NZ First self-defence policy

July 18th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A hardline law and order policy by NZ First would offer greater protection to homeowners, farmers and shop keepers who shoot to kill intruders during home invasions or burglaries.

Along with a 40-year mandatory non-parole sentence for premeditated murder, NZ First wants the Crimes Act amended to give certainty over the use of “reasonable force” for self-defence.

Ahead of the party’s annual convention this weekend, law and order spokesman Richard Prosser said the policy was a response to a string of incidents that had seen farmers and shopkeepers in court over their use of firearms or even hockey sticks against would-be robbers.

Mr Prosser said so-called “castle doctrine” laws in some US states, which saw Texan Joe Horn acquitted after his 2007 fatal shooting of two men who had burgled his neighbour’s home, were “so over the top that it wouldn’t be something that I think anyone in New Zealand would give consideration to”.

“But what I do think people have a desire for is the ability to actually defend themselves and their families in their own homes.”

Mr Prosser wants a regime based on that introduced in Ireland in 2011 following controversy over the 2004 shooting of an Irish traveller by a farmer.

NZ First’s proposal would allow for homeowners to use “any firearm that is lawfully available to that person” to defend themselves.

It is unclear exactly what NZ First are proposing.

If they are proposing that you can legally shoot anyone illegally on your property, then I can not support that. The penalty for tresspassing and/or burglary should not be death.

If they are proposing that when a homeowner has a genuine fear for their safety, or their families, then they can use firearms for self-defence – I can back that. But shooting someone in the back, as they are leaving, is not self-defence (for example).

Tags: , ,

71 Responses to “NZ First self-defence policy”

  1. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Whatever the outcome, good to see Richard Prosser talking some real politics and not the watered down milky risk averse rhetoric that you customarily hear from National.

    Trouble is it won’t go down with his Labour Paryy allies either. They don’t care about protecting people from criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “……If they are proposing that you can legally shoot anyone illegally on your property, then I can not support that. The penalty for tresspassing and/or burglary should not be death…..”

    What about rape then?

    How serious is rape?

    Do you think Prosser cares about women as much as he does about their INSURED wealth?

    I’m with Redbaiter – Prosser is talking real politics.

    There’s no harm in Mr Craig saying that women should be allowed to carry firearms. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,705 comments) says:

    Sounds like remarkably unusual common sense from a usually nonsensical source.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Kill a home invader and maim a burglar. F@#$%^g oath!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    It is unclear exactly what NZ First are proposing.

    The Anti Asian wolf whistle is broken, he’s just testing some new lines. He’ll have the flu by 2:00pm and make a fool of himself again. Move on!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ROJ (125 comments) says:

    Texan policy from the 70’s – 1870’s !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. alwyn (440 comments) says:

    Are they suggesting that I should be allowed to shoot a New Zealand First candidate who comes door knocking during the election campaign?
    The thought of them being part of the Government, and Peters being in the cabinet, certainly scares the hell out of me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. peterwn (3,338 comments) says:

    “If they are proposing that when a homeowner has a genuine fear for their safety, or their families, then they can use firearms for self-defence – I can back that. But shooting someone in the back, as they are leaving, is not self-defence (for example).”

    This is already the law. See:
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328268.html

    Perhaps administration of self defence law needs to be streamlined. For example Crown Law should be less belligerent in prosecuting cases involving self defence (one Crown Prosecutor tried to mislead the jury in one such trial and IMO the District Court judge should have and did not call him out – I toned down my language here). I do not think interpretation of ‘reasonable force’ has been a problem in general – the problem has been obviously unreasonable force or application of ‘force’ once the ‘emergency’ situstion has ceased.

    Moreover, utmost urgency should be given to the police investigation and Crown Law to an alleged serious crime where self defence is claimed. For example ‘Constable A’ of Waitara was ‘cleared’ within hours whereas the Kurow constable and the Auckland pharmacist had to wait ages to see if they were going to be charged with murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gump (1,685 comments) says:

    The Castle Doctrine has led to some absurd outcomes in the US states that have legalized it.

    I think one of the strangest was a guy in Texas that paid $150 to an escort for sex. Something went wrong, she refused to refund his money, and then she left his apartment. He followed her outside and shot her in the neck – causing a wound which killed her. At his trial he used the Castle Doctrine to claim that he was justified in shooting her to defend his property (the $150 that he paid her) and he was acquited by a jury.

