Sometimes judges get things right, really right, check this from the Herald:
Judge Turns Tables on Driver’s Schoolboy Accuser
A schoolbus driver was taken to court for grabbing the arm of a rowdy boy who would not stop pulling a girl’s hair.
But the judge threw out the charge – and had a policeman take the 12-year-old boy to the police cells as a warning.
Jim McCorkindale, 70, of Gore in Southland, told the Weekend Herald that while dropping off children last July, he saw two boys pulling the hair of a girl and got out of his driver’s seat to try to stop it.
“I went over and touched the boy on the arm to attract his attention, and that was the assault.”
When the boy did not respond to being told to stop, “I threatened to hit him in the ribs, and he flinched and let the kid’s hair go to protect his ribs”, Mr McCorkindale said.
“But I never touched him again.”
The boy had continued misbehaving after Mr McCorkindale returned to his seat.
Children on the bus called the police and he found officers waiting to talk to him when he finished his run.
When police rejected the option of diversion, Mr McCorkindale received a court summons.
But in the Gore District Court, Judge Kevin Phillips threw out the charge.
Instead, he told the boy he should be “thoroughly ashamed” of himself and had a policeman take him to the cells, the Southland Times reported.
Mr McCorkindale said he found it disgusting that he was charged in the first place.
“You can’t do a bloody thing,” he said. “It’s better to hop out of the bus and leave them to it. See nothing.
“The days of sit down, shut up, do as you are told, are gone. When I was going to school, you did what you were told. Now, you sometimes do as you’re asked – if it suits you.”
There should be more judges like Kevin Phillip J. Parents and those in charge of children have been castrated by the law and look at the results, little snots like this boy are rampant within our society. No I am not just talking about smacking (I do not believe in loco parentis corporal punishment in any regard and this is a 12 year old in this case) I have in my sights the laws that enable this behaviour and the practice of state authorities telling young people that they can do what they want, that they do not have to do what the adults taking care of them say, the laws that give those young people too much freedom before they are ready for it.
But speaking of smacking, anyone feeling confident in this exhibit of the police discretion that we’re all supposed to have faith in, in choosing to push this prosecution attempt and oppose diversion?
Tags: Kevin Phillip J · Parenting · Smacking64 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
It’s utterly shameful and scary that this man was taken before the court!
.-= My last blog-post ..Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism =-.
Bizarre police behavior. Unfortunately, I was partially educated in an inner city school, and I can assure that in the States also we have far too much fearful toleration of bratty behavior.
Just out of curiosity: From this blog I know that you are a very protective parent. How would you react if an adult had threatened to punch one of your children in the ribs? This bus driver thug sunk to the level of a twelve year old and threatened to punch a little boy and you are cool with that?…. ok…
Anonymous
Just out of curiosity: How would you react if a 12-year-old boy swore and cursed at you and continued to assault a little girl who was in your care. Would you wring your hands in a threatening manner?
Thought so.
.-= My last blog-post ..The Gap into Conflict =-.
Anonymous, I have a 12 year old boy.
I say go the bus driver!
.-= My last blog-post ..Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism =-.
MacDoctor: I would not threaten to punch a little boy. I might restrain him, I might get in between them, I might raise my voice, I can think of many things I might do… threatening to punch a kid is not one of them. Cheers.
So Macdoctor – would threatening to punch a kid in the ribs – or indeed actually punching them in the ribs/face/stomach be one of your techniques in this situation?
[…] Hat tip to M and M for bringing this news story to my attention. […]
Anon:
Ah yes, you have no good argument to propose so you cast aspersions on my character, just as you cast them on Madeleine earlier. I have no idea what I would do in this situation, but I do know that Mr. McCorkindale was perfectly within his rights and the law to use reasonable force to stop this little ruffian. The police had absolutely no case, hence the judge threw out this meritless piece of nonsense.
And this is not a “little boy” – this is a 12-year-old. The last one I saw was not a lot smaller than me.
This is all I will say on this matter, because Madeleine has asked me not to feed the trolls.
.-= My last blog-post ..The Gap into Conflict =-.
“cast aspersions on my character”
Come on! It’s an intellectual discussion! When I say “would you” replace it with “should one” if it makes it less offensive to you!
And besides which I was replying in kind to your “Would you wring your hands in a threatening manner?”
Get a sense of humor!
The parts that you missed quoting, but are pertinent to your original question about should we have faith in the system are:
“Mr McCorkindale said that although the charge had been dropped, he was still left with legal bills, and had no idea how he was going to pay them.”
and
“He said he was now considering quitting driving the schoolbus.”
Being charged and having to defend oneself is a very significant cost to most, in terms of cash, time, and the emotional rollercoaster that it entails. This is the big problem with police having so much discretion. There is no option to apply for costs or sue the police as far as I know in the case of a misguided prosecution.
That’s a problem with our justice system as a whole. The innocent are always going to suffer occasionally so that the guilty can be served justice. I think this is inevitable – and not unique to this case.
