Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Sarvo DPT


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Moving toward the American right to defend your home with a firearm against invasion?

  1. #1
    Resident Curmudgeon Kiwi Sapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wanganui without an "H".
    Posts
    2,231

    Moving toward the American right to defend your home with a firearm against invasion?

    As reported in the NZ Herald..........https://tinyurl.com/yyzfao3y
    Kawhia shooting: Orren Williams found not guilty of murder and manslaughter charges


    "A Hamilton jury has cleared a Kawhia man of multiple charges after a group of intruders smashed their way into his home looking to steal drugs.

    Orren Scott Williams, 38, has been on trial in the High Court at Hamilton for the past two weeks defending one charge of murder and three of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after the incident at his Harbour Rd home on June 6, last year.

    Faalili Moleli Fauatea, 23, died after being shot in the back while Shaun Te Kanawa, Grayson Toilolo and Joe Tumaialu all received gunshot wounds.

    The jury found him not guilty of both murder and manslaughter.

    Constable Plod will be upset.
    Trout, Burb122, Matt2308 and 7 others like this.
    “There was a moment's suspense while Conscience and Sheer Wickedness fought the matter out inside him, and then Conscience, which had started on the encounter without enthusiasm, being obviously flabby and out of condition, threw up the sponge.”

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    7,423
    Our law isn't moving anywhere on this. Jury trials don't make the law.

    Defence against assault
    48 Self-defence and defence of another
    Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
    Section 48: replaced, on 1 January 1981, by section 2(1) of the Crimes Amendment Act 1980 (1980 No 63).
    Last edited by Tahr; 05-10-2020 at 07:50 PM.
    Proudkiwi, Konev, rugerman and 2 others like this.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    kaiapoi
    Posts
    3,674
    Generally you find the coppers get you for improper storage of firearms no matter how drastic it all is. Obviously not in this case.
    Could only get him for the intent. It is a big call to say you would shoot to kill someone even though that is potentially the result.
    BUT in that case there would be a lot of people who would do much the same and the jury has picked up on that.
    I know if i thought a group of people that had just towelled me up were coming back to potentially harm myself and the family, i wouldn't be a nice person to be around.
    @Tahr that is correct-it is usually hard to justify the use of a firearm for selfdefence but in this instance you could understand his reasoning
    Steve123, Micky Duck and Martin358 like this.

  4. #4
    Pure-bred Mutt
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Tai Tokerau
    Posts
    3,448
    Without knowing all the facts (I certainly don't): I can't comment.

    I certainly have no time for thieves and shitheads though, so... good deal?

    Quote Originally Posted by 308
    not smart enough to be useful
    Diligentia Vis Celeritas
    Life Advice

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    349
    Kiwi Sapper you need to read the full story. It was clearly a case of self defense. The guy feared for his own safety and his families safety, though he does sound like a bit of scumbag himself.
    Konev and 6x47 like this.

  6. #6
    Full of shit Ryan_Songhurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    South Island
    Posts
    7,687
    So this fella can protect his drugs but a farmer protecting his home gets 6 years in prison and yet another farmer gets a lag for putting a bullet in a mongrel mob member who had stabbed him and was in the process of beating the crap out of a woman in a pub carpark... Seems fair...
    gadgetman, kiwijames, GWH and 6 others like this.
    #375GANG....

  7. #7
    Resident Curmudgeon Kiwi Sapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wanganui without an "H".
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by vulcannz View Post
    Kiwi Sapper you need to read the full story.....................................
    1...I have and I find your assumption that I have not, offensive.
    2...Note the question mark at the end of the thread header and also that nowhere in my thread do I express an opinion or make an assumption apart from observing that "Constable Plod will be upset."
    “There was a moment's suspense while Conscience and Sheer Wickedness fought the matter out inside him, and then Conscience, which had started on the encounter without enthusiasm, being obviously flabby and out of condition, threw up the sponge.”

