Can you kill your rapist and get away with it?
paora
If you kill someone who attempts to rape you, you only get a 3 year
sentence. That suggests to me that you can kill someone who actually
does rape you.
I'm obviously not understanding something.
" Politicians and Diapers should be changed with regularity, and for the same reasons. "
David Preece
> I'm obviously not understanding something.
Neither am I, he pulled one of the most bizarre defences ever:
"Ali drank a small amount of alcohol and took some cannabis"
...
"Ali -- a devout Muslim with a strong faith"
But not faith in a "turning down weed and the occasional drop" way, was
it? Also notable was
"but the judge said it might be noteworthy that he made no mention to
them of any homosexual advance"
Noteworthy? I reckon.
Dave
Dersu
"paora" <pau...@dell.com> wrote in message
news:4124402e...@news.individual.net...
>
> If you kill someone who attempts to rape you, you only get a 3 year
> sentence. That suggests to me that you can kill someone who actually
> does rape you.
Meanwhile in Britain:
A man near Great Yarmouth was asleep with his wife and the baby was in a cot
in the same room. He awoke to hear his wife screaming because a man had
climbed in bed and was stroking her between the legs.
He chased the man who knocked over the cot - the baby fell out. The man
dropped a package with the family's stolen mobile phone, building society
books, money etc. Downstairs, the man attacked our hero with an iron bar,
damaging our hero's shoulder.
Our hero grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed the intruder, who stopped
hitting our hero with the iron bar, dropped the other stolen goods, and ran
off.
The police have laid no charges against the scum, but arrested our hero on
suspicion of assault !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was in Monday's LONDON EVENING STANDARD - don't have an URL, was sent
to me by someone who knows I have an interest in such absurdities.
D.
Barry Phease
> Meanwhile in Britain:
On the same loony mail list as Roger eh? Dangerous to repeat such
nonsense without checking. See my response on Roger's thread.
--
Barry Phease
BTMO
"Dersu" <> wrote
> This was in Monday's LONDON EVENING STANDARD - don't have an URL, was sent
> to me by someone who knows I have an interest in such absurdities.
Google news is a great site...
:-)
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=552376
This incident was widely reported in a lot of the UK papers...
The original article you posted has some differences in it from this (and
other articles I have seen) - specifically they haven't charged the burglar
yet - they are waiting to hear his side of the story, but it is essentially
the same...
Cheers,
Brenton
E. Scrooge
"Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:I8ZUc.4088$zS6.4...@news02.tsnz.net...
That sounds unreal. The guy had to protect his family. The police would
hardly be very popular arresting the guy because he was protecting his
family.
E. Scrooge
Roger Dewhurst
"E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
news:1092908903.945316@ftpsrv1...
These days the UK police are the drawn from the dregs of society. Do they
care if they are popular? At the moment this sort of thing is par for the
course in the UK. Let it not be so here.
R
Patrick Dunford
19 Aug 2004 05:55:41 GMT, paora <pau...@dell.com> says...
>
> If you kill someone who attempts to rape you, you only get a 3 year
> sentence. That suggests to me that you can kill someone who actually
> does rape you.
>
> I'm obviously not understanding something.
You're not understanding that a charge of manslaughter carries less of a
sentence than a charge of murder.
--
"Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
a man and a woman.
This foundation provides the best possible
environment to raise our children."
Tarla
<patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>In article <4124402e...@news.individual.net> in nz.general on Thu,
>19 Aug 2004 05:55:41 GMT, paora <pau...@dell.com> says...
>>
>> If you kill someone who attempts to rape you, you only get a 3 year
>> sentence. That suggests to me that you can kill someone who actually
>> does rape you.
>>
>> I'm obviously not understanding something.
>
>You're not understanding that a charge of manslaughter carries less of a
>sentence than a charge of murder.
I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
Manslaugter is when you do something stupid and dangerous and it ends
up killing someone. You're responsible for the death, but you didn't
intend it. These guys committed 2nd degree murder at the very least.
They intented grievous harm that resulted in death.
--
Tarla
****
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity
to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Matthew Poole
>paora wrote:
>> I'm obviously not understanding something.
