Thread: Home invasion

Originally Posted by Ftx325

Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

so %50 of the police at the wellington protest should be in court then ....

In my opinion anyone who REPEATEDLY breaks in to a house , armed with a weapon - be it a knife or a wine bottle or both , assaults/beats the owner , threatens to kill them (and openly admits it in court)have VOLUNTARILY removed any rights they might have as a normal human being in a decent society and deserve everything they get ... with bells on .

The problem there is that when our opinion differs from the law we end up in Court trying to defend those actions. And if there's no legal basis for our opinion we lose that defence. And rightly so, we all have differing opinions about all kinds of things.

Example - Maybe I disagree with hunting and taking the lives of poor innocent deers. In my opinion I should be able to use force against the nasty hunters to save the lives of those deers. Legally not so much.

If we can't make that distinction between opinion and the law we can't really call ourselves LAFOs..

absolutely opinion and law often go in seperate directions . And yes as law abiding firearm owners we have to be very careful not to mix the two up .
But why does it seem that nowadays the criminals have more 'rights' than the victims ?
that is wrong in so many ways .

But I do wonder if the farmer will be facing firearms charges for threatening with a shotgun ....
Again in my mind that was justified - they had just beaten him and threatened to kill him ....
but does that qualify as reasonable force in the eyes of the police and judge ? And if not , why not , and then what is considered reasonable force in that situation when you have already been beaten and threatened with death ... ?

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

According to who?
He openly stated in court that he was intending to stab Bill.
Everyone else is stating he was "incapacitated".

what generally happens before someone's finger is intentionally amputated? Are they moving upon him with violent intent?

They are generally subdued and presenting no threat.

Originally Posted by Ftx325

But I do wonder if the farmer will be facing firearms charges for threatening with a shotgun .... ?

He has already plead guilty to several firearms charges (including possession of a firearm without a license).

Originally Posted by Cigar

He has already plead guilty to several firearms charges (including possession of a firearm without a license).

Ok , did not realize he was not licensed .
What would the outcome be had he been licensed I still wonder ....

AS to the finger amputation , was he not lying on the knife waiting for a chance to stab the farmers , according to the news report , and as admitted in court ? Is that not why they cut the finger , for not moving his hand out from under him so visible or releasing the knife ?
So not exactly what I would call subdued if that is the case .

Originally Posted by Ftx325

Ok , did not realize he was not licensed .
What would the outcome be had he been licensed I still wonder ....

AS to the finger amputation , was he not lying on the knife waiting for a chance to stab the farmers , according to the news report , and as admitted in court ? Is that not why they cut the finger , for not moving his hand out from under him so visible or releasing the knife ?
So not exactly what I would call subdued if that is the case .

If that was the case a better option would’ve been to continue maintaining cover on him with the shotty from a distance. Or kick him. Certainly not to get right up close and cut off a pinky with a butter knife.. AND even if that was the thinking saying things like it’s so people know he’s a thief makes it kinda damning from an establishing intent point of view

If that is what actually happened, cutting his finger off with a butter knife was a stupid thing to do. Wasn't it?

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

He was not incapacitated. He was waiting to pounce.
Part of the problem here is, most of this information is coming from Stuff.

If you say so. I will bet you $50 that he gets sentenced for it.

You may well be right
Justice and "the law" do seem to be on divergent paths

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

It does seem that every time the victim apprehends the criminal the Police charge the victim. Some would consider that it is best to just deal with the situation and not ph Police

Not feasible af all. He had brought his mobile phone and as such his movements to the farm could and would get traced. Only way to clean his DNA from the house would be to burn it down really well. And maybe feasible to bury bodies and a car on a farm, but pure fantasy to imagine you'd get away with that once someone comes looking.

Farmer Brown would ironically be in less trouble if he'd let this 140kg gang member get up with the knife and then shot him. But when people are frightened and out of their depth they do stupid things instead. I guess the shottie was unloaded.

victims in this type of situation should be able to fight back without consequence to themselves . We and the crims all know when left to the courts the guy is just going to be out on the streets again in short order , or at home , with no real consequence to his actions .
I am not saying that we can all start torturing anyone who crosses the gate and chopping off body parts , but the last thing I would want to be worried about in that situation would be trying to decide if I can legally defend myself without facing a trial myself on charges for something that was instigated by the criminal breaking in , on my own property in my own house in defence of myself/family and possessions .
Or in a high stress situation like that you may not get the chance to think with all the conflicting emotions and threats upon you or your families person and may just react without thought , which would be understandable and possibly not within the exact wording of the law , which in itself is vague at best .
The victim is legally on the back foot from the get go .
That is not how it should be .
Why should the rights of the criminal come first as they appear to nowadays ? The crim is the one in the wrong , not the victim . If the victim is able to turn the tide on the crim it always seems to be the victim also ends up on charges as mentioned earlier . That is wrong . I guess you could use the excuse of being abused as a child to get off like all these retards seem to do ....
Again , as I mentioned before , I wonder if the farmer would have still faced firearm charges if he was licensed ? Even though a trigger was not pulled ...

I for one believe my home is my castle , as the old adage goes , and would be prepared to do whatever it takes to defend it and those within it's walls .

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

If you mean Bill will get sentenced for cutting his finger off, of course he will. I have never doubted that. And I have never stated his actions were justified.
The bit that pisses me off is fingerless will likely get portrayed as a victim again. He will give society the middle finger again. And he will continue down the same path.
Do some homework out side of stuff and see what started this string of events.

???

Originally Posted by Longrun

while they are already beaten and incapacitated.

You read his comment in court when he said if he could have stood up he would have stabbed the Burrs, right?

I expect there is an additional layer, given he drove from Auckland 3 times to rob the same farm - there wasn't anywhere in the middle worth a look?
Something smells a little.

I think the moral of the finger story ( presumably it was the middle finger rendered inoperable ) is not to cut them off as per Old Testament, but to use a rubber hammer on the hand and possibly head as well until the crim is compliant ?