Posts by Nick D'Angelo
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I know a guy who works at a Scooter shop. He says they can (and do) do something to the Scooters that means you get the benefit of a 50cc scooter (ie no WOF or liscence req'd) and the power of a 125. Something like how you can tweak a semi-automatic rifle (legal) into a fully automatic rifle (illegal).
-
I have another theory on NZ first...
If you owe me $20, and then tell me you gave the $20 to charity.... You still owe me the $20.
Yes, It's amazing how Winston has pulled this off. The media have seemed to have written it off as "Canny Winston pulls another savvy political trick" complete with video of person-on-street saying__ "I think it's wrong, but that Winston, eh? He knows how to play the game". __So its a free pass for Winston.
I wonder if taxpayers/media would be so forgiving if it was the Muslim First party and the money was given to a charity in the Urewera's to fund a Madrass? Or a Christians First party and the money was given to a charity to fund Abortion Law Reform? etc etc
Winston defends himself by saying Parliamentary Services signed off on the spending in the first place so NZ First did nothing wrong. That's an issue that needs following up.
-
What 3410 just said
I couldn't agree more, but this thread has RSI so I shall move on to something else. But in closing:
What Kyle just said
Yes, I saw a few seconds of CCTV on TV too, but what does that really tell us? That the killer was a psycho and therefore the Police were right to wait until they were certain he'd left? That's not what I took from it. And as for the Herald story ... all they say is "As the gunman swings the weapon towards Navtej Singh behind the counter, Gurwinder Singh escapes out the back of the shop. Moments later Navtej Singh is shot in the chest.". That sets up the (presumed) defence theory that the killer was startled by Gurwinder and fired accidently. It doesn't say to me that the killer was a psycho and therefore the Police were right to wait until they were certain he'd left.
But anyway, we all seem fairly entrenched in our views/positions so I'll bow out of this thread and let the court decide the prosecution - and any inquiry can decide the merits of Police SOP. You can chat amongst yourselves :)
-
Scott Watson was found guilty
Oh.My.Gawd.
Do NOT get me started!
-
You can't take a scooter over the Auckland harbour bridge
Tom, I think if you get yourself one of the larger SUV's you'll find they can a fit a Vespa in the back quite easily...
-
I'm not sure whether police had this information, but my understanding was that the robber got the money first, and then shot the shopkeeper in a psycho moment of maliciousness, seemingly for no reason at all.
And you have this information because the Police gave it to you (via the media). We all got this story, but we don't get to see the footage ourselves, so we take the word of the media/Police. I'm pretty sure the Defendant will claim the rifle discharged accidently and that he didn't mean to kill Mr Singh, And hopefully the footage will be good enough for the jury to decide the veracity of that claim.
But my point (in this instance) is that the Police always skew the story to fit their needs. Scott Watson was "known to the Police" and making a nuisance of himself with the ladies at Marlborough Sounds on NYE, the couple found shot dead in their car at 1am on Tuseday underneath a Waikato underpass were just an ordinary decent kiwi couple and their killer must be found ... these are all spin from the Police seeking either clues or a conviction.
-
I concurr with your points Russell and agree with them. Mr Singh was killed by the person who shot him and not the Police. And those people have been arrested and the matter is now before the courst so we can't discuss it.
But seperate to that I stand by my feeling that there needs to be a review of SOP. I get the need to keep police and ambulance officers safe, and I agree with that too, but I'm concerned that policy dictates they wait as long as they did when common sense should skew towards the notion that the offenders have left the scene (As the family said). Instead we're told an equally likely scenario is that the perps have stayed 15 minutes at the scene, possibly lying in wait so they can kill some cops (or 'bust a cap' as some so eloquently put it earlier). Really?
I have to agree with NZ Native:
Now maybe my memory is faulty but can anyone else recall in NZ a case where liquor or small store robbers waited after the robbery to have a shoot out with police ?
Or any instance where a robber in NZ has held a gun to the head of one of their victims and made the victim pretend the robber had left so they could shoot/murder a police officer ??
Yes, we can all agree these scenarios are possible but usually they're reserved for television crime shows.
</aside>The Police should be happy to get so much support here on PAS for their SOP, given readers weren't so supportive of their Tuhoi adventures.
-
I'm the third of my friends to make the move to two wheels this year, and there's probably a dozen or so of my pals I know who've decided to ride.
That made me laugh because (trendspotter that I am) I've been telling my friends that we are soooo overdue for another mod revival:
You can be Sting.
Of course, while it always starts out nicely it's not long before caring carbon neutral yoof turn to Vespa inspired violence:
-
And if the police had just opened up the boot because it seemed like a good idea, nothing they found in the car would be admissible in the up-coming trial. Nothing, nadda, zilch.
Again, you're confusing American cop show plotlines with reality...
They have procedures around searches for a reason, and it's so that the likes of Chris Comesky can't get evidence turfed on a technicality.
And there's the other staple: slimey lawyers* setting the guilty free via loopholes....
the offender was for eg in the house and pointing a firearm at the people telling them what to do 'or else'
Sorry, are you saying the gunman was in the house, or the Police didn't go in because it was possible he was in the house forcing the hostages to tell the cops it was all clear???
*BTW: I'm not suggesting Chris Comesky is slimey but I'm wondering if you are. Genericly of course, since all defence lawyers are slimey right? What with all that getting their clients off, and all that. I mean the cops wouldn't have arrested them if they weren't guilty, right?
-
If you are, I'll find out exactly which brigade it was and you can go there on a Monday night and tell them that they're a bunch of cowards. I'd love to know their reaction.
Why don't we just have a dance battle to decide?