    There’s more information on this case – and others – on the Internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. m@tt (637 comments) says:

    “Mr Prosser wants a regime based on that introduced in Ireland in 2011 following controversy over the 2004 shooting of an Irish traveller by a farmer.”

    That seems pretty damn clear to me. And I’m no friend of NZ First but it actually seems really quite reasonable. I’m surprised.

    Here is the legislation he is referring to:
    Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    It is unclear exactly what NZ First are proposing.

    It’s not contained in this bit?

    Mr Prosser wants a regime based on that introduced in Ireland in 2011 following controversy over the 2004 shooting of an Irish traveller by a farmer.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Gump, having followed the Zimmerman case fairly closely, it would not surprise me if the reports of that incident and trial are wildly different from what actually happened. Did you have any, more specific information?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    The policy is not detailed yet but it wrong that a person defending him-self or his family with reasonable force is charged where police have killed people with obvious mental health problems do not get charged.

    I hope NZF looks more at law and order issues. We have had in the news a prominent New Zealander who pleaded guilty sexual assault getting discharged without conviction and permanent name suppression as Rodney wrote about in the herald on Sunday. Then another case of lawyer who gets permanent name suppression for kiddy fiddling.

    Too many of these decisions appear to seem like an old boys club. They or may not be but I am sure some would be and I call it corrupt.

    I hope NZF has a policy of only allowing permanent name suppression if the victim asks for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. gump (1,685 comments) says:

    @scrubone

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ciaron (1,450 comments) says:

    If someone is illegally in your house in the middle of the night David, I would back you shooting them in the back or the front or the leg or wherever, and then a second in the head to make sure they stay down. You are dealing with someone who has already broken into your house and you have absolutely no idea what their intentions are or what they are capable of.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    Why are so many people anti-Winston – because he tells lies?

    Big deal how many other MPs do not including various Cabinet Minsters including the PM.

    He gave his word on the smacking issues and he has broken it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    This is a good policy and a winner…so long as it is made very clear in law that the indemnity from prosecution only covers what happens INSIDE the house, and not just “on the property”…No-one has any business being inside someone’s house unless they are there with the consent of the owner…except perhaps if they are Police exercising a warrant..

    The problematic cases from overseas – such as Gump outlines at 11.21 – occurred OUTSIDE the house…plenty of people have a legitimate reason to be knocking on your front door: meter readers; people looking for a former owner or occupier; Girl Guides selling biscuits; people looking for directions; political canvassers seeking your vote…No-one has any business being inside your house unless you have invited them in..

    Section 55 of the Crimes Act already recognizes the special situation of a person’s “castle”, and allows an occupier to use “reasonable force” to prevent unauthorized entry to a dwelling house …A simple addition to that section would seem to be all that’s necessary:

    “(2) Any person may use such force as he deems necessary, including deadly force, against any person who is inside his or her dwelling house unlawfully or without the consent of the owner or occupier.”

    ciaron: Put much more succinctly than mine…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    I have no problem with self defence and would do whatever I could do and felt was necessary in whatever circumstances might arise, but giving the shooting of people a free pass is very risky territory.

    If someone is illegally in your house in the middle of the night David, I would back you shooting them in the back or the front or the leg or wherever, and then a second in the head to make sure they stay down. You are dealing with someone who has already broken into your house and you have absolutely no idea what their intentions are or what they are capable of.

    If Oscar Pistorius’s story is true that worked well for him, didn’t it.

    And it happens. Eg Rochester pastor shoots granddaughter, mistaken for intruder

    Authorities say he and his wife were asleep when they awoke to a noise outside about 11 p.m. Monday. The man grabbed his handgun and told his wife to call police as he went to investigate.

    Capt. Brian Winters says the grandfather saw a figure at the back door and fired at least two shots. The figure was actually the man’s 16-year-old granddaughter, who he thought was already inside the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “Along with a 40-year mandatory non-parole sentence for premeditated murder, ”

    The greens, mana, United, Maori and labour will love that lol

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ciaron (1,450 comments) says:

    Well, Pete, here we see in action the proper balance of things: you have the right to use force against an intruder, and you have the responsibility to identify that person as an intruder.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    This is from last year in the US.

    Stepdad who shot teen girl is decorated Fort Carson officer – December 26, 2013
    ““A man who told police he shot and killed his 14-year-old stepdaughter after mistaking her for a burglar is a 29-year-old Fort Carson officer with multiple deployments behind him and a Bronze Star for service.”