>
>Neither am I, he pulled one of the most bizarre defences ever:
>
>"Ali drank a small amount of alcohol and took some cannabis"
>"Ali -- a devout Muslim with a strong faith"
>
>But not faith in a "turning down weed and the occasional drop" way, was
>it? Also notable was
>
I also noticed that. With the possible exception of Mormon, Islam is
the strictest religion about treating one's body as a temple. Drinking
and toking are absolute no-no offences.
A truly devout Muslim might've taken a sip on the sly, but no way would
he be smoking the good stuff, and definitely wouldn't be drinking enough
to impair his judgement.
Methinks that this case came down to people being scared to question his
faith, for fear of being considered bigots. Whoever the Crown
prosecuting team were, they should've picked up on this and destroyed
the defence argument.
--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
Matthew Poole
>In article <4124402e...@news.individual.net> in nz.general on Thu,
>19 Aug 2004 05:55:41 GMT, paora <pau...@dell.com> says...
>>
>You're not understanding that a charge of manslaughter carries less of a
>sentence than a charge of murder.
>
The only difference in the sentence is that murder is automatic life,
not discretionary.
Actual sentences, well, there's a very significant variation. If the
Crown had done their job, and blown apart the claims of devout Muslim
faith, this little toad might've been given six years instead of three.
Peter Metcalfe
tarla...@xtra.co.nz says...
> I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
> Manslaugter is when you do something stupid and dangerous and it ends
> up killing someone. You're responsible for the death, but you didn't
> intend it.
Wrong. Manslaughter has always included homocides that were
the result of provocation.
> These guys committed 2nd degree murder at the very least.
A crime which does not exist in NZ statute.
--Peter Metcalfe
Tarla
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <f41ai0dka0kkpb7dj...@4ax.com>,
>tarla...@xtra.co.nz says...
>
>> I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
>> Manslaugter is when you do something stupid and dangerous and it ends
>> up killing someone. You're responsible for the death, but you didn't
>> intend it.
>
>Wrong. Manslaughter has always included homocides that were
>the result of provocation.
Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
>
>> These guys committed 2nd degree murder at the very least.
>
>A crime which does not exist in NZ statute.
and should.
Peter Metcalfe
tarla...@xtra.co.nz says...
> >Wrong. Manslaughter has always included homocides that were
> >the result of provocation.
> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
No, it's not.
--Peter Metcalfe
Tarla
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <37nai0t673glj6k4j...@4ax.com>,
>tarla...@xtra.co.nz says...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:04:05 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
>> <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> >Wrong. Manslaughter has always included homocides that were
>> >the result of provocation.
>
>> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
>
>No, it's not.
in YOUR humble opinion.
Geoff McCaughan
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:02:18 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>>No, it's not.
> in YOUR humble opinion.
There's nothing humble about Peter's opinions.
--
Burn the land and boil the sea,
You can't take the sky from me.
Peter Metcalfe
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:02:18 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >In article <37nai0t673glj6k4j...@4ax.com>,
> >tarla...@xtra.co.nz says...
> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:04:05 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> >> <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> >Wrong. Manslaughter has always included homocides that were
> >> >the result of provocation.
> >
> >> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
> >No, it's not.
> in YOUR humble opinion.
Again, no. The partial defence of provocation has been part
of the Common Law for centuries. There's nothing sloppy
about it.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Metcalfe
says...
> Tarla <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:02:18 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> > <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
> >>No, it's not.
> > in YOUR humble opinion.
> There's nothing humble about Peter's opinions.
A) it's not my opinion and b) Tarla was the one who
claimed to have humble opinions. If you weren't
making a fool of yourself by trying to suck up to
her, you would have seen this.
--Peter Metcalfe
Tarla
<metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <HggVc.15563$N77.6...@news.xtra.co.nz>, geo...@spam.fqdn.com
>says...
>> Tarla <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:02:18 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
>> > <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> >>No, it's not.
>
>> > in YOUR humble opinion.
>
>> There's nothing humble about Peter's opinions.
>
>A) it's not my opinion and b) Tarla was the one who
>claimed to have humble opinions. If you weren't
>making a fool of yourself by trying to suck up to
>her, you would have seen this.
Certainly it's a matter of opinion, Peter. I believe that the statutes
are lacking a degree of crime and you believe that they are fine as
is. That's a matter of opinion, nothing more.
