by Metiria Turei
Three Strikes Lobbyists Should Be Struck Out
Any legislation the current government is thinking of introducing that has the backing of the Sensible Sentencing Trust (SST) needs to be looked at twice and then most likely thrown out.
The SST are the organisation supposedly committed to the rights of victims of crime. But their spokesperson Garth McVicar proved that the SST is only concerned with those victims who fit their own stereotypes. Garth McVicar has suggested to Radio NZ that convicted criminals – those who kill – should walk free provided the crime is stabbing taggers. Mr McVicar was commenting to Radio NZ after Bruce Emery had been found guilty of the manslaughter of Pihema Cameron.
So the Sensible Sentencing Trust not only condones vigilantism, but lynching too?
There is no doubt that the killing of teenager Pihema Cameron is a tragedy for both his and Bruce Emery’s families. It was a disastrous set of circumstances that lead to the senseless taking of a young man’s life. The fear and frustration evident in Bruce Emery’s reaction to the tagging was understandable. But no-one, NO-ONE deserves to die for any crime, let alone ‘minor’ property crimes like tagging. The sentence Emery received is extremely low, and the Cameron family are right to be appalled at that. Will the SST help them to appeal that sentence? They have supported other families whose sons were murdered, why not the Camerons?
No, instead Mr McVicar displays a callous attitude to the victims of this tragedy. Surely an organisation that prides itself on supporting victims should be giving some assistance and sympathy to Pihema’s grieving whanau.
And now this dubious organisation is bragging about the fact that their wish list is going to almost entirely implemented by the present government. Is the SST advocating legislation for death sentences for tagging now? Maybe I should not be so surprised.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Metiria Turei on Mon, February 16th, 2009
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Manslaughter. Provoked. Two-sided confrontation. First criminal offense.
The sentence seemed fair enough to me.
And the left would do well to consider just how heated the community is getting over tagging and boy racers. The slap with the wet bus ticket approach, advocated by many on the left, simply hasn’t worked.
Little wonder that citizens take matters into their own hands.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
The real question is why does the SST think the sentence is too tough?
Why are the SST appearing to cast Emery as the victim?
I trust you are not excusing or trying to justify killing petty criminals on the street?
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good to see the sensible sentencing trust have finally found a murderer they like
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: …just how heated the community is getting over tagging and boy racers.
Completely different dogs BP. Boy racers are a serious threat to public safety, and I agree that the law needs to come down hard on them. Taggers are an annoying and expensive, but don’t threaten anyone’s safety – except their own if some stupid out of control idiot decides to chase them with a knife.
I was appalled by the inadequacy of the sentence Emery received, but even more appalled at the hypocrisy of the Sensible Sentencing Trust supporting a violent criminal.
And wondering if ACT MP and former SST legal adviser David Garret supports killing petty criminals (either judicially or extra-judicially)???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the sentancing for that particular case was just right. He did not have the intent to kill and the death itself is the fault of the actions of the ‘victim’, furthermore the raising of the weapon to a position where damage may have been done was an action of self defence as the taggers attempted to permenantly remove his sight. In all truth he didint deserve a large sentence but he couldint be let free as that would encourage repetition of those actions in others and he did weild a weapon threatingly and through said weilding cause death.
Who cares about the family of the ‘victim’, judging by the accused behaviour of said victim he was obviously badly raised and likly to be a permenant drain on society. The fault lies dirrectly, though not exclusivly, at the feet of the ‘outraged’ mother.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I trust you are not excusing or trying to justify killing petty criminals on the street?
The victim was killed when a fight broke out. People die in fights, especially when weapons are involved. Both parties could have defused the situation, but they didn’t.
As for the SST, I don’t much care for their organization. I don’t think their approach is balanced.
>>Taggers are an annoying and expensive, but don’t threaten anyone’s safety
He wasn’t killed because he was a tagger. He was killed because he engaged in a brawl. How come a teenager can’t outrun a fat, middle aged man? He surely must have confronted Emery.
