A pitiful punishment

February 6th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A Blenheim man who became enraged and strangled a police dog was sentenced in the Blenheim District Court yesterday.

Lee Peter Kite, 18, of Riversdale, previously admitted charges of burglary, resisting police, cruelty to animals, assaulting police and discharging a firearm near a dwelling.

Judge John Bergseng said the dog has difficulty moving and has still not returned to work after the attack on September 26.

Kite and his brother had gone to an empty house at Lucas St about 12.50am with a knife and a screwdriver.

A neighbour phoned the police because they knew the house was supposed to be vacant.

Police arrived and let a police dog into the property.

Kite became enraged and attacked the police dog, grabbing it around the neck and strangling it, Judge Bergseng said.

When the dog handler stepped in to stop Kite attacking the dog, Kite lashed out, struggling with police until he was Tasered.

The attack aggravated an existing shoulder injury of the police officer, which had to be operated on last week.

Kite was sentenced to three months’ community detention, 12 months’ supervision and $250 hours’ community work.

He was also ordered to pay $593.39 in reparations for the ill-treatment of the dog.

He assaulted police and tried to kill a police dog. And he gets community detention. Pitiful.

Tags:

114 Responses to “A pitiful punishment”

  1. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    The prosecuting authorities can appeal the sentence if they wish. If they don’t then the judge must have been within the appropriate range.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Before Geoffrey Palmer’s interference in justice, there would have been a good capable cop, who would have hammered the shit out of these toerags, then a decent magistrate that would have given them three months’ detention centre, at least, maybe 0-2 years in borstal. What happened to our penalties . . . ask Palmer, he has a lot to answer for. It is interesting reading a couple of good books written by an ex-AOS Inspector, Forbes, he makes it abundantly clear what has gone wrong.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    But he’s a good boy really.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ciaron (1,434 comments) says:

    and $250 hours’ community work.

    Editor fail, or new SI unit?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Colville (2,272 comments) says:

    I am surprised the dog handler didnt “slip” and smash the guys teeth in.

    No one would have shed a tear.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    “If they don’t then the judge must have been within the appropriate range.”

    Then those judges should get out of their ivory towers and come up with a more appropriate range. This is just another example of why the NZ justice system is losing the respect of the public.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    I understood assaulting a Police dog was like assaulting a policeman.

    I would call Kite a feral but that’s being unfair to cats.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    These sentences only encourage criminality.The shit heads must be laughing at these sentences.

    Judges doing this are not on the side of law abiding society.

    If it’s within the “appropriate range” then who ever came up with that is also a crim hugger.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. secondcumming (93 comments) says:

    Can hardly wait for the WOBH headline when HE gets hold of this :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The police dog was attacking him halfwit.

    1. He was attacked by a police dog.

    2. He was tasered.

    3. He was beaten up by the police.

    The judge would have taken all that into account.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “I am surprised the dog handler didnt “slip” and smash the guys teeth in.?”

    Yeah maybe he was not gutless sadistic coward who gets off on standing around in a group beating up on defenseless people who only get in more trouble if the defend themselves.

    Many police are gutless wimps who have no personal authority or presence out of uniform. The job is a magnet for weak vicious authoritarians. Never trust a policeman.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. lazza (381 comments) says:

    Pitiful, pathetic and much more.

    This low life loser is one of a number who from an early record that includes the mistreatment of animals go on to become felons of the first order, some end up murderers.

    I trust the Magistrate who wimped out in this case now has many sleepless nights pondering this possibility.

    Maybe next time, a sentence that recognises the high risks of feral reoffending will be meted out.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “the mistreatment of animals go on to become felons of the first order, some end up murderers.”

    lazza, the dog was attacking him idiot. You are a disgusting authoritarian sadist and way more of a threat to society that a burglar. Scum of the earth.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Do we know what the supervision will entail? What courses or counselling he will have to do? Was there a restorative justice process involved? Did he make apologies to the cop (and dog!) before sentencing? What submissions were made by counsel in mitigation? What did the judge say when he gave his reasons for the penalty?

    None of these things are covered by the report. They could have been, easily enough, and until they are we are left with the aggravating features only.

    Before Geoffrey Palmer’s interference in justice, there would have been a good capable cop, who would have hammered the shit out of these toerags,

    It still happens and it is still appalling.  There is no excuse whatsoever for Police to engage in summary justice, and it is not a good thing.  The Police must be the first people to uphold the law, not the only people allowed to break it at will.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. peterwn (3,275 comments) says:

    I suspect he narrowly avoided a ‘strike’ since none of the offences were a ‘strike’ offence although taken together a ‘strike’ would have been warranted.

