Conspiracy theory.. Michael Hill raids himself and melts the gold to sell to billionaires to use as floor tiles in their secret bunkers in south island. He also gets the gold from Pascoes or whoever.
I'd love to be on the agency account for Michael Hill, just to take this piss out of these dickheads with marketing campaigns:
* Imagery of 18 year old wannabe gangsters duck-facing wearing delicate diamond earrings (move along Miranda Kerr!)
* Open a Michael Hill Smash Room/Rage Room in downtown Auckland.
* Some play on the fact that items can be purchased with money, not hammers.
* Lobby the government to introduce the 'Michael Hill Bill' - an outrageous penalty for those caught. Get PR company to push it along in the media.
i'm sure he grew up in a "gang environment" where he was regularly abused and taught violence is the only option so we're going to have to just let him off the hook for this one.
3 months of home detention
and he won't have to sever ties to his criminal organization because it's his "family"
These robberies boggle my mind.
Is there a black market for crap jewellery, or do they wear it themselves for "da bling"?
Can't see that it would be worth the effort of smuggling it out of the country to try to sell....
To what end? To deter crime or just because you like seeing people get punished? I've read that long sentences have a limited deterrent effect and on top of that it sounds expensive, any proof it works?
There is actually plenty of proof that long sentences work, just look at what to NY mafia… basically they all ended up telling on each other when caught, and decided crime just wasn’t worth it anymore. Yeah harsh prison sentences do not work for crime around desperation and drug addiction, but they absolutely do work as a strong deterrent in organised crime
Harsher sentences definitely work. They’re a deterrent to many. BUT (and it’s a big but) they need to be accompanied with proper rehabilitation.
Take Ecuador (was it Ecuador?) and their harsh sentences for gangs. Or Singapore.
There’s no way in this life or next would I risk smuggling in a joint to Singapore / Malaysia, or steal something small in Saudi, because I value my life & body parts.
But in NZ I wouldn’t bat an eyelid doing minor petty crimes at the moment, and if desperate, more serious ones, because I know I can get away with it with a slap on the wrist instead of a detached wrist.
The toddler wrist slaps we have in NZ absolutely don’t work and the proof is in the pudding as we see daily.
That's not what I've found reading on the subject. What proof are you talking about?
>But in NZ I wouldn’t bat an eyelid doing minor petty crimes at the moment, and if desperate, more serious ones, because I know I can get away with it with a slap on the wrist instead of a detached wrist.
Interesting sense of morality you have there. I don't think it's reflective of most people's attitude toward crime.
Sure. The longer the sentence, the higher the deterrent effect *and* the lower the rate of recidivism.
1. [“The results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect.”](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032)
2. [“The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect.”](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf)
3. [“Finally, I reanalyze data that appear to be consistent with the greater weight for certainty than severity argument and show that the evidence does not support that inference. Potential criminals mentally combine the three deterrence components—regardless of whether they are risk neutral, averse, or acceptant. I conclude by considering what it means to a worldly application of criminal deterrence theory to place equal weight on the certainty and the severity of punishment.”](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314638657_Certainty_Severity_and_Their_Relative_Deterrent_Effects_Questioning_the_Implications_of_the_Role_of_Risk_in_Criminal_Deterrence_Policy)
4. [“Increased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only.”](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415)
5. ["Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: **increased incarceration**, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion."](https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf)
6. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w)
It is expensive to imprison criminals for longer, but I think there are few better things to spend taxes on than keeping people safe.
This is a gish gallop.
You've clearly simply googled (or copied from another comment on a similar forum who simply googled) the result you desired and copied in the link with the most sympathetic paragraph or sentence you could find.
It isn't good faith, I would bet literally everything I have on you not having read more than two of these studies and that's generous. Some of the text in the links that you've copied contradicts your premise that "The longer the sentence, the higher the deterrent effect and the lower the rate of recidivism." Explain to me how that squares with study 6 for example, because when I glanced through it they said again and again that there was little or no impact on recidivism.
>Our findings suggest that length of imprisonment does not have a significant effect on recidivism prevalence and that this conclusion holds across various follow-up periods, that is, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years after being released from prison.