    Alzheimer’s Patient, Killed After Being Mistaken For Intruder: Cops – November 28, 2013

    Polk mom mistakes daughter for boyfriend, shoots and kills her – November 27, 2013

    Homeowner Says He Shot Renisha McBride in the Face By Accident – November 7, 2013
    “mistook Ms McBride for an intruder”

    High school track star shot and killed after jumping out of closet in prank gone horribly wrong: father – SEPTEMBER 8, 2013

    Orlando boy shoots, kills younger brother, 12, after mistaking him for a home invader – MARCH 23, 2013

    Caleb Gordley shot and killed in Sterling, Virginia – March 18, 2013
    “Sterling teenager shot and killed after entering wrong home: A Sterling teenager was shot and killed after he apparently entered a home thinking it was his own and was mistaken for a burglar or home invader. Police said Caleb Gordley, 16, had been drinking and entered a neighbor’s home through a back window.“

    Man mistakes wife for intruder, shoots her – March 10, 2013
    “The Yakima County sheriff’s office says a man mistook his pregnant wife for an intruder at their Terrace Heights home and shot her, leaving her in critical condition. The woman ended up dying from the shooting.”

    Lawton, Oklahoma: Man shoots wife; claims he thought she was intruder — September 24, 2013

    Teen shot after relative mistakes him for an intruder – November 18, 2013

    http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/01/how-often-are-people-mistaken-as-home-invaders-and-accidentally-shot/

    It would be good to review law related to self defence but giving people the right to shoot intruders would need to be very carefully considered.

    An upsurge in firearms especially with inexperienced people would raise risks, possibly substantially.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    ..And before Dr Judy arrives and calls me unbalanced again, I do not believe the acquittal of the “john” featured in gump’s link was justified…shooting someone who is outside the house attempting to leave is a very different matter…in fact in that case, since the hooker was there at his invitation, he would obviously not be allowed to shoot her inside the house either, over what is basically a dispute over a debt…

    PG: I think everyone in the world sees through Pistorious’ claim…and again, his victim was there at his invitation, so no defence for him either…

    ciaron: Puts it very well…In my own case, I am pushing 60 and sleep very heavily because I need sleeping pills to sleep…getting to the toilet and back in the early hours is a bit of mission in my befuddled state…I wouldn’t have a hope in hell against a young fit burglar…and a woman my age or even younger would have even less show… In those circumstances, a burglar should be required to accept what might be dished out…

    PG: those cases certainly make sobering reading…but as you well know, the US is a country with an obsession with firearms and the right to “keep and bear them”… You are right that a change that NZF seeks is dangerous territory…but that doesn’t mean it can’t be negotiated…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nigel Kearney (1,100 comments) says:

    Definitely inside the house. Maybe also outside the house if there is clearly criminal intent, e.g. the farmer who shot someone trying to steal a quad bike. But the exact wording to enable this may be difficult. It shouldn’t matter if you shoot them in the front or back or how many times. Nor should it matter whether possession/storage of the firearm was legal in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    you have the right to use force against an intruder, and you have the responsibility to identify that person as an intruder.

    Yes – isn’t that how things are now, in some circumstances at least?

    But in practice it’s not that simple. Hunters have the responsibility to identify targets before shooting and they don’t always get that right, with tragic consequences. That’s just through carelessness and adrenalin. When you add darkness, possibly only just awake fear into the mix it raises the risks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    Nigel: I cant agree with you there…but then as everyone knows I am an aging softie…While I have considerable sympathy with farmers placed in the position of your man, I think that is just a step a little too far..unless perhaps the law requires that the farmer has first confronted the prospective burglar and confirmed what he is doing? I dunno…shooting at people from the house is just a bit too far for me…mind you, if I was on a jury in such a case, and it was clear the intruder was in fact in the act of stealing the quad bike (there was a case exactly like this in Northland some years ago) I certainly wouldn’t be voting for a conviction either…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    Any firearms owner is required to store gun separately from bolt/ammo. Both locked up.

    You wake up in the middle of the night and hear someone in your lounge. you then go to the garage and get rifle out of gun safe, go to spare bedroom and get ammo and bolt out of cupboard where it is stored with your hunting gear. Assemble gun all this while intruder is waiting quietly to be shot in the lounge.

