Time for Govt to bring the cops to heel

53 comments on “Time for Govt to bring the cops to heel ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Draco T Bastard 1

   29 June 2012 at 11:03 am

   The Government needs to step in and stop the Police overstepping their role.

   But what this government will actually be doing is cheering them on.
   • Fortran 1.1

     29 June 2012 at 1:26 pm

     Upon enquiry, did the Police not oppose this warrant as unlawful, but were told by Crown Law Office (plus FBI) that it was, so get on with it.
     Is this the reason that the police went overboard (helicopters etc) to effectively say to CL and the FBI – up yours.
   • MrSmith 1.2

     29 June 2012 at 6:05 pm

     They may not be cheering when they get the bill for this lot, the bloody incompetent fools, looks like they just pissed away a few more million, (well this could run into millions and millions), all because our police spend to much time watching American TV.
      
     I can see them now ‘just like our PM’, falling all over themselves for the Yanks,, maybe the Police are hoping Key will just change the law ‘again’ to cover up there stupidity.
2. Kotahi Tane Huna 2

   29 June 2012 at 11:18 am

   Anne Tolley bring the police to heel? I can imagine that: choose any picture of the Urewera action-men and photoshop her into it in “standing on crushed car” pose.

   OK, so now what?
   • mike e 2.1

     29 June 2012 at 11:29 am

     I think this is a result of National cutting back room staff.
     People making complaints to police these days are being fobbed off because front-line staff don’t want to get bogged down in paper work!
3. DH 3

   29 June 2012 at 11:27 am

   They’d be in it even deeper if the judge had any IT nous, the FBI are treating our justice system with contempt. The bullshit they’ve been spinning about how long it will take to copy Dotcoms data is eye-opening.
   • deuto 3.1

     29 June 2012 at 12:12 pm

     They’d be in it even deeper if the judge had any IT nous…

     While Chief Justice Winklemann may not be an IT expert, I understand that Judge David Harvey is the one who will be hearing the extradition hearing in August* as I understand that he is very much an IT and Internet expert.

     *That was in various news reports some time ago, but unfortunately don’t have time right now to find a link.
     • Rich 3.1.1

       29 June 2012 at 12:29 pm

       The judge needn’t be an expert, any more than the judge hearing a case about construction needs to be a builder, or a judge hearing a maritime case a sailor.

       It’s for each side in the case to provide appropriate evidence on the technicalities in a form that can be understood by a layperson.

       A danger of ‘expert’ judges is that they make decisions based on their own misconceptions.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1.1

         29 June 2012 at 3:16 pm

         The judge doesn’t need to be an expert, but they do need to inform themselves enough that they can follow the arguments that experts will present. The way many from older generations “understand” the internet and other technology would be an incredibly problematic viewpoint if held by a judge.

         And yes, the flipside of a well-informed judge is that they might have a blindspot that someone hearing arguments for the first time would not have.
     • DH 3.1.2

       29 June 2012 at 1:04 pm

       Don’t hold yr hopes out, he’s probably just another IT luddite when it comes down to it.

       Article here about copying Doctoms data so it can be returned to him…

       “FBI told to copy seized Dotcom data”

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10813260

       They state there’s 130 odd computers & hard drives there and if each computer has a 1 terabyte hard disk that’s close to the 150 terabytes they say they need to copy. You can copy all that in a day if you wanted to, it’s not exactly difficult to clone disks. Might take months if they did one disk at a time but the FBI aren’t that stupid.
       • McFlock 3.1.2.1

         29 June 2012 at 1:11 pm

         Might take months if they did one disk at a time but the FBI aren’t that stupid.

         They could be if they wanted to be… 
         • DH 3.1.2.1.1

           29 June 2012 at 1:13 pm

           No, they just think that NZ judges are stupid.
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.1.1

             29 June 2012 at 2:12 pm

             Or they think judicial independence is stupid. And an unnecessary nuisance.
         • Robert Glennie 3.1.2.1.2

           29 June 2012 at 4:02 pm

           The F.B.I. have been known to bungle before, as have the New Zealand Police (Arthur Allan Thomas for example). The difference is we can – hopefully hold the N.Z. Police to account. Can’t do that with the F.B.I., and even if we could, it would probably need a sea change in that organisation for changes to be effective.
       • deuto 3.1.2.2

         29 June 2012 at 2:05 pm

         Don’t hold yr hopes out, he’s probably just another IT luddite when it comes down to it.

         LOL. I suggest you (and Rich) research Judge Harvey’s background and qualifications before making such generalisations. He is NZ’s probably leading member of the judiciary when it comes to IT and Internet matters and the law. As well as being a DC judge, he also lectures at AUT on IT and the law, and presents at conferences etc on matters such as copyright and the Internet. A quick trip to Google will expand your knowledge. By the way, he is also the judge who ruled that Dotcom be released and be able to return to Coatsville etc etc.
       • Rich 3.1.2.3

         29 June 2012 at 4:01 pm

         So Dotcom’s lawyers needed (if it came to that, which I don’t think it did) to assert that the files could be copied in a day. If the Crown disputed that, then they get an expert witness to swear an affadavit (it’s all done on paper at this level) to that effect.

         The judge can then make the call – they don’t need to be a bulk storage expert.

         (Also, Judge Harvey is an expert, as I understand it, on how new technology impacts the law. That’s not the same as being an expert on SATA and copy programs).
         • DH 3.1.2.3.1

           29 June 2012 at 5:50 pm

           Dotcom can look out for himself. I read the Herald article & thought the FBI ‘expert’ was insulting the judge and by association insulting our justice system and us. Big cop from the US comes here & treats us like a bunch of country bumpkins. I wished the judge had the nous to ask the right questions & then throw the book at the bastard when it dawned on him the guy was taking him for a ride. Wishful thinking….
4. Dv 4

   29 June 2012 at 11:31 am

   I liked the argument that it was OK to take Dotcoms data out of the country because it was only copies.

   Are they still running that line.
   • Matthew Whitehead 4.1

     29 June 2012 at 3:18 pm

     That’s sort of like saying impersonation is okay because the real person still exists.
5. higherstandard 5

   29 June 2012 at 11:33 am

   I’ll think when this all comes out in the wash that you’ll find crown law is the party in error rather than the police.
   • Deano 5.1

     29 June 2012 at 12:37 pm

     the judge found the police overstepped the warrants, even if those warrants had been legal.
     • higherstandard 5.1.1

       29 June 2012 at 12:47 pm

       A little birdie tells me that the police told crown law that the warrants were cak and were told to action them regardless.
     • Vicky32 5.1.2

       29 June 2012 at 3:25 pm

       the judge found the police overstepped the warrants, even if those warrants had been legal.

       Sadly I am not surprised…
   • Fortran 5.2

     29 June 2012 at 1:28 pm

     Yes – I agree – we should enquire further about the role of Crown Law (FBI).
6. Glg 6

   29 June 2012 at 11:39 am

   Interestingly in the judges decision she mentions that police don’t want Mr Dotcoms CCTV footage returned to him, even if they have to give him copies of everything they seized. Why would that be? Don’t they want the public of NZ to see how nicely they can charge out of helicopters, or do they thnk actual images of our boys in black pointing guns at women and children? Urewera raid anyone?
   • SandFly 6.1

     29 June 2012 at 9:10 pm

     No they are selling them to the MPAA as a spoof to recover costs…
7. Tom Gould 7

   29 June 2012 at 11:49 am

   Too much TV, I reckon. Plenty of macho swagger, just like their idol Crusher, yet not a whimper when a leaked memo says their wages will be cut. Nor when front line resources, like cars, were cut. Imagine if the other lot tried that? Another march on Parliament, I bet. Looks to me like they have become completely politicised. And we all know where that leads.
   • Glg 7.1

     30 June 2012 at 9:09 am

     You don’t think when Howard Broad came out and said there would be no problem with Shipley lowering the drinking age, that wasn’t political? I’d say most cock ups from the police of late have been political.
8. tsmithfield 8

   29 June 2012 at 12:23 pm

   I also think it is quite disgraceful the way the police have been behaving. I expect Dotcom will be able to sue the government for millions over this.

   Things don’t look to be going too well for the police in the Scott Guy case either. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see an acquittal in this case. I thought one of the things the police needed was evidence. However, they haven’t actually produced anything that links the accused to the crime scene. Their whole case appears to boil down to linking the fact that the accused didn’t like Guy so therefore he must have killed him.

   Lately the standard of police work I have been seeing has left me entirely unimpressed.
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     29 June 2012 at 12:29 pm

     Certainly Ewen looks very suspicious, but from the (detailed) reports in the media I agree that I don’t think they’re going to reach the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold.
     • tsmithfield 8.1.1

       29 June 2012 at 1:08 pm

       I agree that he has done some very dodgy stuff that requires a lot of hate. However, to go to the level of actually killing someone requires a lot more hate than required for just damaging property.

       The key thing for me is that most of the police evidence relies on lots speculation and adjustment of the facts.

       For instance accepting one of the witnesses was right about his clock being inaccurate when there is no evidence to support the rationale the witness gave for the clock being inaccurate. There are no witnesses to the shooting. There is no evidence tying the alleged murder weapon to the crime, and the evidence of the supposed footprint looks pretty dodgy as well, since even the crown witness agrees that it doesn’t match the sample produced. This point raises issues about how well the police have done their homework. One would assume that the police would at least ensure that the boot sample they produced in evidence matched the sole impressions at the scene.
       • Glg 8.1.1.1

         30 June 2012 at 9:14 am

         Let’s not forget inability to locate car seen, to wonder if perhaps the alibi the P addict gave her burglar partner may not be all that reliable, inability to locate the ‘dead’ puppies, the insistence when MacDonald said one of the puppies was gone earlier, that meant dead, not taking a plaster cast of the car print next to the car, No forensic analysis of the emails Scott Guy checked ! I am however surprised that they don’t try to hang this one on Scott Watson……….oh wait……
   • mike e 8.2

     29 June 2012 at 12:37 pm

     Yes the silly monetarist totally agree its going to get worse before it gets better under Nationals sinking lid policy
9. mike e 9

   29 June 2012 at 12:41 pm

   It was unbelievable that the forensic scientist hadn’t searched divers supply sites on the internet.
   but on the other hand Ewen Mc Donalds Mistake of saying he was shot before anyone else has let him wide open.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.1

     29 June 2012 at 12:57 pm

     I think the remark about being able to see the lights of the ute through the bars of the gate is pretty damning too – by the time he got there post-shooting he wouldn’t have – it was in the pre-dawn darkness that it made such an impression on him.

     Suspicious as all hell, but proof beyond reasonable doubt?
     • tsmithfield 9.1.1

       29 June 2012 at 1:20 pm

       I agree that sort of stuff is suspicious. But, as the defence counsel is doing, it is possible to come up with credible explanations or counters to that sort of stuff.

       IMO this sort of stuff isn’t really evidence unless it is supported by some hard facts. That is what is lacking in this case. The defence has also put forward a credible alternative for the murder. IMO if there is a credible counter explanation for the facts, then reasonable doubt has to apply. If I was on that jury I don’t think I could find him guilty.

       I have been a foreman on a jury, and in the case I was involved with, there was a helluva lot more hard evidence that has been put forward here.
   • Treetop 9.2

     29 June 2012 at 2:46 pm

     I think Scott knew the killer because he would not have got out of the ute, (which was left running) and he would have probably seen the rifle as the headlights were on and he stood infront of the ute in the most exposed position. Scott would have been more cautious than he would have been in the past due to the vandalisation of his home when it was being built, an old house on the farm being burnt down and a second child on the way. For the killer to know that there was a short window period for the crime to occur, the killer was aware of Scott’s usual routine. I think that Ewen owned two pairs of dive boots in size 9 and size 11, thick tramping socks would have been worn with the size 11 when out hunting.

     The question which a juror has to ask is, proof beyond reasonable doubt?

     Knowing Scott was shot is the giveaway and some of Ewen’s comments were carefully orchestrated to see if anyone was onto him. When I first saw Ewen on trial he clamped his teeth down on his lower lip and he did not look comfortable. Not taking the stand in his defence he did not want to contradict himself. Were I innocent I would have taken the stand. When you tell the truth it is more likely to be remembered than when you tell a lie.
     • Richard Christie 9.2.1

       29 June 2012 at 3:33 pm

       ooh yes, and his eyes are too close together!
     • Murray Olsen 9.2.2

       30 June 2012 at 3:25 am

       Ewen’s lawyer would probably have advised him not to take the stand. Without judging this particular case at all, it’s not enough to be innocent. You also have to act in a manner that the jury will interpret as innocent in the face of hostile questioning.
10. captain hook 10

    29 June 2012 at 1:07 pm

    they dont call them the Keystone Cops for nuthin dude!
    But my opinion is that as the labourer is worth his hire then even if the profits from cultural artifacts may be enormous the creators are still entitled to reap the rewards of their efforts without parasites and leeches stealing off them with technology.
11. Leopold 11

    29 June 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Pity NZ dosen’t have a ‘not proven’ verdict for a jury, as in Scottish law
12. BLiP 12

    29 June 2012 at 3:52 pm

    .

    I reckon this situation is a miscarriage of justice from start to now. What pisses me off the most is how the New Zealand Police lubed up and gasped in wonderment as the FBI turned all of them into little bitches. And they want a payrise?

    What. Ever.
13. Robert Atack 13

    29 June 2012 at 4:08 pm

    I’m looking forward to seeing the raid footage that must have been illegally taken from .com’s security cameras, their must be a few SIS/FBI boffins not wanting to be seen on You Tube, and picture the armed cops standing over a pregnantee.
14. deemac 14

    29 June 2012 at 5:13 pm

    I think I’ll save my sympathy for the people who can’t afford to spend squillions on fancy lawyers
    • Glg 14.1

      30 June 2012 at 9:21 am

      If he didn’t he’d be in jail next to Bradley Manning for the next 10 years
15. Maggie May 15

    29 June 2012 at 5:47 pm

    I do not think the government wants to step in and stop the police from doing anything.

    I think the police raided Dot Com with knowledge and agreement from the government, with a “don’t tell me when you do it, and then we can say I didn’t know”.
    That sounds more like the way John Key operates his business deals. He also probably thought he was going to get a favourable response from US interests as well.

    What does the government care if Dot Com sues it’s only the tax payer who foots the bill, and Key can retire with his millions, he’s okay, must think of personal responsibility, choices one makes in life – like electing National as our government.
16. Rusty Shackleford 16

    29 June 2012 at 7:36 pm

    http://thestandard.org.nz comes down on the side of property rights. About time.
17. ochocinco 17

    29 June 2012 at 7:57 pm

    It’s not ALL the Police you numpties.

    There’s a common theme with several mistakes lately… OFCANZ were behind the Dotcom investigations… not NZ Police.

    Also, if you really think Kim Dotcom is innocent despite being (a) a convicted fraudster and (b) having attempted to bribe our politicians, then you’re a fool.

    I could also name the dozens and dozens of successful Police operations, but you probably don’t care about them. Like the one run by a now-defunct department of police that led to the arrest of a Chinese criminal working out of NZ and selling counterfeit drugs (which is about as immoral and hideous as you can imagine) – also done with ICE (involved with Dotcom).

    The fact is that “Crusher” Collins brought in a bad culture into Police. Under Howard Broad there was real hope… the jackboots at the top now are the worst possible throwbacks imaginable.
18. Richard McGrath 18

    29 June 2012 at 9:05 pm

    I agree with the general tenor of this thread. The police need to respect the rights of all people, rich or poor. This was an unmitigated cock-up.
19. infused 19

    30 June 2012 at 12:57 am

    This was known right from the start, hence why the CCTV footage was never released.

    This was driven from somewhere else though. I don’t know who… I forgot the name of the bill that failed in USA (Copyright). Right after it fails, dotcom is raided….

    This will cost us a fortune.
20. ochocinco 20

    30 June 2012 at 8:45 am

    Also, why are we on the left supporting a capitalist like Kim Schmidt/Dotcom?

    He is worse than the filthiest, most parasitic Kulak ever… he deserves nothing except 15 years hard labour for crimes against the working class.
    • Richard Christie 20.1

      30 June 2012 at 11:17 am

      @ochocino

      I could also name the dozens and dozens of successful Police operations, but you probably don’t care about them……He is worse than the filthiest, most parasitic Kulak ever… he deserves nothing except 15 years hard labour for crimes against the working class

      I note you are an apologist for police operations and all too ready to assign guilt before trial.

      The fact is that “Crusher” Collins brought in a bad culture into Police. Under Howard Broad there was real hope… the jackboots at the top now are the worst possible throwbacks imaginable

      Broad proudly announced the arrest of several innocent workers at the Christchurch Creche in 1992, so involving himself in one of NZ worst witch-hunts (literally, a witch-hunt) recently he signed off the Urewea raids, amongst other things.

      NZ is better off without those who blow with the wind.

Links to post

1. Reasonable doubt « The Standard: posted on 3 July 2012 at 6:10 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS