What does it take for New Zealanders to rise up and demand their government forego all the nonsense they shouldn't be bothering with, all the bossy-boot bullshit about baubles and bureaucracy and scampi and scandals, and focus instead on the one thing they're legitimately supposed to be doing, which is protecting New Zealanders from violence?
What does it take?
Will the random, violent, bloodthirsty stabbing of a man in central Auckland last night be the final straw? Is that enough, finally, to make you sit up and say "No more!"
Will it make you speak out to demand that government start doing its real job? That it starts protecting you and me from every nutter who'd like to raise a hand against us in violence, instead of doing us over themselves? That it begins to realise the primary focus of law and order is protection from criminals, not protection for criminals.
It's time -- right now -- to put victims first, not criminals, and to make damn sure the number of victims takes a rapid and benevolent dive.
What are you going to do about demanding a change?
UPDATE 1: I just heard Labour's Mark Gosche and National's Chester Borrows discussing the the murder on Radio Live, and their "solutions" to the rising tide of violent crime. "We both agree on the solutions," said Tweedlum's Chester Borrow's. Yes we do, agreed Tweedledumber's Mark Gosche.
Did their so-called solutions entail a greater police focus on protection from criminals, and less on giving violent criminals an easy ride and an early exit from prison (if they ever get there)? An end to the failed system of paying no-hopers to breed? Legalising the right to self-defence and to the means thereof? Any of that? No, what they both insisted is the urgent and necessary solution to the rising ride of violence, especially around Auckland, is "stronger communities." "Targeted welfare." More "stay-at-home parents."
No wonder we're inundated with savagery.
Even if they were right, the policies they're following are only destructive of stronger communities. Whether delivered by muck sprayer or fire hose, the result in South Auckland of several generations of taxpayer funded largesse is several generations of people who think they're entitled to live at someone else's expense. The Socialist Samaritan has not been a success. Welfarism is a certified killer.
The parents encouraged to stay at home by the gobs of welfare doled out to nearly three-hundred thousand New Zealanders are hardly hold the solution to anything, even to their own damned lives. And the good parents? Hell, they're both going out to work, and they need to -- and when they tot up their take-home pay at the end of each year, they probably notice that at the present level of fiscal rapacity one of them is going out to work just to pay their tax bill -- just to pay for stay-at-home no-hopers and political beneficiaries like Gosche and Borrows, and for their political masters for whom the welfare bill is little more than a sophisticated election bribe.
What does it take for the time-servers to realise it's time for more than just hand-wringing? What will it take for you to demand that they do?
UPDATE 2: Susan the Libertarian tells Leighton Smith, "There is a proverbial last straw, eh." Listen to Susie here explaining why this should be the last straw for every thinking person. She starts fourteen minutes in. "Is this enough to pierce your apathy?"
UPDATE 3: Russell Brown thinks I've lost my marbles: this post you're now reading is apparently an ideologically-motivated rant that enjoys all the internal consistency of your average tantrum. Oh dear.
UPDATE 4: I respond to Russell's post here: Murder? It's not OK!
27 comments:
... ask what you can do for your country!
Peter, they are all going to vote National so the murderer can receive "understanding" and "counselling"...*sigh*
Er, the job of the police isn't to hang around being bodyguards for everyone.
I wasn't aware that was part of the deal ...
No, Justin, ask what you can do for yourself.
Er, Luke, have you any idea what you're talking about?
Maybe I am misreading your post.
The role of the police is to dispense justice by apprehending criminals. Ideally these criminals would be apprehended in the planning stages of said crime, or just as they are about to commit it.
Nowhere is it suggested that the role of police is to walk around and follow each and every individual, so they can clap them in cuffs the moment they step out of line.
Police respond to crime; their primary role is not prevention.
That's what self-defence classes are for.
..Ideally these criminals would be apprehended in the planning stages of said crime, or just as they are about to commit it..
So you want to have people under surveillance? legally innocent people? ..gosh, not very libertarian is it Luke?
I'm comfortable with surveillance under a court order, with reasonable suspicion based on evidence.
Besides, they might be dobbed in by alert bystanders, neighbours, or private security CCTVs etc.
Luke, I genuinely wonder whether there's anything but fluff inside your skull.
Nowhere at all have I suggested that the role of police is to walk around and follow each and every individual, so they can clap them in cuffs the moment they step out of line.
Did someone, somewhere, say straw man?
Perhaps naively I assumed that some readers here might have read and digested (or even remembered) some of what they've read here beforem, or even in some Linz press releases.
Perhaps naively I assumed that some readers would have noticed that the bastard arrested was a so called "sickness beneficiary," and given some thought (you must surely remember thought?) to the many points made about the connection between rising welfare and rising violent crime?
Or to the many arguments made about self-defence, and the many points made here and elsewhere about how violent crime has been reduced in every place in which self-defence has been legalised.
Did you notice that the murdered man was intervening in an earlier altercation, and that the police were still hardly on the scene in a decent time -- even if they did do anything when they got there, instead of just setting up a secure boundayry as they did when they eventually got to the site of Navtej Singh's murder -- and did you give any thought to arguments made about response times and the police focus on revenue collection over citizen protection.
Did you wonder whether we'll eventually discover that the murdering bastard is on parole for some earlier crime or set of crimes, as so many murderers and violent offenders are -- and there's been so much violence and so many bloody murders, none of which seem to stop your insipid hand-wringing -- or out of prison early after being "rehabilitated" from the violent crimes they've shown no sign of resiling from.
Did anything like this pass through what is laughingly called your mind? Did you turn your brain on at all before you plugged in your keyboard?
Do you ever?
Or am I especially naive to expect that readers who purport to support ideas such as these would fill the comments with posts making these points for themselves instead of wasting everyone's time with hand-wringing trolling and child-like fictions.
I disagree.
If a couple of chaps decide to rob a bank they should be free to plan that bank robbery without the State keeping tabs on them.
It is only when they put a stocking over their heads, pick up a gun and walk into the bank saying "this is a stickup" have they committed a crime.
To say "It is wrong to think or talk about robbing a bank" is socialist totalitarianism.
the connection between rising welfare and rising violent crime?
If that's the point you are trying to make, then make it. (It's a good one).
Instead you stated: the primary focus of law and order is protection from criminals.
... which isn't quite right, and that was the point I made.
"you stated: the primary focus of law and order is protection from criminals.
... which isn't quite right"
Well, yes it is. It's precisely right. Dickhead.
Taking a point from luke h, it is NOT the role of hte Police to dispense justice. It is the role of the Courts to dispense justice. The role of the Poliec is to apply violence or the threat of violence for the purpose of maintaining the peace, preventing offences from occuring (where possible), collecting evidence in relation to offences that have occurred and securing the attendance of the accused to a Court.
No police officer (at any level) exists to determine what is justice or what conduct should or should not be the subject of the criminal law. Parliament determines the scope of the law and the Courts apply that to the facts of each case.
Elijah,
So given that logic, the 9/11 terrorists would only be able to be arrested as or straight after they highjacked the planes and murdered the flight crews?
Justin: No police officer (at any level) exists to determine what is justice or what conduct should or should not be the subject of the criminal law.
Yes, but surely it is their job to detect what is and is not criminal behaviour, and act according to that decision.
Police can be conceptualised as part of the "collection" part of the criminal justice system. I referred to them "dispensing justice" as apprehending criminals is surely the first part of ensuring justice is done.
The role of the Police is to apply violence or the threat of violence for the purpose of maintaining the peace, preventing offences from occuring (where possible), collecting evidence in relation to offences that have occurred and securing the attendance of the accused to a Court.
Exactly. Now which of these things is their primary role?
I believe the primary duty of the police is to enforce the law.
As an aside, check out the most awesome police car ever.
Justin, are you arguing or clarifying?
I assume we're all aware that the Police and the Law Courts are both part of Law and Order -- even if our police and law courts are unable to dispense either?
Euan, I am sorry to say "Yes".
The best crime prevention method, and the one which is least likely to ever be initated, is to allow people to arm themselves for self defence purposes.
In the bank robbery example... the best thing is for tellers and customers to draw their weapons and say to the robbers "do you still want to have a go?"
PC - good comments about the 'opinions' (if such drivel merits the term) of the two main parties spokesmen. Brick wall, meet head - head, meet brick wall.
PC - I went for a walk after lunch and I think I have resolved my issue with what you said.
Unquestionably the role of the state is to protect citizens from force and fraud. By extension, it is logical that this is primary role of the police force as well.
The main way that the police fulfil this role is by enforcing the law.
My "their role isn't to hang around being bodyguards" was a misreading of what you said.
My apologies.
Hey, look at that - we resolved our differences, and I only got called a dickhead once! :-p
I always like it when people resolve their differences by agreeing with me unreservedly. :-)
But seriously, when any two people have an honest disagreement both win. Either you're proved wrong, or I learn something - and vice versa.
Damn good job from Susan, I happened to be listening and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the libz are out there.
It is a prime time for the libz at the moment as pretty much everything the libz stand for holds while all the bullshit that is around crumbles.
The same goes for Objectivism where the parallels between Ayn Rand's "Atlas shrugged" and the current economic crisis in the USA are just amazing.
Nowhere at all have I suggested that the role of police is to walk around and follow each and every individual, so they can clap them in cuffs the moment they step out of line.
been to the UK recently?
private security CCTVs etc.
What's that if not surveillance?
The solution of this system is simple: if the businessman had been required to be carrying a concealed weapon, he would have shot the murderer. End of story.
In the bank robbery example... the best thing is for tellers and customers to draw their weapons and say to the robbers "do you still want to have a go?"
No!! the best thing is for them to shoot as soon as the robbers arrive! Better and much cheaper too
To say "It is wrong to think or talk about robbing a bank" is socialist totalitarianism.
Crap. It is wrong to talk or think about robbing a bank - just as it is wrong to talk or think about socialism
Best cop car:
http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/JBTS/Charleston_APC.jpg
this would literally crush that lambo -
and frankly this is what we need in South Auckland
No police officer (at any level) exists to determine what is justice or what conduct should or should not be the subject of the criminal law.
Which is too bad. Basically, you're supporting the Nuremberg defense, right?
Crap. It is wrong to talk or think about robbing a bank - just as it is wrong to talk or think about socialism
That would throw a bit of wrench into bank security, then...how can you defend against bank robbers if you're not allowed to think about how to rob a bank?
A few years back there was a reported incident where some fool went into a gun-shop and tried to rob the place. It was reported that there were nine people already in the shop (customers and staff). Most were armed (it was a state in the US somewhere). If memory serves me correctly, the robber died. That's a perfectly good result.
I saw something similar in Vietnam. There was an argument at a bar. One of the patrons was trying to get away without paying for his drinks (near as I understand the situation). He drew an old revolver and started waving it around the barman's face. At that juncture a woman quietly walked up behind the guy and shot him in the head (through the ear). He fell forward, pitched sideways across the bar and fell backwards to the ground. The barman came around and gave him a couple of kicks to the groin and face. In seconds there was a group of people helping to cover him up and take him outside. I gather he died a few minutes later. There was not much mess and what there was got swabed up promptly. No fuss. Everything back to normal pretty swiftly. Good result.
There are people who would like to commit serious crimes given the opportunity. They fall into two groups. There are those who learn that sort of thing is far too risky to contemplate and so they don't do it. There are the imbeciles who do not learn from example and hence do it anyway. Them's the ones who provide the example for others of low morality. Should they exist in a society where the government protects them, while preying upon everyone else, then those criminals will rob, steal, rape and pillage. Others will observe the example and follow in kind.
In a society where the government does not protect and nurture criminals to the same extent, the criminal of the second type is less of a problem. In general they do not survive for very long. Others learn from the examples provided.
The ideal situation is where the government consistently upholds Individual Rights. In such a situation criminals become an endangered species, hunted to the point of extinction. That's fine by me!
LGM
There are people who would like to commit serious crimes given the opportunity. They fall into two groups. There are those who learn that sort of thing is far too risky to contemplate and so they don't do it.
And many of them join/become the government. Which is precisely why minarchism is doomed from the get-go.
Thank you Dinther.
PC,
Congratulations. I see your blog - and this post - made Blog of the Week - in the Herald on Sunday. Well deserved.
Julian
Post a Comment