Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Dude, what just happened?

262 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 11 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Sofie:

    Man, I stay off the brown -- that shit's too real. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Man, I stay off the brown -- that shit's too real. :)

    It's all in the quality man, determines the class,Here, can I help you?

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    Just because I can't handle my piss

    the whole problem in a nutshell Craig. Recall the first time someone issued that challenge to you, and your subsequent actions in response. multiply by 4million. That's a loaded verb if ever I heard one.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    Nah nah nah, brown is just white cut with caramel.

    You want 'raw'. Or jaggery. Man, been a while since I had me some jaggery.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    But that's also the surest way of the boss losing his business and assets. Why cross the line when you can stay the right side and still turn a dollar?

    It's a very tricky path they opted to walk even owning that kind of business. When the majority of your customers are people engaging in a highly criminal activity, you're going to be subject to the pressures of your customers.

    If there's some guy that's selling untold equipment, you'll very likely turn a blind eye to some of his methods, unless he is fully blatant. I don't think they are that blatant, but this was an undercover operation which involves spending a long time building up relationships with people before you bust them. I can well believe that it would be commonplace with regulars to drop the pretense.

    The question of entrapment always comes up in this kind of thing. We'll have to see from the unfolding cases how that goes. If the cop asked for a seedling, it's bordering on the manufacture of crime, a scarily bad thing for our police to be involved in.

    Also, what kind of people would want to work in that kind of shop? Considering that the majority of customers are already operating outside of the law, is that the kind of work environment your average law-abiding 9-to-5er wants to be in? My impression about the staff has always been that they had a real passion for the job. They seemed very well informed and credible. How does one come by that kind of expertise? I sure as hell think it wasn't from growing tomatoes in their cupboards.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • greenlove33,

    I would question the cost and massive allocation of Police resources to cannabis which is a victimless crime, while child abuse cases languish univestigated for up to 2 years or more in some parts of the country.(ie Lower Hutt)

    It seems the wrong way to spend that money and untold police hours chasing pot smokers. In Auckland, there is also up to a few days wait to get your house fingerprinted from a burglary. Be nice to get some fingerprinting done within the day as a goal..

    I'd like to see the NZ Police clear their child abuse backlog before cracking down on gardening shops if at all possible. Is that a crazy idea?

    Centered • Since Aug 2009 • 34 posts Report Reply

  • slarty,

    Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the police stand to reap quite a sum of money from the nationwide franchise.

    My reading of the act is that the proceeds go the the Official Assignee, not the police (but I could be wrong).

    And don't forget this is offset by a drop in tax revenue. So the net impact of the POCA [sorry, I can't help using the inherited acronym - so much nicer than the NZ version] is a drop in government income.

    Such legislation has more to do with ignorant wooden tops and free trade agreements than any rational policy in my experience.

    Yes RB, as you could probably foresee, I am extremely depressed by such a flagrant waste of public resources. But they had to wrap it up to get out of it - in the public service you can never say we will just stop that now because it's turned out to be a waste of time... have to justify the investment somehow.

    Since Nov 2006 • 290 posts Report Reply

  • Whoops,

    For those of you saying that Cannabis is a victimless crime... please prove this. Any chance (Nick) of a link between that delayed-fingerprint-burglary you're complaining about and someone's drug habit?

    here • Since Apr 2007 • 105 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Nick, I agree, but I can see that the thing about busting pot growers is that it's actually quite easy. What they're doing is clearly illegal and easily proven. You just get a search warrant, find the stuff in their house, and hand over to the courts. The fact that the crime is IMHO pretty bloody minor, doesn't mean it's not a crime. Similarly with minor speeding offenses - you never get off them.

    Child abuse is waaaay harder to get runs on the board. Yes it's a much more important crime they're dealing with but unlike, say, murder, it's often a bit hard to be sure that there even was a crime. Getting convictions is very difficult.

    Similarly with burglary. They just don't solve very many of them, so it seems like a waste of resources. Certainly it's not urgent.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Any chance (Nick) of a link between that delayed-fingerprint-burglary you're complaining about and someone's drug habit?

    That's several long bows you're drawing there.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    For those of you saying that Cannabis is a victimless crime... please prove this.

    What is usually meant by this statement is that the harm is only to the user. It is not possible to prove that no-one other than the user is ever harmed, without being really specific about what harm is.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    For those of you saying that Cannabis is a victimless crime... please prove this.

    I assume you mean the recreational consumption of cannabis. There is no direct victim, apart from the plant. Nobody gets hurt if you have a session.

    Using cannabis is not risk-free, and some people certainly should not use it (e.g. schizophrenics, non-adults).

    But just because something is risky does not mean that it should be criminalised. Mountaineering and rock-fishing are risky, and lead to preventable deaths, and they are not criminalised. Same should go for cannabis.

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    You want 'raw'. Or jaggery. Man,

    I'm into raw myself, but I know a palm reader,she's real good, maybe I could hook you up? nudge, nudge ;;)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    For those of you saying that Cannabis is a victimless crime... please prove this

    Can you prove that eating a sandwich is a victimless crime?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Can you prove that eating a sandwich is a victimless crime?

    Eating a sandwich isn't a crime.

    (haha, Mr smartypants!)

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Can you prove that eating a sandwich is a victimless crime

    Yup. It's not a crime, for starters. Whether it has victims is irrelevant.

    Unless it's a hash sandwich. Then the victims become highly relevant.

    [Edit]Gah! Beaten to it by Kyle.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • James Butler,

    Can you prove that eating a sandwich is a victimless crime?

    Yes: eating a sandwich isn't a crime.

    (haha, Mr smartypants!)

    Umm, if it's not a crime, it can't be a victimless crime. Own goal :-)

    Auckland • Since Jan 2009 • 856 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    eating a sandwich isn't a crime.

    What if it's a marijuana sandwich?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    For those of you saying that Cannabis is a victimless crime... please prove this. Any chance (Nick) of a link between that delayed-fingerprint-burglary you're complaining about and someone's drug habit?

    I think there's likely a clearer and more direct connection between, say, the assault on your family member and someone else's consumption of alcohol.

    But than doesn't mean there is a crime or a victim when you have a nice beer on a hot day.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    What if it's a Marijuana sandwich?

    A bud jet home brand one?

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Umm, if it's not a crime, it can't be a victimless crime. Own goal :-)

    I think that was my point.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the police stand to reap quite a sum of money from the nationwide franchise. Beyond reasonable doubt might not work for the criminal charges, but a balance of probabilities threshold will allow the police to pillage land, plant, equipment, homes and bank accounts. Welcome to a new form of revenue plundering that makes speed cameras look good.

    The deputy police commissioner was quite explicit about this on checkpoint last night. To paraphrase, he said that this legislation (passed around two years ago) together with it's lowered evidence thresholds now made this sort of operation worthwhile for the police.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2214 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    The deputy police commissioner was quite explicit about this on checkpoint last night. To paraphrase, he said that this legislation (passed around two years ago) together with it's lowered evidence thresholds now made this sort of operation worthwhile for the police.

    Yet, as Slarty pointed out, it will result in a net loss to the public coffers. So it's not terribly worthwhile for the taxpayer.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Yet, as Slarty pointed out, it will result in a net loss to the public coffers. So it's not terribly worthwhile for the taxpayer.

    True. But since when were the plod ever interested in anything beyond their own narrow operational imperatives?

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2214 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    True. But since when were the plod ever interested in anything beyond their own narrow operational imperatives?

    Which is actually fair enough. It's not their job to make the law. I wouldn't want it to be their job or there would be a lot more laws.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 11 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.