Some guy (Garth Gadsby) got his car stolen, his house burgled and managed to catch the criminals by firing a few shots in their general direction. These thugs had been doing this before. They needed to be caught, and the place is so remote, Police don't call. I blogged this earlier.
So, the crims are let out and the shooter ends up with the state putting him through the cost of a trial, take 18 months to run it, and then the State steal a further $3,000 from him, and finally, take his gun.
The Judge Jan Kelly, no doubt related to infamous bandit, Ned Kelly, said she was being lenient on Garth.
Meanwhile, the criminals have since [allegedly] stolen another car and been doing burglaries again. You can also bet whatever fines they get, they wont pay.
There is no justice in New Zealand.
A Wairarapa man convicted of shooting recklessly at teenagers in a stolen car has been sentenced to pay a fine and hand in his gun.
Garth Gadsby, 60, was last month found guilty by a jury of recklessly discharging a firearm when he shot at two youths who were driving around the remote fishing settlement of Ngawi in a stolen car in September 2006.
He fired a shotgun four times from a moving car, aiming at the tyres of the vehicle in an attempt to stop the pair escaping.
In the Wellington District Court on Tuesday, Gadsby was ordered to pay a fine of $3000 and forfeit the shotgun.
He stands by his actions, saying what he did was not dangerous.
Judge Jan Kelly says she took into account the fisherman's significant contribution to the community, which raised $12,500 for his defence.
Related Link: The Great Gadsby honoured by the community, but persecuted by the State
So, the crims are let out and the shooter ends up with the state putting him through the cost of a trial, take 18 months to run it, and then the State steal a further $3,000 from him, and finally, take his gun.
The Judge Jan Kelly, no doubt related to infamous bandit, Ned Kelly, said she was being lenient on Garth.
Meanwhile, the criminals have since [allegedly] stolen another car and been doing burglaries again. You can also bet whatever fines they get, they wont pay.
There is no justice in New Zealand.
A Wairarapa man convicted of shooting recklessly at teenagers in a stolen car has been sentenced to pay a fine and hand in his gun.
Garth Gadsby, 60, was last month found guilty by a jury of recklessly discharging a firearm when he shot at two youths who were driving around the remote fishing settlement of Ngawi in a stolen car in September 2006.
He fired a shotgun four times from a moving car, aiming at the tyres of the vehicle in an attempt to stop the pair escaping.
In the Wellington District Court on Tuesday, Gadsby was ordered to pay a fine of $3000 and forfeit the shotgun.
He stands by his actions, saying what he did was not dangerous.
Judge Jan Kelly says she took into account the fisherman's significant contribution to the community, which raised $12,500 for his defence.
Related Link: The Great Gadsby honoured by the community, but persecuted by the State
Interestingly you don't need a firearms licence for a ballista.
ReplyDeleteJust saying.
The law is an ass!!
ReplyDeleteIt's so back-to-front nowadays. We were commenting on this at work the other day (as one is wont to do at smoko time). Ask any man in the street and I'm sure they'd agree that Garth was well within his rights.
Why are the Police (and Judges) so far away in their thinking from what is so blindingly obvious to Joe Average? A man can't even defend his home and property anymore without being criminalised himself.
I'm not sure what law we could write that wouldn't criminalise this. The law is about general principles, not specific cases. No matter how much sympathy I have for Garth Gadsby, the law isn't an ass for criminalising shooting at other cars from a moving vehicle.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, no matter how much sympathy I have for Ian Crutchley, the law isn't an ass for criminalising shooting helpless people full of an overdose of morphine. (And by the way, the Police and Judge were very far away from what is blindingly obvious to Joe Average in that case also, I.M. Fletcher - did you share Joe Average's view of that one too? Morality isn't a democracy.)
Sometimes, doing the right thing carries unpleasant personal consequences. I thought Gadsby should have been discharged without conviction, and I thought Crutchley should also have been discharged without conviction, but the courts aren't there to agree with me.
The charge was reckless discharge.
ReplyDeleteClearly this was NOT what happened. Garth hit what he was shooting at and there are few people as qualified as he is for doing this.
Certainly not the sniper cops who can't hit a dog at two metres range yet still claimed that there was never any danger to anyone.
So either the cops were guilty of the same thing or Gath was innocent.
Pick ONE.
PM, Ian killed some-one, and allegedly didn't even ask them if they wanted it.
ReplyDeleteGarth arrested some-one for stealing his car. They resisted arrest, but he still caught them without hurting them. Garth gets fined a huge amount of money which he will pay. The criminals get a minor fine which they will not pay, and have allegedly learned that they are protected from a citizens arrest, because they've already gone and committed further crimes.
