Nonsensical Sentencing Trust plays the Obi-Wan card

Written By: - Date published: 10:00 am, April 20th, 2013 - 14 comments
Categories: crime, racism, scoundrels, spin - Tags:

So, the Nonsensical Sentencing Trust wants to set up an anonymous website criticising the decisions of NZ judges, because any guilty verdict handed down to a poor brown person which doesn’t result in hanging is obviously too lenient.

Naturally, this has caused some consternation among the legal fraternity.

But don’t worry, folks, because the SST has now made it clear:  they do not support vigilantism.

For the sake of your braincells, you may choose to append the famous Jedi maxim, “from a certain point of view” after that sentence.

Because this is the same SST whose leader went on the record to defend a rich white dude who chased down and stabbed to death a 15-year-old for the iniquitous crime of tagging a fence.  What was it you said, Garth?

Emery had to “pay a price for what he did” but the 52-year-old was a “different type of offender”.

“I didn’t think he should have gone to jail,” said Mr McVicar.

“That young offender [Pihema] had been doing graffiti before and Emery had been becoming extremely frustrated with it.

But of course, let’s be sensible.  Clearly, Bruce Emery, who saw two young men tagging his fence, took out a knife, and chased them 300m down a road to confront and kill one of them was not a vigilante.

You have to be wearing a mask to be a vigilante.

But let’s credit the SST with this:  at least they’re straight-up, ethical types who never try to weasel out of previously-made statements which are now politically inconvenient.

“We have never supported or advocated vigilantism and we never will” said Ruth Money of Sensible Sentencing Trust this morning. “Garth McVicar has never said that, I have never said that, and no person speaking on behalf of Sensible Sentencing – as opposed to their own personal view – has ever said that” Ms Money said.

Oops.

14 comments on “Nonsensical Sentencing Trust plays the Obi-Wan card ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ennui 1
    20 April 2013 at 10:41 am

    When you hear the words “sensible” and “Garth” together think “punitive”. Punish hard, and punish again, just for good measure, another round of punishment. Makes the victims feel really good. Garth thinks so, so it must be right.

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    20 April 2013 at 10:51 am

    The SST are a bunch of hypocritical asses.

    Even worse though is National Fucking Radio insisting that they are a “victims advocacy group”. WTF National Radio, the SST creates criminals and has no interest or understanding in preventing future victims.

  3. Jasper 3
    20 April 2013 at 11:01 am

    Also you have got to take into account where they get some of their legal advice from ….. a lawyer who has a track record at identity theft, abuse of an ex partner, a harasser of women and did get kicked out of parliament has been in court regularly as a defendant. Two Guns Garrett! I rest my case your honour! SST is as it sounds like, a disease that victimises victims of crime and does not assist them in any way to rehabilitate.

  4. Visubversaviper 4
    20 April 2013 at 11:12 am

    Seems to be nice little earner for McVicar too.

  5. Jasper 5
    20 April 2013 at 11:15 am

    The thing I like about the change is that these polls and especially this one, reflects the core national party supporters which if you look at most of the RM polls, range from 40% – 47% for the Nat’s. So a hit like this is a good reflection of what the Nat supporters are thinking? With 12-18 months out from an election and with the MRP deal on the line for the Nat’s ….. it’s a good blow by the LG’s. Greens to consume the Labour party in the future!

  6. ghostrider888 6
    20 April 2013 at 1:12 pm

    what burnt my eyes was reading the SST claiming “we won’t stop campaigning until we have victim-based sentencing practices.” Yep, you heard it right, “victim-base sentencing practices”: these people! sigh, we despair. Watching and listening to their discourse they do not appear to be very bright and / or enlightened. Great links to those scoop articles (shoulda typed Scope) Thorny; anticipated reaction like that, and I’m not even a fan of judges; even Rogue has had his run ins with them (sifts through mental file of long-held grudges and resentments). Whatever! Not Even bro’.

  7. Brookyn 7
    21 April 2013 at 2:39 pm

    I remember Pihema Cameron’s family having to defend him (and themselves) in the media all the while oxygen was given to the idea that Emery should be allowed home to be with his family for Christmas.

  8. ochocinco 8
    21 April 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Oh, what a ridiculous over-simplification.

    The first victim (Emery) was subjected to multiple criminal acts. The offender (who became the second victim), Cameron, was committing a criminal act against Emery in the dead of night.

    Now, I ask you: what were Emery’s choices?
    1. Call the Police. It is almost certain they would not have responded UNLESS Emery lied and said that Cameron wasn’t just tagging but was “snooping in the bushes”
    2. Do nothing. This allows an illegal act to go unpunished. Should we just “stand by”?
    3. Give chase. Here, Emery has a choice. Go unarmed (tactically a poor choice given the area and time of night – it would NOT have been sensible), or go armed.

    So, at this point Emery was thinking: prevent a criminal act, ensure safety. Good tactical thinking.

    Emery ran and caught up to Cameron. At this point Cameron had a choice:
    1. Give himself up (which would have been the ethical decision – Cameron was committing an illegal act and should have surrendered himself to Emery for eventual transfer to the Police)
    2. Resist
    3. Run

    The evidence is that Cameron TOOK A STEP TOWARDS Emery. He had a spray can in his hand (not a weapon). But, QoT, here is the situation – late night, a known criminal advancing on you, with what is probably not a weapon, but may be. Your choices are fight or flee.

    Anybody who has been in a fistfight knows that if you wait for the punch, it’s too late. You have to respond as soon as you see the “quiver” in the shoulder and/or the slight flexing at the hip which usually announces a punch is on the way.

    We on the left stand for community, state, and togetherness. We are the real believers in the social contract, not like that individualist scum on the right. As such, we should be the real anti-crime talkers – because you cannot build a socialist future when you have scum criminals running around and destroying the bonds of trust, love, and care that should exist between all NEw Zealanders. Crime is the ultimate cancer against socialist thought, it is the purest expression of selfishness (burglars are just like fat cat bankers and capitalists – all they care about is themselves and fuck the poor victims, whether they’ve been broken into or merely had their life savings fraudulently taken).

    You can’t build the future out of such poor material.

    • QoT 8.1
      21 April 2013 at 8:12 pm

      You know, I love how you’ve recognised that it looks so much better for your argument to refer to Pihema Cameron as A KNOWN CRIMINAL!!!!!

      Because “late at night, a teen with a spray can advancing on you” is far less convincing when you’re justifying stabbing said teen to death after pursuing him down the road.

      And just a thought? You’ll do much better selling the “we need to be anti-crime” line when you’re not justifying a grown man killing a teen over a coat of paint.

      • ghostrider888 8.1.1
        21 April 2013 at 8:18 pm

        you lay it down Queen! (btw, I read your II posts, I am just not registered to comment but they are interesting, must look into this poly McCroskie matter for a laugh / cry.)

    • felix 8.2
      21 April 2013 at 9:36 pm

      “Now, I ask you: what were Emery’s choices?
      1. Call the Police. It is almost certain they would not have responded UNLESS Emery lied and said that Cameron wasn’t just tagging but was “snooping in the bushes”

      Call the police. Yep, call me an old fuddy duddy but when someone commits a crime against you that’s what you’re supposed to do. Lie to the cops to get them there? I wouldn’t recommend it, and there’s no need. If he rang the cops and told the truth (“I’m about to stab a teenage boy to death”) they would have been there in a flash and probably saved a life.

      “2. Do nothing. This allows an illegal act to go unpunished. Should we just “stand by”? “

      No, you shouldn’t stand by. First you should call the police. Then, if you’re not afraid for your own safety, you might go outside and yell “Get away from my fucking fence I’ve just called the police!” That’ll put an end to the crime which we’re still pretending is yours and Emery’s motivation.

      “3. Give chase. “

      No, why would you do that? What will you do if you catch them, short of stabbing them to death?
      You really need to think this one through, there’s no way for it to end well.

      “Here, Emery has a choice. Go unarmed (tactically a poor choice given the area and time of night – it would NOT have been sensible), or go armed.”

      Ok I can’t stress this next point enough: If you’re going to run around outside chasing people in the dark, and I’ve already explained why this is a dumb fucking idea, LEAVE THE BIG KNIFE AT HOME. Otherwise it looks like you mean to stab someone to death, which as it turns out was the case.

      A knife isn’t a defensive weapon. You can’t protect yourself with one unless you stab or slash someone. And it’s very difficult to stab or slash someone with a big knife and not cause them serious injury or death.

      When was the last time you ran 300 metres? It’s quite a long way, especially for someone of Emery’s build. It’s three rugby fields. Could you run three rugby fields? Would you stop for a breath after the first rugby field, or maybe the second? Would you stop and think to yourself ‘is this worth it?’ Or ‘what am I actually going to do if I catch this guy?’ Or ‘holy shit I’m running around in the dark with a big fucking knife! I’d better go home before someone calls the cops.’

      But not Emery. No, this lowlife piece of human shit kept running for 300 metres, caught up with the teen and stabbed him to death.

      That’s who you’re defending, ochocinco. A “known criminal” who at every fork in the road that night made the most violent possible choice.