Police admit shooting innocent 17-year-old

[Scouse]

Yep just seen the news bulletin about this I wonder if this means that the unfortunate officer has to face a Manslaughter trial?

[Headbanger]

Thats got to suck.

[JimO]

it should be the clown they were chasing that faces ALL charges

[Headbanger]

Fuck charging him, shoot him.

Then a couple bodyshots for his parents.

[JMemonic]

Sad for the police, perhaps there is more to this yet to come out we will see, it would be a shame to see the victim get dragged through the mud as would it the police, the ones who needs to be looked at are the offender and whoever lets police carry firearms with the limited support and training. Any officer using a firearm should be firing from that firearm at least 50 rounds per week, in the case of a pistol and 100 + in the case of a long gun.

[Weaver]

Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for the Police and they'll either implement proper training or only allow armed defenders members to use firearms. Remember what happened in Porirua? Once again we see the polices lack of marksman skills but with far more serious results. :oi-grr:

[rphenix]

Yep just seen the news bulletin about this I wonder if this means that the unfortunate officer has to face a Manslaughter trial?

Hope not. Police do a pretty good job sure I would like to see them issue less speeding tickets :Police:

But now I guess its queue the media witch-hunt. Regarding marksmanship my only experience has been hunting and its much easier shooting a stationary target than one that is irrational, and moving fast so I guess in that situation mistakes can easily happen.

Maybe the police helicopter needs a new weapon for the P addicts some sort of grappling hook they can shoot at the stolen cars that shorts out the electrics like you see on films :D

[Weaver]

Regarding marksmanship my only experience has been hunting and its much easier shooting a stationary target than one that is irrational, and moving fast so I guess in that situation mistakes can easily happen.


Mistakes can happen! You've got to be kidding me. A situation invovling firearms in which a mistake can happen should be avoided at all costs.
It’s simple; if unsure, don't shoot.

[Pixie]

It's the innocent 17 year old's fault for not dressing as a rotweiler in the presence of the AOS

Police marksmen - yeah right!

[marty]

Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for the Police and they'll either implement proper training or only allow armed defenders members to use firearms. Remember what happened in Porirua? Once again we see the polices lack of marksman skills but with far more serious results. :oi-grr:

your point? it is being reported AOS members were the ones doing the shooting.

where will frontline GDB members find time to spend more on the ranges, which tend to be rural, and somewhat distant from the station, cause moaning nimby's don't want bang bang within earshot.

[The Stranger]

This is a very sad situation for all concerned. My heart goes out to both the cop and to the families at both ends of the gun.

[Nasty]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4828706a11.html

As with accidents ... its hard to wait for the reports to come out.

[BBzz]

It's the innocent 17 year old's fault for not dressing as a rotweiler in the presence of the AOS

Police marksmen - yeah right!


Yeah Right but as someone once told me

‘While there’s lead in the air there’s Hope’

If you can not positively ID your target don’t pull the trigger
Man this isn’t rabbits they pointing there riffles at either :blink:




"Be afraid be very afraid"








.

[Grahameeboy]

Yeah Right but as someone once told me

‘While there’s lead in the air there’s Hope’

If you can not positively ID your target don’t pull the trigger
Man this isn’t rabbits they pointing there riffles at either :blink:
.

I cannot agree more...this guy from what I read was a bag snatcher so it was obvious the vehicle was either stolen or hijacked plus if the poor kid was not driving the vehicle how come he got shot if he was sitting in the passenger or other seat...hum

[doc]

Hope not. Police do a pretty good job sure I would like to see them issue less speeding tickets :Police:

But now I guess its queue the media witch-hunt. Regarding marksmanship my only experience has been hunting and its much easier shooting a stationary target than one that is irrational, and moving fast so I guess in that situation mistakes can easily happen.

Maybe the police helicopter needs a new weapon for the P addicts some sort of grappling hook they can shoot at the stolen cars that shorts out the electrics like you see on films :D

Yep has to go through the proceedure of the coroners court.

Mistakes happen , inquiry will recommed something that should be followed that, to the guy's involved in the situation will be BS.

Their call in the situation. We only know what the press has sensationalised

Feel sorry for both victims family and the cop involved.

[firefighter]

the ones who needs to be looked at are the offender and whoever lets police carry firearms with the limited support and training. Any officer using a firearm should be firing from that firearm at least 50 rounds per week, in the case of a pistol and 100 + in the case of a long gun.

Fire as many rounds as you want a week, the gun's they have in the cars are treated with such rediculous care that when ever they pick them they're intimidated to shit about it, if they carried them on their hip, they would be more accustomed to holding them in their hands and less intimidated by the whole idea, as it's just another tool.

For eg. you can train to be a firefighter forever, but you gotta do the job to get used to doing the job without un-controlled (sort of) adrenaline flowing through you and you need to have some experience to get used to situations, and react in the right way, rather than heart pumping/ pull of head put on cabbage.

Same as with the gun, if it's on your hip all the time and a part of protocol then it will just be another tool to use.....

When I did a ride along with the LVMPD they had it out all the time, but they knew the gun/s, and handled it without having to fuck around, because they were used to it, it was always there, and it was just like holding an asp or handcuffs to them.


Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for the Police and they'll either implement proper training or only allow armed defenders members to use firearms. Remember what happened in Porirua? Once again we see the polices lack of marksman skills but with far more serious results. :oi-grr:

well I guess you've had professional training with firearms, I was in the Navy for 4 1/2 years and in the AirForce for 3, and served in the middle east in Afghanistan, and I had plenty of training, especially before Afghan, but still would'nt be used to carrying around a pistol in N.Z and firing it during of after a high speed chase- you seem to know what your on about though- you should get onto the Police and let them know of their shortcomings and tell them how they should be doing things......<_< Maybe you could suggest the AOS go to the mid-east and get some trigger time so they have real time experience? Just an idea but i'll leave it to you- the expert.......

[Kirill357]

Pfft, dont feel sorry at all, "shooting randomly from the sawn-off shotgun", after that no fucken sorry for them; you choose to steal, face the consequences, police did a good job, that what they should do all the time, shoot the criminals, no fucken regret for the bastards breaking the law with guns.

[slimjim]

mistake ...yea fucking right...fucking asshole who was looking though the scope of his rifle knew where the fuck he was going to put the killing bullet..fucking can't miss with their scope at that range..... that cop shot just what his scope showed him.. that cop is a killer of a young father...plain and simple..mistakes are made in the bush..yup...but daylight..stopped vehicle..young brown boy..bang..aren't no more...simple

[Headbanger]

Pfft, dont feel sorry at all, "shooting randomly from the sawn-off shotgun", after that no fucken sorry for them; you choose to steal, face the consequences, police did a good job, that what they should do all the time, shoot the criminals, no fucken regret for the bastards breaking the law with guns.

You posses legendary observational skills.

[Usarka]

mistakes are made in the bush..yup...but daylight..stopped vehicle..young brown boy..bang..aren't no more...simple

I don't pretend to know the full story and feel real bad for the kid and his family, but I'd say the cop would have been under a bit more pressure than someone stalking a deer........

[Winston001]

Before this thread goes off on the normal KB bollocking, can someone just explain the facts? I thought the armed car driver was alone, crashed, tried to steal another car, the innocent driver of that car got shot, and the bad guy tried to then take a third car.....

Read the Stuff link but it tells me less than TV1 last night. :gob:

[Usarka]

Before this thread goes off on the normal KB bollocking, can someone just explain the facts?

You want facts? :eek5:

[Headbanger]

Our mighty opinions decimate all facts that may get in the way.

[BBzz]

Pfft, dont feel sorry at all, "shooting randomly from the sawn-off shotgun",


It was a "sawn-off 22" not a Shotgun from the Stuff report anyway

[JMemonic]

Fire as many rounds as you want a week, the gun's they have in the cars are treated with such rediculous care that when ever they pick them they're intimidated to shit about it, if they carried them on their hip, they would be more accustomed to holding them in their hands and less intimidated by the whole idea, as it's just another tool.

For eg. you can train to be a firefighter forever, but you gotta do the job to get used to doing the job without un-controlled (sort of) adrenaline flowing through you and you need to have some experience to get used to situations, and react in the right way, rather than heart pumping/ pull of head put on cabbage.

Same as with the gun, if it's on your hip all the time and a part of protocol then it will just be another tool to use.....

<SNIP>

What I was trying to get at is they must be regular users, as in the fire service you train and train, thus once adrenaline gets going your know how to preform the tasks, the thing about firearms is outside of the military they are viewed as evil, to be honest the airport police are possible the most confident members of our police with firearms because as you say they do actually carry them all the time.

I will stand by my firm belief that our armed police need to fire more rounds, training and familiarity is important, aiming, how to fire, clear a jam etc is best when trained, which why military force train with live rounds, as does close protection detail, any armed force needs that muscle memory for when the brain is running at 1000 miles per hour on adrenaline.

Nothing will better practice, sure they cant be perfect all the time but practice will make accidents less likely.

At the end of the day I think you and I are on the same page here coming from different angles.

I feel badly for both the officers involved and the family of the deceased, but that will not alter or improve the situation, assholes that stand up and say our police should not have tazers etc and don't approve of having a force suitably trained and armed to respond to current situations are living in a dream, criminals will not put down their weapons just because the police do, hell the whole system is reactionary, police got armed because criminals were armed, cops had to die before they got armour as it upset a few soft bastards to see police protected.

[Dean]

that is wrong in all things i guess all the local teenaer "hoodlums" give the officers many hard times

[firefighter]

At the end of the day I think you and I are on the same page here coming from different angles.

true true


....assholes that stand up and say our police should not have tazers etc and don't approve of having a force suitably trained and armed to respond to current situations are living in a dream, criminals will not put down their weapons just because the police do

Yes and I have mentioned this before also, it's a shame we have retards like sue bradford and that kedgely women in parliament, we need someone with balls to make the call and arm our cops, your right, they need to be armed to at least the same level if anything higher than those they are trying to deal with......us kiwis can't bury our heads in the sand forever! Then when they do ever need to use them they are familiar with them, and getting it out of it's holster is'nt a big deal.

Yes they probably should spend some more time at the range too.

[Katman]

Pfft, dont feel sorry at all, "shooting randomly from the sawn-off shotgun", after that no fucken sorry for them; you choose to steal, face the consequences, police did a good job, that what they should do all the time, shoot the criminals, no fucken regret for the bastards breaking the law with guns.

If the incident in question wasn't so regretable, your post would be hilarious.

Fuckin twat.

[SARGE]

well i guess you've had professional training with firearms, i was in the navy for 4 1/2 years and in the airforce for 3, and served in the middle east in afghanistan, and i had plenty of training, especially before afghan, but still would'nt be used to carrying around a pistol in n.z and firing it during of after a high speed chase- you seem to know what your on about though- you should get onto the police and let them know of their shortcomings and tell them how they should be doing things......<_< maybe you could suggest the aos go to the mid-east and get some trigger time so they have real time experience? Just an idea but i'll leave it to you- the expert.......

"you must spread some reputation around yadda yadda..."


boy i feel safe with all the accumulated combat knowledge in this forum .. so many people know what its like to have rounds wizzing past your head and having to drop sights on a human being who is randomly firing a weapon...


piece of piss innit?..

thanks for your service Firefighter.. respect

[Headbanger]

"you must spread some reputation around yadda yadda..."

I'll bling him on your behalf....

It was red.....right?

[SARGE]

I'll bling him on your behalf....

It was red.....right?

chartreuse ...tinged with mauve ..

[Robbo]

mistake ...yea fucking right...fucking asshole who was looking though the scope of his rifle knew where the fuck he was going to put the killing bullet..fucking can't miss with their scope at that range..... that cop shot just what his scope showed him.. that cop is a killer of a young father...plain and simple..mistakes are made in the bush..yup...but daylight..stopped vehicle..young brown boy..bang..aren't no more...simple

What absolute fuckin crap. The only blame here is with the asshole who started this whole situation and was firing shots at random in public including shooting another driver whos vehicle he was trying to hijack. Then he could have easily gone on to shoot you or one of your family. What happened to the young lad was tragic but was due to circumstances that were out of control. Your comment is not only ignorant but is racist as well and has been made before the facts of any enquiry have even been released.
:Oi:

[Headbanger]

chartreuse ...tinged with mauve ..

You just made those words up right?

[SARGE]

You just made those words up right?

oh .. i forgot .. HD riders only see 16 colors .. like Windows 95 default settings



chartreuse is the color precisely halfway between green and yellow, so it is 50% green and 50% yellow.


Mauve is a pale lavender-lilac color, one of many in the range of purples.

[Weaver]

your point? it is being reported AOS members were the ones doing the shooting.

where will frontline GDB members find time to spend more on the ranges, which tend to be rural, and somewhat distant from the station, cause moaning nimby's don't want bang bang within earshot.

My point is that unless they are AOS memebers they shouldn't have firearms, or be allowed to use them.

[Weaver]

Fire as many rounds as you want a week, the gun's they have in the cars are treated with such rediculous care that when ever they pick them they're intimidated to shit about it, if they carried them on their hip, they would be more accustomed to holding them in their hands and less intimidated by the whole idea, as it's just another tool.



The beginning of your post is a nearly perfect for my own use as a reply. Only police officers with training, the AOS, should be using firearms on the "beat".

I make no claims to be an expert at all. If anything it sounds like your the one making yourself out to be an expert with all that cock pulling about serving over-seas.

[Skyryder]

A post-mortem examination of the man killed on Auckland's Northwestern Motorway yesterday has revealed the fatal shot came from a police firearm. From http://www.stuff.co.nz/4828706a11.html


I would be interested in what statements or evidence has been gathered prior to the post-mortem result that is in keeping with the post-mortem findings.



Skyryder

[oldrider]

A post-mortem examination of the man killed on Auckland's Northwestern Motorway yesterday has revealed the fatal shot came from a police firearm. From http://www.stuff.co.nz/4828706a11.html

I would be interested in what statements or evidence has been gathered prior to the post-mortem result that is in keeping with the post-mortem findings.
Skyryder

This is an absolute tragedy in every respect, had the Police shot the offender earlier the innocent teenage father would still be alive.

PC critics have a lot to be ashamed of and in my opinion are the ones who should be on trial.

There is no excuse for this. :brick: You could see it coming after that futile attempt to shoot the bloody dog! :2guns: Pathetic. John.

[twotyred]

he was shot by the police... oh well... "sorry,we'll be more careful next time...honest" :ar15::Police:

[oldguy]

From the arms act 1983,
section one
Rule 4: identify your target beyond all doubt.
.You must positively identify your target beyond all doubt before firing.
If in doubt DON'T Shoot
.Do not fire at movement only
.Do not fire at colour only
.Do not fire at sound only
.Do not fire at shape only

Rule 5:check your firing zone
Be aware of what could be hit in the area between you and your target,and the area beyond your target.
(ask yourself: what if I miss my target)

Well that was answered in a fatal way, by a totally innocent young person.


I guess these rule don't apply to the Police.

northwestern motorway is busy around that time, use of a rifle, how far would a bullet travel, somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5Km

[JMemonic]

boy i feel safe with all the accumulated combat knowledge in this forum .. so many people know what its like to have rounds wizzing past your head and having to drop sights on a human being who is randomly firing a weapon...


piece of piss innit?..



Sorry Sarge not sure what you are getting at here.

[Grahameeboy]

Pfft, dont feel sorry at all, "shooting randomly from the sawn-off shotgun", after that no fucken sorry for them; you choose to steal, face the consequences, police did a good job, that what they should do all the time, shoot the criminals, no fucken regret for the bastards breaking the law with guns.

Yep SHOOT the criminal is the key here...not anyone else.

So lets see..

Pursuits often end in tragedy...
Shooting at a hijacked van ends in tragedy

I see a trend here.

We don't know all the facts but if the Police did have a clear shot surely they would have had to be right along side or ahead and if they were they should have seen the deceased...

[Grahameeboy]

This is an absolute tragedy in every respect, had the Police shot the offender earlier the innocent teenage father would still be alive.

PC critics have a lot to be ashamed of and in my opinion are the ones who should be on trial.

There is no excuse for this. :brick: You could see it coming after that futile attempt to shoot the bloody dog! :2guns: Pathetic. John.

NZ has this culture that they follow rules, in this case, there is a criminal who needs to be stopped...forget the pheripherals....

[Grahameeboy]

From the arms act 1983,
section one
Rule 4: identify your target beyond all doubt.
.You must positively identify your target beyond all doubt before firing.
If in doubt DON'T Shoot
.Do not fire at movement only
.Do not fire at colour only
.Do not fire at sound only
.Do not fire at shape only

Rule 5:check your firing zone
Be aware of what could be hit in the area between you and your target,and the area beyond your target.
(ask yourself: what if I miss my target)

Well that was answered in a fatal way, by a totally innocent young person.


I guess these rule don't apply to the Police.

northwestern motorway is busy around that time, use of a rifle, how far would a bullet travel, somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5Km

So true Mr Fossil...<_< Too much hot blood rushing around....

[tri boy]

The whole situation turned into a regretful mess by all accounts.
But what surprises me, is it started from a bag snatch, (I think).
Desperate times.

[Number One]

Mistakes can happen! You've got to be kidding me. A situation invovling firearms in which a mistake can happen should be avoided at all costs.
It’s simple; if unsure, don't shoot.
I got this via email..accident indeed...

NZ Herald
24 January 2009

The killing of an innocent man by armed police during a confrontation with an armed man in Auckland yesterday was a tragedy, but police were given very little choice about their actions, the Police Association says. __________________________________________________ __________________________________

"Little choice?"

They had every choice. From the NZ Police website:

The 7 Basic Rules of Firearm Safety

Treat every firearm as loaded
Always point firearms in a safe direction
Load a firearm only when ready to fire
Identify your target
Check your firing zone
Store firearms and ammunition safely
Avoid alcohol or drugs when handling firearms


If it gets called an 'accidental' shot by the inevitable Police Complaints Authority hearing (in about 2012) then where was rule 2?

If it was aimed at the offender, what about Rule 4?

If it was aimed at the offender and missed, who else was in the line of fire? The now deceased Mr Naitoko, that's who. Try Rule 5.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________

Then, how about the Armed Offenders Squad?

. . . the AOS provides Police with the means of effectively and more safely responding to and resolving situations in which there is an actual or threatened use of firearms or other weapons against members of the public or Police.
The basic methods of operating have not changed - that is to cordon, contain and appeal to armed offenders.

didn't they do well? The words effective, more safely, resolving . . . do not seem to apply in this situation.

And of course there will not be compensation for the pregnant partner and family. it was 'an accident', you see.

They had "Little choice"

"It's not the gun that kills it's the man behind"

[Vagabond]

Sorry Sarge not sure what you are getting at here.

:Oops: What he means is have you ever been shot at! and how well will you be able to keep your cool and operate as is expected of you! :gob:

[DEATH_INC.]

I'm with the cops, sad the young fella died, but how many others would have if they hadn't put a stop to it? I know the truck driver, I'm pretty sure he wasn't shot by the cops....

[Grahameeboy]

NZ has a 'No Blame' culture......only one in the World....

[Number One]

:Oops: What he means is have you ever been shot at! and how well will you be able to keep your cool and operate as is expected of you! :gob:
Indeed. I always remember my dad saying in the heat of battle it's kill or be killed. Unfortunately this whole thing sounds like it was a pretty one sided battle so I'd hazard to comment that there should have been more self control and discipline on the part of the shooters. But I wasn't there and I'm no expert, either way this whole thing does no good for the level of 'faith' we should all be able have in our police.

[Grahameeboy]

What absolute fuckin crap. The only blame here is with the asshole who started this whole situation and was firing shots at random in public including shooting another driver whos vehicle he was trying to hijack. Then he could have easily gone on to shoot you or one of your family. What happened to the young lad was tragic but was due to circumstances that were out of control. Your comment is not only ignorant but is racist as well and has been made before the facts of any enquiry have even been released.
:Oi:

Rubbish...oddly he did not shoot anyone...the Police managed to though...at the end of the day the decision to shoot was the Officer's and his alone...he had a choice.

When will NZ realise that this is not the Wild West....

[oldrider]

If I was bundled off to a war zone tomorrow my biggest fear would be "friendly" fire, mainly from above!

In this instance it was even worse, the people sent in to protect the public shot him point blank.

There is no way out of this for the Police and even the good guys have to suck it up.

Broad Howard should just resign.(IMHO) :argh: John.

[Robbo]

Rubbish...oddly he did not shoot anyone...the Police managed to though...at the end of the day the decision to shoot was the Officer's and his alone...he had a choice.

When will NZ realise that this is not the Wild West....

Actually Graham, he did shoot truck driver Richard Neville as he tried to hijack his truck and may have gone on to shoot more people if his rampage had continued. Eye witnesses also spoke of crossfire and it's possible that a ricochet bullet could have also been the cause of the tragic death of the young dad. We may never know the exact cause.
As for NZ not being "The Wild West" try and get that message across to the criminal element who start and instigate these situations and not the ones who do their best to stop it. Would you prefer it if next time there was an unstable lunatic on the rampage with a gun that the police decided "Fuck It, we will get the blame no matter what" and just left it up to the public to sort it out for themselves. I don't think you would.
Cheers

[davereid]

The killing of an innocent man by armed police during a confrontation with an armed man in Auckland yesterday was a tragedy, but police were given very little choice about their actions, the Police Association says.

The police had no choice except to respond with the A.O.S.

But shooting an innocent bystander is at best a tragic accident, and at worst a result of careless shooting, that should never have happened.

Its not a case of choice except in as much as "don't choose to pull the trigger unless you know you won't hurt the innocent"

There are no good outcomes to come from this. A young father is dead, a policeman will either be charged with manslaughter, or a police "whitewash" will be claimed.

[Dean]

The police had no choice except to respond with the A.O.S.

But shooting an innocent bystander is at best a tragic accident, and at worst a result of careless shooting, that should never have happened.

Its not a case of choice except in as much as "don't choose to pull the trigger unless you know you won't hurt the innocent"

There are no good outcomes to come from this. A young father is dead, a policeman will either be charged with manslaughter, or a police "whitewash" will be claimed.

officers have so much authority and power and when theres certain coppas that have certain lifestlye,attitude problems they may take it out on the criminals or in this case a teenager.they break down emotionaly,mentaly because expereinces in the force

[FJRider]

As with accidents ... its hard to wait for the reports to come out.

No... its not ... but why let unknown facts stand in the way of a good rant... :dodge:

[Street Gerbil]

A tragic story. This accidental shooting will further interfere with police rights to bear arms and ultimately will cost many more innocent lives. A shortsighted public assault on the police leads to further erosion of its deterrent and thus its ability to enforce law and order. The blood of the innocent bystander is entirely on armed criminal's hands and if the policeman will be charged instead of the criminal, it will mean a triumph of injustice. By lashing out at police you people are lashing out at those who stand between you and criminals. Do you want them to stand between you and criminals armed only with hot air rhetoric and funny looking uniform?
No one would have been hurt if the criminal would have been brought down earlier. Every member of the police force must be trained to use firearms and required to possess one when on duty. Period. You want to live in a thugocracy where only criminals are armed? I sure don't.

[ManDownUnder]

Lets start with all the facts... anyone that has them all can go first...

[firefighter]

I make no claims to be an expert at all. If anything it sounds like your the one making yourself out to be an expert with all that cock pulling about serving over-seas.


Nope I would'nt ever consider myself to be an expert in this field, just describing my RELATIVE experience, (experience in the debated subject is unsually useful - rather than just making rules and regs without any "hands-on" so to speak- I consider those without experience making up training/rules/regs etc to be cock pulling more than anything)
And yes I would'nt expect any kind of respect from a kiwi in regards to serving overseas, as kiwis could'nt give a shit about anything other than themselves and their own opinions.....

and BTW cock pulling is'nt anywhere involved in it (well there was a bit but I was stuck in the middle of no-where for considerable time)

[FJRider]

From the arms act 1983,
section one
Rule 4: identify your target beyond all doubt.
.You must positively identify your target beyond all doubt before firing.
If in doubt DON'T Shoot
.Do not fire at movement only
.Do not fire at colour only
.Do not fire at sound only
.Do not fire at shape only

Rule 5:check your firing zone
Be aware of what could be hit in the area between you and your target,and the area beyond your target.
(ask yourself: what if I miss my target)

Well that was answered in a fatal way, by a totally innocent young person.


I guess these rule don't apply to the Police.

northwestern motorway is busy around that time, use of a rifle, how far would a bullet travel, somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5Km

If the elements that randomly fire weapons at Police, aren't obeying the "rules"... why should police in their attempts to stop them. RULES apply to BOTH

[FJRider]

The police had no choice except to respond with the A.O.S.

But shooting an innocent bystander is at best a tragic accident, and at worst a result of careless shooting, that should never have happened.

Its not a case of choice except in as much as "don't choose to pull the trigger unless you know you won't hurt the innocent"

There are no good outcomes to come from this. A young father is dead, a policeman will either be charged with manslaughter, or a police "whitewash" will be claimed.

Welcome to the real world... the GUILTY do not die young, nor the innocent , live forever...

[oldguy]

If the elements that randomly fire weapons at Police, aren't obeying the "rules"... why should police in their attempts to stop them. RULES apply to BOTH


The only problem with that is, one is suppose to protect the innocent not kill them.

I guess its the same thing with War, innocent will die, just to get what ever people are fighting over.

[birdhandler]

"Eye witnesses also spoke of crossfire and it's possible that a ricochet bullet could have also been the cause of the tragic death of the young dad. We may never know the exact cause."
Highly likely with all the concrete and steel around
The .223 is also more likely to riccochet that thwe 0.22 the offender was using
BTW I have own and fire these so have some idea what I am talking about

Its a tradgedy for all the families involved

[Swoop]

Lets start with all the facts... anyone that has them all can go first...
Quite true mate. That is what I'm waiting for.

Known good fact:
The truck driver was able to go home to his family that night, because of the interventions of the police.

Known bad fact:
A courier driver with a young family and an imminent wedding, will be grieved for some considerable time.

A sad day for all involved.


(Odd when someone takes a sawn-off rifle to do a bag snatch though...)
P ??

[davereid]

officers have so much authority and power and when theres certain coppas that have certain lifestlye,attitude problems they may take it out on the criminals or in this case a teenager.they break down emotionaly,mentaly because expereinces in the force

Police don't actually have a lot of special powers. They have special authority to be armed. They also have the special liability of public expectation that they will deal with armed offenders.

There is no way this cop was "taking it out on a criminal". Its far more likely he was doing his job, to the best of his ability while being shot at by a madman.

Cops gain the authority to shoot under the same laws as a private citizen. That is to say they can only use reasonable force in the defence of themselves or others.

That means they have a special liablity as we expect them to shoot to protect us... but we will not offer them any special protection from mistakes.

I am glad I am not a policeman, expected to carry, and use a firearm in full knowledge that a mistake in a high pressure situation with someone shooting at me, would be treated by the law exactly the same as shooting a hunting buddy, or any other accidental shooting.

[FJRider]

The only problem with that is, one is suppose to protect the innocent not kill them.

I guess its the same thing with War, innocent will die, just to get what ever people are fighting over.

When BOTH sides believe they have / had a "right" to shoot... hindsight is a wonderful thing... you see so much.

[Katman]

If the elements that randomly fire weapons at Police, aren't obeying the "rules"... why should police in their attempts to stop them?

Ah, just a wild guess here but.........

.........maybe to avoid innocent lives being lost?

[MIXONE]

Nope I would'nt ever consider myself to be an expert in this field, just describing my RELATIVE experience, (experience in the debated subject is unsually useful - rather than just making rules and regs without any "hands-on" so to speak- I consider those without experience making up training/rules/regs etc to be cock pulling more than anything)
And yes I would'nt expect any kind of respect from a kiwi in regards to serving overseas, as kiwis could'nt give a shit about anything other than themselves and their own opinions.....

and BTW cock pulling is'nt anywhere involved in it (well there was a bit but I was stuck in the middle of no-where for considerable time)

:Oi:Don't generalise.I'm a kiwi and am proud of the fact that many kiwis have and are serving overseas!My Dad and most of his generation being amongst them.That's my opinion.:angry2:

[FJRider]

My point is that unless they are AOS memebers they shouldn't have firearms, or be allowed to use them.

So when firearms "incidents" occur, response times will be slow, (more)innocents will die, and Police will be accused of taking too long to do anything.
I have lived in countries where public opinion is ignored by "authorities"... innocent people die there to. Sadly... its not a perfect world.

[FJRider]

ah, just a wild guess here but.........

.........maybe to avoid innocent lives being lost?

or to try and stop more lives being lost...

[Winston001]

Ok - IMHO its a good thing that we debate any police shooting rather than shrug and accept it. We do not want an armed society so examining any police shooting and learning from it is important. Mistakes, errors, tragedies happen but might be avoided next time.

We don't know the facts here. The police fired 5 shots. The fatal shot could have been a through-and-through wound, passing through the body or sleeve of the offender. The shot may have been fired because the offender appeared to be about to shoot the young man. Or it could have been a ricochet.

At this stage I regard the officer as much a victim as the dead teenager. He'll have to live with this for the rest of his life and may leave the police. Can you imagine anything worse than firing a shot and killing an innocent person? I remember hearing the voices of American pilots in Iraq after a blue-on-blue when a Kiwi/Aussie was killed. They were terribly distraught - and their training for such tragedies is far greater than the police. Blue-on-blue is understood in the military even though it is feared.

I do think our police officers don't have enough experience with arms - but thats thankfully because we have a peaceful country where weapons are unusual. I'm not sure what the answer is - maybe 2 months military training with 5 annual refreshers, and regular shooting range practise.

[Skyryder]

This is an absolute tragedy in every respect, had the Police shot the offender earlier the innocent teenage father would still be alive.

PC critics have a lot to be ashamed of and in my opinion are the ones who should be on trial.

There is no excuse for this. :brick: You could see it coming after that futile attempt to shoot the bloody dog! :2guns: Pathetic. John.


Yes I agree. Is that a first or a second:calm: no I think it's a third.:beer: I was pleased to see Collins offering her sympathies in person.

I will be watching her comments on this with some interest to see who she supports:the Police or the safety of the public.


Skyryder

[Winston001]

Yes I agree. Is that a first or a second:calm: no I think it's a third.:beer: I was pleased to see Collins offering her sympathies in person.

I will be watching her comments on this with some interest to see who she supports: the Police or the safety of the public.



Why not both? After all they have exactly the same primary intention.

[FJRider]

I do think our police officers don't have enough experience with arms - but thats thankfully because we have a peaceful country where weapons are unusual. I'm not sure what the answer is - maybe 2 months military training with 5 annual refreshers, and regular shooting range practise.

Police policy dictates training amounts, time spent on the ranges, is time not catching crims, and speeding motorists. So slow down, dont break the law, and Police will have more time for range practice... but then they wont need more ...EH !!!