Roger Dewhurst
"Tarla" <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:lg1bi01rvqss6dtm7...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:02:18 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >In article <37nai0t673glj6k4j...@4ax.com>,
> >tarla...@xtra.co.nz says...
> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:04:05 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> >> <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> >Wrong. Manslaughter has always included homocides that were
> >> >the result of provocation.
> >
> >> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
> >
> >No, it's not.
If a killer stands the chance of being topped for murder it is reasonable to
have gradations in the offence. If there is little distinction between
murder and manslaughter, the penalties for which appear to overlap, there is
little justification for a multiplicity of offences. We might as well call
all killings either murder or manslaughter and adjust the penalty to suit
the heinousness of the offence.
R
Murray Sutherland
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:09:34 +1200, Patrick Dunford
> <patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <4124402e...@news.individual.net> in nz.general on Thu,
>>19 Aug 2004 05:55:41 GMT, paora <pau...@dell.com> says...
>>
>>>If you kill someone who attempts to rape you, you only get a 3 year
>>>sentence. That suggests to me that you can kill someone who actually
>>>does rape you.
>>>
>>>I'm obviously not understanding something.
>>
>>You're not understanding that a charge of manslaughter carries less of a
>>sentence than a charge of murder.
>
>
> I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
How so in the McNee case? There was no intention on the part of the
killer to actually kill McNee that could be reliably proved by the
police, unless you *know* something and withheld it? or would you like
to see people convicted based on your (or anybody elses) gut feeling?
Murray
BTMO
"Murray Sutherland" <> wrote
> > I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
>
> How so in the McNee case? There was no intention on the part of the
> killer to actually kill McNee that could be reliably proved by the
> police, unless you *know* something and withheld it? or would you like
> to see people convicted based on your (or anybody elses) gut feeling?
How do you *ever* prove intention?
All the killer has to say is "I didn't mean to kill him!"
Murray Sutherland
Motive, evidense of planing, using a weapon that is desiged for the
purpose many many ways.
Tarla
I am accustomed to a system which includes 2nd degree murder. That is,
intending to cause grievous harm, but not premeditated. I believe
from the evidence given in the newspapers, that McNee's killer
intended grievous harm, but no premeditation was shown by the
prosecution. That's murder in the 2nd degree.
>
>Murray
Murray Sutherland
Which is not a verdict that is available in NZ, or most other countries,
now should we all switch over to US standard procedings simply because
your accustomed to it???
As for the news papers, skew it around and it's self defence.....
How about a verdict of justifiable homicide while your at it.
Murray
Tarla
<murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
>>>
>>>How so in the McNee case? There was no intention on the part of the
>>>killer to actually kill McNee that could be reliably proved by the
>>>police, unless you *know* something and withheld it? or would you like
>>>to see people convicted based on your (or anybody elses) gut feeling?
>>
>>
>> I am accustomed to a system which includes 2nd degree murder. That is,
>> intending to cause grievous harm, but not premeditated. I believe
>> from the evidence given in the newspapers, that McNee's killer
>> intended grievous harm, but no premeditation was shown by the
>> prosecution. That's murder in the 2nd degree.
>>
>
>Which is not a verdict that is available in NZ, or most other countries,
>now should we all switch over to US standard procedings simply because
>your accustomed to it???
Did I suggest that? I said it was murder because that's the definition
in the system I am accustomed to. It takes a while to learn all the
differences in laws between the countries, particularly if that is not
one's area of study.
I do think there's a gap in the law though. Manslaughter appears to
cover too much territory afaic. We could fill that gap in our own
fashion though.
>
>As for the news papers, skew it around and it's self defence.....
>How about a verdict of justifiable homicide while your at it.
Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
attack after a pass.
Murray Sutherland
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:07:20 +1200, Murray Sutherland
> <murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
>>>>
>>>>How so in the McNee case? There was no intention on the part of the
>>>>killer to actually kill McNee that could be reliably proved by the
>>>>police, unless you *know* something and withheld it? or would you like
>>>>to see people convicted based on your (or anybody elses) gut feeling?
