| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 82439 | 2007-08-27 12:26:00 | Burglars apparently have rights, too | qazwsxokmijn (102) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 585156 | 2007-08-28 11:37:00 | It was possible in NZ and may still be, if you committed a crime, lets say you broke your leg after falling climbing in someone's open window or slashed your hand on broken glass, yada yada yada.....you could claim ACC. About 25 years ago a guy broke his leg escaping from jail and got about $21,000 and a few months after that a guy in prison got his mate to inject him in the arm with drugs and he got gangrene and scored $18,000 out of ACC. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 585157 | 2007-08-28 11:44:00 | About 25 years ago a guy broke his leg escaping from jail and got about $21,000 and a few months after that a guy in prison got his mate to inject him in the arm with drugs and he got gangrene and scored $18,000 out of ACC. Yeah, and did you hear about that double-amputee-twit Mark Inglis? He climbed a mountain in the Himalayas recently and got frostbite (gangrene). He got royal treatment under ACC when he got back to NZ - even though he engaged in an activity with extremely high known risks (1 out of 12 people that attempt Everest die in the attempt) in another country. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 585158 | 2007-08-28 11:45:00 | ACC is a no-fault insurance scheme. What that means is that claimants do not have to prove that they were not at fault, or that somebody else was, in order to claim entitlements. The scheme was introduced to reduce litigation for personal injury - and while your lawyer friend may be right to a certain extent, nearly everybody who injures themselves in this jurisdiction is entitled to ACC coverage and therefore an insurance company other than ACC is not liable for tortious personal injury damages. It's my opinion that anyone committing a crime should automatically forfeit there right to ACC. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 585159 | 2007-08-28 11:51:00 | Yeah, and did you hear about that double-amputee-twit Mark Inglis? He climbed a mountain in the Himalayas recently and got frostbite (gangrene). He got royal treatment under ACC when he got back to NZ - even though he engaged in an activity with extremely high known risks (1 out of 12 people that attempt Everest die in the attempt) in another country. What amazed me was how the hospital managed to slip him right in. Poor bloody people on the waiting list. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 585160 | 2007-08-28 13:42:00 | If your ever attacked by a person with a knife your not legally allowed to defend your self (hit them) until the knife is approx 2 cm from your face. Go figure.:rolleyes: What absolute rubbish! Where on earth did you find that? Of course there are no such set rules. Each case is assessed on its own particular circumstances. (And if there was a rule, how often would you find a witness with a tape measure handy?) |
Laura (43) | ||
| 585161 | 2007-08-28 16:38:00 | The problem is the law is too soft on criminals, and all the calls for harsher sentences never seem to come to anything. Rape sentences are a point in question. A judge in summing up a particularly nasty case may say this is the worst instance that has come before me in my 10 years as a judge, and then give the offender a 7 year sentence when the maximum penalty is 14 years. This then begs the question, just how bad does the offence have to be to draw the maximum when it never seems to be handed down. Relatively savage penalties are dished out for tax evasion, but crimes against individuals are treated with comparative leniency. |
KenESmith (6287) | ||
| 585162 | 2007-08-28 20:44:00 | The problem is the law is too soft on criminals, and all the calls for harsher sentences never seem to come to anything. That statement is simply wrong. Judges have been given the ability to impose long minimum-time-before-parole sentences and they have been using them. I think the longest so far is 28 years before possibility of parole. Rape sentences are a point in question. A judge in summing up a particularly nasty case may say this is the worst instance that has come before me in my 10 years as a judge, and then give the offender a 7 year sentence when the maximum penalty is 14 years. This then begs the question, just how bad does the offence have to be to draw the maximum when it never seems to be handed down. To which case do you refer? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 585163 | 2007-08-28 20:44:00 | It's my opinion that anyone committing a crime should automatically forfeit there right to ACC. That's your opinion. What is your reasoning? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 585164 | 2007-08-28 21:19:00 | Any ACC claim is unlikely to succeed unless a member of the legal fraternity profits thereby. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 585165 | 2007-08-28 21:47:00 | What absolute rubbish! Where on earth did you find that? Of course there are no such set rules. Each case is assessed on its own particular circumstances. (And if there was a rule, how often would you find a witness with a tape measure handy?) I always carry a tape measure with me, it is onlky 150mm long tho. PJ :rolleyes: |
Poppa John (284) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||