    Colville – a police dog handler would be extremely wary and cautious in this regard. A police dog handler is at a high risk of facing serious charges (10-20% chance) resulting from his duties (even if the little s**ts involved deserves it), a situation which no ordinary employee would tolerate. In one case I am aware of, it would not have been surprising if H or H2 pressed hard for a prosecution via a compliant Commissioner even though the handler had a strong ‘self defence’ defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Sorry, I am a bit grumpy today because I am working and have just had to turn down a round of golf…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Paulus (2,632 comments) says:

    Pathetic Judgement – sadly though typical now.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    Ah, c’mon now, the guy strangled a 100kg trained killer.

    He is not a lightweight to do that.

    Anyway, the question the Judge may have asked is, why was the dog used when the suspects were contained in a house?

    Police arrived and let a police dog into the property.

    Kite became enraged and attacked the police dog, grabbing it around the neck and strangling it, Judge Bergseng said.

    What was the justification for using the dog when the dogs are supposed to be constrained and under the control of the handler.
    let a police dog into the property.

    On the surface it seems the police fucked up.

    They simply do not have an open ticket to promote violence and canine abuse upon people.

    Now watch the down ticks.Eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    After the beating, dog attack and tasering, he should have been convicted and discharged. The cops can not expect to dish out their own street justice then have the person subjected to the law. The police are violent sadistic thugs who regularly dish out beatings.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Kea: Your name tells it all . . . how many lags have you done, and are you employed, I doubt it!

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    A police dog handler is at a high risk of facing serious charges (10-20% chance)

    That is an interesting statistic.  Where does it come from?  I take it you mean that between 10 and 20 times out of every hundred that a dog is used operationally the handler faces serious charges?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Bad luck FES.
    For me.
    A morning in front of the box watching the test.
    Sadly the afternoon in the office.
    On the bright side – golf Sunday with an invitation to my firms banks corporate box in the afternoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. lazza (381 comments) says:

    There There Kea. Review your medication … and maybe try TM. Doggies are cute … No?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    Does the crime count as a “strike” under the ‘Three strikes” law?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    If I were the minister of Police I would order that a very steep flight of stairs be built in every Police station in the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    53 Killing or injuring Police dogs

    person who intentionally kills, maims, wounds, or otherwise injures a Police dog without lawful authority or reasonable excuse commits an offence.

    (2) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 24 months, to a fine not exceeding $15,000, or to both.

    The maximum he could have got is 24 months, and to get somewhere in that vicinity he would have had to have killed the dog.  Maiming or wounding would result in smaller sentences, so a prison sentence for choking a police dog would surely be in the region of less than 6 months.  That means the judge then has to consider whether CD or Home D are appropriate, both of which entail a loss of liberty (although less of one than imprisonment, at least with CD)

    The size of the fine is interesting, as it is much greater than you would normally find going along with a maximum term of 24 months. 

    It seems to me that the politicians should have given this a more serious penalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. chuk (40 comments) says:

    And what chance is there of the reparations being paid?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Colville (2,272 comments) says:

    Kea. You are pathetic. Crim cuddling appologist.

    Yeah he must have been a gnats cu*t hair off getting a strike. Attacked a Cop and had a weapon but didnt use it?

    There were two crims which is, I assume, what saved Kite from the dental work requirement.

    Edit. I am rafting this arvo, then a beer watching cricket, then chasing Bambi in the morning. Purrfect!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    alex,

    I am in the wrong job! On the plus side, it is private RMA work, just a bit urgent. I had forgotten about the cricket; will put the radio on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Peterwn: although this POS was not charged with a “strike” offence – from the facts given that was not an option – this story is an excellent example of why 3S was necessary to restrict judicial discretion.

    Kea: Where exactly does it say – either in the extract posted by DPF or elsewhere – that this scrote was “beaten up” by the cops? If you know more about this incident than has been reported then do please share with us.

    I know a police dog handler slightly. He tells me that every time the dog is released he has to do a bunch of paperwork about why and how he did that…not as much as when one of his colleagues fires a taser, but close. If this particular handler was guilty of “over vigorous play” no doubt the leftie media would have lept on it, and THAT would have been the story.

    And for the record NO, I dont believe the police are always blameless.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Kea, what’s wrong? You’re not usually such a sour bitch in the morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Edit. I am rafting this arvo, then a beer watching cricket, then chasing Bambi in the morning. Purrfect!

    Guns and booze. Quick call the cops and set the dog on him.

    Jack5, the problem is I know too much. You might be surprised at my work history.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    Never mind FES you can upgrade you dinner tonight in celebration of Wiarangi day with the penalty pay, take a lover out shooting on your day in lieu, bring her/him home if you are of a mind, it is not all bad having to work because you are shit at time management in past days.
    Oh and stop whining but keep up your insightful comments here on KB.