>>>
>>>
>>>I am accustomed to a system which includes 2nd degree murder. That is,
>>>intending to cause grievous harm, but not premeditated. I believe
>>>from the evidence given in the newspapers, that McNee's killer
>>>intended grievous harm, but no premeditation was shown by the
>>>prosecution. That's murder in the 2nd degree.
>>>
>>
>>Which is not a verdict that is available in NZ, or most other countries,
>>now should we all switch over to US standard procedings simply because
>>your accustomed to it???
>
>
> Did I suggest that? I said it was murder because that's the definition
> in the system I am accustomed to. It takes a while to learn all the
> differences in laws between the countries, particularly if that is not
> one's area of study.
That's a bit better, not my area of study either (outside of some
limited acounting, privacy act, social security act, trust law and
interpretations (for specific purposes), so yes little in there but I'M
NO EXPERT either).
> I do think there's a gap in the law though. Manslaughter appears to
> cover too much territory afaic. We could fill that gap in our own
> fashion though.
I'm a bit confuzzed here, your saying that there is a gap in the law but
it is covered by manslaughter, I'm taking it that agrevated assult
charge is required in conjuction with a case of manslaughter such as McNee?
>>As for the news papers, skew it around and it's self defence.....
>>How about a verdict of justifiable homicide while your at it.
>
>
> Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
> attack after a pass.
>
My point here is some what vicarious here but valid (having never
experienced jury service but talked to a person who was on a "high
profile case"), what is reported in the newspapers is not always
anything like what the jury listens to, yet you can read an article in 5
minutes at the MOST and then form a judgment based on that and/or what
your friends say? Nah sorry I don't buy it.
Murray
Agnes Lovejoy Prune
Motive existed.
Evidence of planning - you mean something written down, or obtained by
tapping his phone? How do you prove whether someone has planned
something in his own head, or when he planned it - last week, last year,
ten minutes ago when he saw how easy it would be?
A L P
BTMO
"Murray Sutherland" <> wrote
> > How do you *ever* prove intention?
> >
> > All the killer has to say is "I didn't mean to kill him!"
> >
> >
> Motive, evidense of planing, using a weapon that is desiged for the
> purpose many many ways.
A weapon like a toaster? A kitchen knife? Bare hands?
So the person who killed Murray Stretch - what did he get? Murder or
Manslaughter?
Did he have a plan to kill a cop?
Cheers,
Brenton
Tilly
> I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
Wrong....it was a response to extreme provocation after a series of unwanted
sexual advances by a sexual predator ,even after his previous advances had
been rebuked.
> Manslaugter is when you do something stupid and dangerous and it ends
> up killing someone. You're responsible for the death, but you didn't
> intend it. These guys committed 2nd degree murder at the very least.
> They intented grievous harm that resulted in death.
Wrong........It was not premeditated, it was an impulsive response to
sexual advances (made by the uncle), whilst under the influence of alcohol
and drugs supplied by the deceased.
That is manslaughter not murder.
Tilly
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 17/08/04
Tilly
>>> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
I can actually understand the kid losing it under the circumstances.
No means NO.....Who was the real victim here to start with Tarla ?
Tilly
--
Tilly
> How do you *ever* prove intention?
Crime scenes often provide the proof .
>
> All the killer has to say is "I didn't mean to kill him!"
Killers can say that but evidence can often disprove the assertion.
Tilly
> Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
> attack after a pass.
....wrong, after several passes that were rebuffed.
Tarla
wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>>>> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
>
>I can actually understand the kid losing it under the circumstances.
>No means NO.....Who was the real victim here to start with Tarla ?
You've never had someone make a drunken fumble at you, Tilly? I've had
them push me down on a bed and had to fight my way out. I never
grabbed a knife and killed anyone. The boy wasn't raped. He suffered
no harm whatsoever. He killed a man for making a pass.
Tarla
<murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:07:20 +1200, Murray Sutherland
>> <murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
snip
>
>> I do think there's a gap in the law though. Manslaughter appears to
>> cover too much territory afaic. We could fill that gap in our own
>> fashion though.
>
>I'm a bit confuzzed here, your saying that there is a gap in the law but
>it is covered by manslaughter, I'm taking it that agrevated assult
>charge is required in conjuction with a case of manslaughter such as McNee?
>
What I mean is that "Manslaughter" in NZ seems to cover both
accidental and intentional deaths. There is no difference between
them.