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper View Post
    1...I have and I find your assumption that I have not, offensive.
    2...Note the question mark at the end of the thread header and also that nowhere in my thread do I express an opinion or make an assumption apart from observing that "Constable Plod will be upset."
    I assumed so because you made the claim around the 'right to defend his home' - when it clearly is case of self defense which is already covered by NZ law.
    nor-west likes this.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    kaiapoi
    Posts
    3,674
    And that is the difference between the US laws and ours.
    They have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms (completely unrelated to burglary- more protecting their other rights and liberties during the revolution and civil wars). Colonising areas with hostile indigenous populations pissed off with the take over also gave them something to shoot at
    Between all of that and their own property rights it doesn't make much justification to defend it as violently as needed. Their only issue is killing someone by mistake like family and friends.
    We have bugger all of that, just the ones mentioned and even that could be tricky
    You couldnt just get the shotgun out willy nilly either, well that usually seemed to be the case. Cops hate it.
    Bit like what Ryan 270 man suggested it isnt always cut and dried this self defence thing.
    It really comes down to your own circumstances and assessment of the situation.
    I struggled to destroy a dog of mine years ago and am hopeless in fights. Take too bloody long start swinging.
    But from a couple of different situations I've been in, i do know that the switch goes to a cold rage setting and I am not a very nice winner.
    In that case I wouldnt be worried or thinking at all of juries and rules. I would just be doing my best to make sure the threat was neutralized in the nastiest quickest way possible. Mainly because I know I'm hopeless in a proper stoush and wouldnt last very long

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western BoP
    Posts
    4,711
    Self defence in this instance is also "defence of others" - the defence of property doesn't seem to enter into it as a factor from the info released. In the situation, a family in their own home (specifics of character excluded) vs four people turning up armed with a variety of lethal weapons and intent on not being charitable or nice - yep. The fact that they drove away a short distance then stopped is of interest simply because they had every chance to depart uninjured but chose not to and the inference is that they were planning on regrouping for more mischief (again from the info supplied and inferences made).

    Given that info and summary, the choice to discharge a firearm at the criminals who had broken in to the dwellinghouse and attacked the occupants minutes earlier is quite justified as the judge in his directions to the jury and the jury found as well. If it isn't nice - well it wasn't a nice situation and to be fair no sympathy for any of the four. Also, probably worth noting I accept the points of all who raise the fact that the man found not guilty probably wasn't the nicest of characters and probably contributed to the situation he found himself and his family in.

  11. #11
    Pure-bred Mutt
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Tai Tokerau
    Posts
    3,448
    [QUOTE=csmiffy;1070986]And that is the difference between the US laws and ours.
    They have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms (completely unrelated to burglary- more protecting their other rights and liberties during the revolution and civil wars). [quote]
    The 2A reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The common intent, or "the vibe of the thing", when read with the other 8 or 9 ammendments, is that the right to keep and bear arms has the intent that the people can prevent tyrannical government. Don't see to many of the fat bastards rising to that challenge though.

    You couldnt just get the shotgun out willy nilly either, well that usually seemed to be the case. Cops hate it.
    Cops can hate whatever they like. Their job is enforcing legislation, not interpreting it.
    As long as you have a lawful proper and sufficient purpose (self defence is NOT) to have the firearm, then you are legally allowed to use it to defend life (yours, and other people's) with such force as is necessary.

    It really comes down to your own circumstances and assessment of the situation...

    In that case I wouldnt be worried or thinking at all of juries and rules. I would just be doing my best to make sure the threat was neutralized in the nastiest quickest way possible. Mainly because I know I'm hopeless in a proper stoush and wouldnt last very long
    The legal "litmus test" is what a "reasonable" person would do in the situation. NZ does not enjoy castle law, you can't just shoot someone who's annoying you, or saying mean things. However if they're a clear and present danger to you or others, you can use such force as is reasonable. to mitigate the threat. If you happen to have a firearm and that happens to be a reasonable response, it's legally defensible to shoot them.

    Not sure about the guy shot in the back though. That doesn't seem reasonable, but I don't have all the facts.
    jord likes this.
    Quote Originally Posted by 308
    not smart enough to be useful
    Diligentia Vis Celeritas
    Life Advice

  12. #12
    Member Cordite's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NZ Mainland
    Posts
    4,622
    Quote Originally Posted by csmiffy View Post
    And that is the difference between the US laws and ours.
    They have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms (completely unrelated to burglary- more protecting their other rights and liberties during the revolution and civil wars). Colonising areas with hostile indigenous populations pissed off with the take over also gave them something to shoot at
    Between all of that and their own property rights it doesn't make much justification to defend it as violently as needed. Their only issue is killing someone by mistake like family and friends.
    We have bugger all of that, just the ones mentioned and even that could be tricky
    You couldnt just get the shotgun out willy nilly either, well that usually seemed to be the case. Cops hate it.
    Bit like what Ryan 270 man suggested it isnt always cut and dried this self defence thing.
    It really comes down to your own circumstances and assessment of the situation.
    I struggled to destroy a dog of mine years ago and am hopeless in fights. Take too bloody long start swinging.
    But from a couple of different situations I've been in, i do know that the switch goes to a cold rage setting and I am not a very nice winner.
    In that case I wouldnt be worried or thinking at all of juries and rules. I would just be doing my best to make sure the threat was neutralized in the nastiest quickest way possible. Mainly because I know I'm hopeless in a proper stoush and wouldnt last very long
    And there is the crux of the matter. Once someone has had their fight or flight response triggered their violent response WILL be all-out, not measured, at least until some time after a threat is no longer a threat. All well and good taking our time deliberating it in a court room months later.