    Smiles Gd

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Pitiful is right. Sadly, I’m not surprised.
    Also in the news, the pyscho who used a crossbow to shoot an arrow through a cats head was given diversion (ie nothing) as a sentence.
    Oh and he was given name suppression as well (got to take care of his feelings).
    Our courts treat animal creulty as a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    DG, the guy got caught, roughed up and charged. You know dam well CD is not seen as a soft option. He is paying for what he did fair and square. You also know Judges can not “throw the book at him” as it would simply open up grounds for appeal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Kea: Eagerly waiting for you to explain how the cops “attacked” this defendant…as opposed to trying to prevent him killing the dog and then arrest him…

    Ah…I see you are now saying he was “roughed up”…that tends to happen when you violently resist arrest…and while the sentence may be within the range available, it’s clearly at the low end..

    And au contraire, “Community Detention: is less onerous than the “Periodic Detention” it replaced…neither compare in impact to a few months in the pokey…which is why defendants’ lawyers seek CD so vigorously…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    DPF is even more nonsensical than normal. Anyone being attacked by a vicious dog is going to try to protect themselves…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    DG, the way the story is being portrayed he “attacked” the dog. But you know dam well that is dishonest. The dog was attacking him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    I’m eagerly waiting for kea to give us her “work history”.The history that makes her such an expert on so many posts on this blog.

    She’s put it out there. Let’s have it then.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Mobile Michael (452 comments) says:

    Joseph Simpson is still one of the most notorious and revile criminals in NZ for his cowardly shooting of the police dog Luke in 1983. How any judge can not send someone to jail for harming a police dog makes you wonder if he is completely out of touch with societal norms.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    DPF is even more nonsensical than normal. Anyone being attacked by a vicious dog is going to try to protect themselves…

    No they don’t get it. They are too busy sucking cop-cock. I wish they would live out their fantasy to be dominated by authority in a whore house and not on our streets.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. elscorcho (154 comments) says:

    In my view attacking a police dog is worse than assaulting a police officer.
    The dog has no choice; it is doing the job it was trained for, and it gets assaulted for its trouble. All the dog wants is the praise and love of its handler, and it gets this shit?
    Anybody convicted of assaulting a police dog should lose a limb (their choice) which gets turned into tucker for the next batch of puppies at the college in Trentham

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. elscorcho (154 comments) says:

    PS Kea…
    if you do not try to resist a police dog it will not maul you, it will not do anything. It is trained to bring you to the ground and prevent your resistance.
    Play dead. The police dog is an officer of the law and it is your duty not to resist his performance of that duty (or her, there are a couple of bitches)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    you can upgrade you dinner tonight in celebration of Wiarangi day with the penalty pay, take a lover out shooting on your day in lieu

    Eh?  I am a Barrister, which means that I am self employed.  I get neither penalty pay (not that lawyers do anyway) nor TOIL.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    ….”if you do not try to resist a police dog it will not maul you, it will not do anything. It is trained to bring you to the ground and prevent your resistance”…..

    Ever seen the police officer designated as the “bad guy” during training exercises? He’s the one wrapped up in about three inches of canvas & kapok.

    News Flash! The dog doesn’t stop & ask you if you want to go quietly….it sinks its teeth into the nearest limb & holds on until the handler orders it to ‘release’.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    “Community Detention: is less onerous than the “Periodic Detention” it replaced

    That first part is correct, but the present form of Community Work was the replacement for Periodic Detention.  CD was more a development of Home Detention.

    I am not sure that defence lawyers vigorously seek anything.   The clients might prefer it, though I haven’t really seen a preference for CD over Community Work.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    F E Smith @ 11.52am

    It could have been worse…..you may have chosen farming as a career. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    you may have chosen farming as a career

    Well, I do like working with cows, although not as much as Johnboy likes his sheep!

    It was an option I thought about, having grown up in a rural area, but I am glad that I didn’t go down that path.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    kowtow (6,260 comments) says:
    February 6th, 2014 at 11:22 am
    I’m eagerly waiting for kea to give us her “work history”.The history that makes her such an expert on so many posts on this blog.

    Let’s hear yours first

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    big bruv (12,025 comments) says:
    February 6th, 2014 at 10:51 am
    If I were the minister of Police I would order that a very steep flight of stairs be built in every Police station in the country.

    OK, so why even have law or courts ?

    Trouble is crimes and the police are creations of law. Do away with the law and you do away with the police. You seem a bit confused about how it all works and just have a general urge to hurt people.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Kea: Been out shopping; dropped the daughter off at her social engagement; came home…STILL eagerly waiting for you to tell us why you think the police “attacked” this particular scrote…I assume you have nothing, and that you think “roughed up while resisting arrest” and “attacked” are the same thing…Please confirm…

    There is actually an upside to this particular form of judicial leniency…when it comes to “strike” offences, the more lenient the Hon. Judge is at stage one and two, the sooner the villain hits the mandatory maximum at stage three…we expected it to take up to ten years before we got a third striker…instead – thanks to Judges – we will almost certainly get one this year…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David, the fact he was set upon by a dog is not in dispute. Nor is the fact he was tasered. And you know the police would have roughed him up after the fuss he made. Don’t take me for a fool.

