Christchurch terror attack

Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
(3 votes)
Results 2,301 to 2,325 of 2336

  1. Post
    It will be a Utopia of peace now, thanks to our beloved PM.

  2. Post
    The government did something. We can all rest easy.

  3. Post
    |icED-e@RtH| wrote:
    It will be a Utopia of peace now, thanks to our beloved PM.
    Yes! Glad you agree that we need to get gun reform sorted. I too am looking forward to seeing these weapons taken off the streets.

  4. Post
    lumpy custard wrote:
    The government did something. We can all rest easy.
    Not quite yet! There's more reform to come.

  5. Post
    swazi wrote:
    There will be no more crime in NZ. Thanks Cindy.
    Yes that is exactly what these measures are intending to do.

  6. Post
    zippy wrote:
    It is indeed good news. It's a shame it wasn't done years ago
    Yeah, far too many mass shootings we've been through and those gang shootings by licensed members. Finally time this ban happened. Safer NZ.

  7. Post
    Pxndx wrote:
    Yeah, far too many mass shootings we've been through and those gang shootings by licensed members. Finally time this ban happened. Safer NZ.
    No gang member has ever done a mass shooting and execution. That's the point mongrel mob and black power were making. They're not the bad guys here. :-)

    But good on parliament for getting rid of the guns.

    Can we get some hate speech legislation now please? :-)

  8. Post
    Never said they did? A mass shooting isn't a gang shooting.

  9. Post
    |icED-e@RtH| wrote:
    It will be a Utopia of peace now, thanks to our beloved PM.

    By this (stupid) metric, there's no point to any law, because laws don't eliminate crime.

  10. Post
    What's everyone's thoughts on how his lawyer would defend this. Would it pretty much just be trying to get evidence thrown out as inadmissible

  11. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    What's everyone's thoughts on how his lawyer would defend this. Would it pretty much just be trying to get evidence thrown out as inadmissible
    I don't think there's going to be a lot of defending going on until the point where he's about to get the longest non-parole period in NZ history.

  12. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    What's everyone's thoughts on how his lawyer would defend this. Would it pretty much just be trying to get evidence thrown out as inadmissible
    'he's a white male, he's the real victim here'

  13. Post
    Technicalities, loopholes, the insanity defence, maybe he'll try the old "I just discovered god" trick.

    But regardless, he'll get locked up for a very very long time.

  14. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    I don't think there's going to be a lot of defending going on until the point where he's about to get the longest non-parole period in NZ history.
    Yeah that's not how legal representation works eh

  15. Post
    Blue Vein CHEESE wrote:
    Technicalities, loopholes, the insanity defence, maybe he'll try the old "I just discovered god" trick.

    But regardless, he'll get locked up for a very very long time.
    What sort of Technicalities and loopholes.

    I figured he'd get a sentence not Un like the beast of blenheim

  16. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    What's everyone's thoughts on how his lawyer would defend this. Would it pretty much just be trying to get evidence thrown out as inadmissible
    I'm a little bit confused at the situation - I spoke to a chch criminal defense lawyer the other day, and he believed the situation was that the guys is still defending himself but they have to use [some latin term] which basically means that there's some lawyers there to act on his instructions, because the law prohibits an accused from directly interrogating victims/witnesses (and fair enough).

    But some articles say they're acting for him now..

    So not sure if the situation's changed or its just lazy reporting, but I'm leaning towards believing this guy's still defending himself and these guys are just his mouthpiece

  17. Post
    Insanity would probably be a viable defense. He's got video evidence of him being a cold blooded psychopath. Not sure how that works here though, probably seen to much US TV crime shows.

  18. Post
    Unsettled wrote:
    Insanity would probably be a viable defense. He's got video evidence of him being a cold blooded psychopath. Not sure how that works here though, probably seen to much US TV crime shows.
    If doing murders was evidence of insanity, murder convictions would be pretty hard to come by.

  19. Post
    Unsettled wrote:
    Insanity would probably be a viable defense. He's got video evidence of him being a cold blooded psychopath. Not sure how that works here though, probably seen to much US TV crime shows.
    umm if he planned it out it cant be insanity, he was in control of his actions. And you've watched crime shows?!

  20. Post
    He's not even remotely close to a defense of insanity. I am wondering what most of the trial will be about, myself. I am not a criminal lawyer, but surely, he will just plead guilty. And it simply goes to a hearing about sentencing.

    He wrote the manifesto, he puiblished it, he filmed himself committing the offenses, there's no defenses here that I know of. It's a debate over the sentence at best.

  21. Post
    Obviously I don't have the manifesto because only criminals have a copy, but IIRC he decided he isn't guilty because he's a partisan defending against hostile invading forces. He expects to be locked up anyway, but then released once the glorious master race implements a global authoritarian/progressive government to save the world from climate change. Or something.

  22. Post
    i could get him off on an insanity plea with just a pair of underpants and two pencils...

  23. Post
    JRS wrote:
    i could get him off on an insanity plea with just a pair of underpants and two pencils...
    Considering the context of the thread I should not have laughed as hard as I did at this

  24. Post
    KevinL wrote:
    Yeah that's not how legal representation works eh
    I know how it works you nub. I'm saying argument is going to be around the sentencing, not whether or not he's a mass murderer which is a given. He's not mental enough for an insanity defense (which would be life without parole in a "hospital" anyway).

  25. Post
    He's gonna get a CP(MIP) assessment, found fit to plead and stand trial.

    He's gonna plead not guilty and elect a jury trial, cos no way he went through this just to say "guilty" and not have his police interview heard in court, or stand up and give an opening address (either in person or through his lawyer) to the Judge, jury, and NZ public about why he did it.

    He'll be found guilty in record time and the only mitigating features for him will be his youth and lack of previous convictions, which obviously will mean very little in the context of his crimes. So a life sentence with preventive detention and he's never getting out of Paremoremo, unless they somehow make him serve a nominal amount here and then deport him to Australia to serve the rest of it.

    trackers wrote:
    I spoke to a chch criminal defense lawyer the other day, and he believed the situation was that the guys is still defending himself but they have to use [some latin term] which basically means that there's some lawyers there to act on his instructions
    Amicus curiae or "friend of the court." I think he's lawyered up though, those lawyers seem to think he's their client.