[Robbo]

Nope I would'nt ever consider myself to be an expert in this field, just describing my RELATIVE experience, (experience in the debated subject is unsually useful - rather than just making rules and regs without any "hands-on" so to speak- I consider those without experience making up training/rules/regs etc to be cock pulling more than anything)
And yes I would'nt expect any kind of respect from a kiwi in regards to serving overseas, as kiwis could'nt give a shit about anything other than themselves and their own opinions.....

and BTW cock pulling is'nt anywhere involved in it (well there was a bit but I was stuck in the middle of no-where for considerable time)

Actually Firefighter, i take offence at this post of yours. I usually enjoy your posts and comments you have to offer but this one is obviously aimed at all Kiwis.
I take it that you are obviously an "Import" so therefore if you feel this way about us i would suggest that you pack up and fuck off back to where you came from. :mad:

[Shadows]

oh .. i forgot .. HD riders only see 16 colors .. like Windows 95 default settings

Windows? What is this of which you speak?

[SARGE]

Sorry Sarge not sure what you are getting at here.

what im getting at ..

we have a term in the States called " Armchair Quarterback"

thats the guy who sits on his fat ass every sunday afternoon, never having played a game of football in his life and screaming


" you idiot!! .. why didnt you do XXX"

like hes frigging Vince Lombardi or some shit ..


how do you guys think that cop feels .. hes probably under 30 ( i havnt read).. young family at home .. and he's just taken an innocent life ...

bet hes in a GREAT mood today

certainly glad you guys woulda done it differently .. i feel much safer now

im constantly armed ..just in case some of you guys try and help me.. and no i dont need a gun..


you want to make a differnece ?? .. .go to a recruiting night for the police .. join the army as infantry.. or the navy as combat specialist ..

then come tell us how in control and tough you are once you are faced with that choice


maybe he woulda stopped shooting long enough for you to reason with him and give him a big hug




Windows? What is this of which you speak?


sorry .. Harley Speak..


WINDERRS

[JMemonic]

what im getting at ..

we have a term in the States called " Armchair Quarterback"

thats the guy who sits on his fat ass every sunday afternoon, never having played a game of football in his life and screaming


" you idiot!! .. why didnt you do XXX"

like hes frigging Vince Lombardi or some shit ..

Ok got that part now thanks, just wanted clarification.



how do you guys think that cop feels .. hes probably under 30 ( i havnt read).. young family at home .. and he's just taken an innocent life ...

bet hes in a GREAT mood today

certainly glad you guys woulda done it differently .. i feel much safer now

Like I said I wasnt sure at what you meant, likely the officer in question feels like shit, he or she is possibly worried about the ramifications of the softly softly bunch, who through their actions have hamstrung his or her abilities to act effectively in a terrible and challenging situation.

I would have done nothing differently or nor do I expect the officer to have, what I would like to see is the officer supported by the public, and government, and the police supported with better access to training and practice.

<SNIP>


maybe he woulda stopped shooting long enough for you to reason with him and give him a big hug


Like hell I think its a shame one more round was not fired, into the offenders head

[Kirill357]

Hmm, should read more carefully next time, I thought it was three criminals in the car and one was shot dead, but it appears it was innocent guy, and criminal just got wounded. Completely changes the picture, collateral damage then, sorry for the guy.

[SARGE]

ok got that part now thanks, just wanted clarification.

Like hell i think its a shame one more round was not fired, into the offenders head

wasnt snapping in on you bro..

Sorry if it sounded like it

the hippies just piss me off

[Winston001]

Police policy dictates training amounts, time spent on the ranges, is time not catching crims, and speeding motorists. So slow down, dont break the law, and Police will have more time for range practice... but then they wont need more ...EH !!!

Yeah good point. We don't have many armed events in NZ for the size of our police force so most officers will only come across such situations rarely. Hard to train for something which is unlikely when most of the time its burglaries, common assault, traffic etc. Hard to justify the training time too for excellence in firearms.

All very well talking about the army, navy etc but their raison d'etre is combat. Yes, peacekeeping plays a part but weapons familiarity is primary.

Still, I have to say I was alarmed at the dog shooting debacle recently caught on video. Firing long guns in a suburb at a dog - and missing!!! - seemed incredibly dangerous as well as incompetent. I'd have thought an AOS officer could take out a dog with a Glock pretty quick. <_<

[munterk6]

Thing that pisses me off is the wanker that set all this off will be laughing at the cops and taking the piss from a comfy prison cell :angry2:

[Lias]

My point is that unless they are AOS memebers they shouldn't have firearms, or be allowed to use them.

Your taking entirely the wrong approach.

What we need to do is take the cops batons, tasers, handcuffs etc off them, give them all guns, and give them carte blanche to kill anyone who resists arrest in any way shape or form.. I bet you crime will drop!

:jerry:

[slimjim]

What absolute fuckin crap. The only blame here is with the asshole who started this whole situation and was firing shots at random in public including shooting another driver whos vehicle he was trying to hijack. Then he could have easily gone on to shoot you or one of your family. What happened to the young lad was tragic but was due to circumstances that were out of control. Your comment is not only ignorant but is racist as well and has been made before the facts of any enquiry have even been released.
:Oi:


fuck off noddy...the cop's shot that driver of the truck too... racist...O poor white cop popped another motorist while looking though his scope... O white driver of truck lived...humm

[Robbo]

fuck off noddy...the cop's shot that driver of the truck too... racist...O poor white cop popped another motorist while looking though his scope... O white driver of truck lived...humm

Your comment just confirms your arogance so fuck off yourself noddy. :niceone:

[Hitcher]

My point is that unless they are AOS memebers they shouldn't have firearms, or be allowed to use them.

That comment is just silly. On so many levels. Don't forget it was a couple of Constables armed with Glocks who took down Graeme Burton. If they had had to have called in the AOS, goodness knows how many more people may have been shot and killed -- including the Constables in question.

One thing I learned many moons ago is that lead in the air does not necessarily follow the shortest distance between muzzle and whatever it finally hits. Let's presume that the Police investigate this thoroughly and that the facts are presented in the fullness of time.

[Hitcher]

If it gets called an 'accidental' shot by the inevitable Police Complaints Authority hearing (in about 2012) then where was rule 2?

Ricochet perhaps?

[Kickaha]

Police policy dictates training amounts, time spent on the ranges, is time no catching crims, and speeding motorists. So slow down, dont break the law, and Police will have more time for range practice... but then they wont need more ...EH !!!

Are people really dumb enough to believe shit like that?

