Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I would imagine they'll just can them Sacha.
Depends - are any of them in National electorates?
-
Creek? What economic benefit does that have to anyone?
Farmers can use it as a cheap sewer?
-
I'm starting to think allowing anyone to own pistols & military style weapons is an assult on my freedom.
They're already pretty much illegal, except for "collectors" (which means an unhealthy obsession) and clubs (which tightly control them, and that's OK).
-
When executing a search warrant on a drug dealer’s house I would have thought it would be standard practice for the police to be armed.
Why? We Are Not America, and nor do we want to be.
-
No, it wouldn't fix it. It might've fixed it if a register had existed prior to the change, but it wouldn't have fixed things retroactively.
But would it stop it from happening in future?
That's the chief benefit - allowing proper policing of whether those whose licenses lapse or are disqualified have disposed of all their toys.
-
Out of interest, what is considered to be military deployment?
A qustion I'm trying to pin down (for a different purpose) myself ATM.
But in the case of assisting the police, anything at all when there are guns or violence involved. The law is very clear: No part of the Armed Forces shall be used to provide assistance to the civil power when there may be shooting without jumping through the appropriate hoops. The reason being that soldiers make very bad police (as Fiji shows).
(Looking for bodies and lost trampers isn't covered by this part of the Act; it's just a nice courtesy on their part. But we can't use the army to deal with e.g. an incident of terrorism without the Minister informing Parliament, and I feel a lot safer that way)
-
Parliament is sitting, and it's incumbent on the Minister of Police to notify the House immediately if the police will be using military force in resolution of a situation.
The House had risen for the weekend by the time the military were deployed. The next sitting day is tomorrow.
-
I would just like to be reassured all the right legal boxes were ticked before the army were called in.
There are none, for something like the use of the LAVs that was undertaken.
I draw your attention to http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0028/latest/DLM205887.html s9 (4) of the Defence Act 1990. Any use of the military to assist the police requires approval of the PM, and if it is ongoing, Parliament.
(The incident clearly meets the criteria, BTW, and we'll find out 14:00 Tuesday whether the government ticked all the legal boxes)
-
I can't see the point of risking anyone else's life on the basis that an armoured vehicle might unnerve some people.
I can't see the point in risking anyone's life to retrieve a corpse, when you can just wait and pick it up when the shooting has stopped. But I'm notably unsentimental about the meat.
-
While others of my generation signed up to be money market dealers and brokers, I opted for less weaselly pursuits
What, law?