Tagging is the equivalent of pi$$ing on someone elses territory to mark it out. It denotes ownership. It is theft, of sorts, and a primal challenge. COuntries go to war over the equivalent.
The consequences of such actions are serious. I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What message does this send to taggers? I don’t think that it sends the “don’t tag” message, I think it sends a “maybe you should carry a knife/gun with you in case someone like Emery has a go at you.”
So in a few months time we’ll hear a story about someone who confronted a tagger, told them to shove off and ended up getting shot/knifed.
So predictable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He was chased 300 metres by a man with a knife. At the end he was cornered, by a man with a knife.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Taggers provoke fear in communities and create property damage. The more that police and parliament over look these factors, the greater chances that these incidents will grow.
More to the fact, we now read that his Pihema Cameron’s sibling has now given up school to smoke weed and drink because the grief is too much. Sounds like a looser looking for an excuse to give up.
Message it send to the taggers. The community is pissed off with your behavior and if you die its no loss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, sweetdisorder: Annoying property damagers don’t somehow stop becoming human beings after a certain number of offences. Even if Emery was in a fight with this boy (yes, boy), I find the idea that you can justifiably kill someone for theft of property is pretty whacky.
As for fear: My place has been tagged and burglarised (sp?) lately. One of those crimes worries me – the other’s just annoying.
Rampant graffiti and vandalism are meant to be a terrible blight on our society – I wonder if the lack of compassion towards people we consider undesirables is actually far worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I really don’t know that much about this situation, and maybe it’s because I was brought up with a different set of values, but if it was one of my kids that was killed in a similar situation I would be blaming myself for failing to keep my child safe.
The bottom line is that these children were out on the streets at night (whether they are breaking the law or not) and it is a dangerous place for them to be. To me this isn’t about Emery killing a tagger, but parents failing to protect their child.
I guess maybe the lesson that should be learned (but I doubt that it will) is that parents should keep a closer eye on their kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am also quite amazed that anyone here could think that the death penalty for tagging is acceptable. Let alone that the death penalty can be imposed without recourse to any form of trial.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This case is a disgrace, and so is the media coverage of it and that is reflected in the discussion above.
Firstly wasn’t self defence ruled out? (keen to know if this is my misunderstanding)
Secondly wasn’t provocation applied (previously used in cases of unwanted homosexual advances from a person in power now used for scribbling on a nearby fence). (again keen to know cause the media hasn’t actually informed me of the legal decision that well).
Wasn’t Camerons father a paraplegic who he helped look after, and where have been the cuddly photos in the media. Maybe he is blaming himself Doug.
And when was the last time you saw victim impact statements and videos in the media deliberately reflected in such an unsympathetic light. When did you here anything about the effects on the family of a Maori criminal being given a custodial sentence?
Where has all the anger from guys like BP come from? Pihema Cameron was a messed up kid.
And Garth McVicar has lost any relevance or moral standing he might once have had.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore,
Its not that the death penalty should be inforced for tagging but that the person whom caused such death did not have the intention of killing or, as far as we know, even harming the individual and as such he should not be subjected to a term the same as someone whom had said intention. While he was certainly out of line to bring a knife out and threaten someone and chase them 300 metres, the death resulted not from him thrusting a weapon in rage, nor from him slashing wildly about, but from holding a knife up in defence while two drugged up idiots attempted to blind him with spray paint. though granted, one could argue, in self defence.
Victim impact is irrelivant, the sentancing is the domain of criminal law it should have no reflection on indirrect victim impact. Reperations is the domain of the civil law and is delt with through money or some such rather than time imprisoned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is there any reason why accidently killing someone with a knife should be treated more severely than accidently killing them with a car or a bicycle?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Emery didn’t just stab a tagger, he confronted a situation that inflicts society in general: feral youth and toothless justice. I would hate to be Emery but the tagger was just one soldier in an invading army. It could have been the otherway around ofcourse as someone found out a while back when they chased someone who was damaging letter boxes. The support for Emery is (also) spitting in your faces*.
