有圖有真相 洋人老太婆放狗咬傷人 警方置之不理 第五天更新

梦醉仙楼

笑道 发表于 2013-7-23 22:35 刚看到的时候气氛的够呛，很替LZ打抱不平今天闲着从头看到尾，发现另有隐情啊，从大家的回帖和LZ的只言片语 ...

花了一晚上时间把这个帖子看完了。
现在看来这事就是当年李老太的故事的再现

唉，什么都不说了，去洗洗睡了.........

看完所以的回帖，感觉到LZ真可怜，没有人一上来，情绪还没平复时就会说自己怎么怎么错，总是想发泄一通的，当后来，变成了批判大会了，都在法律和正义的代表了，所以，有事千万别上来发泄啊。等下肯定很 多人要来喷我了，我先洗洗睡

gogosky

我觉得很神奇。。一个只学过3个月英语的人居然还能听懂arrogant。。。

BevChuang

future123 发表于 2013-7-23 17:26
你也说了,是警方建议你离开,只是建议,
但法律规定你有权把不受欢迎的人赶出你家,如果你认为有必要可以 ...

只要你不动手的话，当然可以把他赶出去。法律没有规定，但你有权利可以把你不欢迎的人赶出去。
但是如果你伤了人的话，你就被控伤人。贼另外告闯入私人地方。
如果你有争议的话，可以跟Jessica Phuang了解。

BevChuang

隔壁大老李 发表于 2013-7-23 17:10
你说的那些关于狗的管理和控制的所谓法律都是针对于日常生活里公共安全方面的，是“公共安全”而不是“所 ...

猎狗在Dog Contrrol Act 里面有不一样的定义。猎狗和在农场工作的狗是"working dog"，工作犬。在新西兰的大众都了解狗在任何时候也不能咬人。
Section 5, 1- Obligations of dog owners -
(f) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the dog does not injure, endanger, intimidate, or otherwise cause distress to any person:
(g) to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the dog does not injure, endanger, or cause distress to any stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife:

Section 53 - Offence of failing to keep dog under control
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 who, being the owner of a dog, fails to keep that dog under control.

Section 57 -  Dogs attacking persons or animals
(1) A person may, for the purpose of stopping an attack, seize or destroy a dog if—
  (a) the person is attacked by the dog; or
  (b) the person witnesses the dog attacking any other person, or any stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife.
   (2) The owner of a dog that makes an attack described in subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 in addition to any liability that he or she may incur for any damage caused by the attack.
   (3) If, in any proceedings under subsection (2), the court is satisfied that the dog has committed an attack described in subsection (1) and that the dog has not been destroyed, the court must make an order for the destruction of the dog unless it is satisfied that the circumstances of the offence were exceptional and do not warrant destruction of the dog.
   (4) If a person seizes a dog under subsection (1), he or she must, as soon as practicable, deliver the dog into the custody of a dog ranger or dog control officer.
    (5) If a dog control officer or dog ranger has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed under subsection (2), he or she may—
       (a) seize and take custody of the dog; or
       (b) if seizure of the dog is not practicable, destroy the dog.
    (6) A dog control officer or dog ranger may enter land or premises for the purposes of subsection (5), but may enter any dwellinghouse on the land or premises only if—
       (a) he or she is in fresh pursuit of a dog that—
          (i) he or she has reasonable grounds to believe has committed an attack described in subsection (1); and
          (ii) has been identified by a witness to the attack; or
        (b) he or she is authorised to enter by a warrant issued by an issuing officer (within the meaning of section 3 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012), made on application by the dog ranger or dog control officer in the manner provided for an application for a search warrant in subpart 3 of Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, who must not issue a warrant unless the issuing officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed under subsection (2), and, in the case of a dog control officer, he or she is accompanied by a constable.

BevChuang

这是前种族事务专员从警察那边给我的资料：

"On Sunday the 21st July a 52 year old female inadvertently entered onto a private address in Epsom, and was subsequently bitten by a dog belonging to the property. The owner of the dog helped the victim clean up her wounds and then drove her home. Police were notified shortly after and a unit was dispatched. Police quickly located the dog and owner and advised Animal Control of what had occurred. Police made initial enquiries with the parties involved, and this information has been forwarded to Animal Control, who are holding the dog until their investigation has been completed."
跟這個时间很相似。

BevChuang

Charges follow dog bite at gate
29th Mar 2012 6:00 AM

A Hastings man has been charged after his Labrador bit a stranger who touched its nose protruding from under his closed front gate in what a court heard could have massive ramifications for all dog owners.

The 5-year-old dog, which was taken by council's dog control officers, was also destroyed with the family's consent after five months of continued impoundment.

Des Hughes, 41, was prosecuted by Hastings District Council after his family Labrador, Franklin, bit a member of the public who was unknown to the family.

The 51-year-old male victim had the tip of his left thumb bitten off in the incident.

The dog had only its nose jutting out from under the gate, which was set back from the footpath, when the bite occurred on May 31, 2011.

Mr Hughes appeared in Hastings District Court yesterday to continue to defend a charge of owning a dog that attacked, causing serious injury.

A hearing part-heard in November last year was adjourned for both parties to argue whether the Labrador was deemed "under control" at the time of the incident.

Mr Hughes told Hawke's Bay Today he agreed to euthanise the dog as it was going mad in the pound.

"It wasn't fair on Franklin," Mr Hughes said. "We walked him as often as we could but every time we walked him he thought he was coming home. It was heartbreaking. The court case was dragging on so it was the only option we had."

Mr Hughes' lawyer, Karl Sandbrook, yesterday told the court his client had taken all steps possible to keep the dog under control.

"He couldn't reasonably be expected to take the drastic measures of those who own more menacing or threatening breeds," Mr Sandbrook said.

He claimed there were many dogs in the community which, even when fully fenced in their owners' properties, could still get their heads over, through or under gates. "Just because he could get his nose and paws under a gate, it doesn't mean he was not under control."

The dog has been grabbed by the stranger and shoved forcibly before biting, he said. "The nature of the wounds suggested the attack was a "defensive snap, not a mauling".

Judge Geoff Rea claimed that was "speculation" as there had been no evidence to support it.

Mr Sandbrook added the case had huge ramifications for dog owners across the country.

Judge Rea described the remark as a "quite inappropriate submission".

"I'm not setting up a charter on how people are supposed to be looking after their dogs." Earlier case law suggested even dogs on a leash had been deemed by the court to be not in control, after attacking members of the public, the judge said.

Council's lawyer, Mark von Dadelszen, said although the gate was set back from the street, the public, including two nearby primary schools, had access to that part of the property without having to pass through a gate or fence.

He claimed Mr Hughes knew of the gap under the gate.

"The dog was not under control as it was able to bite ... the defendant did not take all reasonable steps to ensure the dog was under control," Mr Von Dadelszen said.

Mr Sandbrook responded such high thresholds were unrealistic and "entirely onerous on dog owners".

Judge Rea said he would deliver a written decision in the coming weeks.

The charge has a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment or a $20,000 fine.
http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/ ... te-at-gate/1322718/

pink_hair

查了字典arrogant應該是自大的意思 本來以為是alligent 是不是什麼應該是優美的意思 但是聽起來發音不像 而且家人聽到後很生氣的重複說 洋人老太太竟然說arrogant little piece of shit 所以就記得這句 而且也是最令人生氣的話 這個事件學的英文比上什麼英文課都好

pink_hair

謝謝 有爭議的話一定會聯絡的 謝謝你的熱心 但是無法明確的證明歧視的部分 證據也不足 當下沒有錄音 錄影的 而且走流程給人壓力很大 感覺是永無止盡的等待 隨時隨地待命 生活還是要過 又要一直跟進這件事情 目前已經做了最大的努力 還是等待

何必呢83

pink_hair 发表于 2013-7-24 00:25
查了字典arrogant應該是自大的意思 本來以為是alligent 是不是什麼應該是優美的意思 但是聽起來發音不像 而 ...

本来值得同情的事情，被添枝加叶你描来描去，有点儿变味儿了。
本来和华种族人没什么关系的事儿，一场比较大的误会千万别要低估了众人的判断分析能力，大家看fbi,CAI都太多了

denema

找律师就是刑事。民事的话，自己去法院给50块直接可以告，不需要律师。
顺便说句，不要找中国人律师，说他们多有经验都是假的。直接找洋人而且要一直上庭的那种。

要刑事律师我有个很好的，你有需要我可以介绍给你，不过价格也是很好呵呵呵

pink_hair

知道了謝謝 目前不想惹事 不過家人對洋人老太太看到人了還放狗 說了那句話耿耿於懷 所以還是會考慮

Janurary

很少听到老太太骂shit的，are you sure??

pink_hair

難道是piece of cake?不太可能 那種情景 但是一句那樣的話真的很難聽很傷人 家人平時不罵髒話的當時來不及還嘴 現在想起來就很噢！

爱国爱港

pink_hair 发表于 2013-7-24 00:52
知道了謝謝 目前不想惹事 不過家人對洋人老太太看到人了還放狗 說了那句話耿耿於懷 所以還是會考慮

这个在纽西兰不是惹事，纽西兰是法律社会，依法律程序讨回公道，追讨赔偿是理所当然。

在纽西兰不是国内，遇到不公义不能哑忍

pink_hair

其實是我們有錯在先 再怎麼不高興也站不住腳 雖然放狗也不對 只是這個放狗咬人的懲罰是不是太重了一點

purpleapple

pink_hair 发表于 2013-7-24 00:25
查了字典arrogant應該是自大的意思 本來以為是alligent 是不是什麼應該是優美的意思 但是聽起來發音不像 而 ...

关于errogant的讨论都看见了 ，但是你还是有选择性地回答你想回答的问题，而跳过问题不答。

purpleapple

pink_hair 发表于 2013-7-24 00:34
謝謝 有爭議的話一定會聯絡的 謝謝你的熱心 但是無法明確的證明歧視的部分 證據也不足 當下沒有錄音 錄影的 ...

事件不过才过去3天而已，哪里来的永无止尽的等待，你还真是能夸张

purpleapple

pink_hair 发表于 2013-7-24 01:15
難道是piece of cake?不太可能 那種情景 但是一句那樣的話真的很難聽很傷人 家人平時不罵髒話的當時來不及還 ...

既然现在对于人家说了什么也不是很肯定，就不要把那句话那么言之凿凿地放出来，毕竟只是一个只学了3个月英语的人，被要的人是你家老人吧。。。

purpleapple

笑道 发表于 2013-7-23 22:35
刚看到的时候气氛的够呛，很替LZ打抱不平今天闲着从头看到尾，发现另有隐情啊，从大家的回帖和LZ的只言片语 ...

一点小补充，以楼主的英文能够听懂errogant piece of shit，能听懂animal control的人说第二天放狗回来，英文具有相当的水平了，绝对不是才学3个月那么简单，那么在第一天和警察沟通的时候就应该明白了这条路是老太太私人拥有，相信老太太肯定也和警察解释，警察也有义务和楼主沟通，因此这个事情绝对不是第一天楼主不明白后来发帖大家发言之后才明白。

而且在第一天的时候大家在问她是不是穿越了两条街造成了穿越了老太太的物业的时候，她也一直避而不答，就是为了避免大家清楚的知道她的确闯入了人家的地盘，这充分说明她在发帖第一天就明白，但是为了造势而想让群众认为老太太是无故放狗而已，心思不得不说缜密。

John.G

NewLynnHse 发表于 2013-7-22 09:36
再来一个图，哈哈。。。这是我的理解

我觉得LZ是穿越了那条在房子之间的私家小道

03951720

pink_hair 发表于 2013-7-24 00:34
謝謝 有爭議的話一定會聯絡的 謝謝你的熱心 但是無法明確的證明歧視的部分 證據也不足 當下沒有錄音 錄影的 ...

坚持就是胜利，经历过跟警察打官司的过程，漫长而又复杂，但并不是用太多的时间，就是每一件事后都在等下一件事，不过好在结果是满意的

灰色夜宵

headquarter of a religion group 和公共是完全扯不上关系的 反之这段字证明的是这是人家私人宗教场所 又不是所有的宗教都是公共的 排外的小宗教团体多了去了

HYSTAND

如果院内有狗，并且是有攻击性的狗，该在门口挂“院内有狗” 的牌子啊。老太太就算从这里穿过，她一没有攻击性，二没有偷没有抢， 报警或是口头警告都是可以的。把拴着的狗放出来咬人，万一咬到动脉，要了人命怎么办。洋老太太有权赶她走，可是没权利伤害她！不管老人家有没有违规，都没有私自伤害她的权利！如果是你们自己的父母被人放狗咬了，你们会怎么觉得。

灰色夜宵

lz 事实是你家人闯入对方人家 被人家狗咬了 人家帮你家人洗了伤口还开车送回来了吧？ 狗也不是故意放的

微苦蓝山

傻逼樓主，這要在美國，吃槍子都是白給的

微苦蓝山

最煩那種動不動就 “歧視華人”的論調。
有事說事，就事論事，別拿一個種族給你墊背
被狗咬傷，本來無論如何是值得同情的，中間有誤會可以溝通，適當賠償也是應該的
但樓主自己把人們的同情心摧毀
現在什麽時代了，靠這種一面之詞想忽悠大眾？
李老太都沒做到，你何德何能？

@小bai猪@

留下足迹 发表于 2013-7-22 01:22
记住，如果你再看到那个狗在她家，你就拍照下来，然后上传，我们去帮你去animal control 要说法！

因为 ...

还会写信？为什么我都没收到信啊？
以前我的两只狗被一个洋人的两只大狗咬死，他们说会处理的，会带他们的狗去做什么检查，结果也不了了之了，然后我有打去电话问，他们说因为查了，他们的狗没问题。。。。。。但我从始至终都没收到什么信啊~

微苦蓝山

NASA 发表于 2013-7-24 10:41
美剧看多了吧。你试试看那可是要座电椅的。

嗯嗯，很少看美劇
誇張了
但和樓主比，還是她誇張