Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That we allow Police to use force & even kill is a cultural construct. That no crime has been committed due to the lack of intent is a cultural construct. It is pretty clear that American shooting is a murder, by our shared cultural construct.
We simply pick and choose as fits our culture at the time.
There's a sense in which some of that is true, but it's a fairly banal observation. I agree with your original comment that it can be interesting to look at the different cultural constructs around what society considers to be legitimate killing, but the specific comparison you were alluding to was pretty spurious.
-
I suspect that parliament doesn't want minor assaults on the rugby field to be criminal.
I think this is getting there...
I'd re-word that to say something like: I suspect that parliament doesn't want minor incidents of pushing or hitting on the rugby field to be a criminal level of assault. (I mean ones outside the rules of the game.)
I don't think most people consider a routine (but not rule-protected) shove in a game is really an illegal act. Technically it is, (in that it doesn't have a specific defence, as with light smacking now). But in a day to day sense, we don't think of it that way.
I'll have to expand on this later, I've gotta go. I'm away for the weekend so might not post for a while. Get this thread to 100 pages in the meantime, okay guys?
-
Paul, the example of the bank robbery was just Graeme pointing out that not being convicted isn't the same as saying the act isn't a criminal act. Beyond that, he wasn't saying it was a good analogy.
The amendment does not criminalise ordinary every day parents,
Yes it does, in the sense Graeme has been talking about pretty consistently. It might be worth you taking the time to read the exchange between Graeme and Brickley Paiste (or something like that - typing the name from memory) that starts page two and takes a 2 or 3 pages. Its pretty clear to me that Graeme established that, prior to the law change, the act of hitting your child lightly for the purpose of correction was not illegal, but now it is: it is an illegal act. An act "ordinary everyday parents" are committing, presumably.
-
Just for the sake of argument: what do you think of this definition of an allowable 'corrective smack'?
- Open hand only (no punches, no implements)
- Must be on the arm/hand, or legs/backside
- Does not cause bruising
Workable?
-
I think a better point is that the entire game of rugby consists of actions that would be considered assault off the field.
More explicitly so with boxing! But I think there are laws in NZ that cover actions that would otherwise be assault, such as a tackle in rugby, or a punch in boxing, if you voluntarily enter into it. Graeme made this point on another thread on this subject, I think.
I doubt it would cover actions that are not part of the rules of the game, however, hence the back-shoves and punches etc in rugby and other sports being used as the example.
-
Now excuse my ignorance of the game with balls but as I understand it, if a fight is deemed against the rules, there is disciplinary action, which, is dealt with pretty quickly by the appropriate authority. If it is considered a scuffle of less significance do they not sit on the Bench or get to the showers sooner?Either way this is not considered acceptable behaviour.
No, it is not considered acceptable behavior, but I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise.
-
the pro-rule-of-law-ers who think Parliament shouldn't be passing legislation it really doesn't want enforced.
That's Graeme making the point, a page or two back.
Neither he nor Dave mean that parliament doesn't want the legislation as a whole enforced **at all*, just that they don't really want anyone to be charged with assault for a light corrective smack on the hand.
Before, that was not illegal; now, it is (cf. the debate between Graeme and Brickley Paiste that started about page two).
-
And you know full well the difference between stating fact and opinion. And given that you publicly called Chuck Bird a public fool, you must feel one is entitled to an opinion.
Heh, opinion. Yet earlier you tried to portray your comments as being like that of a mainstream journalist conveying the story, "reporting an account, not writing for a tabloid".
-
Paul's already explained this. There is nothing unique in the police having discretion whether to prosecute. It happens all the time. Surely you must know that. So why raise it?
To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.
The best counter may be the one made earlier (by Kyle, I think). Sports people - especially rugby players - get into fights all the time, often in front of large crowds and tv cameras. Technically, they're committing an offense. No one seriously thinks most of these incidents should be drawn to the attention of police, let alone go to court. Yet no one thinks parliament should arrange a special defence.
-
Except that there's discretion to pursue prosecution in s. 59 and other cases.
Which doesn't change the fact that light smacking on the hand, for example, is a criminal assault.
Perhaps I've misunderstood Graeme's point?
I think what Graeme's saying is that no one in parliament seriously considers that a parent who gives their child a light smack for corrective purposes is engaging in a criminal activity. Before, they weren't. Now, they are.
...dave's had a go at me and others at various points throughout this discussion, appears determined to ignore other points of view and is repetitively restating the same single point ... in bad faith as you say... what's the test for a troll exactly?
Well, hectoring and arguing poorly ain't it. There's no hard and fast definition, but I think he is arguing an honest viewpoint overall.