*having said that you (the Green Party) are the last word (the ultimate experts) in all things social justice (even if you do say so yourselves).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T said: To me this isn’t about Emery killing a tagger, but parents failing to protect their child.
Doug T, we’re talking about a 15 year old here, not an 10 or 11 year old. At 15 he was well past the age (14) that parental supervision is required. He was old enough to hold a driver’s licence and almost old enough to leave school. At 15 (much to my shame and embarassment now) I was able to get served in the local pub and drive home drunk – and that was 35 years ago. There’s nothing new about teenagers pushing the boundaries and getting into mischief.
Kevyn said: Is there any reason why accidently killing someone with a knife should be treated more severely than accidently killing them with a car or a bicycle?
Depends on the circumstances, Kevyn. If you drive a car or bicycle at someone with intent to frighten them, and unintentionally hit and kill them, there is probably little difference – you are using the vehicle as a weapon. That sort of crime, where the perpetrator accidentally kills someone with a weapon that is intended to threaten deserves a severe sentence imo – whether the weapon is a vehicle or a knife. Driving carelessly, losing control of the vehicle, and accidentally killing someone is imo at a far lower level of criminality.
jh said: …feral youth and toothless justice. I would hate to be Emery but the tagger was just one soldier in an invading army.
Get a grip jh! I remember attitudes like that from among my parents’ generation when I was a teenager because we had the temerity to smoke dope and drop acid – while a good number of my elders and betters considered it okay to get pissed as parrots and beat the living crap out of us! Seems like nothing has changed in 35 years – the double standard lives on. We should nurture, support and encourage our young people – not demonise and victimise them as “feral youth”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m with Toad, here.
As a youngster of the late 70’s/early ’80’s teens, I skipped off to disco’s my mum didn’t know about, hung out with friends who smoked and played pool at the tender age of 13, and later in my teens, had friends who took me into pubs under-age.
By the time I left the provincial town I grew up in, I was well versed in the ways of young women for getting themselves a social life – and taught my mates in the hostel that if we wore a signet ring (which most of us had) to the pub, we could swiftly shift it to the ‘other’ hand (society was stricter about jewellery then – only affianced girls wore rings on the wedding hand!) and claim that our date was indeed our engaged fiance. The guys were mostly older, mostly engineering students, and dare I say it, some were from Trentham Army camp .. and we got away with that for years around Upper Hutt. Nobody I knew in that female-heavy hostel ever got done for drinking under-age.
The current crop of young people seem to have just as much spunk, determination to do their thing, and initiative as we showed.
Why is it that once a person hits 40, they become blind and amnesiac about the perils they navigated in their own youth, and extremely unpermissive about the generations below them?
A teenager with a spray can may be annoying, if you put a high personal value on a blank wall. But he or she is not life-threatening, and maybe the message being delivered is pertinent, and one that the wall-owner should be paying attention to.
Miscommunication, and intolerance of the social demographics outside one’s own experiences, are the bigger problems here – and ones which the paltry sentence handed down to Emery don’t even acknowledge, let alone try to address.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s no wonder the Green Party are stuck on 6.4% after all these years – you’re so out of touch.
Report a burglary, or other “minor” crime (which often affects the victims sense of security) and the Police can barely be bothered recording it. Combine this fact with the widespread belief that “the kidz” are getting away with everything, and it’s no wonder people are taking matters into their own hands.
People are pushing back. They’ve had enough.
Instead of viewing these acts as minor crimes, we should be coming down hard on them. We’ve been tolerant long enough, and teh more tolerant we are, they more they take the p***.
Tired of being reasonable. There was an element of public service in Emerys actions as we have one less unsupervised thug loose on the streets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: Report a burglary, or other “minor” crime (which often affects the victims sense of security) and the Police can barely be bothered recording it.