>>>As for the news papers, skew it around and it's self defence.....
>>>How about a verdict of justifiable homicide while your at it.
>>
>>
>> Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
>> attack after a pass.
>My point here is some what vicarious here but valid (having never
>experienced jury service but talked to a person who was on a "high
>profile case"), what is reported in the newspapers is not always
>anything like what the jury listens to, yet you can read an article in 5
>minutes at the MOST and then form a judgment based on that and/or what
>your friends say? Nah sorry I don't buy it.
I have no doubt that we don't get nearly enough details to make a
perfectly informed judgement here. We can only go by what we read in
the papers, isn't that the old saying? Fortunately, our opinions don't
have any effect on the results in the courtroom.
Tarla
wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>> Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
>> attack after a pass.
>
>
>....wrong, after several passes that were rebuffed.
You've never had a persistent pursuer, Tilly? I bet you have.
Bobs
Dersu wrote:
> "paora" <pau...@dell.com> wrote in message
> news:4124402e...@news.individual.net...
>
>>If you kill someone who attempts to rape you, you only get a 3 year
>>sentence. That suggests to me that you can kill someone who actually
>>does rape you.
>
>
> Meanwhile in Britain:
>
> A man near Great Yarmouth was asleep with his wife and the baby was in a cot
> in the same room. He awoke to hear his wife screaming because a man had
> climbed in bed and was stroking her between the legs.
>
> He chased the man who knocked over the cot - the baby fell out. The man
> dropped a package with the family's stolen mobile phone, building society
> books, money etc. Downstairs, the man attacked our hero with an iron bar,
> damaging our hero's shoulder.
>
> Our hero grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed the intruder, who stopped
> hitting our hero with the iron bar, dropped the other stolen goods, and ran
> off.
>
> The police have laid no charges against the scum, but arrested our hero on
> suspicion of assault !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This was in Monday's LONDON EVENING STANDARD - don't have an URL, was sent
> to me by someone who knows I have an interest in such absurdities.
Useless Europeans. No wonder my ancestors left that shithole. That man
should be given NZ Citizenship if this story is true, he's too good to
be wasted in limeyville.
>
> D.
>
>
--
"I like your flag. Britain at night" Jerry Seinfeld, commenting on the
Aussie flag.
Murray Sutherland
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:40:50 +1200, Murray Sutherland
> <murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>Tarla wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:07:20 +1200, Murray Sutherland
>>><murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>>I do think there's a gap in the law though. Manslaughter appears to
>>>cover too much territory afaic. We could fill that gap in our own
>>>fashion though.
>>
>>I'm a bit confuzzed here, your saying that there is a gap in the law but
>>it is covered by manslaughter, I'm taking it that agrevated assult
>>charge is required in conjuction with a case of manslaughter such as McNee?
>>
>
> What I mean is that "Manslaughter" in NZ seems to cover both
> accidental and intentional deaths. There is no difference between
> them.
you mean unintetional death in an aggrevated situation vs unintentional
death.
>>>>As for the news papers, skew it around and it's self defence.....
>>>>How about a verdict of justifiable homicide while your at it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
>>>attack after a pass.
>
>
>>My point here is some what vicarious here but valid (having never
>>experienced jury service but talked to a person who was on a "high
>>profile case"), what is reported in the newspapers is not always
>>anything like what the jury listens to, yet you can read an article in 5
>>minutes at the MOST and then form a judgment based on that and/or what
>>your friends say? Nah sorry I don't buy it.
>
>
> I have no doubt that we don't get nearly enough details to make a
> perfectly informed judgement here. We can only go by what we read in
> the papers, isn't that the old saying? Fortunately, our opinions don't
> have any effect on the results in the courtroom.
Then why the "I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was
murder."
I might let you off if you had rather cleaverly intended for some one to
be drawn into a debate about taking up degrees of murder(in NZ) or
making a new crime of aggrevated manslaughter...
Hhhmmmm....
Murray S
Tarla
<murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
I believe I clearly stated my reasoning for believing it was murder.
Agnes Lovejoy Prune
> Tarla wrote:
>
>>Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
>>attack after a pass.