“MacDoctor: I would not threaten to punch a little boy. I might restrain him, I might get in between them, I might raise my voice, I can think of many things I might do… ”
Anon,
You missed the point that any of the above actions that you have suggested (the bus driver didn’t even go as far as restraining the boy- he was charged for touching him on the arm) can be considered to be criminal assault by the police, if it is brought to their attention. The verbal threat was not considered to be a priority here by the police at all.
Therefore it is plain to see here that a message is being sent by the police and parliament that we as adults must not intervene in the going-ons of children (even when protecting one child from another) lest they complain to the cops and we have to appear in court to defend ourselves. This is a terrible state of affairs.
What is even more terrible I think is that the law really allows little discretion for the judge to throw out the assault charge, since the bus-driver touched the kid for the purpose of correcting him. So in reality the judge is displaying (from the point of view of parliament’s intent in passing the law) blatant judicial activism in order to avoid a gross injustice.
“he was charged for touching him on the arm”
… have you asked yourself this simple question: Why did several people call the police when they saw what was going on? What did he *really* do? Would you rather the police not respond to a call saying an assault has taken place? I wish it was as simple as you think.
Read the herald article troll. The bully who the bus driver touched was the one who called the police, and no-one else. By doing so, he quite effectively began to bully the bus driver too. This poor elderly 70 year-old man (who at that age would most likely not have presented a physical threat to the kid) has court costs, lawyer fees, time off work, and the stress of court to contend with, while the boy got off scott-free.
“Would you rather the police not respond to a call saying an assault has taken place?”
I think that in the past the school environment was more than adequate to deal with hair-pulling, and an adult threatening a kid after touching the kid’s arm, without the involvement of police. Even back as a teenager I would have understood this. The police should have taken the facts down, and left the issue to the school to resolve once they realised that the facts of the incident were of minor import)
Many NZers have officially lost any sense of perspective when it comes to these actions. Now, any act towards a child is simply on a continuum of acts of child abuse, no matter how minor the act, or the actual motivations behind it.
“I wish it was as simple as you think”.
The judge also thought the matter is as simple as I think. That is why the judge had the boy escorted to a jail cell to deter him from making further vexatious complaints to the police, and to deter him and the police from wasting any more of the court’s time that could have been spent on actual cases of child abuse.
[…] input from Madeleine at M&M; Andrei at NZ Conservative; Whale Oil at Gotcha. Add a […]
What do you think the knee-jerk-brigade would be saying if a child had phoned the police and the police had not responded? It is all very well to say that the police should have “..taken the facts down, and left the issue to the school to resolve …” but the same people all up in arms now would have been just as quick to attack the police for doing this in different circumstances.
Now I don’t know the real facts of this case (although I am sure the herald tells the complete truth in an unbiased way) but the paper actually says:
“Children [PLURAL] on the bus called the police and he found officers waiting to talk to him when he finished his run.”
so Jonnie perhaps you should reread the paper as it does not say it was the boy himself who phoned the police.
I wish it was simple. But the world is sometimes not that way.
Children – yes, he probably had a pose who thought what he was doing was cool, and knew that they could make trouble for an authority figure.
.-= My last blog-post ..It’s your Destiny =-.
Troll, yes I did misread the article before.
Also, maybe the world isn’t a simple place, but this dialogue we’re having actually is- you have continually deflected from the main intellectual discussion put forward in the blog post, and by macdoc, madeliene and myself without contributing yourself, by focusing on making excuses for the actions of the police with rhetoric such as “we don’t know the facts”, “the world isn’t ideal”, and “the world isn’t so simple”.
So let no-one mistake your responses as a mature contribution to this intellectual discourse, or as an attempt at humour, as you asserted earlier with Macdoc.
Your only tactic here is to infer that noone commenting here can draw any conclusions from the facts within herald article (or the from judge’s response) or that we are misguided in criticising the actions of police, or that the bus driver was in fact abusing the bully, without actually backing up any of those inferences with a solid argument.
Anyway, one would have thought that the judge would have all the facts in his hands, even if the Herald did not.
Clearly, even if only basic facts are correct (say, a child was put in the cells instead of his alleged abuser) there is something seriously wrong here.
.-= My last blog-post ..It’s your Destiny =-.
Jonnieboy… you just wrote a whole page or rhetoric against me. I am flattered but what does this have to do with the issue at hand? Ironic!
The reason I have not entered into the “intellectual” discussion in the way you desire is that There is no discussion to be had. One isolated case, blown up by the media, does not amount to anything *unless* you have some political point you wish to make… in which case you grab onto it and blow it out of all proportion. Which is what we see here. Its almost like someone is sifting through the paper looking for any isolated cases they can use to push their ideology. Now THAT is good rhetoric… much better than my immature trollish rhetoric by far!
[…] Mandm […]
“MacDoctor: I would not threaten to punch a little boy. I might restrain him, I might get in between them, I might raise my voice, I can think of many things I might do… threatening to punch a kid is not one of them. Cheers.”
I have always been taught that there is a difference between theory and practice. You offer a number of actions that might be employed to control an unruly child.
On balance most of your theoretical responses are not solutions to the real situation. A boy is pulling a girls hear (from all available information this is a persistent act).
“I might get in between them”; how – they are already attached there is no ‘between’?