    The sentencing Judge would have taken all that into account and CD is not a soft sentence in the eyes of the law. That is simply your personal opinion, not a legal one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Kea: As I suspected, you have no more information than in DPF’s orignal post…and I dont “know” anything about this dickhead being attacked…I suspect one or more cops got him facedown on the ground using the holds they are trained to apply, and that another cop then handcuffed him…all the while he was struggling violently…If excessive force had been used you can bet your arse one of my “human rights for criminals” brethren in the law would be all over the case…the fact they are not speaks volumes…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    ..I missed the bit about tasering…as I have said earlier, any cop who discharges a taser has to fill out a ream of paperwork regarding why and in what circumstances he discharged it…Like anyone, cops hate paperwork… you can be pretty certain it was fired in this instances because the methods of subduing the offender I mentioned in my 12.40 comment werent working…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David, so are you telling Kea that this nasty man just set upon a police dog that was quietly going about its business ?

    This is the sort of reasoning I expect from my religious mates. Do better ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Kea: gosh, you normally argue much better than this…READ THE ORGINAL POST…the scrote was INSIDE SOMEONE’S HOUSE armed with a weapon which can be lethal…I suppose you could say he was “going about his (criminal) business” when “attacked” by a police dog…

    “Capitalist running dogs commit act of provocation and oppression by violating the airspace of the motherland” for: ” a passenger aircraft accidently flew into soviet airspace”…that kind of writing

    Most of us would see slanting this event in that way as the kind of writing the Soviet press indulged in re the Yanks at the height of the cold war…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Bad__Cat (140 comments) says:

    No, No, the guy was totally innocent, going about his lawful business when out of nowhere the vicious out of control rabid dog leaped out of the undergrowth and attacked him. Happens to me all the time!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Sorry, stuck the edit in the wrong place…the last para. should be the penultimate one…

    Bad Cat: Exactly so sir/madam…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    There is actually an upside to this particular form of judicial leniency…when it comes to “strike” offences, the more lenient the Hon. Judge is at stage one and two, the sooner the villain hits the mandatory maximum at stage three…we expected it to take up to ten years before we got a third striker…instead – thanks to Judge

    I don’t think that is correct.  Not the bit about getting a third strike this year, but about so-called lenient sentences being responsible for offenders committing further offences.  When it comes to the strike offences, my experience is that offenders almost never give thought to the consequences until after the incident is over.  The idea that they might get a strike sentence from what they are going to do is, from what I understand and have seen, not a part of their thinking (if there actually is any thinking) prior to committing the offence.

    It might be more relevant with sexual offences, at least the pre-meditated ones, but with violence offences I don’t think it plays a part.

    Therefore, I do not think that ‘lenient’ sentencing can really be held responsible for the speed at which some people are achieving their third strike.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David Garrett, no you are misrepresenting my position.

    1. I am not siding with the burglar. I am simply pointing out a few realities.

    2. The sentence is not a soft one in terms of the law.

    3. He did not – attack- the dog. The dog attacked him and he fought back.

    4. The fact he deserved it does not change point (3)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    Dear David,
    Kite and his brother had gone to an empty house.

    with a knife and a screwdriver

    Now we have no idea if it was a real knife or a plastic one or Bowie knife or a table knife nor do we know what its intended purpose was. But sensationally we know it was claimed he had an knife. Nowhere does it say the policeman or the police dog were threatened with any knife nor do we have answers to if the policeman knew he had a knife before releasing the dog.

    Kite became enraged and attacked the police dog,

    Well if you have spent anytime with pig dogs you would know occasionally the males can become out of control after pig kills. They can be blinded by blood lust and they are fearful animals. Assuming this dog was repulsed by Kite and it attacked him again I can understand that a person who knew what he was about could do what was needed to neutralize their attacker.
    As I pointed out previously we have no explanation about the control of the dog and reading between the charge sheets one would suspect that the dog was out of any immediate control (i.e. the handler was outside of the house with no lead maintained and therefore outside of guidelines) which would explain the Judges reading of the incident.

    The question still remains, as I alluded to previously, why was the dog released into a house that was empty apart from two young men.

    Was it a knee jerk “I’ll get you out” or were their other provicating circumstances?

    Its worth noting that the inference is that more than one policeman was at the incident. Did ti matter if one ran away for later?
    Helmet cams would have ensured identities were available It goes on.

    Now I’m not excusing either party. Just despise piss poor information and sensationalist reporting that panders to the red necks who like the Police to be all powerful without due regard to the Law and safety of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Some sentencing Judges will point out that CD is not a soft sentence and can be harder than prison in some ways. I disagree and think that is said for the benefit of the public gallery and press. However, that is what is often said.

    The point is the sentence is not soft [pitiful] in a legal sense, as claimed in DPF’s post. That is a subjective opinion based on feelings, not on law.

    It seems the Judge shares my view…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Kea

    I’m the daughter if a retired cop who at one stage was a dog handler. You talk b/s.