Don’t for one moment think that I condone that BP. The Police need to be resourced to properly investigate crime. I don’t believe they are, and I don’t beieve sufficient Police attention is given to investigating burglaries. That said, the Police do still waste a lot of time investigating and prosecuting trivial and victimeless crimes like petty drug offences (some of which imo should not be offences at all).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@ BP “As for the SST, I don’t much care for their organization. I don’t think their approach is balanced. ”
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
the easy test of the “balanced” approach you take on the issue is if in this “fight” Cameron had have killed Emery. Would you still be trying your pathetic rationalisations of why it’s only manslaughter?
BP champion of balance. my @rse has fallen off from the laughter
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@ jh “the tagger was just one soldier in an invading army”
no he was a kid with a can of spray paint with the same kind of problems that every teenager has: alienation from a society that treats them like an invading army.
seems like white fifty year-old media producers (and others) find it easier to empathise with a fifty year old white guy than they do with a teenager from the other side of the tracks. strange…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I to was appalled at the sentence handed down to Mr Emery, IMHO the man should have been sentenced to time served.
We will see a lot more of this, as long as we reward intergenerational welfare and continue to pay low life’s to breed, do away with the DPB and long term unemployment beneficiaries and you will fix the problem within a generation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Agreed on the drug petty offenses, Toad, although I’m loathe to lay blame with the Police.
The fact is that there is too much petty crime, and I suspect part of the reason is the lack of consequences, at school and/or from their parents. The kidz push the boundaries, find there are none, and just keep pushing until they hit one. Would explain the frequency of tagging and the attitudes of boy racers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, Pihema Cameron lived with (and helped look after) his tetraplegic father. Although I suppose you’d reckon that even though his father is a tetraplegic he should have got off his fat ass and got a job and that it was still all the fault of being on the benefit!
Actually, his father may be on ACC compo rather than benefit – not sure – but they’re all just bludgers in any case, eh BB!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad
Wow, just when did this young angel find the time to go out tagging then?
I also wonder where he found the time to drink and do drugs on the day of the offence.
Perhaps his dad is not a bludger Toad but the rest of them sure as hell are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
It seems I was indeed wrong, what a nice young man he was.
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3000210618
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro on bebo! I’d never have thought it. But I can’t translate the bro-speak bro. You help?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not with Toad here. Strangly, I find myself with the Great State of Texas amongst others and the concept of “Castle law”. The terms vary by state but essentially if you as an upstanding citizen are in a place where you have a right to be and you shoot a fella comitting a crime, then in law you are presumed to have done the right thing. The state has to prove that you didn’t act unreasonably if they want to bring a prosecution.
Thus, in several American states, it would be the case that Pihema Cameron got what was comin’ to him.
Of course, the Castle Law is doing no more than reflecting the attitudes of citizens (and more importantly – juries) of said states. If the Pihema Cameron case had happened in Texas, the jury would take less than five minutes to find Emery not guilty. Under traditional law (such as in NZ), the state would feel obligated to bring a prosecution ‘cos thats what the law says. The Castle law in effect just saves the state from bringing prosecutions that will never sway a jury. A Texas jury will always side with the Good ‘Ole Boy when some son bitch gets shot.
Ands thats the problem with NZ juries. What kind of message did they send with the Pihema Cameron case? They said that when a criminal gets killed in the line of duty, then the righteous go to jail, unless they’re a copper, of course. Not a great message.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“They said that when a criminal gets killed in the line of duty, then the righteous go to jail, unless they’re a copper, of course”
seriously? righteous? he stabbed a kid 35 years a junior in defence of his wall…
castle law? you agree with this? killing a boy is saving us the problem of prosecuting him for vandalism so it’s A-ok? please please move away to texas. they need you far more than NZ does!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad
“big bro on bebo! I’d never have thought it. But I can’t translate the bro-speak bro. You help?”