“I might restrain him”; he already attached himself to the girl’s hair thus you have to pry his hand open or persuade him to detach himself from the girl’s hair BEFORE you can restrain him.
The bus driver had to act in the heat of the moment, you had all the time in the world to think about it before posting your response.
I take your word that you can think of many things that you might do in this specific situation, yet you have not offered any that is applicable in this specific situation apart from the trusted old “I’ll raise my voice.”
(Stomping a foot and uttering “I’m going to count to three” are also still available.)
cj_nza:
My point was not what I *would* do – but what I definitely would *not* do. Namely threaten to punch a child.
Troll, you do realise that the man was not arrested, charged, refused diversion and taken before a court for threatening the boy, right?
He had all those things done to him for touching the boy on the arm when the boy was assaulting a girl.
.-= My last blog-post ..Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism =-.
Glen. Yes. There are two issues here:
(i) should he have been arrested – to which I answer yes. He committed an assault.
(ii) is he a morally upstanding individual – to which (as he threatened to punch a child) I answer no.
Troll, it is not relevant what you would or would not do. The judge made his views very clear in throwing the case out of court.
“Judge Phillips determined that the crux of the prosecution had been that Mr McCorkindale had applied a small amount of force to the child.”
This boy has even embarrassed his family. Read what his father had to say.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/3406756/School-bus-driver-charge-dropped
No one else but a totally incompetent unnamed senior police officer thinks the charges should have been laid.
You say you would not have threatened to threaten to punch a child.
Why not tell us all how old you are? How much you weigh? How big the boy was? How big and fit Mr McCorkindale was? How many terminally ill wives you have cared for? Unlike you the judge had the relevant facts including Mr McCorkindale’s personal circumstances.
The senior police officer who made the decision to prosecute should be named and shamed. Taking all things into account this not only shows total incompetence but a fair degree of callousness considering Mr McCorkindale’s terminal ill wife.
Surely, this should demonstrate to Mr Key that if a senior police officer is incapable of using discretion responsibly how can a junior officer be expected to in cases of complaints about parental discipline.
Well if you don’t want them to use discretion then you should be HAPPY that the police arrested him. If you DO want the police to use discretion then you should not be unhappy with the new laws.
“Just out of curiosity: From this blog I know that you are a very protective parent. How would you react if an adult had threatened to punch one of your children in the ribs?”
If one of my kids behaved like that I’d have no issue with the bus driver touching my kids arm or telling him off. I’d be pretty horrified if my kid was doing that and the bus driver did nothing.
Do I think threatening to punch him in the ribs was a good way to go? No I do not. I think there might have been better options such as threatening to throw him off the bus or telling him that he was going to inform both the school and his parents that he was no longer welcome on the bus and why.
That said, do I think that making that threat warranted an arrest, refusal of diversion and an attempted prosecution? Hell no.
The driver committed a technical assault but that assault came in the context of defence of another so it was hardly likely to result in a conviction. The kid committed an actual assault and nothing appeared to have been done to him beyond reinforcement that his smart ass behaviour and his assault of another person had no consequences. This is why I have championed the judge. He tossed the case (which was probably going to result in not guilty by self defence had it been heard anyway) and said lock the kid up. Go the judge!
.-= My last blog-post ..Should we Have Faith in the System? The Judge, the Bully & the Bus-Driver =-.
Troll, you must think you are very clever arguing anonymously against a lot of people who know much more about the law than you.
You claim, “(i) should he have been arrested – to which I answer yes. He committed an assault.” You are obviously wrong. He was not convicted by the judge so the fact is he did not commit an assault.
The police have an always have had discretion whether to charge someone for any crime.
I will quote an experienced lawyer form Kiwiblog at 11:08 pm March 6 at the end of this post.
The same applies to the anti smacking as had applied to other laws. What makes the anti smacking law so repugnant is that the Prime Minister is trying to tell the police how to use their discretion for this particular law.
Getting back to the point you are trying to make, most of us what the police to use discretion responsibly. However, we do not support a law that makes a parent who gives a naughty toddler a smack a criminal. The parent is committing a criminal offence whether of not the police charge him or her.
Even after S59 was amended there are other defences for the charge of assault. If you meet the criteria for the defence you are not guilty of assault. In simple terms you have not committed an assault. I think you could find a reference at S48 of the Crimes Act. There are a number of reasons why a person is justified in using reasonable force to restrain someone. In the case the boy was assaulting a young girl.
This blog is open to anyone. No one supports your view. It is just as well for your sake that you are using a pseudonym so people who know you do not see the ridiculous points you are trying to make rather badly.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/give_that_judge_a_promotion.html#comment-668960
Pete and s.russell: Sorry, I don’t accept your reasoning at all. On too many occasions, when I have asked an officer in charge of a case why they are prosecuting, they have told me that they don’t really know what happened but they will let the court decide. That is not good enough. The police are there to properly investigate incidents like this and then use their discretion on whether to prosecute or not. Part of that discretion includes considering whether it is in the public interest or not. Another part of exercising the discretion involves looking at the evidence and considering whether they will could get a conviction.
“Troll, you must think you are very clever arguing anonymously against a lot of people who know much more about the law than you.”
– Not particularly clever. I am just contributing to a forum with my opinions. If you don’t like them that is fine. I am sure other people on the forum have expertise in areas I lack – but I try not to let it stop me from contributing my own thoughts. Sorry if my ignorance offends you.
“You claim, “(i) should he have been arrested – to which I answer yes. He committed an assault.” You are obviously wrong. He was not convicted by the judge so the fact is he did not commit an assault.”
– technically he committed an assault. It was not serious enough to justify pressing charges.
“The police have an always have had discretion whether to charge someone for any crime.”
– yep. I have no problem with police using discretion. In this example or with respect to other situation. Barking up the wrong tree there!
“Getting back to the point you are trying to make, most of us what the police to use discretion responsibly. However, we do not support a law that makes a parent who gives a naughty toddler a smack a criminal. The parent is committing a criminal offence whether of not the police charge him or her.”
– Similarly one could say that you don’t want putting your arm lightly on someones shoulder to try to stop them should make someone a criminal – but technically it does…. whether or not the police charge him or her. This is not a new situation.
“Even after S59 was amended there are other defences for the charge of assault. If you meet the criteria for the defence you are not guilty of assault. In simple terms you have not committed an assault. I think you could find a reference at S48 of the Crimes Act. There are a number of reasons why a person is justified in using reasonable force to restrain someone. In the case the boy was assaulting a young girl.”
– getting a little bored now.
“This blog is open to anyone. No one supports your view. It is just as well for your sake that you are using a pseudonym so people who know you do not see the ridiculous points you are trying to make rather badly.”
– Gee thanks. You have certainly made me feel welcome. Yes the blog is open to anyone. If you don’t like my views – fine…. but why go on and on about it. Just state your own views… that’s what a forum is for. I am happy to admit that people don’t share my view. I know this – it does not really bother me. Your antagonistic attitude does not really bother me either happily enough.
Forty years ago the police would have showed discretion. On being made aware of the circumstances (perhaps by asking the girl) they would not only have left Mr McCorkindale alone, they would have given the boy a kick in the butt and told him to get lost.
Now thanks to nine years of Helengrad we have police that are too afraid to do a proper job and children who are informed of their “rights” before they’re old enough to understand responsibility.
Viva la revolution.
“Forty years ago the police would have showed discretion”.
Jason, from what I know of criminal law, to lay your hand on someone without their permission, as the bus driver did, is technically not assault, it is battery. They are two different things.
Battery is a civil offense in tort and as such is relatively minor- ie it is not a criminal offence. Verbally threatening someone is also considered a civil offence in tort, not a criminal one. Threatening to kill someone I believe is a civil and a criminal offense (from personal experience of the police response after a death threat was made to me), but this didn’t occur with the bus driver.
As such the police could not act against the bus driver in the years before s59 was amended, since he could only be accused of a civil offence, over which they have no jurisdiction- these matters are for local magistrates. Maybe Madeleine could confirm.
The distinction between battery and assault has existed since near the beginning of british tort law that we inherited over a century ago, and what s59 did was to make what is and was traditionally considered a civil offence- the act of battery, in fact one and the same as an act of criminal assault (when made on a child). Clearly a distortion of tort law rather than a logical progession.
Troll, I enjoy intelligent debate based on common sense not some anonymous clown trying show how clever he or she is by arguing semantics.
You have failed to show how the police were doing the right thing by bring a case to court when there was not a prima facie case. This caused unnecessary distress for a man trying to do the right thing and a dying woman. It also cost the taxpayer. It brought the police into disrepute and ridicule.
If I presented such ridiculous arguments I would not want to use my real name so I can understand why you hide behind a pseudonym.
If that was technical assault then the police are committing technical assault every time the arrest someone. Using your logic they are committing technical murder if they shot someone who is shooting at them or an innocent person.
JonnieBoy. If you don’t find anything of value in my comments please ignore them and reply to people you *do* find useful and engaging. Replying that I am a “clown” is just not that constructive.
Cheers.
.. my apologies.. that should have said Chuck Bird.. not JB.
Todays youth has no respect for authority, I mean look at the term some youth use for the police (PIGS) i and im sure alot of other people will agree with me when i say this is gross disrespect especialy towards people that we expect to keep our communitys safe
Why do you think there is conflict between the police and some young people?
Quite simply it should never have gotten to the judge. Poilce “discretion” is clearly deeply flawed.
My real issue here is why the other children on the bus thought it apropriate to call the police yet no one of them thought to stop one of their own from assaulting a girl.
The problems go way deeper than our anti-smacking laws.
At primary school age if i had been pulling a girls hair I would have found myself be subjected to corporal punsihment. But it would have occured to me to manhandle a girl anyway because my father had actually rasied me somewhat differently to the seemingly common hands off method emplyed today.
Not to mention that several members of my own peer goup would have jumped in as well. Their fathers likewise having raised them right.
“Why do you think there is conflict between the police and some young people?”
I thought he already answered that, it’s because many youngsters of today just do not have respect for authority. They want to do what they want with disregard for authority or other people.