    I dont think so.

    You keep a loaded gun in your bedroom to “feel safe” – you shoot a burglar with it. it is then premeditated murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    If you want to argue against changing the burden of proof to guilty unless proven innocent you are on the wrong post, go here:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/07/labours_guilty_until_proven_innocent_law_makes_the_uk_newspapers.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    What if your gun safe is built into the back of your wardrobe, like mine is?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    if I was on a jury in such a case, and it was clear the intruder was in fact in the act of stealing the quad bike (there was a case exactly like this in Northland some years ago) I certainly wouldn’t be voting for a conviction either…

    That’s a curious statement from a lawyer. Would you do that regardless of the legal position?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    …shooting someone in the back, as they are leaving, is not self-defence (for example).

    Well it’d certainly help to have that clarified, as numerous people seem to think pursuing a tagger off your property, along the street and up an alleyway and killing them is in some way “self defence”. It’s not – it’s either manslaughter or murder (depending on your intent).

    If NZF’s proposal is modelled exactly on the Irish law then considering it has some merit. But there’s a perverse outcome likely (aka unintended consequence).

    My neighbour, who has a gun in the house, is allowed to use it to defend his home. But because I choose not to own a gun (I have nothing against them, I just refuse to get yet another licence from the state) I can’t pick up one of my cast iron skillets and let and intruder have it across the forehead? What’s with that?

    It has the air of something dreamed up by trigger happy gun owners just itching for someone to come through the window so they can play Dirty Harry. Make it any weapon, or no weapon at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    Oh dear me…there is a defence called “justification”…go and look it up …that may need to be tweaked a bit…

    People are acquitted every day dear pete when the jurors put themselves in the defendant’s shoes and thinks “to hell with the fine print…I would/could have done that”…

    The best example is the case of a farmer called Luke Donnelly in 1990…Donnelly shot and killed Dick “Diesel” Maxwell, who at the time was one of the Rastifarians terrorising everyone up the East Coast…What Donnelly did was clearly murder, (shot him once from a distance, and then shot him again on the ground while standing over him) but the jury acquitted him of all charges…they put themselves in Donnelly’s shoes…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    People are acquitted every day dear pete when the jurors put themselves in the defendants shoes and thinks “to hell with the fine print…I would have done that”…

    I would hope that a principled lawyer would promote sticking to the law and not suggest “to hell with that” if it suited their personal opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    Rex: Just when we were getting along so well…You are of course referring to the Emery case, which as it happens came up here just the other day…Emory had been driven mad by little scrotes painting graffiti on his fence and garage doors…on the night in question he confronted two little scrotes doing just that, and chased them…they ran down a cul de sac obviously intending to give the middle aged and overweight Emery a hiding (they knew the area, so obviously knew it was a cul de sac)…Unfortunately for one of them, Emery had armed himself with a knife…the Court accepted that the victim had “run on” to Emery’s knife when said scrote had attacked Emery..

    Despite all of that Emery was convicted of manslaughter (I suppose his “illegal act” which as you know is a required ingredient of the offence) was the carrying of the knife…he served some time…Pretty just outcome in my view…If the spray painting little scrote had stayed home, he would still be alive…

    PG: You have obviously had double the normal anointing with holy water this morning…Courts are supposed to dispense justice, not rigidly apply the law regardless of circumstances…if they were to do that we could have a computer do the job…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    NZ First self-defence policy

    When I saw the title, I hoped for a moment Winston was going to tell us how the country could be protected from him / his party of misfits.

    Alas… not the case at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    No doubt Peters’ poll watchers have told him he’s lost votes to the Conservatives so Peters has come up with some policy to woo them back. Nothing to do with principle. Peters doesn’t have a principled bone in his body.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Courts are supposed to dispense justice,

    There’s a difference between dispensing justice and basing a jury decision on “I’d have done that”.

    If a juror thought that chasing an annoying scrote a distance with a knife and having some responsibility for killing said scrote with said knife then was fine because he would have done it so letting him off would be ‘dispensing justice’?

    If a juror thought that a girl was dressed proactively and out too late and was asking for it in a sexual assault trial and juror the would have done it then letting the alleged offender off would ‘dispensing justice’?

    If a juror would have sex with a drunk and passed out women then it would be ‘dispensing justice” to let an alleged offender off?

