The lie of home detention

[R2x1]

Perhaps mistakenly, I thought posts here were opinions, not directives. However, I may have been mistaken. Are only approved opinions permitted? I believe there are places and times where this is SOP, but I wasn't aware this was one of them.
Associated with Voltaire is the statement : I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I admire the elegance of the sentence, but before stating I strongly agree with it, I would emphasise that I reserve the right to make my own opinion as to whose death might be risked.

[king1]

Perhaps mistakenly, I thought posts here were opinions, not directives.  However, I may have been mistaken. Are only approved opinions permitted?  I believe there are places and times where this is SOP, but I wasn't aware this was one of them.
Associated with Voltaire is the statement : I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  I admire the elegance of the sentence, but before stating I strongly agree with it, I would emphasise that I reserve the right to make my own opinion as to whose death might be risked.

Posts are only removed when there is a clear breach of the rules.  In this case,  [ Rule 2J] at post #17,  which continued and escalated to [Rule 8].  Some people just don't play nicely ...

The Rules

[harm_less]

Perhaps mistakenly, I thought posts here were opinions, not directives.  However, I may have been mistaken. Are only approved opinions permitted?  I believe there are places and times where this is SOP, but I wasn't aware this was one of them.
Associated with Voltaire is the statement : I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  I admire the elegance of the sentence, but before stating I strongly agree with it, I would emphasise that I reserve the right to make my own opinion as to whose death might be risked.

We have a set of rules intended to ensure that this forum remains, among other things, a respectful space for its members and the member in question has repeatedly chosen to harass another member despite being warned not to. The ban on this member was primarily due to their infringement of rules 2j & 8.

[R2x1]

Sorry - bad use of language on my part.
In line 1 "here" was meaning in NZ, not this site.

I note "good taste" was mentioned. I am absolutely innocent of any shred of good taste, I got witnesses too!

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Oh well, I shall just have to argue the point with someone else.

Respectfully.

[Zurdo]

It appears he was working at the site, and had permission to travel there, so no red flags raised. Not happy with how he was treated at work...had a score to settle ? I was puzzled by the early hour of this incident...but getting to work on time, to confront someone ? There are times when I've felt this way myself...but um, going all out and doing it for real is a bit serious.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

But if you look at his history it becomes clear he got locked into anger and couldn't step out of it. I suspect some idiot at the site or maybe plural, rarked him up for a laugh and he couldn't let it go, went home stewing and on top of his recent stresses he went gun hunting. We all understand that feeling, but most of us have the skills or strategies to be able to step out and back in control of our emotions. Broken people can't do that.

Tragedy wrapped around tragedy, just like so many others are these days.

[king1]

Oh well, I shall just have to argue the point with someone else.

Respectfully.

i'm sure a certain someone will be back when the ban ends...

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Bans are temporary? Heavens, we are so civilised in this little corner of the interweb.

[king1]

Bans are temporary? Heavens, we are so civilised in this little corner of the interweb.

for real people - mostly.  1 week in this case - as for those pesky bots, permanent, although I am quietly confident we now have them adequately blocked.

[nzoomed]

Unbelievable that this guy was allowed to go to work. Home detention should mean just that, but I have to say that I've seen a fair few people in public wearing these ankle bracelets, I often felt what's the point of them?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Working real jobs is part of rehab. Working is a privilege, getting paid, paying tax, it is one of the benefits of being a responsible adult. Some need to learn that.

The point being home D takes them out of the prison system so they can maintain family and social ties and with luck benefit from that. It is also cheaper than incarceration...

[Lilith7]

It seems he came from a background of family violence himself - not even slightly surprising. Until we learn to help & support those who are parents & haven't had the benefit of good parenting role models to be better parents, nothing much is likely to change.
Celia Lashlie knew what she was talking about, & her work is thankfully continuing. I'd like to see it on a much larger scale, but perhaps one day.

[nzoomed]

Working real jobs is part of rehab. Working is a privilege, getting paid, paying tax, it is one of the benefits of being a responsible adult. Some need to learn that.

The point being home D takes them out of the prison system so they can maintain family and social ties and with luck benefit from that. It is also cheaper than incarceration...

I agree that getting them jobs is part of the rehab, but there needs to be a system where they are placed in a form of supervised employment for some time anyway.
It sounds like the others on the job site were not happy to work with him from what I'm hearing on the radio, not exactly the most ideal thing to have in the workplace, especially if others on the site don't know him or his history.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Well, a construction site is no place for sensitive souls. And he was working for a contractor, who should have been supervising him. And the others on site. Employers have a duty of care after all...

[Lilith7]

Well, a construction site is no place for sensitive souls. And he was working for a contractor, who should have been supervising him. And the others on site. Employers have a duty of care after all...

Agreed - & if there were one or two he didn't get on well with that could have been just too much for him to cope with since he doesn't seem to have had much in the way of skills in coping with other people apart from violence.

[king1]

Well, a construction site is no place for sensitive souls. And he was working for a contractor, who should have been supervising him. And the others on site. Employers have a duty of care after all...

I wonder how that might work out in the end - the employer would have had to agree to this so I wonder if they might be held responsible and prosecuted, as they might be with any other workplace death - maybe they have some kind of indemnity from corrections/parole board or whoever it is responsible for him at the time...

But I am not sure it is the businesses responsibility to supervise him for anything other than a doing his job.  If he needs to be supervised for behavioural issues then he really shouldn't be out on parole...

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Or, the employer should not have agreed to have him on site. Or intervened earlier. No doubt all will come out, or not, in the investigation.

[joe 90]

A Prisons priority is to keep the public safe from violent offenders , in this case the judge failed miserably knowing the shooters prior violent offences . Oh & home detention is nothing of the kind they can apply & are granted permision to go places if the HD causes hardship . This one was granted permision to go back to his workplace & it wasnt for work as the employer would have to approve of him being there first . This was a complte failure by the justice dept they have the blood of the innocent victims on their hands

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Utter rubbish. The department didn't steal a weapon, or fire it. Only one person made those choices. Put responsibility where it belongs.

That is what freedom is. Making choices and wearing the consequences. He chose, and now he is dead.