    During my fathers career some low life gang member and his equally as low life mates decided to go out and smash up a cop – complete with baseball bats. The six low lives set upon 2 cops. The cops didn’t have a chance. They survived. The younger 23 year old cop took off. My father stayed in the car while the low lives dished it to him because he thought the younger cop was under the wheels.

    My father was never the same.

    Just take a moment at what the cops see every day. Kids beaten up and on occasion murdered. Women beaten by low life thugs. In some cases the women go back to the thugs. Then the pathetic thugs try everything to get out of it because their mother didn’t give them a cuddle at 12.

    The low lives also cowardly called our home abuse me and my siblings – one even asked us if we wanted a dead daddy. The low life said that to an eight year old.

    On occasion if cops retaliate then its understandable.

    I don’t agree with everything the cops do by a long shot. I know (well certainly when my late father was serving) they faced some sickening situations. Our Police force is mild compared to Aussie and the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Kea

    The dogs are trained to bring someone down not to attack them randomly. Usually an arm gets hurt.

    One way, but unfortunately they don’t train them to do it, would be to attack the genitals. Then no dogs would be hurt and after all these police dogs contribute more to society than who they bring down.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Viking2 , maybe Kite went to investigate a possible burglary or cries for help. Maybe he was called to the address by the owner to do some maintenance which explains the tools. The police then arrived and set the dog onto him. Knowing they had stuffed up they then charged the victim with hurting the attacking dog !

    All we know is he was in a house when armed police set upon him.

    He probably just needed a HUG ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Joanne, I am not sure why you think I am talking shit ? What specifically are you referring to ?

    Sorry to hear what happened to those cops. It is disgusting when a group of men gang up on and beat up someone armed with batons. Gutless cowards arn’t they ?

    Do you know that Police work is very safe. It is not even in the top 20 of dangerous jobs. More people die in forestry and farming if a few months than the entire history of policing in NZ. Same deal with injuries. It is very very safe work. That is a statistical fact not an opinion and not based on feeeeeeeeeeelings.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    FES: You misunderstand what I am saying, which is – in a nutshell – that Judges’ leniency will cause there to be a third striker much more quickly than was expected to be the case.

    I am sure you can follow this scenario: Villain commits street agg robbery and gets his first strike, with a sentence of 3 years because of his age and the fact he hasn’t offended similarly before. He sucessfully applies for parole, and is released after 18 months. Six weeks later he commits another street agg rob, and gets a second strike sentence of 5 years, served without parole. Thus after a total of under seven years he is back on the street, facing a 14 year sentence if he commits another agg robb.

    For reasons I am a little unclear on, we actually have about 5 second strikers walking around on the street right now. One or more of those is almost certain to commit another strike offence sooner or later. Because they are in a position to do so – thanks to the judge at second strike being lenient – they face the full consequences of the 3S law sooner that we thought.

    You note I say nothing about deterrence. As I am sure you know, deterrence is impossible to measure. Who can say why this or that first striker didn’t (doesn’t) go on to commit a second and then a third strike? The reality is I don’t particularly care if deterrence works or not…the law exists to lock away violent thugs who can’t or wont change their ways from the rest of us. As I said, if it deters some – or even most – of them, then that’s great. For society as well as them personally.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David Garrett , ok what would you say is an appropriate sentence given the facts as you understand them ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    One way, but unfortunately they don’t train them to do it, would be to attack the genitals.

    Nasty piece of work. Did daddy teach you that too ?

    In your world a potentially innocent person could have their genitals ripped off by a dog. Even if they are guilty, do you consider ripping off of genitals, before hearing any defense or the circumstances, is an appropriate penalty in a civilised society ?

    Maybe it was just a little kid running away due to a fear of dogs. Someone who had committed no crime. And you want them torn to shreds with life changing injuries, because they tried to escape the police ? I suggest you are a bigger threat to society than Mr Kite is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Just despise piss poor information and sensationalist reporting that panders to the red necks who like the Police to be all powerful without due regard to the Law and safety of others.

    Best part of any comment today.

    FES: You misunderstand what I am saying, which is – in a nutshell – that Judges’ leniency will cause there to be a third striker much more quickly than was expected to be the case.

    Ok, I went to motivation rather than straight numbers.  Fair point.  I am still going to disagree with you, however.  Parliament sets a maximum sentence for any offence.  It does not expect, so we are told, for the maximum to be imposed upon every person convicted of an offence.  So there must, as a matter of course, be variations within sentences for the same offence, depending on the criteria set out in the Sentencing Act. 

    You know all of that, of course, but I am merely working through my reasoning.

    So, if the offender in your scenario got 3 years for a street agg rob then he the facts of the offence, plus the aggravating and mitigating circumstances must have meant that was the appropriate sentence.  Now, as you know the maximum for Agg Rob is 14 years.  If the street agg rob was, say, a situation where he and a mate took a packet of cigarettes off another person of similar age, then would 3 years be acceptable, or would you simply say that it was an agg rob and therefore he should be getting 10 years for that? 