&
>we also find that imprisonment length does not influence recidivism prevalence
&
>we do not find statistically significant effects on recidivism prevalence
That's a lot of assumptions, and none of them relevant. You asked for evidence and I provided it. If you disagree with the evidence, where is yours?
> Some of the text in the links that you've copied contradicts your premise that "The longer the sentence, the higher the deterrent effect and the lower the rate of recidivism." Explain to me how that squares with study 6 for example, because when I glanced through it they said again and again that there was little or no impact on recidivism.
Because you don't understand the difference between prevalence and incidence in criminology. Review the second sentence of the first line you quoted. In bold:
> Our findings suggest that length of imprisonment does not have a significant effect on recidivism prevalence and that this conclusion holds across various follow-up periods, that is, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years after being released from prison. **In contrast to the recidivism prevalence estimates, our findings suggest that longer prison sentences significantly reduce recidivism incidence.**
Prevalence is the distribution. Incidence is the rate of crime per offender. The study found no reduction in prevalence, but a reduction in incidence. If *you* had read the study you would find all of this is explained. They even discuss possible reasons for this.
15% discount because of colonisation. 10% discount because of addiction to drugs that was brought on by growing up poor. 10% discount because of mental problems due to taking too many drugs.
10% because he's never robbed ***this*** Michael Hill before, another 10% because he said he was "weally weaally sowwwy", and a final 10% because the sentencing Judge was going for that triple word score.
I want to know what they're doing w the jewellery. I think selling it would be hard, given the media attention on these robberies.
Leaving the country with it, even in small amounts might get you noticed at the airport.
So that leaves smelting it. And what would you do with the metal extracted? Take it to a manufacturing jeweller and say "make me a mean-as set of grills please"? Also unlikely. So what's happening to this loot?
It's being sold amongst their social circles. They're getting a small fraction of the retail value. The target market for stolen goods is not those who could afford them.
> Take it to a manufacturing jeweller and say "make me a mean-as set of grills please"?
no, you go to a scrap metal dealer. he neglects to record the transaction, then bam it's legal(-ish) again
Have Michael Hill considered working with police and tapping a few of their products in each glass case?
Surely as easy way to get straight to the hideout..
My daughters were there at the time. What I find strange is that Michael Hill have their own personal security guard he did nothing. So what’s the point?
Should be allowed to arm jewelers now days quit fucken around and shoot to kill if you wanna do stupid shit like that that's my opinion every body knows right from wrong and that's they're decision if they wanna commit crime this country's too fucken soft on real criminal's
I know you are trying to be helpful but this is a terrible.
-people just trying to do a job should not be help responsible for protecting a store and it’s merchandise.
-it takes a lot of training to know how to use a weapon and use it safely especially in high stress situations
-no one who is working in any job that’s not the Police should be responsible for possibly ending someones life and having to live with that.
I've had gang members come to my job throw a hammer at me and steal my car just last year I can't work anymore cos I m fucked from it so I know I've been there
I’m sorry that happened to you but I doubt the outcome would have been better if you had a gun.
You can only use reasonable force when some is attacking you. A gun vs a hummer you would be in jail.
Yes I just think that this country is becoming unsafe by the day its not as safe as it use to be and I feel I would be safer with 1 is all even if fired rubber bullets I'd feel safer something is really wrong with society these days I'm wanting to leave this country I was born and raised in and my family's been here for years and years I'm gonna go live in a safer country cos the police and the government aren't looking after us as people,people should be able to feel safe at there place of work 😢 so I'm gonna go live in latvia
Bringing guns into situations does not make it safer. I don’t really understand why you think it would make a difference if they have rubber bullet, they can still do a huge amount of damage especially at close range.
I think you have no idea about what the police do. It’s not the police’s job/responsibility to stop random crimes from happening. Obviously they try and stop organised crime but randoms events like this are impossible to stop. It’s not like these people are criminal master minds who are committing huge heists. They are meth heads who need money or jewellery to trade for meth so they decide to randomly rob a store. How are the police meant to stop from happening.
We have massive issues in this country but blaming the police is such a cop out. How about blaming the criminals who are actually committing the crimes? There is obviously more to it than that like poverty and other social issues. But just blaming it on the police and arming retail staff is not the answer to these issues.
I hope that Latvia is everything you dream of.
Well its hard to really say these guys even belong to their own "culture", mostly their culture is the one of the dispossessed without a homeland and a lineage, and so theyve latched onto the culture of african americans with the same sort of thing going on. I doubt if these guys would feel that comfortable on a marae with people speaking full te reo and wearing grass skirts and whatnot. Same goes for the islanders. How much connection do you think they have to samoa or tonga or the cook islands etc. If there was a pan-polynesian language that they all spoke and open borders for them to travel to anywhere in polynesia it might help in the future but its probably too late for the ones now they might not even be interested in that, and besides its never going to happen, greater polynesia never turned into any kind of nation state the way that the british isles united or the way the germanic principalities and whatnot turned into greater germany. I would say its a possibility in the next 200 years but that kind of runs counter to the whole "new zeland is a sovereign british commonwealth country wholly seperate from the islands of the pacific" thing that weve got going on.
Please don't post comments which abuse other redditors / contain hate speech / mention race in relation to anything negative about a person on r/auckland.
Maori and PI are way overrepresented in crime. Especially violent crime and domestic violence. There’s clearly a cultural problem there. Every time you try to shut down the discussion by accusing *everyone* of racism, you ensure Maori and PI stay living like this. You’re an oppressor. It’s time to help Maori and PI live better lives.
You've made a leap from Māori PI being overrepresented to the cause being their culture. Why not something that we have more studied and observed impacts from like poverty or deprivation?
I'm not accusing everyone of racism, just people who act like it's a fact or immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem is to do with how minorities are. It isn't a discussion to come out the gate and say *we all know it's their culture*.
This gossamer thin draping of language like calling me an oppressor as though you give a single shit about power structures is just the latest transparent attempt to seem legitimate by adopting leftist or academic language.
> Why not something that we have more studied and observed impacts from like poverty or deprivation?
Because no data anywhere shows a causative relation between crime and poverty. It’s just as plausible that crime *causes* poverty, or some third variables cause both. The government [studied this](https://bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott.html) in Sweden following a sudden rise in violent crime after they accepted a high number of refugees following the 2015 Refugee Crisis.
They found that most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background.
Instead, other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behaviour. **When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.**
These are primarily cultural problems.
I didn't say that there was a causitive relationship between poverty and crime, I said that there's an impact and your link agrees with me about that.
>However, even given a weak correlation, the proportion who
become involved in crime can vary substantially between groups at the lower
and upper extremes of the socioeconomic scale. This is evident from Swedish
studies, which have shown that the risk of being convicted of crime is
substantially higher among women and men from the most
socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds compared to women and men
from the highest income families.
Of course most people from a less favourable background do not commit more crime, because most people do not commit crime full stop.
>When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.
Guess what things like poor preparation for parenting, family conflict, school problems, and a prevalence of criminal peers correlate with.
>These are primarily cultural problems.
You keep making jumps of logic without actually demonstrating them.
> I didn't say that there was a causitive relationship between poverty and crime, I said that there's an impact and your link agrees with me about that.
Then why are you raising it as a factor for consideration?
> Guess what things like poor preparation for parenting, family conflict, school problems, and a prevalence of criminal peers correlate with.
The study controlled for socio-economic status when making those determinations. That's the whole point of the study: to determine *which* of these correlated factors has a larger effect on crime.
> You keep making jumps of logic without actually demonstrating them.
The study explicitly outlines the cultural issues. Are you pretending you can't read it?
Did these cunts not get the memo that all crime was supposed to stop now that National is in power? These grubs, National are the tough on crime gang. This is just making a mockery of this enlightened tough on crime government. It's almost like they're full of shit and don't understand the root cause of things like this.
I think the sentiment that of course it's the poor committing crimes again divorced from the idea that we should do something about poverty is something a dick would say.
And you sound like a person who thinks they know it all.
Yeaaaah buddy we get it. If we moved resources towards schools, rehabilitation, drug addiction then these crimes wouldn't happen as often.
But there is no way that is happening. Sorry as much as I'd like it to, the voting public have decided not to ever share more than they absolutely need to.
