|
Home
Best viewed with Internet Explorer. Copyright
|
|
SSANZ Newsletter May/June 2005 First
published in
(SSANZ) Newsletter – May/June 2005 Self Defense - dramatic changes afoot. As
long ago as 1488, British Common Law enshrined the right, “that every
citizen has the right to be as safe in his home as the king in his
castle”. But it seems some of our current bureaucrats have a different
view about the rights of the ruling elite, compared with those of the huddled
masses (that include you and I). It is that, if you use self-defence in a
desperate situation, foisted upon you by those who would seriously harm you
or your family, these bureaucrats will prosecute you with the full weight of
the law. In effect, just as rape-victims get raped twice, once by the rapist
and once again by the court system, so too it is with homeowners forced to
defend their own lives. Ironically, it is the victims’ own taxes that
finance the prosecutions brought against them. But the
Common Law right of self defence is not one that the bureaucrats themselves
are prepared to surrender. After a
rookie police officer shot a Kaitaia motorist Keina Ron Murray, who was
merely disturbing the peace, a senior police officer stated, “Police
working alone can exercise their own discretion when deciding to carry
firearms”. All they need to be able to say is, “I honestly
believed I needed a firearm to protect myself or someone else”. So why
then did police go to such lengths to prosecute Northland man Matthew Oates
who shot dead one of a group of home invaders who’d been violently
bashing his partner Sheila Barker about the head with a sawn-off shotgun?
Why, when the police rely on exactly the same law of self-defence that the
public does, is it their policy to protect their own from a court case, but
to insist on one when the victim is a private citizen? The police
establishment in the new colony of There was a
time in this country as well as in When police
are unable to answer your 111 emergency call, you are the only thing
resembling the law. You are not taking the law into your own hands, it
already is in your own hands to defend by default whether you want it to be
or not. You don’t have to live in a remote rural area either. Police
response time in Further,
police spokespeople are at pains to point out the stress on their fellow
officers if there is a (very rare) private prosecution afterwards, even to
the point of suggesting there should be legal protection against this.
However, they have absolutely nothing to say about the same situation the
Crown puts a homeowner into, who of course is not defended by the State with
the taxpayer picking up the tab. Until Federated Farmers announced
they’d back Paul McIntyre, any members of the public who faced this
legal onslaught did so entirely on their own. If and when
the police arrive at your emergency (assuming they haven’t just sent a
taxi, or sent their squad to another part of You, however,
will very probably be directly prevented by police from contacting anyone for
outside help, even if that’s the only possibility of assistance
you’re likely to get. Your life and death situation will be played out
in minutes, perhaps even seconds, so that by the time officially sanctioned
help arrives at your door, the outcome will have already been decided.
Interestingly, no matter how badly the police handle your case, even if they
are demonstrably negligent, you have no legal recourse against them. Police
are not legally liable for your safety, (because the law recognizes that
police cannot be everywhere). Most of us
have only a vague idea of what the laws are relating to self defence. If at 3 a.m.
in the morning your door is smashed down by people in balaclavas wielding
machetes and demanding money, your recollection of the finer points of
self-defence law are unlikely to be calm and considered. However, the
court system that rapes you afterwards will debate these legal aspects at great
length, citing sections of the Crimes Act that are, to you, obscure
amendments that you have probably never heard of. That’s because no
government agency has ever been directed to inform you what you can and
cannot do. Keeping you as ignorant as possible so that you stumble about
blindfolded seems to be their strategy. Until
recently the only advice the Arms Code offered about self-defence, was
“don’t”. The Crown
that so often claims to be short of financial resources has millions of
dollars, if need be, to prosecute you through trial and retrial, in the
manner of Paul McIntyre and Matthew Oates. Their goal is
to get the “right” verdict. In almost
every self-defence case the jury has decided to acquit on the basis, not of
what the smart suits had to say, but rather, what they, the jury members
would have done in the same situation. Most
homeowners have been found not guilty, but this does not thwart the
bureaucrats. They have an endless amount of our tax dollars at their
disposal, so a dozen lost cases are immaterial when a couple of reversed
verdicts would give them what they seek. In legal terms it’s called
stare decisi, meaning that all future cases must “stand by decided
cases”. This is why homeowners are prosecuted long after their attackers
have left the court laughing on the 6 O’clock news, gesturing obscenely
and free to go. It is why the victims, in contrast, have had to sell their
farms to pay for their horrendous legal costs, to say nothing of the personal
anguish suffered by themselves and their families. It is because the
“right” verdict present an opportunity for the bureaucrats to
close down forever our right of self defence. No matter how
many juries acquit, no matter that a judge states that no jury properly
instructed could convict, these nameless bureaucrats continue to bring
prosecutions. They never face the scrutiny of the media or the wrath of the
public for their repeated abuse of the real victims. Yet their names are
known should the media choose to ask. Parliament should ask, “Why is
our money being spent this way? ” If it did this abuse could be stopped
tomorrow. Another of
Peel’s Principals is that, “The ability of the Police to perform
their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions”. The
next time a self-defence case is debated, just listen to talkback and ask, is
this the public approving of the Crown decision to prosecute? Many people
have suggested that it is all about job-protection. If homeowners were
permitted to defend themselves and their families it is likely that, as has
happened in the Metropolitan
Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair stated; “Reasonable force is
difficult to interpret in your kitchen at 4 a.m. in the morning”. Prime
Minister Tony Blair, mindful of strong public outrage at recent cases where
homeowners have been put on trial, has said the government would support such
a law change if it were shown to be necessary. In an Op-Ed
in the Telegraph (12/ 12/04), MP Mercer stated, “When the PM promised
last week that he would support a change in the law to give homeowners and
shopkeepers a greater right to fight back against intruders, it was a U-turn
of spectacular proportions. Until last week, the government has always
insisted that there was ‘no need’ to change the law; the existing
legislation provided ‘perfectly adequate’ safeguards for
homeowners”. Isn’t that what our own Phil Goff has implied too?
Patrick Mercer’s Private Members Bill in the Stephen
Franks introduced this idea at the recent Act conference and it behooves any
of us who want to see this grossly unfair system changed, to support him and
his Bill. Ask the other political parties how they will vote on this Private
Member’s Bill - it will need wide support to get a majority to pass. If they will
not support this Bill, ask them what their party will do to fix the problem -
if anything? Why not ask Phil Goff why he dismisses this Bill so readily when
When
Northland’s McIntyre case is again before the courts and the media, why
not ask our Prime Minister what she thinks? And here’s the ultimate
irony. Not only would making the Attorney- General personally responsible to
protect the public and tip the balance against burglars, it would even
protect those serving police officers from facing private prosecutions - the
very ones previously trying to prosecute us. How can they say no to that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
