新西兰天维网社区

标题: 所以家里进小偷了，还得伺候着? [打印本页]
作者: 匿名    时间: 2020-10-16 16:49:43     标题: 所以家里进小偷了，还得伺候着?

文章说一个65岁老头把进来家里的贼的手指给切了... 然后被判刑了. 所以如果谁家里进贼了，是不是就应该报警然后等老久看着小偷拿东西, 走前再来句欢迎下次光临？ 砍掉手指是很过分，但如果贼攻击屋主呢？ 唉... 反正感觉坏人最大的惩罚也就是关着，用纳税人的钱养着... 那个基督城抢案杀了几十人不也就单独给他关着，也已经花了几百万了...
https://nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12373855
作者: Domani    时间: 2020-10-16 16:59:30

说对了，先给他泡杯茶，让他边喝边等你报警。
作者: angelee123    时间: 2020-10-16 17:04:50

Domani 发表于 2020-10-16 16:59
说对了，先给他泡杯茶，让他边喝边等你报警。

如果喝完警察还没来的话

可以考虑再炒个菜，煎个牛排，开瓶红酒，和小偷聊聊他们的业务和人生际遇，我估算，后半夜酒醒之前，警察可能会到
作者: 留下足迹    时间: 2020-10-16 17:06:24

一個犯人能花了幾百萬的？，你真信這錢的消費背後是沒有其他被利用的水分的嗎？唉，對有些人來說，那可是千年難尋的一次撩錢的時機哦，這个費用背後的各個環節的油水太讓那些經辦人笑掉牙嘍，沒辦法，這個就是人家的本事。。換誰都會有這樣的邪念不是嘛。。
作者: yumin5299809    时间: 2020-10-16 17:15:43

这就是西方民主的特色，我们的利益可以被侵犯，但是罪犯的利益是要保护的
作者: 匿名    时间: 2020-10-16 17:19:13

提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
作者: 匿名    时间: 2020-10-16 17:22:58

别急，有贼进来，好酒招呼，灌醉报警，千万别打
作者: xyzforever    时间: 2020-10-16 17:49:43

不是，难道你觉得切别人手指这个行为是对的？！！贼进家里不是应该考虑怎么保护家人逃跑吗？你都有空切人家手指了你还想来这里博取同情？？？
作者: Just4LD    时间: 2020-10-16 18:21:15

楼主你是新来的吧？

看好自己的家人，小偷来了记得伺候好
作者: zmen001    时间: 2020-10-16 18:47:56

ddddddddddddddddddddddd
作者: auckland.clark    时间: 2020-10-16 19:36:50

Domani 发表于 2020-10-16 16:59
说对了，先给他泡杯茶，让他边喝边等你报警。

如果对方不喝茶，控告你歧视就麻烦了。还是直接先付现金吧。
作者: Domani    时间: 2020-10-16 19:50:02

auckland.clark 发表于 2020-10-16 19:36
如果对方不喝茶，控告你歧视就麻烦了。还是直接先付现金吧。

好吧，我这就去备一些咖啡。
作者: 匿名    时间: 2020-10-16 20:22:36

你需要给他找个按摩小姐伺候好才行
作者: 笑看人生 ^O^    时间: 2020-10-16 20:28:36

小偷进来
伺候吃喝
再给现金
才符国情
作者: 太极宗师001    时间: 2020-10-16 20:57:16

如果大家都是用暴力驱赶入侵者，那小偷们怎么办？？？
政府考虑的就是比我们老百姓多。
作者: fantastic8376    时间: 2020-10-17 10:25:34

现在是被起诉，而不是被判刑，看不懂可以查查字典
其次，这位人士被起诉的罪名第一，是防卫过当造成他人身体伤害，第二是普通袭击，第三是无牌使用不受枪支管控条例管控的枪支，警方起诉什么都可以做，但是如何判，多少条可以入罪，怎么理解就是看法官，这件案子还要堂审，出来结果了再喷也不迟

作者: skysadness    时间: 2020-10-17 12:04:36

罪犯是私人监狱的重要财政收入来源，你一刀捅死小偷，监狱一年少了十万一个人的收入，那就只好把你抓进去充人头。
如果你一刀没捅死小偷，那就把你和小偷一起抓进去，两个人头。
作者: paulwood    时间: 2020-10-17 12:37:02

yumin5299809 发表于 2020-10-16 17:15
这就是西方民主的特色，我们的利益可以被侵犯，但是罪犯的利益是要保护的 ...

因为谁知道那一天你会被冤枉成罪犯？
作者: 呼啸寒风    时间: 2020-10-17 13:35:51

不想伺候小偷不想养罪犯为什么不离开新西兰呢？？
作者: Grassroot15    时间: 2020-10-17 13:38:00

这个可以公投一下
作者: jcbhnz    时间: 2020-10-17 13:40:11

提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
作者: paulwood    时间: 2020-10-17 16:16:24

如果您家遭受了入室盗窃
如果您回家时发现家中被盗，且认为盗贼可能仍在您家中，不要进入室内。请立即另找一部电话拨打111报警。参见如何报警。
如果您认为盗贼已离开了您家，请打电话报警或到最近的警察局报案。
到警察局报案时，您应收到一份报案书面确认。这是一份“投诉确认表(Complaint Acknowledgement Form)”。表格中注有档案编号以及处理您投诉的警员姓名。
请不要触摸或移动窃贼可能碰过或动过的物品，警方可能需要这些物品作为证据。例如，警方会察看窃贼留下的所有指纹。
如果您购买了家庭保险和财产保险，请通知您的保险公司家中被盗。
被盗后向保险公司申请索赔时，您需要向其提供警方备案编号。

Call 111 and ask for Police when:

someone is badly injured or in danger
there's a serious risk to life or property
a crime is being committed and the offenders are still there or have just left
you've come across a major public inconvenience, such as trees blocking a highway
any of these things are happening now or have just happened.
If you can't decide if it's a real emergency and you're still worried, call 111 and ask us. We'll help you work out what to do.
非法擅入
作者: paulwood    时间: 2020-10-17 16:20:39

What Is Self-Defense?
Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations.

For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible? What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist? What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?

As you can see, self-defense law is more complicated than it first appears. In order to handle the myriad situations where self-defense arises, states have developed rules to determine when self-defense is allowed and how much force a victim can use to protect themselves. As mentioned, the exact rules differ between states, but the considerations are largely the same.

Is the Threat Imminent?
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.

Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away.

While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!

Imperfect Self-defense
Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.

For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.

Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.

Proportional Response
Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.

Duty to Retreat
The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as a “duty to retreat.” While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force.

Stand Your Ground
In contrast to the duty to retreat, many states have enacted so-called “stand your ground” laws. These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow for a claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from the threat of violence. As mentioned above, this is the more common rule when situations involve nonlethal force. State self-defense laws are split on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play, however.

Castle Doctrine
Even in states that require a person to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their home. This rule, also known as “the castle doctrine,” allows people to defend their homes against intruder through lethal force. Like most of these rules, the exact result will vary according to the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case, so it’s always a good idea to consult an attorney to learn more.
作者: GY1234    时间: 2020-10-17 17:51:56

今天新闻说他是拿枪威胁了再把小偷手指砍了。而且那是未成年这就讲不过去了。这老头是严重暴力。必须严判。如果他是在打斗中砍了对方的手指那没话讲但现在看来是故意的就不应该
作者: 呼啸寒风    时间: 2020-10-17 22:25:20

jcbhnz 发表于 2020-10-17 13:40
所以你这个赖在这20年的是不是条贱狗？ 汪汪！

你叫的不错，给爷多来几声？
作者: fastmovie    时间: 2020-10-18 08:20:10

伺候着太夸张了，但是要保证做到不打扰
作者: 八味天红丸    时间: 2020-10-18 10:15:33

判了么？？
还是准备起诉？？

作者: 还是回国吧    时间: 2020-10-18 10:16:10

对，炒几个小菜，弄几瓶coke，请他们吃饱了再走
作者: carrier29    时间: 2020-10-19 10:54:13

如果贼攻击屋主，屋主反击可以算正当防卫。如果仅是盗窃就允许砍掉别人的手，那是不是意味着谁都可以是法律执行者？其次这两贼还是未成年人，入室盗窃以后还可能改正（法律上），你把人手指砍了还能长回来吗
作者: joeistheman    时间: 2020-10-19 11:08:59

还没判刑呢，判了再说吧，，这种情况贼进家先打残了再说。。。反正没证据，，不要怕就是干
作者: 忍者厨    时间: 2020-10-19 11:13:54

其实不让反抗也是出于安全考虑，万一小偷穷凶极恶人怎么办？ 是不是会给你带来更大的伤害？

如果是正当反抗，应该是不会追究法律责任的，

就你说的案例，也许是防卫过当。
作者: hunterfreak    时间: 2020-10-20 09:16:59

話說這裡很多Teenager塊頭已經很大了, 長相也很成熟, 如果是大黑天犯案, 加上戴著Hoodie蒙著面就更難分辨了

建議下次遇到壞人先要求他們出示ID, 確定對方已經成年了才動手

作者: hunterfreak    时间: 2020-10-20 09:38:50

GY1234 发表于 2020-10-17 17:51
今天新闻说他是拿枪威胁了再把小偷手指砍了。而且那是未成年这就讲不过去了。这老头是严重暴力。必须严判。 ...

"the man pointed a gun at the two and severed a finger during an altercation"

"As a result of an altercation, one of the youths had one of their fingers severed."

這兩件事得分開看吧, 有用槍指對方是一回事, 而手指是在打鬥過程中被切掉的

不然同時要一手拿槍, 一手拿刀, 而現場有兩個持械歹徒, 對方還得乖乖配合讓你切手指, 我都不知道要怎麼操作?
作者: lesterliu    时间: 2020-10-20 09:44:09

有时候感觉政府说的也没错 真要进个贼 你打不过怎么办？你跟他搏斗暗地里给你一刀怎么办？要是两个人你真的打得过，别吹自己是战狼哦。。。



欢迎光临 新西兰天维网社区 (http://bbs.skykiwi.com/) Powered by Discuz! X2