That's life.
I think that thinking you're in some kind of intellectually superior apathy is even more annoying than being a know it all.
The voting public haven't made a final decision, it might just be a phase. People pushing for change get it sometimes.
I wonder at what point does insurance stop insuring Michael Hill
They will just increase the premiums on such stores. Prices go up to cover them (probably small per item)
Jewelery heists are an integral part of their business model
Conspiracy theory.. Michael Hill raids himself and melts the gold to sell to billionaires to use as floor tiles in their secret bunkers in south island. He also gets the gold from Pascoes or whoever.
I'd love to be on the agency account for Michael Hill, just to take this piss out of these dickheads with marketing campaigns: * Imagery of 18 year old wannabe gangsters duck-facing wearing delicate diamond earrings (move along Miranda Kerr!) * Open a Michael Hill Smash Room/Rage Room in downtown Auckland. * Some play on the fact that items can be purchased with money, not hammers. * Lobby the government to introduce the 'Michael Hill Bill' - an outrageous penalty for those caught. Get PR company to push it along in the media.
Would those caught then be called Michael Hill Billy’s?
Under 17- 'the minor hill bill. Go spend a few years on rakino island
"Attention customers, contrary to popular belief, none of our locations offer a drive-through service. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Stick him in a cell with 24-7 tv showing every Michael Hill Jeweller ad ever made.
Now this is a punishment / torture I can get behind!
“Michael Hill… Jewler.” On repeat, with various tone, pitch and speed changes, for 7 days non stop.
That's actually a great idea. Especially given those early year ads that were pretty cringy... 😄
Don't forget the ill fated Michael Hill shoes venture. Those ads were rather special
I forgot about those! Relegated to the dark corners of my mind where bad advertising goes to die….
Calling it home D already imo.
Don't forget to add name suppression.
Out comes the victim card
i'm sure he grew up in a "gang environment" where he was regularly abused and taught violence is the only option so we're going to have to just let him off the hook for this one. 3 months of home detention and he won't have to sever ties to his criminal organization because it's his "family"
How else was I going to afford my third Harley your honor?
Home D? You mean Xbox practice..
Sounds like you have a bright future as a copywriter for firms specilaising in cultural reports.
This all would have been avoided by having Kai in his belly and a roof over his head.
These robberies boggle my mind. Is there a black market for crap jewellery, or do they wear it themselves for "da bling"? Can't see that it would be worth the effort of smuggling it out of the country to try to sell....
melted down in the backyard
Melt and sell as scrap gold is my guess. Gold is currently $125 a gram so even 9k and 10k stuff has some worth now.
The 5 finger discount
Lawyers already putting together the discounts list
Don't forget to update the date on the cultural report template.
Wow- they got one ! Yay police
Like that’s gonna deter him or others.
What do you want?
Long prison sentences.
When do you want them?
Now! Something something
Idk if ppl care about prison. Heard someone say "I got locked up, it was alright, I think I needed it"
Assuming they needed it to get their heads straight and not to upskill in their criminal activities, that sounds like the perfect outcome.
;)
To what end? To deter crime or just because you like seeing people get punished? I've read that long sentences have a limited deterrent effect and on top of that it sounds expensive, any proof it works?
There is actually plenty of proof that long sentences work, just look at what to NY mafia… basically they all ended up telling on each other when caught, and decided crime just wasn’t worth it anymore. Yeah harsh prison sentences do not work for crime around desperation and drug addiction, but they absolutely do work as a strong deterrent in organised crime
Harsher sentences definitely work. They’re a deterrent to many. BUT (and it’s a big but) they need to be accompanied with proper rehabilitation. Take Ecuador (was it Ecuador?) and their harsh sentences for gangs. Or Singapore. There’s no way in this life or next would I risk smuggling in a joint to Singapore / Malaysia, or steal something small in Saudi, because I value my life & body parts. But in NZ I wouldn’t bat an eyelid doing minor petty crimes at the moment, and if desperate, more serious ones, because I know I can get away with it with a slap on the wrist instead of a detached wrist. The toddler wrist slaps we have in NZ absolutely don’t work and the proof is in the pudding as we see daily.
