Posted on 06/06/2007 5:06:57 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter
Gunshop director Greg Carvell has no regrets about shooting a man who threatened to kill him with a metre-long machete in his shop last year.
After a day-long depositions hearing at which his lawyer argued there was no case to answer on a charge of unlawfully possessing a gun, two justices of the peace adjourned the case until tomorrow when they said they would decide if there was a prime face case to answer and if Carvell would go to trial.
Carvell said after the hearing in the Auckland District Court he had no choice but to shoot Ricky James Beckham in July last year.
The court was told Beckham threatened to kill Carvell and gunshop worker, Bruce Motley as he advanced on them in the Penrose gunshop, waving a machete over his head.
Carvell fired one shot into the man's stomach with a.45 calibre Colt automatic pistol he had kept loaded but hidden on a shelf under his desk.
Outside the court today Carvell was asked if he had any regrets.
"No None."
Did he still have a gun hidden under the desk?
"No comment."
The court heard that Beckham, now serving a two year and nine month jail term for the aggravated burglary of the gunshop, told Carvell and Mr Motley he would kill them.
He demanded guns and ignored orders to stop advancing on the two men.
The court heard 10 or 15 seconds later Carvell shot him in the stomach with the pistol.
Mr Motley said in his evidence he had never discussed the loaded gun or its hiding place under the desk with Carvell.
"I knew what it was there for."
He also said the Colt was for sale and was also used as a test gun and a demonstration gun for customers. When Carvell or his father Ray Carvell were not there it was kept in a safe.
He said when Beckham came at them with the machete raised above his head, he was very close.
"I thought he was going to chop my head off.
Beckham was weaving from side to side as he came towards them.
"I heard Greg say to him to put down the machete. I said also put down the machete. He didn't put it down."
He said he was going to kill the two men and they took that threat as serious and real.
"I told him two or three times to put down the machete. Greg told him six times," Mr Motley said.
He said they were in a life and death situation and if Carvell had not shot Beckham there was no doubt what would have happened.
"I am sure I would not be here today."
After the shooting Mr Motley said Carvell helped the shot man.
Beckham was in pain and Carvell told him to put a jumper against the wound and hold it there until the ambulance arrived.
"Greg asked why did you do it, why did you make me do it."
He said Carvell was distressed and crying.
Carvell's lawyer Greg King said there was no case to answer and he should not be committed for trial.
He said it was a life and death situation and Beckham had to be incapacitated.
However, prosecutor Mark Corlett said the defence had made an emotive appeal and had misconstrued the case. He said Carvell had admitted to police he kept the loaded gun for self defence and he had been charged.
Ping
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Someone has to state the obvious: Never bring a machete to a gunfight. Especially in a gun store. And threaten the owner.
salient points
I would have shot him too; if he came in with a machete.
How on earth does an employee of a gun shop get charged with illegal gun possession?
Wasnt' he engaged in a lawful business activity?
Thanks,
L
This is the crux of the issue right here. He kept a gun for self-defense! What shocking hubris!
Coming soon to the entire US if the globalists have their way.
Wasnt' he engaged in a lawful business activity?
It sounds like he wasn't allowed to keep it loaded for self defense purposes.
Mark Corlett a life sentence in prison for aiding and abetting criminal behavior, perjury, prosecutorial misconduct, and using his office to terrorize the innocent victims of crime.
I don’t know which is more stupid: robbing a bar where cops hang out, or attacking a gun store owner with a machete in his place of business.
Waitaminnit. Are they really saying it is illegal to defend yourself in NZ?
> Waitaminnit. Are they really saying it is illegal to defend yourself in NZ?
There are a few important differences to our laws that allow situations like this to happen in NZ. Be prepared for a Culture Shock:
1) we do not have the right to keep and bear arms
2) we do not have a Constitution
3) our “Rights” as they pertain to Self Defense are defined in the Crimes Act 1961. Specifically, these sections:
48 Self-defence and defence of another
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
52 Defence of movable property against trespasser
(1) Every one in peaceable possession of any movable thing, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified in using reasonable force to resist the taking of the thing by any trespasser or to retake it from any trespasser, if in either case he does not strike or do bodily harm to the trespasser.
53 Defence of movable property with claim of right
(1) Every one in peaceable possession of any movable thing under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession by the use of reasonable force, even against a person entitled by law to possession, if he does not strike or do bodily harm to the other person.
55 Defence of dwellinghouse
Every one in peaceable possession of a dwellinghouse, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting by his authority, is justified in using such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering of the dwellinghouse by any person if he believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that there is no lawful justification for the breaking and entering.
56 Defence of land or building
(1) Every one in peaceable possession of any land or building, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting by his authority, is justified in using reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on the land or building or to remove him therefrom, if he does not strike or do bodily harm to that person.
There are a couple of themes that should be coming thru loud and clear:
“Reasonable” force is undefined in our laws, and are left to the individual to guess at when using it.
“if he does not strike or to bodily harm” is a qualifier that applies to the defense of property.
So guess what happens? Whenever “Reasonable Force” is used, it is usual for the Police to press charges and allow the Courts to determine what is “reasonable”.
So far as keeping a loaded firearm for self-defense? That would be most unwise, as it would automatically fail most “Reasonable Force” scenarios. To say nothing of violating our Firearms laws.
it is usual for the Police to press charges and allow the Courts to determine what is “reasonable”.
How do NZ juries generally react to this sort of thing? Do they "nullify" the law by refusing to convict the citizen victim?
I just made your post more believable.
:^)
> How do NZ juries generally react to this sort of thing? Do they “nullify” the law by refusing to convict the citizen victim?
That is precisely what happened with the last hi-profile case. The legal bills were ruinous, but the jury refused to convict.
> So, under NZ law, as long as the perp is willing to take it to a physical fight level, you must allow him to escape with your goods?
Not quite: if he takes it to a physical level you have the right to use Reasonable Force to defend youself. It is when the perp does not take it to a physical level where things get sticky.
The private citizen is not without recourse, however: we do have the right to perform Citizen’s Arrests under certain circumstances, and to use Reasonable Force in carrying those out. This process is spelled out in Sections 35-40.
The idea being that if you do a Citizen’s Arrest by day, the crime you are arresting for must attract a penalty that exceeds 3 years. If by nite, you can do a Citizen’s Arrest for any breach of the Crimes Act 1961. You may use Reasonable Force to carry it out.
My reading of the Law (I’m not a lawyer and this is not “advice”, but the Crimes Act 1961 is very clearly written and easy to understand) is that if you use force you should expect the incident to be dealt with by the Courts.
Going back to your Grand Theft Auto question, the Law clearly doesn’t want people giving Criminals the bash for trying to steal a car, and leaving said Criminal in the gutter to bleed: he must be properly arrested (using Reasonable Force) and dealt to by the Courts.
In this case, you would not plead “Self Defense” as your reason for using Reasonable Force. You would instead assert your rights to perform a Citizen’s Arrest, and the use of Reasonable Force as the means of achieving that end.
When looked at it that way, it sorta makes sense... and clearly an abundance of caution when wading in these waters is probably not misplaced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.