Common excuses made by youngsters of today including “respect is earned” … translation: the authority needs to listen to me first to earn my respect … no they are wrong, young people need to listen to older generation who have been here on earth years before them … if anyone need to earn respect its those youngsters who behave just like terrorists.
No.. your ‘answer’ … “it’s because many youngsters of today just do not have respect for authority” is just rephrasing the question I asked. We all know that there is conflict/lack of respect. My question was WHY?
as for “behave just like terrorists”… you know the Godwin’s law? I think it needs updating for the 21st century… so YOU LOSE!
Why? for the same reason many can’t swim – they have not been taught.
Why have they not been taught? Because that in itself requires the exercise of authority, and people are increasingly reluctant to do that in the fact of cases like this and laws like S59.
Oh, and troll we must remind you that you’ve still failed to show why the police should have taken this case to court.
.-= My last blog-post ..Empty words from an empty columnist =-.
Not sure why ‘Troll’ kept defending the brat who bullied the little girl.
May be Troll is a school bully him/herself.
Bullies are cowards anyway. Some real men would really punch you in the rib if you do the same thing as an adult.
“May be Troll is a school bully him/herself”
I can assure you that is not the case – but thanks for making it personal (again) rather than talking about the issue.
“Oh, and troll we must remind you that you’ve still failed to show why the police should have taken this case to court.”
Basically we have a choice with the police. Either we minimize false positives (this case is a false positive) or we minimize false negatives. What this means is that the police are always going to arrest some people they should not, and at other times NOT arrest people they should. Personally I err towards minimizing false negatives, which means false positives are slightly higher, which unfortunately means some people will be inconvenienced and arrested for silly reasons. The pay off? People who actually *should* be arrested are a lot more likely to be arrested. Now – for those who *are* inconvenienced by being arrested for silly reasons we have the courts where I believe the equation should be reversed and we should now minimize false positives. In other words you may be arrested for silly reasons but you are unlikely to be convicted (as happened in this case by the way). You may disagree with my preferences (which is all they really are) but there is a logic behind my beliefs.
Now if you want to respond PLEASE reply to what I have actually said unlike several people who find insulting me to be a good substitute for reason. Hint: it isn’t.
NOTE: some of you may be more familiar with “type I” and “type II” error….
Troll, what you are saying then is that you think its better that we have a system where more innocent people are arrested, put on bail, accused of crimes etc, Than one where some guilty people escape justice.
That of course is a reversal of the assumption that has undergirded free societies for centuries which is that the burden is on the protection of the innocent.
I note also you complain about being insulted and falsely accused in here> I myself agree that you should not be falsely accused and insulted, but I guess some people in here simply have a different assumption, they accuse innocent people because they know that if they do so they are more likely to accuse those who deserve it. I wonder where they got that idea from?
.-= My last blog-post ..Has Science Disproved God? Thursday Night =-.
“Troll, what you are saying then is that you think its better that we have a system where more innocent people are arrested, put on bail, accused of crimes etc, Than one where some guilty people escape justice.”
– Yes. Exactly. But you misinterpret what I mean by this. It is not binary. We will always sit somewhere upon this scale. I merely say that I err more towards the false positive’s side of the scale. For instance someone who is suspected of murder – even if it is not CERTAIN that they did it (ie. one extreme end of the scale) should still be questioned by the police. I was not proposing therefore “a reversal of the assumption that has undergirded free societies for centuries,” but was merely explaining where on the scale I place myself…. it would only be a reversal if I placed myself at an extreme end – which I don’t. And even if it WAS a reversal… the fact that society happened to have supported a certain view for hundreds or even thousands of years is not an argument. You know that.
“I note also you complain about being insulted and falsely accused in here> I myself agree that you should not be falsely accused and insulted, but I guess some people in here simply have a different assumption, they accuse innocent people because they know that if they do so they are more likely to accuse those who deserve it. I wonder where they got that idea from?”
– you flatter me. I don’t think that I have had such an influence on society that they got this idea from me if that is your (rather odd) implication. Besides which – shouldn’t you judge them by their own purported standards rather than by mine? Perhaps I can insult people willy-nilly and not be a hypocrite (at least according to your straw man version of me) – but others are hypocritical to do so. Think about it.
Now thanks to nine years of Helengrad we have police that are too afraid to do a proper job and children who are informed of their “rights” before they’re old enough to understand responsibility.
Very perceptive Jason. And if people like Troll have their way, Aotearoa will soon be a police state with an infantilised citizenry who are too afraid to do what is right, because sociopaths can work the system to their advantage.
“Very perceptive Jason. And if people like Troll have their way, Aotearoa will soon be a police state with an infantilised citizenry who are too afraid to do what is right, because sociopaths can work the system to their advantage.”
.. no that is not what I want… so I must correct you that if I get my way that will not happen. Now read what I *really* said.
I heard Jim McCorkindale on the radio. He certainly sounds credible to be. If the police cannot sort out the credibility of witnesses on a case such as this is it any wonder they stuff up murder inquiries.
http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/gore/96692/support-floods-bus-driver-cleared-assault
Inspector Olaf Jensen, of Invercargill stop digging. You are expecting a bit much if you he expect the public to accept your word that the police did their job properly without any statement let alone proof.