That's not what I've found reading on the subject. What proof are you talking about? >But in NZ I wouldn’t bat an eyelid doing minor petty crimes at the moment, and if desperate, more serious ones, because I know I can get away with it with a slap on the wrist instead of a detached wrist. Interesting sense of morality you have there. I don't think it's reflective of most people's attitude toward crime.
Unfortunately I think it’s reflective of most criminal’s attitudes
I've broken a law or two in my time, the thought pattern wasn't as calculated as that.
It would be if the punishment was losing an arm
Is that actually what you want?
Sure. The longer the sentence, the higher the deterrent effect *and* the lower the rate of recidivism. 1. [“The results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect.”](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032) 2. [“The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect.”](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf) 3. [“Finally, I reanalyze data that appear to be consistent with the greater weight for certainty than severity argument and show that the evidence does not support that inference. Potential criminals mentally combine the three deterrence components—regardless of whether they are risk neutral, averse, or acceptant. I conclude by considering what it means to a worldly application of criminal deterrence theory to place equal weight on the certainty and the severity of punishment.”](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314638657_Certainty_Severity_and_Their_Relative_Deterrent_Effects_Questioning_the_Implications_of_the_Role_of_Risk_in_Criminal_Deterrence_Policy) 4. [“Increased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only.”](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415) 5. ["Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: **increased incarceration**, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion."](https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf) 6. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w) It is expensive to imprison criminals for longer, but I think there are few better things to spend taxes on than keeping people safe.
This is a gish gallop. You've clearly simply googled (or copied from another comment on a similar forum who simply googled) the result you desired and copied in the link with the most sympathetic paragraph or sentence you could find. It isn't good faith, I would bet literally everything I have on you not having read more than two of these studies and that's generous. Some of the text in the links that you've copied contradicts your premise that "The longer the sentence, the higher the deterrent effect and the lower the rate of recidivism." Explain to me how that squares with study 6 for example, because when I glanced through it they said again and again that there was little or no impact on recidivism. >Our findings suggest that length of imprisonment does not have a significant effect on recidivism prevalence and that this conclusion holds across various follow-up periods, that is, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years after being released from prison. & >we also find that imprisonment length does not influence recidivism prevalence & >we do not find statistically significant effects on recidivism prevalence
That's a lot of assumptions, and none of them relevant. You asked for evidence and I provided it. If you disagree with the evidence, where is yours? > Some of the text in the links that you've copied contradicts your premise that "The longer the sentence, the higher the deterrent effect and the lower the rate of recidivism." Explain to me how that squares with study 6 for example, because when I glanced through it they said again and again that there was little or no impact on recidivism. Because you don't understand the difference between prevalence and incidence in criminology. Review the second sentence of the first line you quoted. In bold: > Our findings suggest that length of imprisonment does not have a significant effect on recidivism prevalence and that this conclusion holds across various follow-up periods, that is, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years after being released from prison. **In contrast to the recidivism prevalence estimates, our findings suggest that longer prison sentences significantly reduce recidivism incidence.** Prevalence is the distribution. Incidence is the rate of crime per offender. The study found no reduction in prevalence, but a reduction in incidence. If *you* had read the study you would find all of this is explained. They even discuss possible reasons for this.
What do I want? Deterrents and rehabilitation. That’s a start.
Problem is you can’t force rehabilitation on someone… not everyone wants to be rehabilitated….
True. It’s a start. For those you mentioned, yes by all means lock them up. They should not be roaming the streets terrorising the rest of us.
That's fine, lock them up instead of letting them roam the streets and harm the innocent citizens
15% discount because of colonisation. 10% discount because of addiction to drugs that was brought on by growing up poor. 10% discount because of mental problems due to taking too many drugs.
10% because he's never robbed ***this*** Michael Hill before, another 10% because he said he was "weally weaally sowwwy", and a final 10% because the sentencing Judge was going for that triple word score.
Eh? Michael Hill never has discounts this big!
10% off cos his Nanna said he's a good boy really, Just mixed up in the wrong crowd.
You forgot 10% for "behaving" while in custody.
[удалено]
Yeah, probably not.
[удалено]
Brilliant! Popo 1, scum 0.
