point out that David Garrett is a hypocrite. Free speech cuts both ways – David can publish his opinion far and wide and I can call him on it. Fairly fundamental stuff.
Now you do see things fairly black and white whih tends to make your comments entertaining if nothing else but arguing for the rule of law, against vigilantism and suggesting David has some silly views is hardly conclusive evidence of being left wing. You don’t actually have to believe in instant death penalties for all alleged criminals to be right wing.
As an aside the only blog I have been banned from is Mallard’s one. For suggesting that Mallard might be being a bit hypocritical asking for support for Chris Carter when he yells take you pills to Nick Smith and calls Finlayson Tinkerbell.
Vote: