Tuesday, May 21, 2019

IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?


Terror charges to be added to those Tarrant will face for murder from his massacre at the two mosques on March 15th.

Surely 51 murder charges even if some fail on technicals should give even the most limp wristed Judge  all that is needed to ensure Tarrant never sees freedom again until death ends his time becoming increasingly insane in safe custody

Adding  terror charges brings to mind the western legend of the Sheriff coming to the deputy standing over a bullet ridden outlaw and laconically asking "did you have to shoot him so dead?".

Would I be correct in thinking concurrent sentences are not verboten, if that is correct,  it would  only be Angry's desire to catch and release meme to be overcome.

15 comments:

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

What a bizarre post............ on a murder only charge you don't have to prove intent or motivation. This would suit some who want to sweep it under the carpet.

If we don't charge for terrorism we will be the laughing stock of the world. Even if adds only five minutes to his sentence I'm all for it.

The more the alt right hate sites are given an airing the less impressionable youngsters will be taken in.

gravedodger said...

NZ might lose more face if the single Terror charge enjoys similar success that accompanied the Bunch running around the Ureweras with auntie . Valerie.

Now that was definite laughing stock stuff(up)

An end game such as that could also corrode the sentencing validity.

Anonymous said...

Egg, you are possibly confusing murder with manslaughter. To prove murder you have to show intent.

Paranormal

J Bloggs said...

For clarity, here is the relevant section of the crimes act:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
167 Murder defined

Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:

(a) if the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:

(b) if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:

(c) if the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and by accident or mistake kills another person, though he or she does not mean to hurt the person killed:

(d) if the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he or she knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he or she may have desired that his or her object should be effected without hurting any one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrei said...

Oh dear GD

"Would I be correct in thinking concurrent sentences are not verboten,"

Concurrent sentences means the sentences are served at the same time whereas consective sentences mean that each sentence has to be served one after another

Incidently Ted Bundy received 2 death sentences for the crimes he committed in Tallahassee after a trial which was a circus

Six months after his trial for his Tallahassee atrocities he was tried for murdering a 12 year old girl in Columbia County, Florida. The DA for Columbia County was criticized by some for this prosecution, how many death sentences can be imposed after all so why go to this expense?

AS it turned out the circus that was the first trial gave many grounds for appeal - whereas the second trial which was conducted far more sedately, though not without some antics from the accused, provided less room for challenge and it was the death sentence from this trial that was ultimately carried out.

Make of that what you will

Psycho Milt said...

IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?

That's a question with a relative answer, and the relativity in question is: if this were a Muslim terrorist, would you want him charged with terrorism offences or would murder charges be entirely adequate?

Noel said...

Ureweas fell on the method used to gain evidence.
In this instance some of the evidence was provided by the shooter live streaming.
My guess is the defence is going to highlight his mental history and go for diminished responsibility.


Johno said...

My main concern is that the terrorism element opens up a lot of scope for Tarrant to rant about his objectionable and perhaps inflammatory motive and intent. If the charges were limited to murder then this scope would be limited to the charge of intentionally killing people.

In other words, the terrorism charges may give him satisfaction and self perceived glory. I would rather be be treated as a common murderer.

And yes, Milt, the same would apply for a Muslim killer/terrorist.

It seems that whenever some loner Muslim killer goes and kills people he's quickly diminished by the MSM as a lone wolf. When a whitey does something similar we hear months of wailing and gnashing of teeth about an apparently widespread and embedded white supremacist culture in NZ.

Noel said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lone_wolf_terrorist_attacks

I guess New Zealand will appear in the sub headings after the court case.

Noel said...

Agreed guidelines for media attending trial.
The guidelines issued today say that the media companies involved will:

* Limit any coverage of statements that actively champion white supremacist or terrorist ideology, including the alleged gunman's "manifesto".

* Not broadcast or report on any message, imagery, symbols or signals (including hand signals) made by the accused or his associates promoting or supporting white supremacist ideology.

* If images of such signals are unavoidable, the relevant parts of the image will be pixellated.

The companies said that they will wherever possible select experienced journalists to cover the trial.

gravedodger said...

Yes Andrei I meant 'Cumulative ' sleep deprivation is a bastard.

Milt what ever the beliefs of the killer might have been my point remains Tarrant should spend the rest of his days incarcerated.

I am not alone in questioning the risks in combining his murder trial with a first attempt to use the Terror laws.
If that path is deemed necessary then go again after the killings have been dealt with as it was his slaughter that needs addressing first up . for I for one am convinced he acted alone and the killings were numbing and so distressing
Adding the terror charge will just make for more opportunity for a brief to make more entries on a CV.
Attempting to create Terror as a possible crime when afaik Tarrant was a total nutter acting alone with no connections revealed so far of a shred of suggestion as to conspiracy, organised action or motivation shared with any others. should that change it is probable such additional evidence able to be used to make a Terror charge more likely to be proved. Time will allow the seperate charge to be dealt with in a more meaningful understandable way for the entirely seperate crime of terror to be judged.
yes I did take the opp to scan/speed read his manifesto before those with the power decided the plebs should not access it.

Gerald said...

No problem with adding Terrorism.
"However, the choice to bring a terrorism charge is not simply a practical one. The criminal law is said to have two purposes: a practical one (to put dangerous people in prison) and a moral one (to denounce conduct that is morally unacceptable).

Adding this charge signals to the wider community that the massacre was an act terrorism and will be punished as such. This may give victims, too, some degree of closure, if the offender is sent to prison for committing a terrorist act."

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Johno.....you are not reading this right. By lone wolf they mean acting alone without backup. The motivation and radicalisation is always highlighted and released after the investigation. We will not know if Tarrent was a lone wolf until the after the trial and the Police release their report which they may not do as it now the subject of an inquiry.

Johno said...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112912901/terror-charge-feeds-accused-mosque-shooters-desire-for-notoriety-expert-says

The Veteran said...

To do think that, on balance, the laying of charges under the Terrorism Act is justified. The potential downside resulting from decision has been well canvassed but I suspect the Judge to be awake to that and to exercise the powers available to him/her to limit what the accused may want to say acknowledging always it's a balancing act. The media also have their own self-imposed restrictions on what can be reported ... assuming of course they stick to that.

This assumes of course he is judged fit to stand trial.