新西兰恐怖的法律

Hi-Fi-LP

太恐怖了,
恐怖点在于
"但并未被告知欠债者已经搬走、Rawat已经搬进去。所以在他看来，这是一次误会。"
"他随即与该租赁公司以及警方联系，却被告知这是标准的做法"

这借口也太荒唐了?    你不确认住客身份就闯入? 误会就不违法了?

quote,


天维网8月6日报道，援引NZ Herald消息 日前，刚刚搬进奥克兰西区一套租赁物业的Shish Rawat一家被吓坏了——有人在开锁匠的帮助下入门，并在餐桌上留下纸条。

　　留下纸条的，是来自DTR Thorn Rentals的职员，此人在纸条上说，前一任租客此前购买索尼PlayStation和其他配件，共欠下210元。在最后，“入侵者”留下三个联系电话号码，让Rawat尽快与之联系。

　　Rawat今年32岁，与妻子以及孩子刚搬进这套位于Henderson的住宅10天。看到这张纸条，“我整个人都震惊了”。他随即与该租赁公司以及警方联系，却被告知这是标准的做法。“我不敢想象，有人可以就这样进入别人家，感觉我们的隐私被侵犯了。”

　　对这次“入侵”，DTR公司Henderson分公司经理Cliff Webb向Rawat道歉，并拿出500元购物券表示“善意的姿态”。该公司表示，对已经发生的事情感到遗憾，但强调操作符合法律规定。

　　商业、创新和就业部（MBIE）表示，如果家中遭遇损失或破坏，Rawat有权向警方报案，或直接通过纠纷仲裁（Disputes Tribunal）向DTR公司索赔。

　　MBIE一名发言人介绍说，根据法律，即便负债者不在家，身为债权人的公司一方也可以进入对方家中，但时间限制在周一到周六的上午6点到晚上9点间。但如果负债者不再居住在原地址，DTR的闯入行为就是违法的。

　　DTR公司执行董事Mark Spring则辩解说，“入侵”之前曾试图确认住客身份，但并未被告知欠债者已经搬走、Rawat已经搬进去。所以在他看来，这是一次误会。

Hi-Fi-LP

今天在电台律师已经回答了, 讲得很清楚了
不过跟你说的和举得例子都完全不搭边

fatality

警察为啥要搜查令才能进入呢?
1. 警察没有偷东西
2.. 警察确定当事人就主在那里

A search warrant is required, because of the court procedding requirements. If any evidence is unlawfully obtained (seized by police without a search warrant or not pursuant to any warrantless powers), it could have detrimenal effects on the whole case.

But for any urgent circumstances, no search warrant is required.

那按你的逻辑, 警察随便进也不违, Correct! as long as police have a reason, otherwise why would they come into your property?

fatality

Hi-Fi-LP 发表于 2013-8-8 23:45
法律应该是以行为造成的后果为准则, 而不是意图, 否则没有误杀一罪了

You are mistaken my friend, I will explain one by one.

FIRSTLY, there are a few exceptions in western laws, in which you dont need an INTENT to commit a crime.

A good example is drink driving: you dont need the intent (I want to get drunk first and then drive). If the fact is that you are drunk and and driving a car at the same time, you have committed the offence.

manslaughter is another one, on this pointm you are wrong. the difference between murder and manslaughter is if the person has the intent to KILL. If I intent to teach you a lesson by striking someone with a basball bat (just to let him know who I am, not to kill him), but I accidentally strike him on the head and he dies. This is manslaughter, because I did not want to kill him.

But 9 out 10, "法律应该是以行为造成的后果为准则" is wrong. In a restaurant, I genuinely believe I take my own jacket, but I accidentally take your jacket, have I stolen it? If someone has some mental health problem and punches another man genuinely believing he is a punchbag, has he committed assault?

The answers are NO, my friend.

SECONDLY about this civil case:

I can give you one example:

I owe you $10000. I live  in a million dollar house I drive a $100k car but I refuse to pay you back. you go to the tribunal and finally you get a court order (we take a possession order as an example), the order says I need to pay you back but otherwise the court staff can physically come into my place and get my car auctioned. so the money can be used to pay you back.

Are you happy so far? you should be.

The problem comes in here, if the court staff come come to my place, and try to tow my car, but I say, "hang on, I did not let you guys in my property, you are breaking into my house!!!!" and I call the police. the court staff get trespassed and even arrested and prosecuted for this, will you still be happy? you shouldn't be. you will say, "what the fuck is this fucking law system??? I get a court order, but no one can execute it?????"

have you spotted the problem here my friend? Those people moved in 10 days ago, which could be a very good indication that the debtor has run away recently, and the address that the debt collection person has is still the old one for him.

So the debt collection person or company do not have any intent to commit a crime there, they are just siomply doing their jobs.

I hope this answers your question.

Hi-Fi-LP

法律应该是以行为造成的后果为准则, 而不是意图, 否则没有误杀一罪了

Hi-Fi-LP

fatality 发表于 2013-8-8 07:11
To commit such crime (burglary), there must be two elements:

1. any part of the body of the offen ...

你讲的是偷东西,
难道没有"非法闯入"这个罪吗? 闯入不等于偷东西哦

问题是,  这样的法律造成谁都可一进如别人的主宅,
只需满足两个条件----
1), 曾经住在那里的人借东西不还
2), 进屋不偷东西
两个人就可以设局, 一个借东西, 另外一个开借东西的公司

人家都搬走了十天, 你相信他还住那里就行了? 那任何人都可以只凭自己的信念做事情了


"he had a genuine belief that the debtor is still living in the building "


警察为啥要搜查令才能进入呢?
1. 警察没有偷东西
2. 警察确定当事人就主在那里
那按你的逻辑, 警察随便进也不违法

fatality

To commit such crime (burglary), there must be two elements:

1. any part of the body of the offender has been inside the building physically (which the person did).

2. he must have a criminal intent at the time of that physical action, e.g. normally to steal something from that building (which the person did not have).

We are missing the second element of the crime here.

If the person break into the house without any intent to steal, and at the same time he had a genuine belief that the debtor is still living in the building so he could serve a possession order or such a thing. he has NOT committed any crime.