Thread: Hunter admits accidentally shooting wife

I have yes on the instruction and watch of my gunsmith after he reamed the 308 chamber to field specs. No i have never put multiple rounds in a shotgun in my garage and lost count

reloaders do it all the time.... checking chambering and cycling on sized rounds.... particularly in precision rifle work....

people who buy off the shelf probably never need to.... but everyone should cycle their hunting rounds through their rifle before they actually intend to use them... good enough to do that when you get to where you are going if factory loads.... bit late if its a bunch of reloads... can't fix it then...

Its not the point.... the guy didn't make sure that he had emptied his firearm

Originally Posted by Sidney

reloaders do it all the time.... checking chambering and cycling on sized rounds.... particularly in precision rifle work....

people who buy off the shelf probably never need to.... but everyone should cycle their hunting rounds through their rifle before they actually intend to use them... good enough to do that when you get to where you are going if factory loads.... bit late if its a bunch of reloads... can't fix it then...

Its not the point.... the guy didn't make sure that he had emptied his firearm

Not necessarily.
When I'm checking mine I use a case with no primer or powder.
Don't need to check if every hand load cycles.

Sent from my SM-A510Y using Tapatalk

Name suppression in my opinion is one of the very few problems with this country. How can someone commit a crime no matter what it is and not be named for it publicly as it may affect his image?

Another case in Queenstown court today about the bloke wanking in public. Again name suppression. Why? And what about that actor/tv person last year who was getting done for doing something not right with children or women. I can't remember the details but again name suppression as if convicted would hurt his career? If you do what he did you're going to jail and have fucked your own career.

I have been in this country for 10 years now and love the place but things like this make me wonder how far behind the place is. In the UK there was no such thing as name suppression. The only names withheld were those of victims not the one responsible.

Someone made a comment that the locals in Queenstown will know soon enough. They probably do but because of name suppression they'll be the ones in trouble for talking about it

I have a problem with it too but not for the same reasons...

if our society stipulates that we are not guilty until we are "proven" to be guilty..... then what is any authority doing releasing private information about citizens who are not yet determined to be guilty? That is punative and creates bias before trial and certainly before conviction. If the charges are not proven then that person is stigmatised for the rest of their lives, even if they are genuinely innocent. No information about private citizens should be available prior to conviction. It is against the basic tennets that our justice system is based on....

The issue is that that should be the case for all, not just for some.....

Originally Posted by Sidney

I have a problem with it too but not for the same reasons...

if our society stipulates that we are not guilty until we are "proven" to be guilty..... then what is any authority doing releasing private information about citizens who are not yet determined to be guilty? That is punative and creates bias before trial and certainly before conviction. If the charges are not proven then that person is stigmatised for the rest of their lives, even if they are genuinely innocent. No information about private citizens should be available prior to conviction. It is against the basic tennets that our justice system is based on....

The issue is that that should be the case for all, not just for some.....

I see your point and it's extremely valid. However this guy has pleaded guilty so admitted to his crime therefore the world should know. But then he has the nerve to ask for discharge without conviction. This is something again that baffles/confuses me. Guy shoots the wife admits he's at fault but doesn't want any repercussions.

He's admitted he's guilty but doesn't want the world to know. Not right in my opinion

I see your point and it's extremely valid. However this guy has pleaded guilty so admitted to his crime therefore the world should know. But then he has the nerve to ask for discharge without conviction. This is something again that baffles/confuses me. Guy shoots the wife admits he's at fault but doesn't want any repercussions.

He's admitted he's guilty but doesn't want the world to know. Not right in my opinion

Discharge without conviction exists for a raft of reasons.... and the negitive effect of of publicity can be more punative than the event requires. That might not effect joe blow, but it could ruin others... the court considers each case on its merits. What surprises me is that every armchair critic that doesn't actually know the facts seems to able to reach conclusions about how this should be treated and thinks they are equipped to reach conclusion in the abscence of understanding, knowledge or expertise.

The man was careless, not criminal. His wife who was the victim, doesn't want to continue to be a victim. She supports him and you have the right not to?

Anybody can ask for discharge without conviction, if they meet the criteria the court will consider it. Personally I prefer to live in a merciful society, that considers this stuff. heaven knows a lack of it only breeds more problems...

Cheers

I like Sidney's approach to this, but that's probably only because I followed this subject closely and have heard the rumours on the grapevine. Without that knowledge I would be more inclined to question the court decisions regarding the sentence and suppression order.

I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and heard this event unfold in real time. By my observation I believe the Police acted with professionalism and - under the circumstances - a degree of compassion, because by any measure it was a serious event that very nearly resulted in a more tragic outcome. Within our household we have three FAL holders and I can tell you a long discussion was held on the subject, searching within ourselves and hoping to learn from others mistakes. For the life of me I can't understand how this could have occurred but I can only measure the failure of this person against the safety measures our family takes to prevent such accidents - and my values may well be different to his, or yours. For this reason I am surprised by the sentencing but I am not disappointed. I'm not in any way condoning the actions that conspired to spoil everyone's day, but I decline from criticizing the judges decision.

