So a cop's only worth 5 years....SA-WEET!!

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/NationalNews/Man-who-ran-down-police-officer-sentenced-to-8-years-9-months/tabid/423/articleID/106201/cat/65/Default.aspx

see if this was some 18yr old clown going a little too fast in daddy's car and he got done for 5yrs - that might be acceptable.

but this guy was actually evading police when he killed one of them - and for some reason it's been reduced to nothing more than just a driving incident.



well it's always nice to know you're getting a bargain....."discount" lol.

cop kills innocent and doesn't even have to go to court

justice its a funny old beast

It was manslaughter, not murder, dude.

Now, you can say it should be murder - fair enough - but let's not argue that point.

For manslaughter, 8y 9 months is NOT a particularly short sentence. The 5 year minimum non parole is actually 1/2 the minimum for a murder charge, so it's still a considerable deal.

As for the 4 years off, 33% is pretty much standard for these sorts of things.

yes I realise it's the maximum punishment available under that charge....

but couldn't the prosecuter just argue that he intentionally killed the cop and got him done for murder?

We already know that other people don't really matter all that much to the defendant - he's got a history in violent crime why couldn't it be argued that the killing was intentional. 5yrs for this guy is just sick.

p.s - I didn't particularly agree with the cop not having to go to court for shooting that van driver either, but I'd have more empathy with him rather than this wanker.

Accidental killing whilst doing something good cannot be treated the same as accidental killing whilst doing something bad. But the punishment for both needs to be increased.

And the whole discount just because he pleaded guilty.....what's that all about?? He ran over a police officer in front of other police officers!!! Exactly how could he plead not guilty to that!! He only really had one option - so he gets a discount for making the one choice that was available to him anyway?? It's like the judge is scraping the bottom of the barrel to get this guy off easy!

virgo1:

The guy could have entered a not guilty plea and mounted any number of defences.

'Discount' in relation to sentencing is a legal term of art, nothing more.

Discounting on the basis of an early guilty plea is warranted for the fact that it saves witnesses the pain of giving evidence and avoids the costs associated with lengthy depositions and trial hearings. Further, a guilty plea is often an indicator that the accused has accepted responsibility for his or her actions.

(I have not addressed your points in relation to modifying the charge to murder and using past convictions as propensity evidence to secure conviction, for the reason that these points are not worth addressing)

all of which could've been shot down immediately - this is something that happened in front of a number of people - fellow police officers of the man that was killed. there would've been no time wasted dispelling whatever b.s. his lawyer tries to come up with. On another note, the situation you describe can be easily be avoided if you actually make these people pay for their legal defence rather than just get the tax payer to do it. This guy is a gang member, he has money, lots of it.



considering you and I both know that this is a game....why is the judge who should be that much wiser to this sort of nonsense falling for it?

Uh, you can't get summary judgment on a thing like this.

Even if the accused foots the bill for his defence, that is never the only cost associated with defended hearings. Crown expenditure is unavoidable, because the Crown ACTUALLY MUST PROVE THE CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Also, don't forget that the Department of Justice is publicly funded.

As to the suggested ease and efficiency with which the Crown could prove their case, I can only assume that you are completely ignorant of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence. I won't go further on this point, but rest assured that your visions of our justice system do not accord with reality, and for good reason.

As a related point, the accused in entering a not guilty plea is not even required to raise a defence, and in such a case is simply putting the Crown to proof.

I'm afraid I don't understand your assertion that a guilty plea amounts to a "game". Do you care to elaborate on this?

and how hard is it to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when you have the word of several police officers against the word of a man with a history of criminal and anti-social behaviour behind him?





I assume by 'accepting responsbiility' you mean expressing some kind of remorse for what happened. I say it's a game because this man's history tells us remorse is not something he has much of, this isn't a case of 'accepting responsibility' this is a case of "If I could get away with this I'd try it, but I can't so I'll enter a guilty plea and hope the judge thinks I'm sorry for what I did.....". It's a game.