    The test of guilt or innocence – whether a juror would have done it or not – sounds like bad justice to me. But I’m not a lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    No Peter, you are certainly not a lawyer…and unless you are taking the piss you are not very well informed either..

    Just for a start, a jury has 12 – or sometimes 11 – members…in your hypothetical cases, at least 10 of them, have to decide, having put themselves in the defendant’s shoes, that they would have acted as he/she did, and that therefore the defendant should not be punished…

    As I said, if you advocate removing the human element from trials we needn’t have judges or juries at all: just punch in the facts, the “tariff” sentence for cases involving the same section, and POP there’s your verdict and sentence…

    We don’t do that because – and I will say it again – courts are supposed to dispense Justice…But then of course perhaps you don’t like juries – at least in sexual cases – because all the male members of them will be infected with the dreaded “rape culture”??

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    According to the Hebrew Torah if thief breaks in by night and is killed then there is no penalty, but day the thief must pay restitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, interesting. The list of capital crimes in the Torah and later taken up by Islamic Sharia Law,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_Torah

    I think we’ve today moved beyond these rather more primitive principles of justice.!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    DG: I’m aware of how juries work. And I’m aware of how you can’t resist resorting to cheap shots.

    We don’t do that because – and I will say it again – courts are supposed to dispense Justice.

    Where in our law that shows that jurors are supposed to be able to decide cases based on what they would have done regardless of the law. I’m genuinely interested in knowing what jurors are allowed to base their decisions on.

    Do judges in their summing up direct jurors to decide based on what they would have done?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    I’m genuinely interested in knowing what jurors are allowed to base their decisions on.

    They’re not allowed to do anything. Their role is to find matters of fact, not to give opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    I’ve sat in a jury in a murder trial, I can assure you the law is the last thing jurors consider.

    The ultimate purpose of a jury is to ignore the law and deliver justice in situations where the letter of the law doesn’t.

    Its been this way for ever, the trials after the Eureka rebellion in Victoria are a great example if this.

    I reckon Winston is onto a winner with his 40 year non parole thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Nigel Kearney (1,100 comments) says:

    Pete George, one of the main reasons we have juries is so they can let off people for breaking laws that never should have been passed in the first place, or should not have been applied in that situation, e.g. William Penn.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. backster (2,196 comments) says:

    Prosser usually wrote very good articles in this line with this philosophy in the Investigate Magazine. I doubt many in NZ First go along with it let alone the soft Socialists that Winston now aligns himself with.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Yes Nigel, but most cases involve law that has been accepted and used for yonks.

    No one is suggesting that murder and manslaughter laws should never have been passed in the first place. It can get tricky with grey areas involving things like justification and self defence, so juries can play an important role.

    But if jurors decide that someone deserves to go down regardless of evidence, or decide that someone should get off because the juror thinks they would have done the same thing regardless of the law, I don’t think it’s a good dispensing of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Liam Hehir (149 comments) says:

    Therer is a concept known as jury nullification – I am not sure how just or not it is – but it has a long pedigree.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    @David Garrett

    Not only am I on a phone, hanging off a very weak signal, but there’s no electricity so also a low battery, so apologies for brevity…

    Two “scrotes” as you call them spraypainted their ridiculous “tags” onto my elderly parents’ garage door one night. I made sufficient noise to scare them off. I didn’t grab a knife & I didn’t follow them… I’m not reckless, but nor was I in a murderous rage, which I believe you’d need to be to take that sort of action with little thought for your own safety.

    If they hadn’t put up a fight when Emery cornered them with his knife, what was he intending to do? Tie their shoelaces together so they couldn’t get away? Or effectively kidnap them at knifepoint? Had he even made sure he’d have the means to contact police from the alley?

    Incidentally, I maintain cordial relations with the local teenagers. A couple helped me identify the tags and I went round, calmly and in broad daylight, unarmed, to find them and informed them of the consequences if the door wasn’t back to pristine condition within 48 hours. It was.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Longknives (4,968 comments) says:

    I think we need a David Garrett vs Peter George celebrity deathmatch to sort this out once and for all!
    *On the undercard of Big Bruv vs Dad 4 Justice?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    Rex: Obviously I don’t know what Emery was planning to do…I have never met the man or spoken to him…I imagine he just rather snapped – he is apparently a rather highly strung chap – picked up the nearest weapon, and without any real thought as to what he was going to do, chased after the little bastards…He obviously wasn’t thinking too straight because he followed two obviously fit young men down a cul de sac…