In this case I can, the translation goes something like this “Cameron is NOT the little angel you make him out to be”
I am always happy to help you out mate, all you need do is ask
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
so many people on this thread with comments like “when a criminal gets killed in the line of duty,” and “the tagger was just one soldier in an invading army” are evidence of the besieged mindset that prevents viewing the problems sensibly.
teenagers are not an army, they are individuals connected socially through the interweb and school. they see the media that refers to the behaviours with which they have come to identify and respect – rituals of rebellion and disobedience – demonised which of course reinforces an us against them mindset on both sides of the debate.
harsher penalties, though they may satisfy the bloodlust of some of the more rabid members of the lynchmob it will only serve to further alienate the people who behave this way and thus increase the prevalence of them. just what does constitute “in the line of duty” for a soldier in the tagger army jh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“In this case I can, the translation goes something like this “Cameron is NOT the little angel you make him out to be” “
that’s right, BB you’re argument is won! he has swearing on his bebo site. he deserved to die…
maybe you could suggest some other kids who should be put to death because their social networking does not meet your approval…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>thus increase the prevalence of them
You don’t see much tagging in Texas.
Guess that’s because the darling little angels have had their heads blown off.
We’ll, I guess the lesson is that if you’re gonna make like a gansta, guess you better be prepared to die like one. Bro.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Guess that’s because the darling little angels have had their heads blown off. ”
no, they’ve just gone elsewhere because texas is a desert hellhole full of rednecks and devoid of almost anything interesting (apart from it’s natural resources) at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
once again I wholeheartedly encourage anyone who believes texas is a better place to live to move there…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Talk about missing the point….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Talk about missing the point….”
your point is vigilante killing of miscreant youth is good because it makes for cleaner walls?
(although actually Texas has as much trouble with grafiti and tagging as anyone else as far as a quick googling shows). there is a pretty high crime rate in texas ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html ) 14th or so of 50…
so your point is?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do the Mongrel Mob or Black Power have any problems with taggers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps nommopilot would like to test that out.
Report back to us on whether they think it is just some harmless prank, and what action they took.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
waiting for my comment from before to come out of moderation.
anyway, I am confused: do you support the way the gangs behave and think police should behave that way too? or just do away with police and let the gangs enforce the law?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think all the people here that think vandalism is harmless fun should put an add in the local rag of their town telling the taggers to come and vandalise their homes, so that the people who don’t want their property vandalised can live in peace.
It’s a sad state of affairs when children are brought up in an environment where violence and direspect for others is quite the norm.
It’s even worse though when a law abiding citizen is dragged into that same world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s not like this was a random attack. Whether you like it or not, the kid provoked it. I’d say he never really thought it would happen though, and that would be why he targeted Emery instead of a gang house.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyway why not try it out like BP said nommopilot?
Is there any reason you wouldn’t?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I think all the people here that think vandalism is harmless fun ”
I don’t think anyone said that. I think all those people who think stabbing someone is all right put an ad in the paper saying “come stab me”.
I think it’s a sad state of affairs too but I think these children can only feel encouraged to take the law into their own hands by those who say that killing someone can be justified by the value of what you’re defending (say, a wall, or a car stereo).
your law-abiding citizen wasn’t dragged anywhere. he put himself in the situation and he put the knife in the boy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Anyway why not try it out like BP said nommopilot?
Is there any reason you wouldn’t?”
um, because I’m not stupid. this gang house argument is dumb. if we have to behave like savages in order to keep the savages at bay then they have already won by assimilation. (leaving aside that tagging is far less savage than putting a knife in someone).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Once again I am amazed that contributors such as BB and BP can think that tagging, far from being a “minor crime” is one that deserves the death penalty, and from vigilantes, not even from a court. But premeditated killing seems to be considered to be a “minor crime”.
Yes it is annoying when taggers spray paint your property, but it does not justify killing. I am surprised that the crime was manslaughter. It seems that by grabbing a knife and chasing someone who was obviously no threat, it should have been murder.