>
>
>
>
>
....said the defendant, the only person alive to have been there at the
time, the person with a strong motive to minimise his own culpability.
A L P
Roger Dewhurst
"Bobs" <bl...@blah.co.nz> wrote in message
news:XFNVc.6994$2L3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Dersu wrote:
>
> > "paora" <pau...@dell.com> wrote in message
> > news:4124402e...@news.individual.net...
> >
>
> should be given NZ Citizenship if this story is true, he's too good to
> be wasted in limeyville.
Should be perhaps, but our feminazi fuhrer would rather give citizenship to
some Somali thug who is likely to commit a similar offence.
R
Roger Dewhurst
"Murray Sutherland" <murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote in
message news:4126...@clear.net.nz...
The motive, in part, was theft. He stole the car. As he is not going to be
topped it makes little difference whether the charge is murder or
manslaughter.
R
Peter Metcalfe
tarla...@xtra.co.nz says...
> What I mean is that "Manslaughter" in NZ seems to cover both
> accidental and intentional deaths. There is no difference between
> them.
A homicide can be murder even if it was unintentional. Such
homicides must be reckless. A good example would be a person
discharging a firearm into a packed ground while not caring whether
anybody died from it.
--Peter Metcalfe
Matthew Poole
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:40:50 +1200, Murray Sutherland
><murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>What I mean is that "Manslaughter" in NZ seems to cover both
>accidental and intentional deaths. There is no difference between
>them.
>
If it's intentional, and intent can be proved, then it's murder. The
key is proving the intent.
NZ law is _harsher_ than US law in this regard. You might get a lower
non-parole on your life sentence if you can demonstrate provocation, but
you won't get away with a manslaughter conviction.
--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
Matthew Poole
Murder requires intent to end life, or reckless disregard for the
potentially lethal consequences of one's actions - Which I think should
be used to do drunk drivers and drivers who run from the cops.
Matthew Poole
>
>"Murray Sutherland" <murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote in
>message news:4126...@clear.net.nz...
>The motive, in part, was theft. He stole the car. As he is not going to be
>topped it makes little difference whether the charge is murder or
>manslaughter.
>
like. So the charge does make a difference, since with murder he will
spend a minimum of 10 years inside.
Murray Sutherland
I gave examples Brenton, the guy that killed Murray Stretch was in the
act of comitting a crime and resisted arrest, was caught again at a
public place and killed, no mittigating circumstances at all. In the
McNee case the prosecution evidence was not strong enough, yeah he may
have been guilty of murder but not enough evidence, and aparrantly there
was evidence that justified a manslaughter verdict. More than that I
cannot say.
Murray
Tarla
wrote:
>In article <3c8fi011sme0em035...@4ax.com>, Tarla <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:40:50 +1200, Murray Sutherland
>><murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>*SNIP*
>>What I mean is that "Manslaughter" in NZ seems to cover both
>>accidental and intentional deaths. There is no difference between
>>them.
>>
>*SNIP*
>
>If it's intentional, and intent can be proved, then it's murder. The
>key is proving the intent.
>NZ law is _harsher_ than US law in this regard. You might get a lower
>non-parole on your life sentence if you can demonstrate provocation, but
>you won't get away with a manslaughter conviction.
But that's where the gap is...McNee's murder intended to do him harm.
Provocation should have nothing to do with it. If I tease you, do you
have the right to hurt me? No, of course not. Provocation is not
justification for assault.
Two examples: McKnee's killer and the Chinese kid who killed the 5
year old. The Chinese kid had no intention of causing harm to the
child, it was the result of reckless driving and therefore is rightly
manslaughter.
But McNee's murderer INTENDED to harm him. In the States, even his
accidental death combined with robbery would get him a life sentence.
Even if he didn't intend to kill him, he meant grievous bodily harm
and that is more culpable than accidental manslaughter.
BTMO
"Murray Sutherland" <> wrote
> >>Motive, evidense of planing, using a weapon that is desiged for the
> >>purpose many many ways.
> I gave examples Brenton, the guy that killed Murray Stretch was in the
> act of comitting a crime and resisted arrest, was caught again at a
> public place and killed, no mittigating circumstances at all.
Car theft is a crime...
So is beating someone to death...
