Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Out if interest, can anyone reference what is actually statute law for reasonable force and/or necessary force in the defense of oneself or others?

Crimes Act 1961, section 48

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).

Not wishing to offend anyone but talk of defending yourself is laughable, how many guns are stolen in home invasion?, as to breaking into safes ? How many thieves come equipped with a disc cutter ?
I personally have broken into two safes, both required removing from the wall first, one required a drill, and a socket set, the other a drill , long punch, a near copy of the key, and a schematic of the safe, neither was a quick job.
Having done a few quotes for customers to give to insurance company's , I would say alot of gun owners security is a joke, two I know of had safes broken into, both were in sheds away from there homes.
But if we are to have new storage regulations then we must have new minimum sentencing for illegal possession of firearms, say a minimum of 5yrs jail time.
As to semi auto,s, the horse has already bolted on that one, regarding a cat.

Yeah defending your castle is only going to work if you are home. I have no stats to back this up but I would assume most burglaries still happen when the residents are out. In some places in the world the crims don't care and home invasion is common.

They need to make the thief of firearms in a burglary a mitigating factor, mandatory minimum sentence of 5yrs+ no parole. At the moment it's a joke & the crimes know it. Get caught supplying/making meth 15yrs minimum.

Another great example of tougher sentencing Sentence overturned for paintball shooter who blasted group outside a bar - NZ Herald This is simply a joke, I kind of feel like our legal system is just taking the piss.

Originally Posted by inglishill

Another great example of tougher sentencing Sentence overturned for paintball shooter who blasted group outside a bar - NZ Herald This is simply a joke, I kind of feel like our legal system is just taking the piss.

First of all, shame on the system for not letting the victim know he was appealing!

Apart from that, did the boy set out to blind the woman? No. He did something stupid which had very bad consequences. How about similar sentences for people who cause death by reckless driving??? The initial sentence was disproportionate.

To be reasonable is to have sound judgment and be sensible, "any means necessary" is determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable. Which in turn goes back to the fundamental wording you have missed - No one shall be deprived of life (of a person) lacking a specified benefit that is considered important. The key word there is shall.

It is considered important because it is our natural God-given right.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

To be reasonable is to have sound judgment and be sensible, "any means necessary" is determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable. Which in turn goes back to the fundamental wording you have missed - No one shall be deprived of life (of a person) lacking a specified benefit that is considered important. The key word there is shall.

It is considered important because it is our natural God-given right.

And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?

Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail? Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?

Originally Posted by systolic

And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?

Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail? Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?

Your scenario is a tad outlandish but if it were me I would opt for reasonable force & crack them in the head really hard with my fist. Given that the nail was of decent length that is... If it was stapler material then I would push them away and tell them to scat.

What would you do systolic? Don't ignore, provide a decent answer.

Originally Posted by systolic

And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?

Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail? Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?

Reasonable force only, but the other important wording is "in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be". What level of force can be deemed reasonable to use to defend yourself depends on the circumstances AS PERCEIVED BY THE DEFENDANT.

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.

Compare and contrast section 48 with sections 52 - 56, Defence of Property.

The Defence of Property sections all say "do not strike or do bodily harm to the other person" EXCEPT when defending your home from breaking and entering:



http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...est/whole.html

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Here's some examples:

Connor Morris trial: The case for self-defence | Stuff.co.nz, and more recently: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...a-murder-trial

The BOR act isn't the relevant legislation you're all wanting.

Basically comes down to section 48 & 62 of the Crimes Act

Originally Posted by Savage1

The BOR act isn't the relevant legislation you're all wanting.

Basically comes down to section 48 & 62 of the Crimes Act

Lol

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

As per @Savage1,

From NZ Crimes Act 1961:
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.
62 Excess of force
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.

Nothing too unusual or un-British there.

The Connor Morris trial is a hard one as there were a "group" of head hunters beating Murray's brother... Bringing a knife (sickle) to a fist fight as described in the article was where Murray went wrong but then again, he was watching is brother get beaten badly by a pack of HH's.

Also to note: September 2007: Stephen Bellingham was shot by police in Christchurch after damaging property then approaching an officer with a hammer raised. The Independent Police Conduct Authority found the officer acted in self-defense.

So there appears to be inconsistency with case by case trials on self defense. Because if a regular civilian smoked a guy that was approaching him or her with a hammer, is that excessive force or reasonable???

It appears there are anti-freedom loopholes in regards to this that could be fixed hopefully this election.