Thursday, February 24, 2011

CHRISTCHURCH

The enormity of the Christchurch disaster is such that is is very difficult to blog about. I suspect that all of us have relatives and friends directly affected. My 89 year old aunt has come through unscathed; many others haven't.

The stories of courage and generosity shine through. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the 'looters' whose complete disregard for the norms of human behaviour is sickening to behold. The Manning family are suffering enough without having to cope with the additional burden of lowlife scum breaking into and loopting their home.

I guess for those that are apprehended justice needs to take its course. But would I be completely out of order to suggest that, given the state of national emergency, these 'people' should be dealt with by way of immediate summary hearing without the right of appeal ... sort of a civilian Courts Martial???????

31 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

I suspect one of the looters has read your post, judging by the one star rating...

Any property owner catching them in the act would dish out some swift summary justice, you'd have to expect. "No jury would convict," etc.

Anonymous said...

well ya gotta say how funny it is that an 'aftershock' caused the baeball bat fall off the wall onto the scum bags head

The Veteran said...

Thank you PM for your comment ... I too was a tad suprised by that one star rating ... but I guess in his/her deluded world the looter is the victim deserving of pity. Not mine.

gravedodger said...

I agree with your suggestion of summary justice Vet maybe some stocks.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you would be completely out of order! How is your lack of respect for our laws (like not committing assault on suspected crims) any different to looters lack of respect for our laws (taking other people's goods)?

Oh, you're just responding to their criminal actions with some criminal actions of your own? Hmmm, that gets you a yellow card on the rugby field at least.

Why don't you just get your shotgun and patrol the streets for looters? Noone will mind if you accidentally pepper Mrs Smith when you trip on some rubble, because they will be feeling so safe with you on patrol...

Sheesh. Just what the nation needs.

Chris B said...

I see The Whale is advocating gut shooting these scum and leaving them to die.
I suppose we can't condone this, but swift summary justice would be better than nothing. The police and army have enough to do without having to deal with scum like this.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1.32pm If you are a lawyer you need to retrain. Our law still includes the right to defend our property. The only thing the law stipulates is that the use of force should be commensurate with the situation. Where law and order is potentially breaking down looters would need to be wary that homeowners would use sufficient force in the knowledge there is probably no timely backup from the authorities.

Paranormal

The Veteran said...

anon 1:32 ... that's not what I said or advocated and you know it so stop setting up straw men to bolster your non ergument.

Anonymous said...

Whales suggestion in my mind is even better than that when the army boys took a couple of looters behind the building and left them both with two broken arms each during the Invercargill floods.

I bet those scum never considered looting again.

Blue Coast

Anonymous said...

Anon 1.32: would sharia law be suitable for those cught in the act of looting?

DS said...

Looting is no different to any other house/business burglary, and due process has to apply.

Get a grip Veteran. This isn't Iran or Tiananmen Square.

Lou Taylor said...

There is a big difference between looting and common buglary.
Under a state of emergency looters should just be shot on sight and the bill for the bullets sent to the family once they have been identifed.
The veeneer of civilisation is very thin at these times. Good people trying to sort themselves and their neighbours out should not need to concern themselves with scumbags.

Anonymous said...

I heard a suggestion that this Saturdays $12M Lotto prize be given to the Red Cross fund. seems like a great idea. It would be a way for huge number of ordinary NZer's to make a donation, particularly those who have little understanding of how to make charitable donations. None of us would miss it any more that any other saturday when we fail to win the thing.

The Veteran said...

DS Said .... "Looting is no different to any other house/business burglary".

Well, sorry to rain on yourn parade DS but ...

just as shooting a police officer in his/her line of duty is considered much more serious than an 'ordinary' murder so it is that looting is quite different from ordinary burglary.

And please, avoid putting up straw men (Tiananmen Square)... all I am advocating is summary justice to send the message loud and clear.

Just why you feel comfortable being a PC pussy and advocating for scumbags quite escapes me.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone enligthten me as to if there are emergency regulations enacted in conjunction with the declaration of a state of National Emergency that give the Judiciary/Police/Defence Force enhanced and more severe powers when dealing with offenders committing offences that are particulary associated with the emergency, such as entering prohibitted places, theft, etc

The Realist said...

I think looters should be shot on sight. Some deterrent is needed at a time like this, and I just can't bring myself to give comfort to those who plunder at will.

KiwiGirl said...

I like the idea of the Lottery being donated. I never win with my tickets so I wouldn't miss it at all.
By the by. I haven't seen any sign of Jim Anderton on TV. He's a Christchurch MP and I would have thought he would have some comment to make about the quake.
Just wondering......

The Veteran said...

For Kiwi Girl ... Jim Anderton remains in hiding given his '(in)famous' comment just before the mayoral election that "it will take an earthquake of epic proportions for me to loose".

I mean he's the bugger who is responsible for this ... triffling with the Gods.

KiwiGirl said...

Veteran - I listened to a comment by a TV reporter saying that when the list of the deceased was released there would be people on that list that would be well known throughout NZ. That's when I thought of Anderton, considering that he usually manages to get his voice heard.

Psycho Milt said...

Jim Anderton remains in hiding given his '(in)famous' comment just before the mayoral election that "it will take an earthquake of epic proportions for me to loose".