This dragged on for 7 months Inspector Jensen. Do you understand the law? Was this prosecution in the public interest? What does this tell the public? It tells them that if they see someone getting assaulted not to get involved because if the offender and possible his or her friends do not turn on you the police might end up charging you.
Did the police ask boy’s parents if it was likely that their boy would lie or at least embellish his story? It would appear not from what the boy’s father subsequently said about his son’s behaviour.
Very perceptive Jason. And if people like Troll have their way, Aotearoa will soon be a police state with an infantilised citizenry who are too afraid to do what is right, because sociopaths can work the system to their advantage.
With respect Ropata, we don’t know that’s what Troll wants. From what I’ve read he/she/it wants to make sure that children are safe from abuse, which is a laudable aim.
My way of making children safer would be to drag a perpetrator out in a public space, list their crimes, then shoot them in the head. Make sure every network covers it in every detail.
That should provide an object lesson that kiddie fiddling is socially unacceptable. It might also convince young people that false accusations are a bad thing.
Best part? No reoffending. I bet those rehabilitation programs wish they could get a 0% reoffending rate.
You want to know the scary thing for me?
Looking at that, I’m only half joking.
“would threatening to punch a kid in the ribs – or indeed actually punching them in the ribs/face/stomach be one of your techniques in this situation?”
Don’t you think we should rather correct the bully’s behavior? To prevent them to continue bullying and hurting other people throughout their life?
I’d say the kid need to experience how it feels to be the receiving end! No body’s kid deserve to be bullied.
“would threatening to punch a kid in the ribs – or indeed actually punching them in the ribs/face/stomach be one of your techniques in this situation?”
Don’t you think we should rather correct the bully’s behavior? To prevent them to continue bullying and hurting other people throughout their life?
I’d say the kid need to experience how it feels to be the receiving end! No body’s kid deserve to be bullied.
Anon: You are an idiot (note to Matt… I am allowed by my belief system to throw around random insults right 😉 ) Your suggestion is basically that adults should go around attacking children to teach them what it is like to be bullied. Do you not know that kids who are abused by adults (which is what you propose as a “solution”) are more likely to be violent themselves?
You say that “No body’s kid deserve to be bullied” right after you suggest that “the kid need to experience how it feels to be the receiving end!” So you believe both that we should bully kids and that no kid should be bullied. Fool!
Troll,
Actually I don’t think anyone is entitled to throw around random insults, just as I don’t think people should not be subject to arrest unless there is a good reason for it. But I note you missed my point, which was that you complained legitimately about the injustice of being accused of child abuse when you were innocent of this crime.
As to your other comments, while I don’t think punching a kid in the ribs is acceptable, I suggest that retributive punishment is an important part of just punishment of children or adults. In the real world when people attack others the police will restrain them with battons and tasers if necessary and people will be forcibly taken to court and put in jail without their consent.
“Actually I don’t think anyone is entitled to throw around random insults, just as I don’t think people should not be subject to arrest unless there is a good reason for it. ”
Matt: Joke. Hence the smiley face.
“But I note you missed my point, which was that you complained legitimately about the injustice of being accused of child abuse when you were innocent of this crime.”
Huh? when was I accused of child abuse? But if I *was* accused of child abuse, even if I knew I was innocent, I would consider it an injustice if the police did *not* investigate the allegations. Why? Because this would mean that in cases where real abuse *was* happening the police were probably not investigating that either. Ask yourself this: lets say you could stop several child abusers in your neighbourhood, but the payoff was that there was asmall chance you might be taken in for questioning every now and then. Which will you choose? To help the children or your precious “freedom”. That is what it comes down to in reality when you step outside your intellectual bubble.
“As to your other comments, while I don’t think punching a kid in the ribs is acceptable, I suggest that retributive punishment is an important part of just punishment of children or adults.”
I disagree… but even if I did agree going around hitting kids as a vigilante in order to bring about “justice” makes you a pervert or child abuser not some sort of neighborhood hero.
” In the real world when people attack others the police will restrain them with battons and tasers if necessary and people will be forcibly taken to court and put in jail without their consent.”
Yes… but we tend to treat children a little differently and at least in my family we didn’t tend to use battons on the kids. I am not sure what you are implying because you have not spelled it out – so I will assume you *don’t* mean that we should beat kids now and then to teach them what the “real world” is like – which is what it sounds like you are saying. A classic line of a child-abuser is “i was teaching them life lessons” or something similar.
Huh? when was I accused of child abuse?
Sorry, you were accused of being a school bully, which is essentially an accusation that you used to engage in assault against other children. And you objected to this.
Which, is inconsistent with your rationale for supporting the actions in this case.
But if I *was* accused of child abuse, even if I knew I was innocent, I would consider it an injustice if the police did *not* investigate the allegations. Why? Because this would mean that in cases where real abuse *was* happening the police were probably not investigating that either. Ask yourself this: lets say you could stop several child abusers in your neighbourhood, but the payoff was that there was asmall chance you might be taken in for questioning every now and then. Which will you choose? To help the children or your precious “freedom”.
This argument might be relevant if people had said the police should never investigate or ask questions about a complaint. But that’s not what was being said . No one has talked about we there the police should investigate a complaint or ask questions. What was talked about was whether they should arrest, charge, refuse diversion, and attempt to prosecute. That’s not the same thing. I am pretty sure being locked in a cell, required to find bail, having your future threatened and your name publically defamed in the media when you are innocent is a lot different to police simply asking you questions.
That is what it comes down to in reality when you step outside your intellectual bubble.
Nice insult, but unfortunately its not an argument, I note that you pointed out that insults were not substitutes for arguments previously. Let me know when you can actually address what I have said instead of attacking what I haven’t and using pejorative rhetoric.
I disagree… but even if I did agree going around hitting kids as a vigilante in order to bring about “justice” makes you a pervert or child abuser not some sort of neighborhood hero.
Another nice caricature on your part, I never mentioned vigilante justice nor do I think the case was a case was about punishing a child. It was about stopping a teenage male him from attacking a young women. The notion that you can use proportionate force against someone if they are attacking another and it’s necessary to stop them is not terribly controversial. This is why we do not prosecute a husband who shoots a man who has broken into his house and is trying to murder his wife or daughter. Its also why there is a legal defense to assault if I physically intervened to stop a man violently attacking a women. I would say the same thing about grabbing a boys hand to stop him hitting a young girl. Its called defence of another.
The distinction between defensive force used against aggressors and offensive force used against the innocent is quite elementary
Yes… but we tend to treat children a little differently and at least in my family we didn’t tend to use battons on the kids.
Another caricature, I was not saying we should use battons on kids, though I am not surprised you try and defend your position with silly caricatures like this. I was simply illustrating the principle that it’s not always immoral to respond to force or violence or criminal conduct with force, and in fact in all other spheres of life we do not actually think it is.
Like I said above, there is a moral principle that any person is justified in using force or even violence against an aggressor, if its necessary to stop the aggression and the force used is proportionate. When the threat is serious we might use battons or tasers when its minimal we use less force. In this case the force he was being prosecuted for (grabbing an arm) was minimal and necessary to stop an assault on a adolescent girl. There is hardly anything controversial here.
Whats odd is that the police apparently think that attacking a girl is not an assault worthy of prosecution but using even less force to stop such an assault is. This is ridiculous. Which is why people have to resort to caricatures and name calling to defend it.
.-= My last blog-post ..Has Science Disproved God? Thursday Night =-.
“Sorry, you were accused of being a school bully, which is essentially an accusation that you used to engage in assault against other children. And you objected to this.
Which, is inconsistent with your rationale for supporting the actions in this case.”
… No. it isn’t. What? I assure someone I am not a school bully and therefore I have no rationale for supporting the police arresting a man who assaults a child? Are you serious? I Not relevant at all.
” I am pretty sure being locked in a cell, required to find bail, having your future threatened and your name publically defamed in the media when you are innocent is a lot different to police simply asking you questions.”
…it was a thought experiment. To make a point that sometimes freedom and justice conflict with each other. No need to take everything so literally. (see your silly comparison below for an example of this)
“Nice insult, but unfortunately its not an argument,”
…not an insult at all. I was pointing out that reality is often different from intellectual arguments and you have to think about the actual real world consequences rather than just some abstract concept you wish to defend.
I note that you pointed out that insults were not substitutes for arguments previously. Let me know when you can actually address what I have said instead of attacking what I haven’t and using pejorative rhetoric.
… Ok – just letting you know….. by the way do you have some kind of anti-rhetoric bias?
” I think the case was a case was about punishing a child. It was about stopping a teenage male him from attacking a young women”
… come on! it was two kids having a bit of a scuffle on a school bus. The same thing that has happened for as long as anyone cares to remember. Don’t be so PC!
“This is why we do not prosecute a husband who shoots a man who has broken into his house and is trying to murder his wife or daughter.”
… now who is using crazy rhetoric! We were talking about a little boy pulling a girls hair.. and suddenly you are off on a tangent about wife murderers! That is as ridiculous as my vigilante comment you hypocrite!… or gee… maybe it was just an extreme example to make a point. Well well well. You do get that concept after rall! (when you do it)
“Another caricature, I was not saying we should use battons on kids,”
… never said you were. see extreme example above.
“Whats odd is that the police apparently think that attacking a girl is not an assault worthy of prosecution but using even less force to stop such an assault is.”
.. its because the first situation was two children having a school yard tussle… the second situation was an ADULT attacking a CHILD. Is this concept difficult to grasp?
“This is ridiculous. Which is why people have to resort to caricatures and name calling to defend it.”
… I assume that last point refers to yourself given your above comments and extreme statements (ie. a little boy pulling a girls hair is in some way comparable to someone murdering my wife and daughter)
Matthew: A note on my writing style:
I realize upon rereading my rhetoric… um argument.. that you may have interpreted statements like : “makes you a pervert or child abuser not some sort of neighborhood hero.” as referring to you: Matthew. If so I can see why you would see me as insulting you. Please see the “you” as “one” or “a person”… not you or anyone else in particular and hopefully you will not feel slighted in future.
By the way….. what the hell does this mean:
” I think the case was a case was about punishing a child. It was about stopping a teenage male him from attacking a young women”
Another nice caricature on your part, I never mentioned vigilante justice nor do I think the case was a case was about punishing a child. It was about stopping a teenage male from attacking a young women. The notion that you can use proportionate force against someone if they are attacking another, and it’s necessary to stop them, is not terribly controversial.
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
Also, so is proof reading. =)
I hope the bus driver has learned his lesson. It’s better to be hung for a sheep as a lamb, so next time just put the little punk in hospital.
Troll, again you seem more intent on attack caricatures than actually addressing my points. So I’ll spell my argument out for you. It’s as follows:
[1] It is morally permissible to use force or violence against a person if (a) the person in question is threatening to attack or actually is attacking another (b) the force is proportionate to the attack and (c) the force is necessary to prevent the attack.
[2] the action the driver was prosecuted for, meets these criteria
It follows from [1] and [2] that the action the driver was prosecuted for was morally permissible.
I am wondering which premise you reject, At best I can see your only on point response is to state
“we were talking about a little boy pulling a girls hair.. and suddenly you are off on a tangent about wife murderers! That is as ridiculous as my vigilante comment you hypocrite!… or gee… maybe it was just an extreme example to make a point. Well well well. You do get that concept after rall! (when you do it)”
Apart from the fact that this much of this is simply an ad hominen attack on my character. This response has three straightforward problems.
First, the claim is false. This was not a “little boy”” pulling a girls hair. The boy was 14, I have a 14 year old boy and he is taller than I am, I had a group of 14 year old boys in my house yesterday and they were not “little boys”. I actually pointed this out in my comments when I mentioned it was a teenage boy assaulting a female.
Second, the fact that an assault is performed by a little boy (which it wasn’t) and little boys frequently or often do this does not change the fact that when they do one can use force to stop them doing so. The right or duty to defend others does not cease to exist when the victim and perpetrator are children. Of course in these cases what constitutes proportionate force will differ, but I took that into account noting that grabbing an arm his hardly disproportionate.
Finally, if you read what I said in context my reference to murderers was explained I said
The notion that you can use proportionate force against someone if they are attacking another and it’s necessary to stop them is not terribly controversial. This is why we do not prosecute a husband who shoots a man who has broken into his house and is trying to murder his wife or daughter. Its also why there is a legal defense to assault if I physically intervened to stop a man violently attacking a women. I would say the same thing about grabbing a boys hand to stop him hitting a young girl. Its called defence of another.
It is clear from the context that my example was simply to illustrate the truth of [1] that you can use proportionate force against someone if they are attacking another and it’s necessary to stop I said these examples, were similar only in that they were examples of this principle. You are welcome to suggest I said that they were similar in other respects, but if you do its clear you are being dishonest.
So nothing you said actually addresses my argument, please tell me which premise of the argument I actually gave you think is incorrect. Do you deny that people can use force to defend others from attack or do you deny that merely grabbing a teenage boys arm is disproportionate to his assault on a female?
.-= My last blog-post ..Has Science Disproved God? Thursday Night =-.
Troll, again you seem more intent on attack caricatures than actually addressing my points. So I’ll spell my argument out for you. It’s as follows:
… don’t take it personally. It is just another persons opinion.
“I am wondering which premise you reject”
(i) there was no attack in this case – it was a schoolyard squabble. children who hit each other are not prosecuted in general. (ii) an adult using violence against a child is rarely “proportionate” as there is a great imbalance of power
(iii) it would have been possible to solve this situation (if it needed solving at all) with out resorting to violence. So I reject all of your premises.
“an ad hominen attack on my character.”
.. please get over yourself Flanagan I have no interest in your character or attacking it. If I use rhetoric it is as rhetoric not to attack you personally.
“It is clear from the context that my example was simply to illustrate the truth….”
Yes it was clear to me too. I also though it was equally clear in my example too but you don’t seem to see it there.
“You are welcome to suggest I said that they were similar in other respects, but if you do its clear you are being dishonest.”
.. I think you lack an ability to pick up on subtlety. Time after time you interpret what I say in a mechanical way missing all of the nuance.
“Do you deny that people can use force to defend others from attack”
..we should use violence what all else fails… and I mean ALL else. I don’t think that is the case in this instance.
“or do you deny that merely grabbing a teenage boys arm is disproportionate to his assault on a female?”
In actual fact you have missed the whole point of what I have been saying. I do not think he should have been found guilty. I do think he should have been arrested. Go reread what I said about type-I and type-II errors above… I could rewrite it all here but its still stored above. Reread.
After watching the item on Sunday about the forced sham marriages of underage Muslim girls I wonder if the police are totally incompetent or are being influenced by senior politicians.
http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news
It is outrageous that the police fail to use common sense and discretion to charge the bus driver yet turn a blind eye to underage Moslem girls being raped. I wonder if they are taking notice of the Minister of Justice, Simon Power’s statement that he does not believe it is a significant issue.