This topic has already been covered on other blogs, but I want it in my library as the newspapers don't always keep their archives accessible over time.
A South Auckland liquor store owner stabbed during a brawl has been charged with assault. Virender Singh, 40, appeared at Manukau District Court on Friday to face two counts of assault with intent to injure. He was remanded on bail until 23 October.And this report:
A South Auckland liquor store owner was stabbed and a female dairy owner hit in the head with a fence paling after a vicious attack by a gang of youths. The couple's nephew, Baljit Singh, was also punched by the youths. The three victims were taken to hospital, along with one of the alleged attackers. The family managed to trap one of the youths in the store till police came. [Stuff - Oct 1, 2008]And this report:
Police allege Mr Singh injured two teenagers in the incident outside the Gilbert Road Liquor Store which involved the use of improvised weapons. They included a knife, hockey stick and fence paling. Mr Singh was stabbed in the leg during the brawl in Franich Street, Otara, on Monday. His wife, nephew and another woman were also injured. [Radio NZ - Oct 5, 2008]So not only Mr Singh got hurt, but he had to watch his wife and others being attacked.
Police say they will also be laying serious charges against a 15-year-old involved in the fight.There were FOUR youths involved in the attack. Does the law only punish innocent people that win fights? The intent on these four were to rob and they were prepared to harm people doing this. Being prevented from this doesn't result in serious charges being laid??
He says Mr Singh's arrest is a reminder that taking the law into your own hands cannot be justified. "It's quite clear that the shop owner in this instance has clearly exceeded using force that would be reasonable to defend himself, another person or his property.This serves as a reminder that there is no empathy for the stress victims go through in a situation of violence. They didn't start it. The fact that the law requires victims to be cool, calm and rational throughout an attack is disgusting and effectively removes the right to self defence whilst these attitudes are maintained.
.
ReplyDeleteI'm having trouble joining those Fugley.
ReplyDeletemaybe you're abit dotty?
ReplyDeleteHere goes again, let's hope the www lets my light shine through this time.
It seems to me you're saying anyone who says "he hit me first" is to be believed and the police should accept that and take no further action.
There are many occurrences of people acting in self defence and the police take no further action, but sometimes there are cases where further investigation is warranted. This appears to be one of those cases.
Have you caught up with the news retired detective chief inspector Rex Miller had questioned the police, but is now satsified that the law should take its course?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10535943
Still, you seem to be just another vigialnte, advocating a return to Deadwood, rather than one who syupports the rule of law. Our laws only work when they are applied equally, without fear or favour.
If everyone supported the rule of law, would it ever be necessary to amend them?
ReplyDeleteStrangely, we have hundreds of amendments every year. Perhaps Fugley, people can support the rule of law whilst advocating for changes? This is all I am doing Fugley.
My main point here is that the current law doesn't seem to take account of victims making imperfect decisions.
I'm also unhappy with the lengthy and costly court process that many victims have to go through.
Let the case go to the courts, if there is good reason. However, once in court the victims should be given far more latitude on making bad decisions under stress - especially when some-one else initiates the action, in this case a robbery. This did not happen with two other cases I blogged about.
I'd like to see the court awarding bigger damages to victims to cover their losses that is paid by the state, and the state can chase the criminals.
There are three main problems with the "self-defence"provisions in the law as they now stand.
ReplyDelete1) Any person initiating violence against another is not only very, very likely to be more psychologically prepared and adept at violence than the victim and the law does not take that into account--the myth of "reasonable response".
2) A fearful and panicked victim is likely to reach for whatever's available at the time in an attempt to defend himself. To expect such a person to carefully consider the means of defence when he and his loved ones are under attack is absurd.
3)Victims are more often than not outnumbered by their attackers. there is no means available other than a firearm to equalise the victim and the attackers.
The brainiac Fugley wrote: "Our laws only work when they are applied equally, without fear or favour."
The simple fact is, the laws don't work, period.
And to apply the laws equally to both those who initiate violence and those who through no fault of their own are the victims of violence is an utterly unrealistic and morally bankrupt attitude.
The word"vigilante" is flung about by cowards and moral vacuums who are not only not prepared to take responsibility for themselves and their family members, but who would deprive the rest of us of that RIGHT.