    As you yourself know Rex, everyone has different breaking points…the fact still remains, had this little mongrel left his can at home he would still be alive…Well done you for sorting out your problem so well…not everyone is so calm and collected

    And before Dr Judy comes in and berates me for being a heartless bastard, Yes, I agree it is a tragedy that a 17 year old (or whatever he was) died..No, I don’t think a life should be the penalty for graffiti…but at the risk of boring everyone, he died because of stupid and irresponsible choices HE made…Those who begat him are more to blame than Mr Emory…and from memory “Dad” had left the scene years before, and “mum” lived in Australia.

    Knives: I’d want a pretty big purse to take on the Lion of North Dunedin…

    Alan: that’s exactly right, and also why we have a jury system in the first place…the Lion seems to have a great deal of difficulty getting his head around that…woe betide any poor bastard if Peter the Lion was on his jury…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    he died because of stupid and irresponsible choices HE made…Those who begat him are more to blame than Mr Emory.

    Yes he made stupid and irresponsible choices. He is to blame for the graffitti. But Emeryalso made stupid and irresponsible choices, and as he happened to arm himself with a potentially lethal weapon and confront the boy he is more responsible for the death than the boy is, unless you’re suggesting the boy intentionally committed suicide.

    If Emery had a short fuse you could as much blame his parents as the boy’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Longknives (4,968 comments) says:

    So we shouldn’t confront criminals who invade our homes then Pete?
    How do we deal with them then? Sing Kumbaya? Offer them our wives? Our children? Anything to appease??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    PG: A “boy”…that is even worse than calling the 2 1/2 year old child whose identity I used “a dead baby”…At 16 one is allowed use of a lethal weapon – a car – and is one year off being held to account in the adult courts…and four years PAST the age of account if the charge is murder or manslaughter

    Tell me, do you actually set out to sound like a righteous wanker or is that really just how you are?

    You got any kids Pete? As you probably know I have two…I have told my son – very much only half jokingly – that if he ever vandalises things I will thrash him to within an inch of his life…but I am very confident he won’t, because when he sees tagging or vandalism it is he who says to me “Look at what some idiot did Dad”…

    This unfortunate young man didn’t have a Dad to teach him how to behave, and that bad behaviour has consequences…that’s a real shame…but as ‘Knives says invasion of ones home does and should carry consequences…very serious ones…while I am drawing breath and able, invasion of MY home will have very serious consequences…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “(2) Any person may use such force as he deems necessary, including deadly force, against any person who is inside his or her dwelling house unlawfully or without the consent of the owner or occupier.”

    And if they are breaking in? Should you wait until the invaders get inside or should you err on the side of caution and mow the fuckers down through the door they are trying to force? The cops would have to slip the warrant under the door well prior to bashing it in. hehe

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. CharlieBrown (1,054 comments) says:

    Ethically I think it is ok to defend your property with lethal force, not just your life. Unfortunately I cannot see how that could safely be put into law. But the idea of lethal force inside your house if you fear your life or your property is at risk is fine.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    Mr Prosser’s proposal will have done much for NZ First’s stocks & shares amongst the rural community. The bleeding hearts whose focus is on the poor crim denied the benefits of breast feeding will be overflowing with angst & protest.

    They should try walking a kilometre or two in the boots of a farmer or rural worker, with a young family, targeted by thieves & worse. If the unfortunate cocky picks up the loaded gun they WILL have & use it to kill or wound an intruder they can pretty much guarantee facing a charge of wounding with intent or worse. Police policy is to prosecute & let the courts sort it out.

    The AF squad in many cases is hours away…..if they ring the police their phone line gets jammed so they can’t seek help from neighbours. Bring this scenario up with a townie & watch them squirm.

    From my POV we need an open season on the garbage that prey on the rural community…..regrettably I can’t see my proposal flying any time soon but NZ First have got the genesis of the solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    David Garrett:

    I have told my son – very much only half jokingly – that if he ever vandalises things I will thrash him to within an inch of his life…”

    Even if supposedly “half jokingly” that’s an awful threat to make against your own child. Even if it’s just with the sort of bravado and bluster you try here.

    I have three children, two step children and eight grandchildren. I’d never threaten violence or harm against any of them for any reason.

    “within an inch of his life…” and you’re a better judge of how badly you can beat someone without quite killing them than you are of using your judgement here?