> In the
> McNee case the prosecution evidence was not strong enough, yeah he may
> have been guilty of murder but not enough evidence, and aparrantly there
> was evidence that justified a manslaughter verdict. More than that I
> cannot say.
Me too.
Lets move on!
Cheers,
Brenton
paora
>> In the
>> McNee case the prosecution evidence was not strong enough, yeah he may
>> have been guilty of murder but not enough evidence, and aparrantly there
>> was evidence that justified a manslaughter verdict. More than that I
>> cannot say.
>
>Me too.
>
>Lets move on!
Yep, can't do much about it now. Handy to know what you can get away
with though.
Damon Nomad
rapist and get away with it?, sp...@stops.here (Matthew Poole)
wrote:
>In article <V0ZUc.4086$zS6.4...@news02.tsnz.net>, David Preece <da...@deletethis.zedkep.com> wrote:
>>paora wrote:
>>> I'm obviously not understanding something.
>>
>>Neither am I, he pulled one of the most bizarre defences ever:
>>
>>"Ali drank a small amount of alcohol and took some cannabis"
>>....
>>"Ali -- a devout Muslim with a strong faith"
>>
>>But not faith in a "turning down weed and the occasional drop" way, was
>>it? Also notable was
>>
>*SNIP*
>
>I also noticed that. With the possible exception of Mormon, Islam is
>the strictest religion about treating one's body as a temple. Drinking
>and toking are absolute no-no offences.
>A truly devout Muslim might've taken a sip on the sly, but no way would
>he be smoking the good stuff,
Moslems also resort to weaselish evasions to get around religious
proscriptions. The most notable one I can think of off the top
of my head is their not being allowed to let tobacco to touch
their lips. So what do they do? They use a cigarette holder.
Damon Nomad
rapist and get away with it?, Tarla <tarla...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:25:38 +1200, "Tilly" <Bri...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Tarla wrote:
>>>>> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
>>
>>I can actually understand the kid losing it under the circumstances.
>>No means NO.....Who was the real victim here to start with Tarla ?
>
>You've never had someone make a drunken fumble at you, Tilly? I've had
>them push me down on a bed and had to fight my way out. I never
>grabbed a knife and killed anyone. The boy wasn't raped. He suffered
>no harm whatsoever. He killed a man for making a pass.
The guy tried to thrust his finger up his anus. A deliberate
sexual assault.
Damon Nomad
rapist and get away with it?, "Roger Dewhurst"
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Murray Sutherland" <murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote in
>message news:4126...@clear.net.nz...
>> BTMO wrote:
>>
>> > "Murray Sutherland" <> wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >>>I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
>> >>
>> >>How so in the McNee case? There was no intention on the part of the
>> >>killer to actually kill McNee that could be reliably proved by the
>> >>police, unless you *know* something and withheld it? or would you like
>> >>to see people convicted based on your (or anybody elses) gut feeling?
>> >
>> >
>> > How do you *ever* prove intention?
>> >
>> > All the killer has to say is "I didn't mean to kill him!"
>> >
>> >
>> Motive, evidense of planing, using a weapon that is desiged for the
>> purpose many many ways.
>
>The motive, in part, was theft. He stole the car.
But he stole it AFTER he killed McNee. If he was interupted in
the act of stealing the car and killed McNee then that is a
different case.
He knew the car was terribly distinctive, a car driven by a well
known homosexual who cruised looking for "rough trade", his
actions were stupid rather than calculating, besides he knew that
nobody would believe a maori of his age had any legal reason for
being in let alone driving a Alfa Romero. It is almost as though
he had given up and invited his arrest, "a last run at the good
time" as it were before he was apprehended.
Damon Nomad
rapist and get away with it?, Tarla <tarla...@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:49:53 +1200, Murray Sutherland
><murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Tarla wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:09:34 +1200, Patrick Dunford
>>> <patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <4124402e...@news.individual.net> in nz.general on Thu,
>>>>19 Aug 2004 05:55:41 GMT, paora <pau...@dell.com> says...
>>>>
>>>>>If you kill someone who attempts to rape you, you only get a 3 year
>>>>>sentence. That suggests to me that you can kill someone who actually
>>>>>does rape you.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm obviously not understanding something.