    Anyway, I'm thinking. So, are druggies coming for your prescription meds the actual real-life beginning of the zombie apocalypse?
    jord likes this.
    "I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book." Groucho Marx

  13. #13
    Member Ben Waimata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Hawkes Bay
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst View Post
    a farmer protecting his home gets 6 years in prison and yet another farmer gets a lag for putting a bullet in a mongrel mob member who had stabbed him and was in the process of beating the crap out of a woman in a pub carpark... Seems fair...
    It is fair. Farmers are evil and bad and climate warming super villains who are always wrong. We need to be punished for our climate crimes (just ask Greta), and anything else that anyone can think of to blame us for. If you don't know this already, another term of this Govt will prove the point.
    john m, Beetroot, jord and 3 others like this.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western BoP
    Posts
    4,711
    [QUOTE=mimms2;1071015][QUOTE=csmiffy;1070986]And that is the difference between the US laws and ours.
    They have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms (completely unrelated to burglary- more protecting their other rights and liberties during the revolution and civil wars).
    The 2A reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The common intent, or "the vibe of the thing", when read with the other 8 or 9 ammendments, is that the right to keep and bear arms has the intent that the people can prevent tyrannical government. Don't see to many of the fat bastards rising to that challenge though.


    Cops can hate whatever they like. Their job is enforcing legislation, not interpreting it.
    As long as you have a lawful proper and sufficient purpose (self defence is NOT) to have the firearm, then you are legally allowed to use it to defend life (yours, and other people's) with such force as is necessary.



    The legal "litmus test" is what a "reasonable" person would do in the situation. NZ does not enjoy castle law, you can't just shoot someone who's annoying you, or saying mean things. However if they're a clear and present danger to you or others, you can use such force as is reasonable. to mitigate the threat. If you happen to have a firearm and that happens to be a reasonable response, it's legally defensible to shoot them.

    Not sure about the guy shot in the back though. That doesn't seem reasonable, but I don't have all the facts.
    Guy shot in the back was part of the party of four who returned to their car, drove a few feet then stopped and got out. Context appears from the media reporting to be the fear from the injuries and further risk to family and threat of them deciding to return and continue/finish what they had started, which is when the shots were discharged in their direction from all accounts to effect a mind change from the group as to getting back into their mode of transport and departing the scene properly. Not so much an 'aimed' situation so intent was not established from the reports.

    Seems a very doubtful case from the prosecution point of view, and it appears to have become a spectacular loss with the victim being found not guilty. More than likely be a set of appeals etc and another 15 years of lawyer getting plump off the public tit.

  15. #15
    Member deer243's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    nelson
    Posts
    905
    I followed this case closely. Nothing is clear cut as it seems. The intruders didnt make a statement what happened so only one side of the story was told. Its clear why the police went to court.
    Self defence is fine but the intruders had left the house. Ok, he feared thet coming back, but only his word on that. His life isnt in certain danger or was it ?, he fires at the car in the drive, kills one in the back, injuries a couple more .
    Shooting someone fleeing isnt self defense, were they fleeing? Yes, its not his fault hes in this situation (apart from having drugs) but was this really self defence ? many un answered questions.
    I feel he likely didnt need to use the force he did but considering everything are you really thinking straight and was it justify? maybe, maybe not. Court decides, thats ok.
    Still, hes got his case, the others didnt say theres. Yes, fu wicks that do this shit get what they derserve .
    Did i want him to get off? yes, the scrum that break into his home and threaten his family and him deserve such outcomes but was it really self defense ... im not sure, its likely to me they were leaving the property hence what he did in law wasnt good.
    still, they have to prove it and no statement frm scrum it is what it is

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Nazis successfully complete invasion 70 years later
    By Rock river arms hunter in forum Firearm Safety
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 07-02-2019, 03:01 PM
  2. Trial Firearm Licence Firearm Safety Programme
    By Krameranzac in forum Firearm Safety
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 20-01-2018, 06:20 PM
  3. And so the invasion continues
    By GunnaZA in forum Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15-04-2015, 08:08 PM
  4. Ruger American rifle and Redfield American scope combo
    By HazeNZ in forum Firearms, Optics and Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-02-2015, 03:54 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-02-2013, 07:56 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!