By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TWRoO on 01 July 2008
Edit Thread
Sqrl said:
Rath said:

Or the law should be changed because it is quite frankly ridiculous.

Bah I'm not entirely happy with New Zealand law at all points (our abortion and gay marriage laws aren't perfect for example) but I'm sure glad we at least got our laws right as far as self defense and guns go.

Edit: @Steven. Shooting somebody because it is theoretically possible that they have a gun, despite the fact that they are indeed running in the opposite direction to you, is still murder and not self-defense.

 

You are making several assumptions to make your point to Steven. For example:

-You don't know if he knew they had guns, you assumed he didn't know but he very well may have seen them holding them when breaking in initially. You can't hold a gun and a TV at the same time after all.

-You don't know if they were running for cover, for a weapon, or for their lives, you assume they were running for their lives.

 

In any case, the castle law is perfectly fine, the application of it here may have been dubious but that doesn't mean the law is flawed. It means the grand jury failed in its legal duties.

This is the media we are talking about.... if the two illegal immigrants had any guns on them it would definately be in the story.

What I don't like about this is that the guy knew about this new law that was just changed or re-instated or something, and he went out there with the intention of killing them.

---
Edit: I read a little more of what Sqrl found out about one of the burgalars coming towards the guy?.... seems there is some crossed wires on what actually happened.... but I think the phone call with the police before he did anything should be enough to put him away, whether they (or one of them) threatened him or not he intended to shoot them before he wen out there.