| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 139537 | 2015-05-19 01:07:00 | Please explain........ | Zippity (58) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1400996 | 2015-05-19 01:07:00 | why this piece of garbage (www.nzherald.co.nz) gets name suppression but whose image can be published? Who is this law protecting? |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1400997 | 2015-05-19 01:32:00 | Presumably it's to reduce the chance of the jurors or others involved in the trial realising he has a pretty terrible criminal history even prior to these events. Maybe we can ship him off to Bali to be punished by their legal system. | inphinity (7274) | ||
| 1400998 | 2015-05-19 02:26:00 | My girlfriends lives in this area, as does her sister. I also visit the dairy on the road the victum was hit frequently. The sooner this scum is behind bars the better. Our justice system is weak and he'll be out in less than 10 years. He's already pleading guilty and saying he did those horrible things (although without the rape). It's only going to change the length of time for his complete sentence not the parole time... Bring back 'life means life'. | lordnoddy (3645) | ||
| 1400999 | 2015-05-19 02:52:00 | Our justice system is weak and he'll be out in less than 10 years. H The max is life with 17 years before parole. And you don't necessarily get paroled first time round. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1401000 | 2015-05-19 02:59:00 | Personally I don't think they should ever release names or details of crimes until after the court case is done. Once they are convicted name and shame and decide they are scum all you like but before then nobody outside the court room should be judging guilt. Not that I think criminals deserve protecting or coddling in any way, I just think we need to legally establish their guilt first. | dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1401001 | 2015-05-19 06:14:00 | Which is all right except when they get off due to no knowledge of there character, which should be part of prosecutors armoury. | Cicero (40) | ||
| 1401002 | 2015-05-19 07:33:00 | The guy is not thinking straight, which has been clear since the day he sacked his lawyer to represent himself (and made a meal of it). It's now clear he wasn't thinking straight on the night he killed her. Not by a long shot. He's trying to claim it's the fault of the drugs. Problem is, he really wasn't thinking when he ever tried meth in the first place, or when he continued to use meth... all of which were conscious CHOICES THAT HE WILLING CHOSE TO MAKE. He's the consequence of his choices and his actions. His feeble excuses are silly. Hope he gets his head clean in jail. Pity about the dirty stuff that might happen to the other end of him while he's in there, but it's still better than he deserves. If we had a death sentence I'd happily sign off his termination. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1401003 | 2015-05-19 11:35:00 | "It definitely wasn't me, it was the f***ing drug I was on." God, I hope this jury finds this S of a B guilty. |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1401004 | 2015-05-19 21:26:00 | The max is life with 17 years before parole. And you don't necessarily get paroled first time round. Life in NZ should be that "Life" not some limp wristed short sentence.. He'll be out in way less than 17 years. The bleeding hearts in the community will see to that . |
paulw (1826) | ||
| 1401005 | 2015-05-20 00:28:00 | I know his tattoos are not showing in the photo but did anyone see a picture of him with them showing? My understanding is that tattoos have a certain significance and one of his is particularly worrying. | Marnie (4574) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||