Nat MP runs over TPP protester’s foot

Written By: - Date published: 4:04 pm, March 24th, 2016 - 82 comments
Categories: crime, national - Tags: , , , ,

https://twitter.com/ONENewsBreaking/status/712779577701978112

From the video this doesn’t look like a deliberate attempt to injure, but it does look like dangerous and aggressive driving. Not the first time this sort of thing has happened.

I/S at No Right turn discusses the potential consequences.

Update:

I hope the Police discuss with Chester the obligations of a driver if they are involved in an injury accident, no matter whose fault it is.

Section 36 of the Land Transport Act 1998 states:

36 Contravention of section 7 or section 22 involving injury
(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
…
(c) without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, and render assistance, after an accident where a person has been injured or killed.
(2) If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—
(a) the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000

Mickysavage

82 comments on “Nat MP runs over TPP protester’s foot ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ovid 1
    24 March 2016 at 4:11 pm

    Wasn’t this a scene in the UK version of House of Cards?

  2. NZJester 2
    24 March 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Who wants to bet that all of National’s pet media will be digging into the poor guys background right now and we can expect even the tiniest bit of dirt from his past to be in hit pieces published in tomorrows paper. They will try to nail the poor guy to the wall for being the victim of a National Minister’s bad driving and try and make out that the minister was the victim.

    • Chooky 2.1
      24 March 2016 at 4:37 pm

      Nact spin ? …He put his biggest foot in the way… and his biggest claw spike toe nail out …in order to puncture the MP’s tyre…and impede his progress

      btw it looks like a boy racer car…crusher Collins should confiscate it

    • Macro 2.2
      24 March 2016 at 4:46 pm

      No I won’t take up your bet… I agree this is exactly how the MSM will play it. Poor old Chester that scumbag protester jumped out in front of his car and thrust his foot under the wheel.

  3. te reo putake 3
    24 March 2016 at 4:41 pm

    Given the he had the option of waiting until the police cleared the driveway, a matter of a mere few seconds delay, I’d say Borrows has no credible defence to a driving charge. It was his decision to drive into the victim and his alone.

    • weka 3.1
      24 March 2016 at 4:44 pm

      +1. It’s pretty obvious that he was using his car to force the people out of the way.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      24 March 2016 at 5:55 pm

      Yep, looks like assault with a deadly weapon to me and needs to be prosecuted as such.

      Unfortunately, that probably won’t happen.

    • Psycho Milt 3.3
      25 March 2016 at 7:38 am

      Given the he had the option of waiting until the police cleared the driveway…

      Meh. If he had waited for that, this thread would have consisted of wailing about Police brutality and the willingness of law enforcement officials to act as personal praetorian guards for Nat politicians. This version is much funnier.

  4. Chris 4
    24 March 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Cops think the law doesn’t apply to them. Once a cop always a cop. That said, poor old Chester’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Never destined for greater things, poor old sod.

  5. Bill 5
    24 March 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Okay. Driving a car very slowly into a person standing in front of it is highly fucking dangerous. What can and does happen is that the bumper of the car presses against the shin, at which point it’s well nigh impossible to withdraw your foot from just under the front end of the car….it’s kind of gets forcibly rooted to the spot. The result is you get ‘poll-axed’ backwards, smacking the back of your head on the ground at a fair rate of knots. It all happens in a second.

    • tinfoilhat 5.1
      24 March 2016 at 5:35 pm

      Looks like her foot was run over.

      • Bill 5.1.1
        24 March 2016 at 5:47 pm

        Yes tinfoilhat, her foot was run over.

        But if you watch the video again, you’ll see that he was driving forwards with people directly in front of the car facing directly at him. I’d be saying that it’s fortunate someone only got their foot run over, because at the speed he was going, that jammed leg scenario I’ve described could have been the death of someone.

        If you don’t believe that what he did was incredibly dangerous, then find yourself a piece of very, very soft ground – maybe put on a hard hat too (seriously), face a car head-on, and have someone drive it or nudge it into you at 2 or 3 kph.

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          24 March 2016 at 6:03 pm

          He certainly looks like he is driving considerably faster than I would be ok with with if I was driving and there were people standing in front of me.

          • Chris 5.1.1.1.1
            24 March 2016 at 11:29 pm

            If it was Bennett in what she calls her “tart-cart” she would’ve tried to bowl the lot of them. Would’ve been Wicked!!!

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      24 March 2016 at 5:56 pm

      As I said, assault with a deadly weapon.

    • James 5.3
      24 March 2016 at 6:31 pm

      Standing in front of car is also dangerous , not to mention stupid.

      • North 5.3.1
        24 March 2016 at 6:53 pm

        James get your dangerously stupid fucking head outa here ! That driver had the chance to stop, indeed had nearly stopped. That driver then decided to icebreaker human beings. That is criminal behaviour right up to injuring with intent to injure/assault with a weapon. Both carrying maximum five years imprisonment. Ex-cop Chester’s in shit Baby James. However ya wanna spin it Baby James. In shit. All the evidence is there. Inconvenient but true Jamesy Baby. Go to bed and hug yourself Darling. The Man-Child PM’s world is collapsing, you with it. No Divine Right here dog !

      • Bill 5.3.2
        24 March 2016 at 7:19 pm

        The take-away lesson is that you sit in front of a vehicle if you want to bring it to a standstill.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.3.3
        24 March 2016 at 9:07 pm

        Standing on the footpath is quite normal. A driver running over someone standing on the footpath is psychopathic.

  7. Chuck 7
    24 March 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Don’t try and block the drive way, and you won’t have your foot run over. Pretty simple really.

    The police will tell Chester to be more careful, and the protester not to try and block cars in the future as she will always come off second best.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      24 March 2016 at 10:11 pm

      There are two other charges that may need to be investigated, failing to stop after an injury accident and failing to ascertain injury after an injury accident. It does not matter whose fault the original injury was, a driver is meant to stop and check up.

  8. Psycho Milt 8
    24 March 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Pro tip: your foot doesn’t make an effective roadblock. Don’t try and use it as one.

    • fender 8.1
      24 March 2016 at 7:05 pm

      Cars have brakes. Watch the video again and when the car comes into the frame concentrate on one of the two visible mag wheels.

      As you can see, the car never stops. That’s a crime.

      • Psycho Milt 8.1.1
        24 March 2016 at 8:51 pm

        Everyone who’s had kids is familiar with wailing that boils down to “I was doing something stupid and I got hurt!” The sensible parent suggests that not doing stupid things would help. Apparently some kids never got that message. In this instance, being an arsehole isn’t a crime but may result in sore feet.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1
          24 March 2016 at 9:05 pm

          It was the person in the car that committed the crime. People on the footpath have right of way.

          • Psycho Milt 8.1.1.1.1
            24 March 2016 at 9:23 pm

            I doubt “right of way” extends to deliberately obstructing other road users. Regardless, we’re in agreement – being an arsehole isn’t a crime. Might get you a sore foot though.

            • weka 8.1.1.1.1.1
              24 March 2016 at 9:38 pm

              Pretty sure that standing in front of a car isn’t criminal and knowingly running into someone standing in front of your car is.

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.1.2
              24 March 2016 at 10:08 pm

              The person in the car was both an arsehole and committed a crime. One that deals significant jail time.

              BTW, peaceful protest is all about disrupting people so not only did that person have right of way due to being a pedestrian they also had right of way due to protesting.

              • International Rescue …
                25 March 2016 at 7:00 pm

                Since when was peaceful protest about disrupting people? Seriously have a think about the logical consequences of that and the least you have to worry about is a sore toe.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  25 March 2016 at 7:31 pm

                  Since when was peaceful protest about disrupting people?

                  Always.

                  Protest is about making noise and if you’re not disrupting people then not making enough noise.

                  think of the truck protest. If the truckies had stayed home rather than park on the motorways then nothing would have happened.

                  • International Rescue …
                    29 March 2016 at 10:53 am

                    Sorry, I disagree. Disrupting law abiding citizens achieves nothing other than antipathy or outright aggravation towards the cause. Protest is about making your point known, not forcing it down other peoples throats.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      29 March 2016 at 11:14 am

                      The protesters are law abiding citizens. And, no, it doesn’t create antipathy or outright aggravation towards the cause. What it does is bring the cause to light and make people think about it.

                      Protest is about making your point known…

                      And that can’t be done without making a noise as I’m sure you’re aware. So that brings up the question as to the real reason why you’re against people protesting.

        • McFlock 8.1.1.2
          24 March 2016 at 9:19 pm

          ahahahahaha on no,wait, you’re not allowed to assault people even if they’re being stupid.

          • Psycho Milt 8.1.1.2.1
            24 March 2016 at 9:27 pm

            Well, duh – that explains the Police investigation, then. I’m happy to leave the question of whether hurting the foot of someone who’s trying to obstruct your vehicle warrants criminal proceedings or not to the cops. Trying to block a car with your foot, though, that’s comedy gold.

            • weka 8.1.1.2.1.1
              24 March 2016 at 9:40 pm

              Yeah, it’s like that woman last year who broke her own arm trying to get the police to arrest her 🙄

            • McFlock 8.1.1.2.1.2
              24 March 2016 at 9:42 pm

              comedy gold is the “tough on crime” side of the house and its disproportionately large collection of alleged [suppressed], alleged secret recorders, alleged vehicle assaulters…

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.2.1.3
              24 March 2016 at 10:11 pm

              I’m happy to leave the question of whether hurting the foot of someone who’s trying to obstruct your vehicle warrants criminal proceedings or not to the cops.

              The charge isn’t ‘hurting someone’s foot but either attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon.

              And, no, it’s not comedy.

              • McFlock …
                24 March 2016 at 10:38 pm

                oooo – leaving the scene of an accident…

                edit- ah, ms beat me to it

                • mickysavage …
                  24 March 2016 at 10:42 pm

                  Obviously knowledge and intent will be important but to leave the scene in the way that he did needs to at least be investigated.

              • Psycho Milt …
                24 March 2016 at 11:10 pm

                Attempted murder? Assault with a deadly weapon? You seem determined to mine this for all the comedy value it’s got…

                • fender …
                  25 March 2016 at 12:20 am

                  Is there any speed at which you think it’s unsafe to intentionally drive into pedestrians or protesters?

                  Really epitomises the National approach though eh.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    25 March 2016 at 7:34 am

                    Is there any speed at which you think it’s unsafe to intentionally drive into pedestrians or protesters?

                    A more relevant question would be whether there’s any speed at which I think it’s safe to intentionally drive into pedestrians or protesters. There isn’t. However, the Police have that one covered – my interest is in the comedy value of an adult doing something stupid and getting hurt in the process. That’s been funny throughout history.

  9. tamati 9
    24 March 2016 at 7:43 pm

    What a crap driver.

    Missed her by a mile and got her toe.

  10. AmaKiwi 10
    24 March 2016 at 7:52 pm

    The protestor was from Rent-a-Crowd so eligible for work related ACC coverage.
    /sarc/

    • weka 10.1
      24 March 2016 at 7:57 pm

      Lol.

    • Lloyd 10.2
      25 March 2016 at 1:32 am

      My understanding is that rent-a-crowd was at the celebration for the new flag. The handful of persons who turned up for that event could only be there because they were paid, surely?
      Right-wingers don’t realise that people go to protests on principle, as most right wingers don’t have principles, only interests.
      Right-wingers also don’t realise that if you don’t have a job, you have a lot of time to follow your principles.
      If you don’t like protesters, pay more taxes to create jobs to get the protesters off the street. Running them down will just stir up more unemployed people to protest. Check out the Russian revolution.

  11. McFlock 11
    24 March 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Process that resulted in not changing a flag: $26million
    Chester Burrows’ driving lessons: worthless.

  12. Naki man 12
    24 March 2016 at 10:03 pm

    That’s a fail Chester only five points out of a possible one hundred.

  13. mary_a 13
    24 March 2016 at 10:26 pm

    There was a police officer present at the scene. So why didn’t Chester Borrows stop and wait for the officer to clear the way of people first, instead of pushing forward into the protesters? That’s what any good, responsible driver would have done.

    Now we wait to see what the outcome will be! Despite the obvious photographic and video evidence, I’m picking Borrows will get off, while the protester (also a pedestrian by the way), will possibly feel the full force of the law come down on her instead! In other words, she will be blamed for causing obstruction, or something similar and suffer penalties!

    • fender 13.1
      24 March 2016 at 10:59 pm

      Any obstruction she may have caused briefly was being removed.

      Borrows was being too hostile in his ramming through approach reminiscent of the whole TPPA shit-burger.

    • dave 13.2
      25 March 2016 at 6:29 am

      did burrows do a hit and run why wasnt he arrested

  14. Observer (Tokoroa) 14
    25 March 2016 at 2:26 am

    .
    Man in a hurry

    Mister Chester will not be the first male driver to impress a chick with his impatience and his crash through approach to getting rid of unwanted people.

    Impressionable Paula, Mr Chester’s adoring passenger, may have been thrilled to bits with his “knock the slut down” method of crowd control.

    We already know Paula is a “crash through” girl herself, when it comes to getting a woman to “shut the F …k up” by releasing highly confidential information from private Government Files. Her methodology is basically advance bullying – summa cum laude.

    It takes a big man with a tiny brain to bully and crush a flesh and blood person with a moving motor car. Paula may have been an accessory to the man who failed to stop when hitting a pedestrian. Her “whole truth and nothing but the truth” will need to be tested closely in court.

    The secretive, poorly negotiated Tpp Agreement is a major concern to many New Zealanders. Politicians – even if they are only Chester and Paula – have no right to run rough shod over disenfranchised non consulted citizens. This TPPA is a dog devised by mutts.

    Shame on the two honourable wretches.

  15. saveNZ 15
    25 March 2016 at 7:46 am

    Although this investment banker was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard he only go community service. But at least he was prosecuted.

    The question to be asked is do we have a fair police system if Borrows is not charged and in light of police harassment of Hager.

    “Hallwright was found guilty by a jury in June of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard over the incident in September 2010 in which he hit Mr Kim with his Saab.

    He drove off, but later called police about the crash.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10830677

  16. Observer (Tokoroa) 16
    25 March 2016 at 8:47 am

    .
    The Strugglers in shades of Blue

    .
    I do not wish to knock the Police. They are under loads of stress. They do not even attempt to solve burglary crimes in our major cities. Such is the volume of crime in a pathetic New Zealand that is losing the struggle against gangs and Asian Triads.

    We are an utter paradise for crooks of all kinds, resident and immigrant.

    But I do feel the Police should prosecute Politicians and other idiots who deliberately drive through groups of people. The very attempt to bulldoze people should be enough to land the drivers in prison. No ifs or buts.

    It is commonly said that the Police have a poisonous biased affection for National.

    I do not know how true that is, but On behalf of National the Police even broke very serious law in the raiding, the stealing of property and the demonising (without charge )of Journalist Hager.

    The Minister of Police would have been very aware that the Police were acting criminally. Further, the Minister would have been in close touch with the Commissioner throughout the prolonged crime.

    Quite simply, The Minister should be prosecuted for allowing the police to break the law.

    Until we get Politicians acting lawfully we do not have the hope of protection that is our right as citizens. The punishment for any crime committed by a Politician (or a Policeman) should be Prison.

    I am not even asking for High Standards. In a Democracy we should be under the safe unbiased Rule of Law.

  17. Richard Christie 17
    25 March 2016 at 11:35 am

    This warrants, at very least, a charge of careless driving.

    I won’t be holding my beath waitng for the NZ Police to act ethically.

  18. North 18
    25 March 2016 at 11:36 am

    There is not the slightest doubt that in the North wilfully driving into people as this goon did would be met with an assault with a weapon charge on top of a dangerous driving charge. My money’s on discretion not to prosecute being exercised in this goon’s favour. Because he’s whom he is and because Paula Benefit was sitting in the passenger seat. And because the cops look after Tories. Because by and large they are Tories. No equality under the law here.

  19. mpledger 19
    25 March 2016 at 12:16 pm

    Before I saw the video I imagined that the car was inching forward slowly and he hadn’t realised the last person wasn’t clear of the car. That it was an honest mistake and totally unintentional.

    But that wasn’t like that at all. The car came barrelling up, slowed down, didn’t even wait for the police to clear the people away before ramming his car at them. It was quite obvious that the police hadn’t cleared people away – pretty much all of them were still in front of the car and … what’s more … they were obeying police commands. That has to be dangerous driving.

    It’s not only appalling because it shows the low regard that he has for people not like himself … but it’s also appalling that the police didn’t see a traffic accident as a cause for immediate action on their part. It’s like they have completely lost their sense of right and wrong.

  20. Red delusion 20
    25 March 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Don’t deliberately stand in front of vehicles and you won’t get run over, simple The above is a load of bleating nonsense, our poor protester is enjoying her 15 minutes of martyrdom

    • fender 20.1
      25 March 2016 at 4:46 pm

      Yeah cars driven by arseholes have the right of way, they aren’t obliged to stop, especially if the pedestrian doesn’t share the drivers political views.

      Will you complain if someone runs Borrows over?

  21. Refelusion 21
    25 March 2016 at 4:50 pm

    She wasn’t an innocent pedestrian, thus must take a fair bit of responsibility for her stupid action that led to her injury. If burrows is stupid enough to do the same thing, no complaints from me

    • fender 21.1
      25 March 2016 at 4:57 pm

      A protester on foot is still a pedestrian.

      But thanks for the insight, though it was already well known RWNJ’s are keen on violence.

      • Refelusion 21.1.1
        25 March 2016 at 5:39 pm

        Ok will just ignore context and facts to suit your warped LWNJ view. A pedestrian who runs onto the motorway under your reasoning is just a pedestrian and has no responsibility for thier action at all. Possibly if they are left wing diminished cognitive ability may be a defense against such responsibility as might be the case in Wanganui, And accordingly we can agree

        • fender 21.1.1.1
          25 March 2016 at 5:48 pm

          “A pedestrian who runs onto the motorway under your reasoning is just a pedestrian and has no responsibility for their action at all”

          No that just sounds suicidal. However, a driver who makes no effort to stop for such a person is just an arsehole like Borrows.

          • Red delusion 21.1.1.1.1
            25 March 2016 at 6:22 pm

            Ok we agree then, it’s just a question of degree and facts and the applicable law, glad we got that sorted On this basis I suggest police action won’t go much further Been a left wing loony or national party mp has nothing to with it, albeit part of your your arguement ( the emotive, irrational part) suggest otherwise of which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and choose to ignore

            • fender 21.1.1.1.1.1
              25 March 2016 at 6:42 pm

              The irrational part is assuming the driver is under no obligation to avoid hitting the pedestrian. Only Chester can explain why he never brought his car to a complete stop while waiting for a clear passage onto the street.

              • Red delusion …
                25 March 2016 at 9:07 pm

                And that is what the police will determin, most comments assume guilt already and no responsibility of the injured protester

                • North …
                  26 March 2016 at 8:11 am

                  If you had half a brain Delusion you’d distinguish between mitigation and the guilty/not guilty question. Spin it how you like the goon driver (1) almost stopped then (2) stopped stopping. The goon driver made the decision deliberately to drive the weapon at and through people.

                  You like that Mr Trump Delusion ? That self-important scum can just run people over ? Haiti and Papa Doc Duvalier styles ? You align with scum Mr Trump Delusion.

            • Andre 21.1.1.1.1.2
              25 March 2016 at 7:53 pm

              Seems to me being an MP actually is relevant. That protesters will sometimes try to disrupt your day is part of the job for an MP, but not for Joe Bloggs private citizen. Which is why police were already on the scene to deal with whatever situation might arise.

              Similarly, the threshold for libelling/defaming a politician is somewhat higher than for a private citizen.

              • Red delusion …
                25 March 2016 at 9:11 pm

                Facts yes. Material in regard to wether a law has been transgressed I don’t think so

                • Observer (Tokoroa) …
                  26 March 2016 at 12:52 pm

                  To: RED DELUSION – – (Mr Quaint)

                  . How noble of you to agree to be run over by a Politician wherever you may be. He driving; you standing or walking.

                  Which asylum tries to help you out of your deluded nonsense?

                  Whichever, I send them my best wishes.

        • mpledger 21.1.1.2
          26 March 2016 at 2:18 pm

          A person walking on the footpath has right of way – I asked the police this many years ago when some nut in a car tried to intimidate me out of the way as he was coming out of a service station.