    He is eligible for parole at one third, so he must have been knocked back at least once to serve half of his sentence.  Given the length you posit it must only have been one refusal prior to release.

    If he then goes out and, together with a mate, robs a kid of another packet of cigarettes and a cheap cell phone, then he has committed another aggravated robbery.  Ok, so if it is six weeks after release he will also be committing an offence whilst on parole, so that warrants an uplift in sentence, so he gets 5 years and serves all of it.  Is five years too short for that level of offending?

    That is how you get to be walking around with a second strike after a short period of time.  Commit a couple of strike offences at the lowest end of the scale and you won’t necessarily serve very long before you are out again.  Nothing to do with the leniency of judges, but withthe fact that.

    By way of an example, I know of a man who is currently charged with indecent assault after swatting his ex on the butt with an open hand.  The maximum is 7 years, what should he get as a sentence?  No previous for violence or sexual offending at all, but it is a strike offence.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Richard X

    I did not put out my “work history” as grounds for making ridiculous unfounded attacks on the police.

    Kea troll did.

    She needs to put up or shut up.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. elscorcho (154 comments) says:

    Dogs will NOT rip if you do not resist. They will hold the bite but will not maul.

    And you don’t need to fill in a “ream” for taser or dog incidents. Pretty simple forms actually.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. elscorcho (154 comments) says:

    F E Smith,

    If judges applied criteria properly we should expect a bell-curve distribution of sentences e.g for aggravated robbery, the majority should be around 7 years. This is not the case; the majority are less than half so we have an abnormal distribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Kea: This guy – together with a mate – was in someone’s house. They were armed with a screwdriver and a knife – both of which can be lethal weapons – and they also had a firearm to hand, although not it seems when Kite was arrested (Included in the charges is discharging a fiream near a dwelling)

    In my view being in someone’s house is a very serious crime in itself. I support the “castle” doctrine, which holds that in this scenario, if Kite had been shot and killed by the owner/occupier while inside the dwelling, the householder ought not to be charged with anything.

    If these two scrotes knew the place was unoccpied, why were they armed?

    Accepting that I do not know all the facts – either of the offending or the offender’s circumstances – I would have thought 18 months – 2 years in jail would be an appropriate sentence.

    el schorcho: Quite so…which is why one Elijah Whaanga is currently on the street with TWO strike offences for Agg robb under his belt, and facing 14 years when he commits the next one…regardless of Radio NZ bleeding all over the airwaves on his behalf

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    If judges applied criteria properly we should expect a bell-curve distribution of sentences e.g for aggravated robbery, the majority should be around 7 years. This is not the case; the majority are less than half so we have an abnormal distribution.

    The logic is correct, but it doesn’t really work like that, does it?   The fact is that each sentence is case specific, so it would be wrong to expect that the majority would be clustered in the middle, even though it is good mathematics. 

    However, I am interested when you say that the majority of sentences are less than half; do you have access to a numerative sentencing tracker that shows such a trend?  If so, can you please tell me where/how I can get it?  I confess that my use of the sentencing tracker in the law library is limited to finding similar cases, rather than trends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    In my view being in someone’s house is a very serious crime in itself. I support the “castle” doctrine, which holds that in this scenario, if Kite had been shot and killed by the owner/occupier while inside the dwelling, the householder ought not to be charged with anything.

    I agree completely.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David Garrett, you are all over the place ! You keep making comments I agree with. I am simply pointing out that the dog attacked him, not the other way around. It is a fact. I am not saying the dog should not have been used, or that the guy did not deserve what he got. The dog DID attack him. Get your head around it ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Katie, kea made no such claim. You are telling fibs again, which is to be expected from someone who thinks mythical stories and trolls are real. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Kea, they weren’t men they were low lives..

    You don’t like cops. I can see that.

    My father did not teach me about going for the genitals. Actually it was Dad’s brother – a kaumatua of a Marae shortly after it was defaced by low lifes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. peterwn (3,275 comments) says:

    F E Smith – My statistic on police dog handlers facing charges? Several years ago I was sort of involved in a police dog handler prosecution. I did some Googling and found that in the (then) recent times about three of the ten (or so – as far as I can remember) Wellington-Wairarapa area police dog handlers faced criminal prosecutions.

    If I was one of them I think I would chuck in the police and find a nice security job elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    peterwn,

    I don’t think that anecdote backs up your claimed statistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Joanne, I am neutral about cops. I think all government authorities should be regarded with healthy suspicion and not put on a pedestal. I am not anti the police, trust me on that :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I am struggling to understand why my first comment is worth 14 downticks. It is purely a statement of fact! Or is it that I failed to include the apparently requisite view that the Police should have intentionally caused him bodily harm whilst making the arrest?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    el scorcho: Your comments suggest you are a currently serving policeman…if so, I would be very interested in your and your colleagues view of the “three strikes” law…As you would expect, I ask every policemen I encounter – which obviously isnt many – what they they think of it…Speaking always off the record, I have yet to encounter one who wasn’t in favour…With one glaring exception: the Secretary of President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor…he doesn’t like it. But the O’Connor apparently fancies a political career…as labour MP

    So what do the cops you work with think, el scorcho?