It annoys me to see Whaleoil's lies repeated here. For the record, here's what Anderton actually said:

“It would have taken a pretty earthquake, seismic shift to get me to move from the Labour Party. And the seismic shift was Rogernomics.”

Attempting to turn that into a claim that only an earthquake could make him lose to Parker is a straightforward and deliberate lie.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Stop complaining Milt. It's almost true, you know. Unlike the lie about Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her house; or the lie that Dubbya gave the troops a plastic turkey; or the lie that Tea Partiers called congressmen niggers; or the lie that Police Commissioner Doone said something he didn't?

Psycho Milt said...

I don't recall No Minister authors repeating those lies on our blog.

Anonymous said...

@ veteran and Paranormal - The police have repeatedly said they have the capacity to respond to 111 calls, and they have said this from day 1. Whether they can live up to their claim is for us to judge later, but emergency services are reportedly in place. No need for lynch mobs.

And the first looters have already been arrested, remanded and appeared in court (they were sent back to jail on remand).

So no need for your Court Martials veteran - and what would they have done differently to normal courts anyway? Who would be judges? (normal judges? so where is the difference from our normal courts?).

And no right of appeal seems grim when Blue Coast @2:43 claims the army in a prior disaster broke the bones of alleged looters.

@ Lou Taylor - the veneer of civilisation is thin, especially when you comment like that. Looters should be grabbed and detained, and 111 called for pickup. Tie em up if need be, but no shooting required.

Finally - veteran - cops should not be treated any different to public in law. It is this warped mentality that leads to cops thinking they are better people than other Kiwis. I've seen this attitude in cops - it is shocking. Ask Halatau Naitoko's family if they think shooting a cop is worse than shooting their family member. Accident or reckless or deliberate, it is a person no matter what clothes they wear or job they do.

Mad Marxist.

Psycho Milt said...

...cops should not be treated any different to public in law...

Something that would be entirely reasonable, if we weren't requiring cops to put themselves at risk for members of the public. No obligations without accompanying rights, basically.

Dex said...

And in MM naive little utopia the jails would be populated by those nasty policemen who attempted to 'kidnap' poor criminals.

Anonymous said...

@ Pyscho Milt - nope! We require lots of public servants (firemen, ambulance crews, nurses and doctors, teachers, etc) to put themselves at risk for us, and don't treat an assault on them any different to any other member of the public. There is no 'assaults an ambulance driver' charge; it is plain old assault, like for you and me.

@ Dex - no. I accept police have a right to detain someone when they (lawfully) arrest them. Police are less at risk (as shown in ACC occupational risk stats, which show police a mid-range risk) than fishermen and forestry workers, etc. So there is no need for special treatment for cops.

I just believe in one law for all. Fair and equal treatment. I thought you tories loved that kind of stuff?

Mad Marxist.
P.S. I would like to see the right to self defense of life and property, and 'cotozens arrest' rights, clarified and improved, so Kiwis know where they stand.

Dex said...

"So there is no need for special treatment for cops."

Such as?

Assaults on them are dealt with less harshly as Judges consider it to be part and parcel of the job. We also pay them naff all, don't employ enough of them and then make the rest work overtime as a result which they don't get paid a cent for (we must be the only country that makes its cops work for free on their own time)...

So exactly what special treatment are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

`'Unlike the lie about Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her house...`'

God who was the fuckwitted dolt who suggested that that was a lie? Tina Fey said it as a pisstake (and a good one). What Palin said was far worse. That she was qualified to be president because from some far flung island of Alaska you can apparently see Siberia.

Psycho Milt said...

We require lots of public servants (firemen, ambulance crews, nurses and doctors, teachers, etc) to put themselves at risk for us...

We don't, however, employ them for the specific and stated purpose of assaulting people suspected of crimes by forcibly detaining them. Having imposed this duty on police officers, we have a corresponding obligation to try and discourage the violent attacks on them that this duty is likely to subject them to. Other emergency service workers may occasionally be subject to violent attack, like anybody else, but it's not implicit in the nature of the duties we charge them with.

Anonymous said...

Good theory Pyscho Milt, but reality has overtaken it. The idea that firemen and ambulance crews are there to help us, so we won't assault them no longer holds.

Ditto teachers and nurses - one of the reasons it is so hard to retain good teachers.

This is regularly raised by unions, and dismissed by tories as an excuse for demanding more money (even when they specifically ask not for more money, but for work conditions to change).

Ask an ambulance driver about their gear that gets nicked, or how 'mates' of the patient (what a misnomer!) knock them round while trying to treat the patient.

So there is no justification for separate treatment for cops.

Mad Marxist.

Psycho Milt said...

There's something you seem to be having trouble grasping here. When a firefighter, paramedic, teacher or whoever is attacked, there is an organisation they can call on to deal with it - ie, it's no part of their duty to subdue and detain the attacker. That shit job can be passed on to someone else.

And the someone else it gets passed to, the one who has the obligation of duty to subdue and detain the attacker and bear the risk of dealing with them, can expect something from us in return. That doesn't suggest other public officials aren't performing serious duties and can't expect any backup from us for doing them, it just suggests there are particular duties and expectations for police officers when it comes to dealing with violent offenders.