    I guess at least you’re honest about your violent tendencies but this is a pretty bad thing to hear you say.

    but I am very confident he won’t, because when he sees tagging or vandalism it is he who says to me “Look at what some idiot did Dad”…

    How old is he? Does he go out drinking at all? Do you control who his friends can be?

    It’s common that at certain ages and in certain circumstances all common sense learnt as a child can fly out the window.

    Maybe Emery was taught as a kid that it’s ok to beat someone within an inch of their lives if they vandalise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    “mow the fuckers down through the door they are trying to force”

    Does that include the bathroom door if they have taken refuge there?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Oh, another question David – are you ever inebriated when you you might be in a situation where you think your son might require discipline. Of course you might be the one person who can control, their violent tendencies when they’re drunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    I thought of that Chuck but home invaders don’t usually take refuge in the loo.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    My son is nine you fuckwit!! The only drinking he does is of sodastream…Jesus…is there a Mrs George or has she fled long ago from such a paragon of virtue?

    You truly are a very silly man…but keep on apologising for “rape culture’…some of the hairy legged ones who still like men go for that…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Chuck Bird (4,913 comments) says:

    “I thought of that Chuck but home invaders don’t usually take refuge in the loo.”

    Tell that to the prosecution in SA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Calm down David. I suggest you wait ten or fifteen years before you think you’ve brought up a vandal and crime free son. They reach an age where no matter what you’ve taught them and no matter what they’ve learnt off you that there’s little you can do but hope like hell they survive relatively unscathed. Life can be a lottery, especially for teenagers.

    Most of them come out of it ok but many parents, including many good parents, end up with disappointments.

    I’ve never apologised for “rape culture”, that’s another of your lies. I hope your son doesn’t learn to lie off you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Tell that to the prosecution in SA.”

    I didn’t know Reva was a home invader Chuck?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Neither did Pistorious.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Pistorious wanted a steel toilet door but Steenkamp was dead against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Farmerpete (58 comments) says:

    I live on a rural property and help is not close by. You have to be in that environment to know what that feels like. Sometime ago the farm dogs went nuts at around 8:30 pm and then the car alarm went off. I told my 7 yr old son to stay inside (we are on our own) whilst I checked it out. He panicked and literally clung to me and I realised that if someone broke in that he would literally stop me from defending us properly. I came to this conclusion. If someone breaks into our home and threatens the safety of either myself or my son then if necessary, I will shoot them. Now having said that, I dont currently have a gun in my possession.
    When my boy said he didn’t feel safe I asked him what would make him feel safer. He said he wanted a big stick, so together we went and chose a hardwood pick axe handle. I consider my self to be totally law abiding, but there is no choice. Family first above all others. If anyone threatens that they do so at their own risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    Farmerpete: I am in exactly the same position as you…Hardwood pick axe handles are a very effective weapon..Here’s a hint: If you ever had to use it, don’t go for the head…too easy to duck, and if you do connect you might kill him, and in the current state of the law that’s a problem…

    Aim for the chest/upper arm area…If he doesn’t get his arm up in time you’ll break it…if he does, you’ll crack or break some ribs…Either way, Mr Burglar wont be keen on continuing..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. jcuk (760 comments) says:

    DG … as an 82yo my fear is that he will take the stick off me and beat me up …same as when I consider my heavy pipe wrench … so I keep my door locked at all times and windows closed .. I built the house myself and know there is plenty of ventilation from the gaps :)
    Twice now in recent nights I have been shocked by a heavy ‘clump’ on the roof … vandels chucking stones? I doubt it …probably a possum or cat jumping from tree onto a part of the roof … but it is scarey :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    If you can’t or won’t blast the buggers with a 12 gauge arm yourself with a pitchfork. Try moving a stroppy bull with a pick axe handle and see how far you get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Alan Wilkinson (1,938 comments) says:

    Tsk, tsk. Such vulgar violence. What is wrong with the old-fashioned and simple cup of bleach in the face? But I did like the Asian takeaway owner who dealt to her attackers with a scoop of boiling oil. Such satisfying screams.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Such vulgar violence.” Your a fine one to talk Wilkinson, bleach or oil in the face is far to hand to hand, the idea is to keep your attackers at a distance and that’s where the 12 gauge shotty excels. Double nought at 50 meters will make their eyes water.

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