I have never agreed with the Sensible Sentencing Trust, though until now I have seen where they are coming from and respected them for their concern over crime. Until now. They are totally hypocritical in turning a blind eye to the crime of manslaughter (possibly murder) while getting apoplectic about tagging. Strange priorities.
And certainly the police should get their priorities right as well when it comes to crime. Whenever there is a demonstration against animal abuse the cops outnumber the protesters. But when there was a gang fight in my street and someone was knocked out, the cops never showed. The ambulance driver refused to drive into the fight scene without a police escort, which I don’t really blame him for. Next time there is a gang fight I will dial 111 and tell the police there is a bunch of crazed animal rights activists fighting. Then they will come straight away!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Y’all giving this far more thought time than it deserves.
At its most basic – there was a person comitting a crime, and (unusually) a member of the public was prepared to take action. As a result that person went to jail. Everything else is just static on the airwaves.
The resultant message is clear – if you dont want to be a victim of crime, if you want to take action, then you need to be prepared to be classed as a criminal and do jail time, and watch the original perpetrator be classed as the less bad guy.
Can there be any other interpretation that is supported by the facts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiori 1,
that wasn’t a “gang fight”, it was a few youths getting up to shennagans like youths do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“A teenager with a spray can may be annoying, if you put a high personal value on a blank wall. But he or she is not life-threatening, and maybe the message being delivered is pertinent, and one that the wall-owner should be paying attention to.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think Katie is saying “it’s societies fault”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nommopilot Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
> seriously? righteous? he stabbed a kid 35 years a junior in defence of his wall…
not really. He stabbed him long after he had scared him away from said wall.
# DougT Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
> Kiori 1,
> that wasn’t a “gang fight”, it was a few youths getting up to shennagans like youths do.
Doug, I’m intrigued that you claim to know so much about the gang fight / shennanagans outside Kiore’s house that he was referring to. Were you in his street at the time? Do you even know where Kiore lives?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Once again I am amazed that contributors such as BB and BP can think that tagging, far from being a “minor crime” is one that deserves the death penalty,
Getting into a brawl with the property owner after-the-fact may well cost you your life.
That’s the deal.
The guy seemed to know it, as he was well into the gangsta stylee.
Trouble is…
Being killed by a fat middle aged bloke with a fishing knife…
…ain’t exactly Snoop Dog
Tragic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The resultant message is clear – if you dont want to be a victim of crime, if you want to take action, then you need to be prepared to be classed as a criminal and do jail time, and watch the original perpetrator be classed as the less bad guy.”
If that “action” is stabbing someone, the guy spraypainting the wall IS the less bad guy. full stop. I don’t condone the tagging but if society’s response to this is “it’s ok to take matters into your own hands” then it will be no time before taggers are carrying guns and 5h1t will start getting really ugly…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Getting into a brawl with the property owner after-the-fact may well cost you your life.”
and the guy didn’t know stabbing a kid with a knife may result in a jail term for murder? “he walked into my knife” please….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nommopilot,
The action wasint stabing someone, the action was threatining the purportraitor with a potentially deadly instrument. Not the smartist thing to do by a long shot, but not exactly going out there with the intention to wound or kill.
The result of his stupidity in chasing them was that he provoked a physical confrontation. He may have just intended to scare but his stupidity ment he ended up on the defensive in a situation where he was totally vulnerable, even if he was thrusting wildly about with the knife such an action, esspecially while under attack or protecting his eyesight, is justified self defence (though he lacks the legal self-defence defence since he provoked the confrontation) and is insufficent for a conviction of murder as murder requires the intention be present, manslaughter however only requires negligence and suits this case fine. The fact that the death itself resulted not from him using the knife as a stabing weapon but as a meathod of preventing attack, much like a porcupine, and the young idiot (theres alot of idiots in this case) ran into the knife. the coroners report confirmed that the penetration was not the result of a stabing action. the sentance mearly reflects the facts of the situation and the idiocracy of all parties concerned.
