Thread: Police poachers not charged.

For all the people saying innocent until proven guilty there is this bit:

“A couple of weeks later we caught another poacher in the same situation and he went through the courts within a week or two.”

Police complaints authority is a joke. Always has been.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

For all the people saying innocent until proven guilty there is this bit:

“A couple of weeks later we caught another poacher in the same situation and he went through the courts within a week or two.”

Police complaints authority is a joke. Always has been.

The farmer said that, right?

If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.

Originally Posted by Uplandstalker

The farmer said that, right?

If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.

The farmer said that and it was reported on stuff which as we all know is about as accurate as a shotgun work slugs at 600m. However as it's the only info we have to go on it''s the only thing we can draw conclusions from. Sure the farmer could take a civil prosicution but why should he have to. If the bloke in person was so convinced of his innocense then he should have no problem proving that in a cort of law.

If you read the wild animal control act then you don't have to actually shoot anything to be guilty of illegal hunting aka poaching. Being in a area with game and having the equipment to hunt is enough proof. Thats the conclusion that southland police came to and if this bloke is a sworn officer then he should know all that and be smart enough to not shine spotlights on paddocks where he has repeatadly been denied hunting access.

Credability is the real thing being questioned here. If a small matter like this gets swept under the rug then why should we believe anything a sworn police officer says. It's the boys in blue that suffers in the long run.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Credability is the real thing being questioned here. If a small matter like this gets swept under the rug then why should we believe anything a sworn police officer says. It's the boys in blue that suffers in the long run.

Pretty much my thoughts, I don't think they have the credibility they once did.

Originally Posted by Uplandstalker

The farmer said that, right?

If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.

Really? There is a cost to taking a civil case.... It really is up to the police, that is what they are there for (They ARE the EXECUTIVE, and are responsible for upholding the law...)