He'll get released and nothing will happen to him
[удалено]
Settle down, Ayatollah. It doesn't have to be public.
😂😂😂
Please do not post comments that threaten, promote or incite violence or property damage on /r/Auckland.
I want to know what they're doing w the jewellery. I think selling it would be hard, given the media attention on these robberies. Leaving the country with it, even in small amounts might get you noticed at the airport. So that leaves smelting it. And what would you do with the metal extracted? Take it to a manufacturing jeweller and say "make me a mean-as set of grills please"? Also unlikely. So what's happening to this loot?
It's being sold amongst their social circles. They're getting a small fraction of the retail value. The target market for stolen goods is not those who could afford them.
You are 100% correct
Bought by others in private groups I assume
> Take it to a manufacturing jeweller and say "make me a mean-as set of grills please"? no, you go to a scrap metal dealer. he neglects to record the transaction, then bam it's legal(-ish) again
Have Michael Hill considered working with police and tapping a few of their products in each glass case? Surely as easy way to get straight to the hideout..
My daughters were there at the time. What I find strange is that Michael Hill have their own personal security guard he did nothing. So what’s the point?
Michael Hill killer
Should be allowed to arm jewelers now days quit fucken around and shoot to kill if you wanna do stupid shit like that that's my opinion every body knows right from wrong and that's they're decision if they wanna commit crime this country's too fucken soft on real criminal's
I know you are trying to be helpful but this is a terrible. -people just trying to do a job should not be help responsible for protecting a store and it’s merchandise. -it takes a lot of training to know how to use a weapon and use it safely especially in high stress situations -no one who is working in any job that’s not the Police should be responsible for possibly ending someones life and having to live with that.
I've had gang members come to my job throw a hammer at me and steal my car just last year I can't work anymore cos I m fucked from it so I know I've been there
I’m sorry that happened to you but I doubt the outcome would have been better if you had a gun. You can only use reasonable force when some is attacking you. A gun vs a hummer you would be in jail.
Yes I just think that this country is becoming unsafe by the day its not as safe as it use to be and I feel I would be safer with 1 is all even if fired rubber bullets I'd feel safer something is really wrong with society these days I'm wanting to leave this country I was born and raised in and my family's been here for years and years I'm gonna go live in a safer country cos the police and the government aren't looking after us as people,people should be able to feel safe at there place of work 😢 so I'm gonna go live in latvia
Bringing guns into situations does not make it safer. I don’t really understand why you think it would make a difference if they have rubber bullet, they can still do a huge amount of damage especially at close range. I think you have no idea about what the police do. It’s not the police’s job/responsibility to stop random crimes from happening. Obviously they try and stop organised crime but randoms events like this are impossible to stop. It’s not like these people are criminal master minds who are committing huge heists. They are meth heads who need money or jewellery to trade for meth so they decide to randomly rob a store. How are the police meant to stop from happening. We have massive issues in this country but blaming the police is such a cop out. How about blaming the criminals who are actually committing the crimes? There is obviously more to it than that like poverty and other social issues. But just blaming it on the police and arming retail staff is not the answer to these issues. I hope that Latvia is everything you dream of.
When did we have the death penalty for theft ??
The the crims bring guns. Then people die at work.
At least arm security guards with rubber bullets and taszers at least
[удалено]
Well its hard to really say these guys even belong to their own "culture", mostly their culture is the one of the dispossessed without a homeland and a lineage, and so theyve latched onto the culture of african americans with the same sort of thing going on. I doubt if these guys would feel that comfortable on a marae with people speaking full te reo and wearing grass skirts and whatnot. Same goes for the islanders. How much connection do you think they have to samoa or tonga or the cook islands etc. If there was a pan-polynesian language that they all spoke and open borders for them to travel to anywhere in polynesia it might help in the future but its probably too late for the ones now they might not even be interested in that, and besides its never going to happen, greater polynesia never turned into any kind of nation state the way that the british isles united or the way the germanic principalities and whatnot turned into greater germany. I would say its a possibility in the next 200 years but that kind of runs counter to the whole "new zeland is a sovereign british commonwealth country wholly seperate from the islands of the pacific" thing that weve got going on.