As you say, the judge had a range of sentences to apply to Garth, and chose something excessive.
If the message is we cannot protect our property and our lives from criminals, we should be able to sue the state for them failing to protect us since they give us no options for real justice.
I still think that the law is not an ass for criminalising shooting at cars from a moving vehicle (hell, just shooting at cars), and that doing the right thing can sometimes have unpleasant consequences, as they have for Garth Gadsby. The fact that doing the wrong thing had damn near no consequences in this case is a separate and I think more significant issue.
ReplyDeleteAnd we still think you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the only damage to that car was in the spot that Garth was shooting at tell you that.
Now do you want those cops prosecuted or Garth NOT.
PICK ONE.
PM - it's not the point that it is illegal to shoot at cars - I have no problem with the law in that regard.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in applying justice, the judge gets to hear all sides of the story.
To sum up that it took 18 months to bring this to trial, that it cost him thousands in legal fees, that the criminals had committed previous crimes, and were not brought to justice, and in the 18 months allegedly committed further crimes, and that the police have proven incapable of policing this remote area, the judge could have levied a fine of $1.
The judge could have tried the crims at the same time, and awarded the cost of the trial to be paid as part of the restitution that the criminals could have to pay - as well as any damages repaired to the car, and the value of the stolen property etc.
And then he could have got the obligatory speech from the judge saying "don't let me catch you doing this again"
That's a great speech that one, and really knocks sense into people. Why, I've seen some people with their 50th conviction really shaken when they get that speech from the judge.
It comes a few speeches before the "let's write off $80,000 of unpaid fines to give you a new chance" speech.
"Sometimes, doing the right thing carries unpleasant personal consequences."
ReplyDeleteWhich means that the law--and it's application--is out of step with community expectations.
In which case the law needs to be changed and judges need to be educated in order to apply a little commonsense...and err...justice.
Murray: legal to shoot at people or not? PICK ONE.
ReplyDeleteZen: I agree with you. I don't agree with I.M. Fletcher, who thinks the law is an ass for criminalising shooting at cars, or with Murray, who thinks it should be entirely legal as long as you're a good shot, or with KG, who thinks the community expects a right to shoot at cars if it seems a good idea at the time. Their real argument is with the judge, not the law.
So milt gives a big tick to cops blatting off a couple of mags in public with no evidence of skill or ability.
ReplyDeleteShit milt who knew you were such fascist.
"..or with KG, who thinks the community expects a right to shoot at cars if it seems a good idea at the time."
ReplyDeleteDon't mis-represent my position on this.
The community expects to be able to use whatever means are necessary in order to protect their own lives, those of their families and their property.
If either the law or individual judges cannot protect us from thugs then we have a right to do so ourselves, because implicit in handing over power to government and the courts is the assumption that they will act to protect us.
Covering up their failure to honour this contract by prosecuting people for acting themselves is no more than reducing people to the level of dumb serfs without rights.
One envisages a "Murray" law, in which the citizenry is entitled to blast away at will, as long as the nation's bloggers are satisfied that only skilled shooters and great blokes are participating.
ReplyDeleteOne also envisages a society free of cowards who won't take responsibility for defending their families, cowards who instead prefer to rely on the lottery of ringing for a cop (if they're able to, that is) and hoping the police will arrive in time.
ReplyDeleteWhich they never do.
We live in a country where people are routinely assaulted, raped or killed in numbers which are at a shameful level for a civilised country, yet the anti-gun zealots prefer to rely on blind luck rather than accept the right of free men and women to defend themselves by the only means which places them on an equal footing with the animals who prey on the law-abiding.
There's a stench about here and it's certainly not coming from those of us prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones, PM...
"Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society."
ReplyDelete- Sir William Blackstone, 1765
And that in a nutshell is the position of those of us who insist on the right and the means to employ it.
Well said kg. Rule of law makes it prudent to check that the action was in accordance with the right to defend life and property.
ReplyDeleteThat being done, the judge could declare "case dismissed". Instead, they rob the citizen more, and leave him thinking in no uncertain terms that self defence could see him in jail next time.
As mentioned above, I don't disagree, Zen. Also as mentioned above, I do disagree with the concept that the courts have no business being involved, which is what I.M. Fletcher, Murray and KG seem to be peddling. There's a big difference between "Crap decision there, judge" and "The law is an ass." In this case, the law is not an ass, only the application of it in this instance by this judge.
ReplyDelete