>>>>
>>>>You're not understanding that a charge of manslaughter carries less of a
>>>>sentence than a charge of murder.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
>>
>>How so in the McNee case? There was no intention on the part of the
>>killer to actually kill McNee that could be reliably proved by the
>>police, unless you *know* something and withheld it? or would you like
>>to see people convicted based on your (or anybody elses) gut feeling?
>
>I am accustomed to a system which includes 2nd degree murder.
Well you will have to get used to a system that doesn't.
Damon Nomad
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:07:20 +1200, Murray Sutherland
><murray-sutherland@{remove}clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I'm sorry but in both this case, and the McNee case it was murder.
>>>>
>>>>How so in the McNee case? There was no intention on the part of the
>>>>killer to actually kill McNee that could be reliably proved by the
>>>>police, unless you *know* something and withheld it? or would you like
>>>>to see people convicted based on your (or anybody elses) gut feeling?
>>>
>>>
>>> I am accustomed to a system which includes 2nd degree murder. That is,
>>> intending to cause grievous harm, but not premeditated. I believe
>>> from the evidence given in the newspapers, that McNee's killer
>>> intended grievous harm, but no premeditation was shown by the
>>> prosecution. That's murder in the 2nd degree.
>>>
>>
>>Which is not a verdict that is available in NZ, or most other countries,
>>now should we all switch over to US standard procedings simply because
>>your accustomed to it???
>
>Did I suggest that? I said it was murder because that's the definition
>in the system I am accustomed to. It takes a while to learn all the
>differences in laws between the countries, particularly if that is not
>one's area of study.
>
>I do think there's a gap in the law though. Manslaughter appears to
>cover too much territory afaic. We could fill that gap in our own
>fashion though.
>>
>>As for the news papers, skew it around and it's self defence.....
>>How about a verdict of justifiable homicide while your at it.
>
>Self-defence? I didn't see any evidence of self-defence. It was an
>attack after a pass.
The guy reacted to being betrayed, he had agreed to stripping and
masturbating in front of McNee. McNee took amyl nitrate and then
homosexually assaulted him by trying to stick his finger up his
anus.
McNee was on drugs and larger than him, he panicked and used
un-necessary force to subdue him and lost control.
Tarla
wrote:
First, how do you know this? Second, is an attempted assault a
justification for murder?
--
Tarla
****
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!"
- JRR "Bob"Tolkien
Tarla
wrote:
>On , , Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:43:18 +1200, Re: Can you kill your
According to the killer.
Damon Nomad
>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:47:02 +1200, Damon Nomad <da...@nomad.damon>
>wrote:
>
>>On , , Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:22:41 +1200, Re: Can you kill your
>>rapist and get away with it?, Tarla <tarla...@xtra.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:25:38 +1200, "Tilly" <Bri...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tarla wrote:
>>>>>>> Then the law is sloppy in this regard imho.
>>>>
>>>>I can actually understand the kid losing it under the circumstances.
>>>>No means NO.....Who was the real victim here to start with Tarla ?
>>>
>>>You've never had someone make a drunken fumble at you, Tilly? I've had
>>>them push me down on a bed and had to fight my way out. I never
>>>grabbed a knife and killed anyone. The boy wasn't raped. He suffered
>>>no harm whatsoever. He killed a man for making a pass.
>>
>>The guy tried to thrust his finger up his anus. A deliberate
>>sexual assault.
>
>First, how do you know this? Second, is an attempted assault a
>justification for murder?
It was reported.
No, it isn't justification for murder, manslaughter or assault.
Damon Nomad
Yes according to the killer.
theseus
"Tarla" <tarla...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:nqopi0p7v02851mah...@4ax.com...
In Rugby League it just gets you suspended for 12 weeks for "unsportsmanlike
interference"
http://wesclark.com/rrr/hopoate.html
Dersu
"Damon Nomad" <da...@nomad.damon> wrote in message
>
> Moslems also resort to weaselish evasions to get around religious
> proscriptions. The most notable one I can think of off the top
> of my head is their not being allowed to let tobacco to touch
> their lips. So what do they do? They use a cigarette holder.
Adding a splash of water to arak so it looks like milk is another favourite
of the Gulf ragheads. Doesn't work with Johnnie Black of course!
D.