    FES: Pay no heed to the downticks mate…there are dickheads here who give them regardless of the sense of any particular comment, just to show how much they dislike the commenter…

    Alhtough I did manage 38-0 yesterday, when I suggested Key should copy clark, and no longer subject himself to being insulted and threatened at Waitangi every year…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I would be very interested in your and your colleagues view of the “three strikes” law

    I am more interested in what the Plumbers and Drainlayers have to say about it. It is equally relevant and unlikely to be tainted by the cops them – and – us attitude. As an occupational group the police are poor judges of character and situations. Their views are distorted by constant exposure to lifes failures and police culture.

    They are employed to enforce the law, but are increasingly acting as a lobby group and social engineers. They are not qualified or employed to do that. And they do it poorly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    “F E Smith (3,213 comments) says:
    February 6th, 2014 at 2:59 pm
    I am struggling to understand why my first comment is worth 14 downticks. It is purely a statement of fact!”

    Cry me a river ! I think I have set a new record for down ticks on a thread :)

    There is one thing bias fanatics hate more than any thing. Facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Hang on. These scrotes were in a house unlawfully, no question. Police were called, as one would expect.

    But I’m confused why the first thing they did was send a dog in. They had a Taser. Did they call for the men to come out? Did they threaten to release the dog before doing so? It seems an odd sequence of events.

    It’s akin to a police officer simply walking up to someone they intend to arrest and batoning them. I’d be pissed off too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    rouppe, according to the resident law and order freaks the nasty man went after the poor wee dog and attacked it first.

    It scares me to see how idiotic and hysterical people get on these issues. They are totally unable to see anything other that Police=good. No matter what the police do they support it unconditionally. These people are no defenders of society, law or decency. They are just nasty little people who get off on the idea of people being punished.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Kea, I subcontracted to Police for a number of years in the 90’s.I had opportunity to spend significant time with sworn members of wide experience, up to Inspector level.I became a huge supporter of police over that time.

    Recent times, not so much. I’m in court tomorrow to defend a pissy traffic infringement. Despite providing written reference to the section of the law that allows my manoeuvre, and a written statement from an independent third party that confirms my assertions, the constable has persisted with the charge.

    It is blindingly obvious that this is one he ought to have dropped. I see his decision to not do that as arrogant bullying. Even if I get spanked tomorrow I’m sick of arrogant pricks like this constable having their behaviour validated by the fact most people would simply give up. I can afford the fine and the court costs. I intend to humiliate him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    rouppe: How do you know the incident didn’t go down as you say – with some justification – it should have, with invitations to come out etc. preceding sending in the dog?

    With our ever shortening attention spans, and the “if it bleeds it leads” philosophy of newrooms, including those un-gory details would have given the story much less “punch”, and made it twice as long. Remember one of the offenders had already discharged a firearm outside the house (go back and READ the original post)…presumably the police didn’t know what the offenders were armed with…I would have thought sending in the dog if they refused to come out would have been eminently reasonable, if not very generous…The “castle” doctrine holds that these “scrotes” – both your term and mine – had no business being in the house in the first place, and therefore arguably should have to take what was coming to them.

    And good on you for defending the traffic charge…I quite agree that individual policemen CAN develop a God complex…they need to be reminded they are human, just like the people they police

    (sorry to dissappoint Kea; I made it clear in my first comment that I am not and never have been a “the police are always right” man…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David Garrett , it worried me that even someone like you could not understand that the dog attacked the crook. Not the other way around. He defended himself as anyone would.

    That is not taking the burglars side and it is not anti police. It is a fucking fact !

    As for the sentence being too soft… compared to what ? To other sentences for similar offending ? Or just because you
    feeeeel it was too soft ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I intend to humiliate him.

    rouppe, traffic Court is not that exciting, but good luck. The Court costs will be $130.00 on top of the fine. Not sure if you get a $50.00 offender levy on top of that. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    The trouble with defending minor traffic charges is that you are up against not just the Police but also the JPs hearing the case! You generally need to appeal the matter when you do lose it in order to get justice.

    That said, good luck with the case, rouppe.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    Mr Garrett, you are losing your grip.

    On the charge of discharging a firearm near a dwelling, which related to an incident on September 30, he was ordered to forfeit the air rifle.

    Kite had been discharging the firearm at a target on the fence, when he missed the target and hit a corrugated iron fence.
    ===============================
    Remember one of the offenders had already discharged a firearm outside the house (go back and READ the original post)

    I went back and re read the story and it seems that you may well be wrong.