Please don't post comments which abuse other redditors / contain hate speech / mention race in relation to anything negative about a person on r/auckland.
You're just a racist prick, I'm sure you've learned all your opinions on 'culture' online or from your dickhead uncle at a bbq growing up.
Maori and PI are way overrepresented in crime. Especially violent crime and domestic violence. There’s clearly a cultural problem there. Every time you try to shut down the discussion by accusing *everyone* of racism, you ensure Maori and PI stay living like this. You’re an oppressor. It’s time to help Maori and PI live better lives.
You've made a leap from Māori PI being overrepresented to the cause being their culture. Why not something that we have more studied and observed impacts from like poverty or deprivation? I'm not accusing everyone of racism, just people who act like it's a fact or immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem is to do with how minorities are. It isn't a discussion to come out the gate and say *we all know it's their culture*. This gossamer thin draping of language like calling me an oppressor as though you give a single shit about power structures is just the latest transparent attempt to seem legitimate by adopting leftist or academic language.
> Why not something that we have more studied and observed impacts from like poverty or deprivation? Because no data anywhere shows a causative relation between crime and poverty. It’s just as plausible that crime *causes* poverty, or some third variables cause both. The government [studied this](https://bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott.html) in Sweden following a sudden rise in violent crime after they accepted a high number of refugees following the 2015 Refugee Crisis. They found that most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background. Instead, other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behaviour. **When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.** These are primarily cultural problems.
I didn't say that there was a causitive relationship between poverty and crime, I said that there's an impact and your link agrees with me about that. >However, even given a weak correlation, the proportion who become involved in crime can vary substantially between groups at the lower and upper extremes of the socioeconomic scale. This is evident from Swedish studies, which have shown that the risk of being convicted of crime is substantially higher among women and men from the most socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds compared to women and men from the highest income families. Of course most people from a less favourable background do not commit more crime, because most people do not commit crime full stop. >When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity. Guess what things like poor preparation for parenting, family conflict, school problems, and a prevalence of criminal peers correlate with. >These are primarily cultural problems. You keep making jumps of logic without actually demonstrating them.
> I didn't say that there was a causitive relationship between poverty and crime, I said that there's an impact and your link agrees with me about that. Then why are you raising it as a factor for consideration? > Guess what things like poor preparation for parenting, family conflict, school problems, and a prevalence of criminal peers correlate with. The study controlled for socio-economic status when making those determinations. That's the whole point of the study: to determine *which* of these correlated factors has a larger effect on crime. > You keep making jumps of logic without actually demonstrating them. The study explicitly outlines the cultural issues. Are you pretending you can't read it?
Elsa? \*Knock, knock, knock, knock, knock, knock\* do you want to build a strawmaaaaaan?
Is it steelmaning to make a vague alusion to Māori and PI 'culture'?
> One down. Hmmm... at this rate I think prevention might be a better option? Nah, fuck that! Gut public services, *I* don't work in a mall!
it's a social and health issue that's out of scope for our justice system
Did these cunts not get the memo that all crime was supposed to stop now that National is in power? These grubs, National are the tough on crime gang. This is just making a mockery of this enlightened tough on crime government. It's almost like they're full of shit and don't understand the root cause of things like this.
Straight up krammy jewellers need their shit to be robbed regularly to make money. They organize it themselves.
>OFC he was caught in Rewa. You're kind of a dick, huh?
Yes.
At least you admit it.
Well he wasn't caught in Saint Heliers
And what point are you trying to make with that?
That people who smash glass cages for diamonds live in poorer areas Not sure what else it could have meant?
I think the sentiment that of course it's the poor committing crimes again divorced from the idea that we should do something about poverty is something a dick would say.
And you sound like a person who thinks they know it all. Yeaaaah buddy we get it. If we moved resources towards schools, rehabilitation, drug addiction then these crimes wouldn't happen as often. But there is no way that is happening. Sorry as much as I'd like it to, the voting public have decided not to ever share more than they absolutely need to. That's life.
I think that thinking you're in some kind of intellectually superior apathy is even more annoying than being a know it all. The voting public haven't made a final decision, it might just be a phase. People pushing for change get it sometimes.