Results 51 to 75 of 121

  1. Post
    #51
    MorbidNZ wrote:
    Yeah I can see how that phone call would have gone... "Hi it's Detective so and so from the NZ Police", "How do I know you're the Police?" and then there would be a Facebook post about how the Police are ringing these people and wanting to discuss all these issues over the phone.... and I wouldn't doubt you'd be posting on here saying they should have just gone to his house.
    So when you want to visit a random person you just turn up at their door without even trying to notifying them of your intentions? I wouldn't doubt you'd be posting on here after they did that either dipshit.

  2. Post
    #52
    MorbidNZ wrote:
    Yeah I can see how that phone call would have gone... "Hi it's Detective so and so from the NZ Police", "How do I know you're the Police?"
    Been there. Around 2003ish. The cop replied something like "well how am I supposed to prove that to you?". I responded "its not my job to come up with a public sector authentication system" and he hung up.

    Had a similar conversation with an unrelated government department a few years later. I didn't want to give out sensitive information without verifying them first, so we just arranged that I'd call their official 0800 number and dial in his extension. Easy.

  3. Post
    #53
    Eagle wrote:
    So when you want to visit a random person you just turn up at their door without even trying to notifying them of your intentions? I wouldn't doubt you'd be posting on here after they did that either dipshit.
    Casual reminder that the Summary Offences Act actually lets them just show up at your door and arrest you without a warrant, drag you to the police station, process you, then kick you out without pressing charges for anything, and theres not a damn thing you/your lawyer can legally do because they can just claim it was a mistake or they dropped the charges and they're protected against any legal retaliation.

    NZBORA or whatever requires they read you your rights when they arrest you, but that doesn't stop them just making up a reason then not having to prove it because they never actually filed in court.

    Looks like the Crimes Act lets them do it too:

    31 Arrest by constable pursuant to statutory powers

    Every constable is justified in arresting any person without warrant in accordance with the provisions of section 315 or in accordance with any other enactment conferring on him or her a power so to arrest

  4. Post
    #54
    Vulcan wrote:
    They could have also rung him first. This is not an isolated case by the looks of it. Quite a few posts on other forums with videos are popping up. One was apparently questions if he has any "ethnic minority friends" by the cops, the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

    It sounds like the police are overcompensating for missing the mosque shooter.
    There was someones report of them coming and asking what they thought of the Prime minister and about Muslims. Though from what I remember his facebook profile looks to be anti-labour and police, so easy pickings. But either way those questions sound a bit "gestapo-ish" coming from the police.

  5. Post
    #55
    Pxndx wrote:
    There was someones report of them coming and asking what they thought of the Prime minister and about Muslims. Though from what I remember his facebook profile looks to be anti-labour and police, so easy pickings. But either way those questions sound a bit "gestapo-ish" coming from the police.
    Yeah it's getting very "thought-police". One step away from being carted off to a re-education center. It might sound very tin-foil hat but at a time when the police are actually asking these questions you don't start to wonder.

    The other thing that concerns me is it encourages a behaviour where people accept things they would normally call out for fear of being labelled a bigot/racist/etc. For example if a certain religious group abused a certain sexual minority.

  6. Post
    #56
    teelo7 wrote:
    Casual reminder that the Summary Offences Act actually lets them just show up at your door and arrest you without a warrant, drag you to the police station, process you, then kick you out without pressing charges for anything, and theres not a damn thing you/your lawyer can legally do because they can just claim it was a mistake or they dropped the charges and they're protected against any legal retaliation.

    NZBORA or whatever requires they read you your rights when they arrest you, but that doesn't stop them just making up a reason then not having to prove it because they never actually filed in court.

    Looks like the Crimes Act lets them do it too:
    Yes many legal morally grey areas they use and do get away with, Urewera raids comes to mind, but if they start really abusing their power then their relationship with the public is deteriorate, everyone will start to loose in one way or another. I like the concept of recording as it keeps people everyone in check.

  7. Post
    #57
    Eagle wrote:
    Yes many legal morally grey areas they use and do get away with, Urewera raids comes to mind, but if they start really abusing their power then their relationship with the public is deteriorate, everyone will start to loose in one way or another. I like the concept of recording as it keeps people everyone in check.
    People have short memories.

  8. Post
    #58
    teelo7 wrote:
    Casual reminder that the Summary Offences Act actually lets them just show up at your door and arrest you without a warrant, drag you to the police station, process you, then kick you out without pressing charges for anything, and theres not a damn thing you/your lawyer can legally do because they can just claim it was a mistake or they dropped the charges and they're protected against any legal retaliation.

    NZBORA or whatever requires they read you your rights when they arrest you, but that doesn't stop them just making up a reason then not having to prove it because they never actually filed in court.

    Looks like the Crimes Act lets them do it too:
    Search and Surveillance Act extends police powers to effect arrests without warrant, and to bust you on other things if for example they happen to see drugs lying around when arresting you for something else

  9. Post
    #59
    How long until the right to silence is no longer legally valid before Freedom Inc takes it away

  10. Post
    #60
    ^ Chicken Little over here.

  11. Post
    #61
    If you say so. Least I post on my original and not n-th Smurf account.

  12. Post
    #62
    That doesn't make the content of your post more or less invalid.

  13. Post
    #63
    ^ Does make him more transparent and therefore more credible tho

  14. Post
    #64
    Credible? He's saying the Bill of Rights are about to be completely erased off the statute books based on guns being banned or something.

  15. Post
    #65
    slo.de8th wrote:
    Credible? He's saying the Bill of Rights are about to be completely erased off the statute books based on guns being banned or something.
    I think he's more lamenting the slow erosion of our rights and freedoms, the thin end of the wedge, if you will. But hey, if you'd rather see it as him screaming "The sky is falling", whatever *shrug*

  16. Post
    #66
    Name:  MV5BMzE2ZTk2NmItYzYwYy00ZDRhLTg4YmQtNDQ1MTQxZTI0YTMxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTgxOTIzNzk@._V1_.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  72.6 KB

  17. Post
    #67
    Assuming you think I was being literal?

  18. Post
    #68
    Eagle wrote:
    So when you want to visit a random person you just turn up at their door without even trying to notifying them of your intentions? I wouldn't doubt you'd be posting on here after they did that either dipshit.
    Pity the police didn't turn up unannounced on the Christchurch shooters doorstep and ask a few hard questions.

    Maybe 51 people wouldn't be dead.

    If you want to belong to a civilized society, you give up a few freedoms and put up with some invasive stuff.

    The sort of whiny arguments you guys are making have all been made before, when we: introduced compulsory seatbelts, compulsory breath tests, right of search for drugs without a warrant, etc, etc.

    They're just natural responses to risks and costs facing society today.

  19. Post
    #69
    ^ Fair comment.

    I guess the concern is the potential abuse of power by the Police.

  20. Post
    #70
    I thought i was pretty obvious but hey some people enjoy watching others getting reamed as long as its doesn't affect them. Sooner baby boomers go extinct the better.

  21. Post
    #71
    I never got the whole baby boomer hate. Before them it was the whole God King Country which is even more sickening

  22. Post
    #72
    Certainly don't actually hate them them it's more a dislike for their attitudes, so many are generally ignorant and closed minded when it comes to many issues that are important these days to many people. The world is constantly changing and they have had their time in the seat and just need to let the wheel go already.

  23. Post
    #73
    I dont get that logic either. (maybe im dense?). But did the generation prior to boomers get out of the way for them? Not that Im aware of. So why do the boomers need to. When its the millennials turn and they wish to throw their power away, then they can. I dont see what right they have to expect anything. Play the cards you're given.

  24. Post
    #74
    Selfishness really. Sure no one has a right as such but anyone can see why thinking like that hurts people who will live with the future ramifications, whether people care or not or do anything about it is another story, Human's gonna human after all.
    In saying that younger generations appear to have a better understanding of the bigger picture due to their access of information which has a far more promising outlook on things.

  25. Post
    #75
    Eagle wrote:
    Selfishness really. Sure no one has a right as such but anyone can see why thinking like that hurts people who will live with the future ramifications, whether people care or not or do anything about it is another story, Human's gonna human after all.
    In saying that younger generations appear to have a better understanding of the bigger picture due to their access of information which has a far more promising outlook on things.
    BS.

    You're just a self absorbed wanker who's pissed because you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

    You wouldn't know a big picture if you saw one.