    On the charge of discharging a firearm near a dwelling, which related to an incident on September 30, he was ordered to forfeit the air rifle.

    Kite had been discharging the firearm at a target on the fence, when he missed the target and hit a corrugated iron fence.

    Judge John Bergseng said the dog has difficulty moving and has still not returned to work after the attack on September 26.

    The way it reads seems to me that the riffle incident was at another time and another place.

    Just saying> :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    FES: Not always! I got off a speeding charge – with a Laser no less – in front of two JP’s….the arrogant cop (who had pinged me at 4 am on the Southern Motorway) made the mistake of saying “please yourself Sir, we always win…” when I told him I planned to defend it…

    It cost me more in expert witness fees (said silly cop also said he could read a personalized number plate, and know the colour and make of the car at 480 metres… at night) and in waiting time than the fine would have, but the satisfaction was immense….

    Eat your heart out PC Don Raynes…

    Viking: guilty as charged,…clearly I did not read the report carefully enough either…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    ‘A neighbour phoned the police because they knew the house was supposed to be vacant.

    Police arrived and let a police dog into the property.’

    No mention that the a firearm was discharged at this particular house. It is said that the neighbours contacted police because they knew the house was supposed to be vacant. If there had been any suggestion of a firearm being involved or fired it would have been a AOS call out. Additionally, ‘armed with a screw driver and knife’ might have been items found in the house after the arrest, either ‘weapon’ could have been used fatally against the dog or it’s handler. As vk points out we don’t know much about this case. It may even be that Kite and his brother were evicted tenants, returning to ‘reclaim’ seized property. It’s not even reported if the dog handler ordered the brothers to come out or that he would set the door on them, if there were lights on which enabled the neighbours to see the offenders, or even if they recognised them. ‘Good’ headline though that invites the suggestion that the sentence was light but without providing any reasons from the hearing why. Who knows Kea’s line on ‘summary justice’ might be right and something that figured in the Judge’s reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    If someone tried to break into your house and was attacked by your dog, the police would kill the dog for attacking the burglar. So don’t give me the animal welfare crap.

    Oh and the pricks might charge you too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Eat your heart out PC Don Raynes…

     Well played, sir!!!  Great story, but from the sounds of it you can understand the point I was making.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    ‘Good’ headline though that invites the suggestion that the sentence was light but without providing any reasons from the hearing why.

    Exactly, and which is the point that I and others alluded to earlier.  We should never presume that anything that the media prints in relation to the Courts is in any way the full picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. tuesday88 (11 comments) says:

    If someone tried to strangle my dog i would taser them in the balls. The prick who “lost his temper” deserves punishment equal to what he did to the dog – a good hard strangling. I volunteer to do it!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    The guy sounds like a complete fuck up, one of (God’s/evolution’s) mistakes.

    Just take him down to the rubbish dump and shoot him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    I take it from your subtle hints that you not a fan of the Coppers then Kea?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Longknives, I am neither a fan or a detractor. What annoys me is the way some people put them on a pedestal and consider them above any criticism. We have a pretty good police force, but in order to keep them that way we need to keep an eye on them and hold them to account. They are a necessary evil. One thing they are not is a force for good. That depends entirely on the laws they are enforcing and who is in power. They serve the government of the day, not the people. That is a fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Well, that’s the most sensible comment you have made all day…

    But would you rather they enforced the laws made by parliament – whether they agreed with them or not – or just the laws they liked?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David Garrett , the laws made by parliament.

    I consider the police already have way too much influence on law and public policy. They also fancy themselves as social engineers. Take for example wasting [our] money and time on campaigning against legal highs and intimidating private business owners legally selling the crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Well having been an MP – albeit not for very long – I can tell you that I saw very little evidence of the Police having much influence on public policy..their veiws and submissions obviously carried considerably weight, but by no means did they have any kind of veto on what laws pass and dont…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    David Garrett, so did they have not much influence, or did they have considerable weight ? Make up your mind man ;)

    I know lots of cops. They are generally ok people, but tend to lose themselves a bit in the culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    kbers

    How can kea troll reconcile her last post with her 1033?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. ciaron (1,434 comments) says:

    I don’t know kowtow, but if Marni is anything like in person as she has been in this thread, it may go some way as to explaining why no one in physics seems to want her…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    You’re right, David, so let’s increase penalties for animal abuse in general.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    I’m not one to knock the porky bastards but, “assaulted police” is a euphemism for ‘we picked him up bodily and rammed him head first into a concrete power pole’, remember Johnny Menzies? He was said to have “assaulted police” too. And strangling any dog that is intent on stripping the flesh from ones extremities is called self-defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    http://ketewestcoast.peoplesnetworknz.info/image_files/0000/0000/1947/img-menzies.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “person who intentionally kills, maims, wounds, or otherwise injures a Police dog without lawful authority or reasonable excuse commits an offence.”

    That a police dog is chewing on your arteries is a “reasonable excuse” to kill it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote