Monday, June 09, 2008

Shop killers

I'm sure the thoughts of every thinking New Zealander are with the widow and three daughters of Navtej Singh today, who was shot  and killed by thieving scum as he stood unarmed and defenceless behind the counter of his family's Manurewa bottle store.

And I'm sure every thinking New Zealander will already be wondering how it would have been different if retailers were able to defend themselves with mace or pepper spray, or a taser or gun -- all of which are illegal for ordinary New Zealanders, and any of which might have made the criminal scum think twice before their murderous raid.

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Blogger Clunking Fist said...

So, liberal progressive types, how did gun control protect Mr Singh?

And you chip our dogs and ban smacking, and you think that should make dog attacks and child abuse disappear.

6/09/2008 01:10:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Sorry, my point, when I stop shaking:
they shot him anyway, so why not let him shoot the fuckers as they walk into his shop?

6/09/2008 01:11:00 pm  
Anonymous richard mcgrath said...

Clunking fist is spot on with his comment - Mr Singh co-operated with the thugs, which is what we are told is the right thing to do, and still got shot.

6/09/2008 01:50:00 pm  
Blogger Rebel Radius said...

It is absolutely immoral and that the shopkeeper be stripped of his right to defend himself.

Do you think it would have made the slightest bit of difference to these criminals if there was a sign that read "NO GUNS ALLOWED"

What criminals would FEAR THE MOST is an armed citizen.

Unarmed citizens are nothing but sitting ducks.

6/09/2008 02:18:00 pm  
Anonymous B Whitehead said...

What really annoyed me regarding this event, is that some dick was on talkback radio suggesting that if they didn't have advertising on all their shop windows, then it may not have happened as it may have been witnessed by a member of the public.
As if it's 'somehow' the shopkeepers fault..

6/09/2008 02:21:00 pm  
Anonymous Sean Fitzpatrick said...

If you look at stats from overseas incidents where robbery and homicide occur together, the homicide happens after the robbery more often than not - i.e, compliant victim gets further victimized. Thats the psychology of the situation - in allowing oneself to become a victim it empowers the villain to victimize one even further. The only deterrent is either the threat or application of total force in response - makes the cost of committing the crime too high for most bad guys (who are basically cowards motivated by greed or hatred - not poor, desperate souls trying to survive).

6/09/2008 02:44:00 pm  
Anonymous hanso said...

I am disgusted.

6/09/2008 03:47:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stephen Franks
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=412
I quote him, "I asked the Parliamentary library researchers. They could find nothing to back up the Police assertion. Instead they found studies pointing the other way, including US Bureau of Justice statistics from reviewing 6 million cases. The conclusion was that vigorous defence was far more likely to reduce the risk of loss or injury to victims of violent crime, including rape and robbery. Interestingly the effect was not just a benefit to others (making such crime less rewarding or more costly to would be villains). Vigorous defence reduced the likelihood of serious injury to the primary victim as well."
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=138758
"Manurewa MP George Hawkins will this afternoon meet with Mr Singh's family. The former police minister says there is unfortunately a growing trend where smaller retailers are being targeted by thugs, particularly in South Auckland."

A greater comfort for the family than a visit by Mr. Hawkins would be if Mr. Hawkins did something to allow citizens to defend themselves. Surely the time will come when we will all have to arm ourselves whatever the law says because we love our babies to much not to protect them from the evil that flourishes here in South Auckland.
Mother of 8 who lives in the area.

6/09/2008 03:53:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you could start by shooting the politicians.

6/09/2008 05:05:00 pm  
Blogger Owen McShane said...

I must go out wearing a hoodie to indentify with the youth culture and increase their self respect.
I am sure a whole bundle of MPs will share the street with me.

6/09/2008 05:32:00 pm  
Anonymous Stevew said...

If the government want a disarmed populace, then it must provide an armed and effective police force - not one that has to go back to the station to draw firearms, then fill in a health and safety risk assessment form before finally turning up at the incident 25 minutes later.

6/09/2008 09:06:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am ordinarily a strident opponent of capital punishment ... but in this case, with the crime caught on film my first response is that we should just rip these guys apart as soon as we find them. Like the rabid animals they are.

And this:

"It was 38 minutes from when St John received the first call, to the time they began trying to save Singh's life. The delay was due to ambulance staff having to wait for police clearance before entering the scene."

Heads should roll in the police force for not letting the paramedics into the shop for so long. What. The. Hell.

6/10/2008 01:15:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Stevew

"If the government want a disarmed populace, then it must provide an armed and effective police force"

No, it doesn't.

Anyway, why do you see this as a matter of what the govt wants anyway?

LGM

6/10/2008 06:24:00 am  
Blogger Stevew said...

In response to LGM:

"If the government want a disarmed populace, then it must provide an armed and effective police force"

No, it doesn't.

- I know it doesn't - that was my point. The government is failing to keep up its end of the implicit bargain.


Anyway, why do you see this as a matter of what the govt wants anyway?

- Who else do you think controls almost every conceivable aspect of our daily lives? If you don't think the government wants a disarmed populace, why do you think we have such draconian firearms laws? It's not what I want - I want the freedom to carry a concealed handgun (and I should think most dairy owners would also like this freedom).

Stevew

6/10/2008 02:30:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

SteveW

There is no bargain, implicit or otherwise.

And the principle at issue isn't about what government wants. Consider what govt is supposed to be and how that defines what it is actually responsible for doing, not what it wants.

LGM

6/10/2008 03:18:00 pm  
Blogger Stevew said...

LGM

"There is no bargain, implicit or otherwise.

And the principle at issue isn't about what government wants. Consider what govt is supposed to be and how that defines what it is actually responsible for doing, not what it wants."

I disagree. There clearly is an implicit bargain - having been disarmed by the government, we have a right to at least expect effective policing. The government claims to provide this - to admit otherwise would be electoral suicide.

As for the principle at issue, of course you are right in theory, but my comment related to where we actually are today, not to the Utopia where we would ideally like to be.

Stevew

6/10/2008 03:35:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

SteveW

You wrote, "I disagree. There clearly is an implicit bargain"

A bargain requires the parties to agree to something. That is not the case here. There is not and never was a bargain cast. No-one agreed to anything. You certainly didn't. Neither did I.

" - having been disarmed by the government, we have a right to at least expect effective policing."

No such right exists. None is recognised. Certainly not by these guys!

"The government claims to provide this - to admit otherwise would be electoral suicide."

Possibly. An interesting thing is that on another thread we have people who are allegedly sane supporting the idea of voting for business as usual ("lessor of two evils"). They must be aware of the dire situation things have descended to (surely) and yet... The idea of the game must be that so long as no-one admits to anything too shockingly bad, then it must be OK after all! Now they can vote "strategically".

LGM

6/10/2008 05:51:00 pm  
Blogger Elahrairah said...

Yeah, I had a discussion about this with my workmates today. Typically anti-gun attitude. Pointed out a few hard facts to them. Don't know if it actually sunk in though. Damn frustrating when people cannot understand that they should be able to defend themselves against some mongrel thugs.

6/10/2008 06:12:00 pm  
Blogger Rebel Radius said...

Why do firemen enter burning buildings whilst the police sit outside and wait for the all-clear?

6/11/2008 08:41:00 am  
Blogger Stevew said...

"Why do firemen enter burning buildings whilst the police sit outside and wait for the all-clear?"

The police don't just sit around outside - all that blue tape doesn't just put itself up you know! They are also needed out there to repel any paramedics who might attempt to enter the building.

Seriously though, you are spot-on. In a similar vein, members of the armed forces are expected to engage the enemy, even though it is dangerous to so.

Where are Starsky and Hutch when you need them....

Stevew

6/11/2008 10:05:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home