THIS JUST IN

385 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 16 Newer→ Last

  • Rich of Observationz,

    the police still hauled the (white) guy behind the counter into court.

    Politely. After being bailed throughout the entire course of the case. And he got discharged without conviction I think.

    My understanding is that it's not illegal to use a gun in self-defence, but it is illegal to keep a gun to hand for that purpose, which is why the gun shop guy got charged.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    you might be ignoring the history of this case, and focusing on today's spin.

    You don't want to break that down a bit more? I'm just taking forceful stabs in the dark, I'm happy to be convinced that the police made an absolute mess of it, but I only see paths to "we don't know" (still).

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Thank you Graeme, it's nice to know someone cares ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    What Broad said was that their advice was that the intent of the law appeared to want to nip such planning in the bud before they got to the specific planning/conspiracy stage

    Then their advice was simply wrong.

    I've been going through Hansard and Select Committee reports for the past hour looking for where they got this strange idea that the bill provided a framework for "early intervention", and I just can't see it anywhere. Contra Broad, there's no mention of it in the purpose of the law, no mention in the Parliamentary debates, and no mention in the select committee reports. Therefore, there was no Parliamentary intent for any such thing.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1710 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    So. On the timing of the raids, anyone got any ideas?
    Come on let's speculate, it's Friday after all.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    Steve

    Broad said experience showed you don't wait, you move as early as you can, which I interpret as being as soon as ayou have enough facts to prove a case, and that he thought you did not need specific 'targets' to prove an offence under the TSA.

    I wonder therefore if they had moved from chanting 'bring on the revolution brother ' to 'here's how we bring on the revolution' or similar.

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Graeme, I had a question, too.

    If TSA-related material could be introduced at bail hearings on the firearms charges, then does yesterday's development allow bail conditions to be re-examined?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    How about this for a theory.
    A group of activists deliberatly fed disinformation to the police in order to force them to act before the TSA amendment was passed thus bringing the proposed amendment to the attention of the wider public ?

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Sorry, that would be a hypothesis, not a theory ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    Only if it's scientific surely?

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    If TSA-related material could be introduced at bail hearings on the firearms charges, then does yesterday's development allow bail conditions to be re-examined?

    Yes. Now that the maximum sentences those arrested face are terms of four years' imprisonment, the question of whether it is just to detain them while awaiting trial can be reassessed.

    Interestingly, arguments can go both ways. Now that the offences are only against the Arms Act, it is likely that any trial will be sooner than one held under the TSA (there won't need to be as much preparation by the defence, and there will be fewer pre-trial arguments etc.).

    Also, in assessing risk to the community, likelihood of absconding from bail etc. some of the material relating to the TSA may still be relevant.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3198 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    You don't want to break that down a bit more?

    sure. based on my limited information (from the msm and this blog), the police are saying they had advice that they would have sufficient evidence to prosecute under the SoTA. turns out they didn't, and now "the bad law is to blame."

    but there's a chance that they knew that very early on, possibly within the first couple of days, hence the aggressiveness of their search and seizure. and, hence the arse-covering behaviour.

    like meurant suggested, there's a chance that the tracks were laid and the train was moving. the police had no choice but to commit themselves to a course of action, and hope that adequate evidence was found in their ever-widening circle of warrants.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    whoops. TSA not SoTA.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    "Only if it's scientific surely?"
    Not really.
    Hypothesis= The idea you want to investigate.
    Theory= The idea you have after investigating.
    Not necessarily a scientific idea but a scientific process.
    If you catch my drift.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    My dictionary says part of theory's meaning is "an explanation of...anything" "speculation; a hypothesis " and hypothosis as "supposition; conjecture"

    ie you were safe using them either way as we got your drift.

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    You must have a cheap dictionary ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    Che

    problem with your theory (or hypothesis), weren;t the raids pretty much done and dusted on the one day? I don't recall them going on for days and there being an "ever widening circle' of warrants.

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • blindjackdog,

    "I see as much misery outa them movin to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -- Doc Cochran.

    Since Nov 2007 • 40 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Some of the material they have been charged with possessing (Napalm, Molotov Cocktails) are not actually proscribed by the arms act.

    It's illegal to have an explosive without proper cause, etc.

    But petrol (jellied or otherwise) isn't an explosive as Lewis Page discusses in this Register article. Maybe they could get him over as an expert witness.

    (He could give a few lectures while he's here. With demonstration bangs - I'm sure we'd get a good turnout)

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    sure. based on my limited information (from the msm and this blog), the police are saying they had advice that they would have sufficient evidence to prosecute under the SoTA. turns out they didn't, and now "the bad law is to blame."

    Well the 'bad law is to blame' comes from the solicitor general (and Winston Peters, but I'll stick with the former). It's possible that he's covering for the police, but the solicitor general isn't the only one who's said it's a pretty bad law.

    There's two possible explanations for the SG's statements yesterday (I'll broaden them out a bit to cover subtleties).

    1, he's covering for the police who have cocked up.

    2, he's looked at the evidence they've presented and thought "my god, this is terrible! terrorists!" and then looked at the law and concluded "who wrote this shit? We can't convict these terrorists with this." (which is basically what he said, I'm inferring from his words and overstating it a bit because I'm all about the drama).

    If we take the police commissioner and solicitor general as honest in their public statements (and obviously we'd all like to believe that's true) then explanation #2 has occurred.

    For explanation #1 to be true one or both has to be corrupt or dishonest. Do we have any evidence that that's the case? Or are people just saying it?

    I just don't get how a couple of weeks ago everyone would say "I'm waiting to see the evidence of what actually happened before I draw any firm conclusions." We know no more about the evidence today than we did yesterday morning. Nothing has been released, leaked etc, of any substance. The only comment made on the actual evidence that is new has been made by the SG, who said that it revealed some "very disturbing activities". That comment seems to me to add support to what the police did, not take it away.

    And yet everyone has decided to bag the police for their actions, today. Knowing no more about what the police were looking at. The only thing we know is that it failed to meet the test of what everyone is admitting is a bad law. That's not an indication of what happened, that's an indication of how it would go in a court of law up against one particular law. Are we only concerned with how it plays out in court, rather than how it played out in the Ureweras?


    My understanding that the TSA came into it because it was the only law they could apply for the interception warrants under. Once they'd committed to that, they needed to put it on the other warrants, as that was the only law they could prosecute using that interception information. Presumably what was said/sent on phones etc was pretty important to the whole case. So if that interception information was crucial, then yes they were committed to that 'train track' of using the TSA.

    I think the other thing that needs to be remembered is that this is the first time that anyone has used this law. It's been a dogs breakfast all around. But the police don't have a good idea of what the standard is for prosecuting under the TSA, and wouldn't until it happened. A lot of the reality of law is written in courts by judges and lawyers.

    I've just read Colin Espiners blog on stuff and he's said a bunch of similar stuff to what I've been saying on here.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    @insider. not as far as i know. i had the impression there were additional raids. such as the family in taupo who had their computer gear removed?

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    McCully in his newsletter says the section of the Act that the SG criticised was put in specifically at the Greens' insistence (ok he would say that ) ... but add that to your conspiracy theories

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Hunter,

    I haven't read ALL of the posts so I hope I'm not repeating a question but if the only charges are under the Firearms Act, will all of the hearings still be in Auckland? Ans if so, who pays for the defendants who live elewhere to travel there and back?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • insider outsider,

    I only know about that Taupo one. There was one reported in Auckland of an activist but that related to an aggravated robbery suspect who gave it as his address. I'd expect raids to go on for days anyway for anything this big. Seems to for other national events like drugs and gang ones. This seems to have been very tightly coordinated overall.

    nz • Since May 2007 • 142 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    There's two possible explanations for the SG's statements yesterday (I'll broaden them out a bit to cover subtleties).

    1, he's covering for the police who have cocked up.

    2, he's looked at the evidence they've presented and thought "my god, this is terrible! terrorists!"

    yeah, both those are unlikely imho. i'm far from a legal expert, but the sg shouldn't be covering for police, and it seems highly unlikely.

    on the second point, the sg isn't in this case there to be convinced that he's looking at terrorists, he's there to determine whether there is a sufficient weight of evidence to prosecute under the TSA. his opinion on te qaeda being "actual terrorists" is as irrelevant as mine.

    so we apply occams razor. the police didn't have sufficient evidence.

    if the law was written to catch international criminals, a criticism that seems to be levelled against it, then maybe the police thought they had something that would have allowed them to make a prosecution stick.

    remember the murmurs about a 'fiji connection'? and the publishing of the 'arabic' name of one of the accused? both those two small mentions made my conspiracy button flash. maybe they thought they had an "international cabal" angle they could use.

    but, again, without seeing the evidence we'll never know how badly the police fcked up.

    instead, we have blame moved firmly over the act they received bad advice about. like i say, more arse covering than a victorian swim-meet.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 16 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.