As for the suppression orders, that surprised me as well but probably more because I thought the identity and occupation of the people involved was general knowledge. Obviously not. Suffice to say that armed with this knowledge it is perhaps somewhat easier to understand why the suppression orders were made. I can't comment on whether it was necessary or not - that's the judges' privilege. I guess all I can say here is that the people involved have within them the ability to provide a level of service for the greater benefit of the entire community. I'm guessing... and hoping... that given their second chance at love and life they will fulfil that opportunity with a level of service that would put the majority of us to shame.

And none of that has anything to do with the mans name and disproportionate effect for the individual.... how is the name of the man going to assist with any of that? I have a problem with the idea of making examples of people when their individual penalty exceeds the equitable outcome just to make a point. And so should you.

And you are relying on the media for accurate information.....? nothing they print is accurate... they don't get anything right... how and why is totally is totally unreliable from the media...

You are negligent every day.... occasionally you won't get away with that. But its not intentional. The way that some people on here go on about negligence and deterrent value of punative outcomes for negligence shows no knowledge of how the most basic function of our minds actually work. Saying that punative response to negligence creates deterrant is just bullshit. People think that its not going to happen to them.

In another area I was listening to the National Program this morning and the speaker was a researcher in education. He said that it comprehensively established that punishing teenagers for intentional crimes will only result in lifetime criminals... high percentage stuff. Taking those same kids, convicted but providing paid supervision and help with a focus on filling the gaps in their lives will result in a 75% non re-offending rate. The cost being say 50k in direct supervision and 30k in external support.... 80k for a few years vs 99k per year for ongoing jail time and the associated human trauma inflicted on society because of our desire to punish. But imagine that, paying people for criminal behaviour... far easier just to build youth prisons. How fricking intelligent are we by giving the stupid public its pound of flesh? You might as well just get us to shoot ourselves in the foot, it's that fricken stupid.

The public are stupid, the desire to punish is stupid and our politicians are gutless. And thats for intentional criminal behaviour.

You really don't want to be on the scale below even that, for unintentional negligence.

Originally Posted by Sidney

And none of that has anything to do with the mans name and disproportionate effect for the individual.... how is the name of the man going to assist with any of that? I have a problem with the idea of making examples of people when their individual penalty exceeds the equitable outcome just to make a point. And so should you.

And you are relying on the media for accurate information.....? nothing they print is accurate... they don't get anything right... how and why is totally is totally unreliable from the media...

You are negligent every day.... occasionally you won't get away with that. But its not intentional. The way that some people on here go on about negligence and deterrent value of punative outcomes for negligence shows no knowledge of how the most basic function of our minds actually work. Saying that punative response to negligence creates deterrant is just bullshit. People think that its not going to happen to them.

In another area I was listening to the National Program this morning and the speaker was a researcher in education. He said that it comprehensively established that punishing teenagers for intentional crimes will only result in lifetime criminals... high percentage stuff. Taking those same kids, convicted but providing paid supervision and help with a focus on filling the gaps in their lives will result in a 75% non re-offending rate. The cost being say 50k in direct supervision and 30k in external support.... 80k for a few years vs 99k per year for ongoing jail time and the associated human trauma inflicted on society because of our desire to punish. But imagine that, paying people for criminal behaviour... far easier just to build youth prisons. How fricking intelligent are we by giving the stupid public its pound of flesh? You might as well just get us to shoot ourselves in the foot, it's that fricken stupid.

The public are stupid, the desire to punish is stupid and our politicians are gutless. And thats for intentional criminal behaviour.

You really don't want to be on the scale below even that, for unintentional negligence.

I want to like this again and again.

A lot of kiwis get quite emotive it when it comes to punishment and are a bit too narrow minded to understand the value of a corrections department actually CORRECTING and how that takes cash, but anyway....

Grab the pitch forks, surely that will teach 'em...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your back? I thought you got "banned"

Regardless, glad to see your back on the forum @Dougie

You can counsel and cuddle these teenage pricks all you want but while I continue to see ever increasing numbers of people being violently punched, kicked and having knives held to their throats on television news footage I choose not to subscribe to your line of thinking and in fact am waiting for the day that I see camera footage of a shop owner taking a well aimed baseball bat to the knees of a couple of these bloody scumbags so I can be the first to show that the stupid public support such action and can make contribution to the defence fund that the poor bugger would need when he is transitioned from victim to offender by our fucked up society.

Originally Posted by Rushy

You can counsel and cuddle these teenage pricks all you want but while I continue to see ever increasing numbers of people being violently punched, kicked and having knives held to their throats on television news footage I choose not to subscribe to your line of thinking and in fact am waiting for the day that I see camera footage of a shop owner taking a well aimed baseball bat to the knees of a couple of these bloody scumbags so I can be the first to show that the stupid public support such action and can make contribution to the defence fund that the poor bugger would need when he is transitioned from victim to offender by our fucked up society.

Was this meant for another thread Rushy?

Originally Posted by planenutz

Was this meant for another thread Rushy?

No.