[Number One]

Ricochet perhaps?
That's been hinted at hasn't it. Awful stuff whatever the full story

[firefighter]

:Oi:Don't generalise.I'm a kiwi and am proud of the fact that many kiwis have and are serving overseas!My Dad and most of his generation being amongst them.That's my opinion.:angry2:

sorry mate, fair call, but in my defence I assure you that you are one amoungst a very very small few.....so please understand when I say things like that- perhaps I should have written 99% of kiwis!


Actually Firefighter, i take offence at this post of yours. I usually enjoy your posts and comments you have to offer but this one is obviously aimed at all Kiwis.
I take it that you are obviously an "Import" so therefore if you feel this way about us i would suggest that you pack up and fuck off back to where you came from. :mad:

where would you like me to go? Back to St Mary's hospital (auckland), Tauranga (I spent my teenage years here), or out of Massey back to Whenuapai? (Obviously i'm a kiwi, umpteen generation, even with a bit of darkie bit mixed in from up north actually)

Please refer to my above statement, my statements merely reflect my experience, and yes, a different line of wording would have been more appropriate- but I do find it difficult not to make statements like this after being assaulted by kiwis protesting the war when on leave during basic training (my crime was walking past the protest in uniform which I did'nt even know was on)

[Ixion]

We may (and should) condemn the police when they do something unbefitting their position (break the rules, etc); or when they are negligent; or when they are just pig-arse stupid. NAd when they do any of these things I will be among the first to condemn. I expect very high standard of those who exercise the Royal prerogative

I have not seen anything about this tragic occurence that persuades me that any of those three criteria are satisfied.

It is easy to critique in hindsight. In reality such situations move very fast , and are very confusing. Cops are human, they make mistakes. I do too .

The only comment I will make is that so far none of the silver braided ones have actually come out and said straight up "a cop made a mistake". I hope they will have the sense to do that

[MadDuck]

Awful stuff whatever the full story

No what is awful is that this thread title has been changed to "the innocent 17 year old"

[FJRider]

Are people really dumb enough to believe shit like that?

Believe what you choose... ignore what you choose...

[Winston001]

We may (and should) condemn the police when they do something unbefitting their position (break the rules, etc); or when they are negligent........

The only comment I will make is that so far none of the silver braided ones have actually come out and said straight up "a cop made a mistake". I hope they will have the sense to do that

Good post Ix, the only point I'd argue with is the assumption that a "mistake" was made. It could have been a ricochet, or something else. Tragic - but not an error.

Ultimately the prick with the .22 brought all of this about.

And for those few who say a .22 is a piddly weapon, not worthy of Glocks or M16s in response - a .22 pistol is the weapon of choice for professional killers. Light, quiet, small, sod-all recall, reliable etc etc..... And the M16 uses a .223 calibre.

[Ixion]

Well, even a ricochet , or pass through , that kills an innocent person is a mistake. I'm sure it wasn't intended , and training for roles like AoS puts a lot of focus on the need to be sure that such wayward rounds won't harm the innocent. Harder to be certain in the real world.

[Weaver]

Don't forget it was a couple of Constables armed with Glocks who took down Graeme Burton.


That was another police related firearm fuck up. Did he not steal a firearm from a police car? Imagine if it hadn't been there to start with.

[Hitcher]

That was another police related firearm fuck up. Did he not steal a firearm from a police car? Imagine if it hadn't been there to start with.

Burton's intent was suicide by Police. I am sure he would have located a weapon somehow, somewhere.

[Dean]

imagine the payback against the coppa . whether the officer is guilty or not guilty the public eye view it mostly as murder or manslaughter or just plain wrongdoing.i dont think theres any point in backing up for the officer as you would meet harsh counter posts.if only everyone could find common grounds on this.kb is full of love and disrespect i guess

[Kickaha]

.kb is full of love and disrespect i guess


Mikey? son of Mikey?:shit:

[Brett]

Talking with someone who was actually on hand at this incident, it seems that there is possibility that it was a through and through shot and the 17 year old stopped the bullet.

[Skyryder]

Forensics will pick up evidence of a ricochet or not


Skyryder

[Brett]

Forensics will pick up evidence of a ricochet or not


Skyryder

Not a richochet as such... a genuine through and through, well maybe some deflection off bone or such.

[Ixion]

I thought the AoS used dum dum bullets specifically to prevent such a thing?

[Swoop]

And the M16 uses a .223 calibre.
In a military firearm it is chambered for 5.56 X 45mm NATO.
There are a few minute differences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56mmx45mm#5.56mm_NATO_versus_.223_Remington).

[FJRider]

I thought the AoS used dum dum bullets specifically to prevent such a thing?

dum dum's are banned world wide, in civilised countries anyway. New Zealand is still regarded as such. But opinion is divided.

[Dean]

Mikey? son of Mikey?:shit:

yep :woohoo:

[Timber020]

Guns are like lawyers, the more that are out there the more you need out there to counter them.
Or are the pro gunners more like christians, thinking if everyone found what they had found and were more like them there would be peace and happyness. (doesnt nearly everyone seem to think if everyone was more like them the world would be a better place?)

I love guns, heck Im a member of the NRA and have instructed shooting, but after living in the states and working with the youth at risk and around alot of swat guys, Im under no illusion that they are going to make our society in any way safer. Police are human (sometimes they can be right bastards....), they screw up royal like the rest of us, but they often are the ones that have to stick there necks out more. For the society that relies so heavily on them they either respond to hot or to cold. The pathetic attempted shooting of that dog can be repeated with EVERY police force on the planet, even the most trained guys have made astoundingly bad displays of misdirected firepower.
Shooting isnt easy when the targets moving, its not easy when your hyped up after a chase, its not at all easy with a pistol, but add to that the fact that the other guy has a gun, theres alot of movement around you, theres sirens and people screaming around you and your scared, the chances of making a mistake are up there.

More evidence needed in this case before we can really find out whose at fault and to what extent, any of you that can do a better job than the current boys in blue they are recruiting.

Prefer these guys?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/SWAT_team_kills_2_dogs_in_0731.html

[SARGE]

dum dum's are banned world wide, in civilised countries anyway. New Zealand is still regarded as such. But opinion is divided.

im a big fan of the .45APC hollow point for situations like this.. no thru and thru and the perp stops after one shot..usually goes 2m backwards

[Forest]

dum dum's are banned world wide, in civilised countries anyway. New Zealand is still regarded as such. But opinion is divided.