The blame for this lies with the young idiots, and many others, alienation from community and society as a whole. a fact not helped by the likes of appologists, drug laws, gang culture, his parents, the school system, etc, etc. Ultimatly the blame lies with every one of us, some more than others, since none of us has eliminated the situations that allowed him, and many other youths, to addapt to their environments in such a way. That addaption in turn being both what ment the young idiots were there that night and being part of the source of frustration that resulted in emeries actions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad Says: February 17th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Good disticntion, thanks. I do get the impression though, that manslaughter charges are frequently laid instead of reckless driving causing death when the driver has a history of serious traffic offences. Maybe that’s just frustration at the failure of the enfocrement approach to deliver a substantial drop in the road toll. Further proof that punishing bad behaviour doesn’t work and just leads to a viscious circle of escalating “tougher” sentences?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Car killers: Manslaughter versus dangerous driving causing death
I saw a TV programme years ago (in the UK) where a senior police office was explainging the logic behind these offences.
The police experience was that it was really hard to bring manslaughter (or murder) charges against people who used cars to kill others. It seems that juries are very happy to convict a big, burly, (insert country specific racial stereotype here) knife and gun wielding folks of murder and manslaughter, but when it comes to someone just like them, who behaves just like them, doing just what they do, who while drunk happend to run someone over, the “there for the grace of God goes I” argument kicks in, and the jury finds not guilty for manslaughter or murder.
Thus a new series of “soft” crimes were introduced, with far lesser sentences, which juries were able to find themselves capable of convicting “ordinary” people of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey yo, I smoke dust and spray walls,
Smoked blunts with Biggie Smalls
Kinda
I was young, had my Bebo page, I was hardcore.
Got some cans from homebase
went sprayin the whole place
Door to door
Then some fat baldin middle age bloke chased me..
And there’s where the ryhme falls over
Sh*t
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The reason Garth McVicar supported Emery was obvious, Emery is white, middle-aged and middle-class, his victim wasn’t. Emery’s victim represents everything that McVicar is terrified of, a brown, poor, over-breeding and restless underclass hellbent on causing mayhem in our well-ordered Anglo-Saxon society, how dare they? (The fact that this well-ordered society is presently undergoing a disintegration undermines his hypothesis a little, but I don’t suppose this has registered yet.) His hero, Emery, represents the last vestiges of civilised life backed into a corner, and fighting for its existence in a frightening world; what happened in reality was the exact antithesis of McVicar’s delusional state. The capacity of such people as Garth McVicar for self examination is nil, as is their capacity for empathy for others excluded from their closeted and distorted view of the real world.
What is tragic in New Zealand is the number of people who think like him, including it would seem some posting to this blog. Our threatening economic mayhem is going to put great stresses on our society. We live in one of the OECD’s most unequal societies, in terms of educational attainment, health, and divisions of wealth. It would be my contention that much of the difficulty we suffer in our society is related to this simple fact, and it will certainly have a lot to do with how we manage, or not, the economic and social storm coming our way.
What McVicar and his ilk refuse to understand is that you can’t lock up an entire underclass, it has been attempted previously of course, as in eighteenth century France and early twentieth-century Russia, but the results were not noted as a resounding success.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No jockmoron, what is tragic in New Zealand is that when a brown boy kills a white, middle-aged and middle-class man the brown boy is a victim of society, but when a white, middle-aged and middle-class man kills a brown boy, the white man is called a racist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug,
When a when a brown boy kills a white, middle-aged and middle-class man the brown boy is guilty of murder, when a white, middle-aged and middle-class man kills a brown boy, the white man is also guilty of murder. I was trying to explain Garth McVicar’s apparent inability to understand this, and to set it in a wider, and I believe accurate, context. But it is true, I can only judge Garth McVicar by his words, not by personal acquaintance. If you think my explanation was wrong, please find me a better one.
JM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)