Dum dums or expanding shells are only banned for use in warfare (via the Hague Convention).

They're perfectly ok for use in law enforcement, and are in fairly common use around the world since they decrease the risk to bystanders. They're also popular with hunters since they have better stopping power.

[oldguy]

im a big fan of the .45APC hollow point for situations like this.. no thru and thru and the perp stops after one shot..usually goes 2m backwards

Ive got a video some where on guns, it an oldie, the guy that was doing the vid was a former cop he was talking about types of bullets, and the ability incopasitate a suspect, he spoke of an incident where a gun fight broke out between cops and an armed gunman, in which the gunman was fatally wounded, but live long enough to kill an officer.
He was making a point about the types of bullets used and there ability to incopasitate or kill, he had a selection of bullets which he would fire into a special jelly like substance you could see through it, the hollow point you could see it didn't penetrate as far as a non, but created a bigger cavity which was more likely to hit vital organs.

Not sure but aren't hollow point illegal, I don't think NATO use them, I could be wrong thou.

[SARGE]

Ive got a video some where on guns, it an oldie, the guy that was doing the vid was a former cop he was talking about types of bullets, and the ability incopasitate a suspect, he spoke of an incident where a gun fight broke out between cops and an armed gunman, in which the gunman was fatally wounded, but live long enough to kill an officer.
He was making a point about the types of bullets used and there ability to incopasitate or kill, he had a selection of bullets which he would fire into a special jelly like substance you could see through it, the hollow point you could see it didn't penetrate as far as a non, but created a bigger cavity which was more likely to hit vital organs.

Not sure but aren't hollow point illegal, I don't think NATO use them, I could be wrong thou.

we carried a special round.. similar to the Black Talon or Hydrashock ..big holes.. huge stopping power.. wouldnt fragment or ricochet

[Pixie]

Burton's intent was suicide by Police. I am sure he would have located a weapon somehow, somewhere.

It's ok the police security and procedures or training was so useless,because he would have located a weapon somehow, somewhere.

It's ok that an innocent citizen was killed by a police bullet because police training was so useless,because the real perp MAY have gone on to hurt someone else.

What crap

[Swoop]

According the world renowned Harold (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10553585)...

The fatal shot that killed a young courier driver was fired by a police officer from the side of the Northwestern Motorway as the gunman being pursued threatened a truck driver with a sawn-off .22 rifle.

Herald inquiries to police yesterday revealed that armed offenders squad members on the side of the motorway fired towards the truck and the centre of the road.

The van, in which Halatau Naitoko was sitting, was in the line of fire. Altogether the police fired five shots, one by an officer with a Glock pistol and four by two armed offenders squad members with M4 rifles.

One of the M4 bullets killed 17-year-old Halatau. Other shots hit the truck and shrapnel wounded driver Richard Neville and the pursued gunman.

Last night, an emotional Mr Neville was in no doubt that the police had saved his life. He said the 50-year-old gunman had moments earlier stood in front of his truck and pointed the gun at him to stop him.

Mr Neville, 40, said he tried to run the offender down but the man ran to the side of the truck and leaped on the back in an apparent hijack attempt.

The gunman then aimed his .22 sawn-off Ruger rifle at him through the cab window, he said.

As armed offenders squad members shouted orders to the offender, Mr Neville hit his brakes in an attempt to slam the man into the back of the cab.

The next thing he knew there was a series of shots, with glass and bullet fragments flying everywhere.

The offender later underwent surgery for his shrapnel wounds and was discharged from hospital yesterday. He will appear in the Auckland District Court today charged initially with failing to stop for police and using a firearm against a law enforcement officer.

A young Auckland couple, Kelly Simmonds and Thomas Poole, were one car length in front of Mr Naitoko's van after stopping to let officers move in front of them.

Ms Simmonds, 19, said she watched as armed police stormed Mr Neville's flat-deck truck after a series of shots and noticed Mr Naitoko's van when it hit them from behind repeatedly.

"The van nudged us and it kept nudging us forward," she said. At the time she was unaware of what had happened.

The van stopped when Mr Poole, 20, pulled on the handbrake of his vehicle.

Said Ms Simmonds: "I looked straight back and there was no one in the driver's seat and no one in the passenger's seat - that's how quickly it happened. [It was] almost as if he'd fallen aside and come off the brakes."

Ms Simmonds was shocked to learn later that Mr Naitoko had died.

Although the situation was tragic, she said, she was grateful the police had acted. "We were so close. We were in shock ... How did that happen?"

Mr Neville said he had dinner with his family last night, "celebrating life".

Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty said it would be weeks before the full facts surrounding the shooting were known. It is the first time police have shot dead an innocent bystander.

"The armed offenders squad had one intention and one act to perform and that was to get that man away from there as quickly as possible with minimal harm to anybody," she said.

"The only intention that all the police at the motorway scene had was to apprehend the armed and dangerous man who had sparked the whole sad and tragic saga. There was no deliberate police action towards Halatau. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Ms Hegarty said investigators were working to find out which of the two armed offenders squad members had fired the fatal shot. "We don't know how many each AOS member fired until we do a formal interview."

The gunman's sawn-off rifle was found with one shell in its breech, indicating that one of "possibly many" shots had been fired.

[Patrick]

mistake ...yea fucking right...fucking asshole who was looking though the scope of his rifle knew where the fuck he was going to put the killing bullet..fucking can't miss with their scope at that range..... that cop shot just what his scope showed him.. that cop is a killer of a young father...plain and simple..mistakes are made in the bush..yup...but daylight..stopped vehicle..young brown boy..bang..aren't no more...simple

So... it had a scope, ay?

Don't know of many deer that fire back for mistakes to happen in the bush, but mistakes happen, in the bush.

No need for a comment for that last part of the post....


You posses legendary observational skills.

Nah. He possesses legendary "know it all" skills, from the safety of his armchair....


My point is that unless they are AOS memebers they shouldn't have firearms, or be allowed to use them.

I believe these guys were AOS members. Even if they weren't, what do you expect a cop to do when confronted by a randomly firing armed offender? Ask him to wait for a while, the AOS are on the way? Get real.....


The beginning of your post is a nearly perfect for my own use as a reply. Only police officers with training, the AOS, should be using firearms on the "beat".....

All officers have training with firearms. Training is quite a lot different to real life situation, when bullets are flying around you. The targets don't fire back. There is no pucker factor going on at training.


From the arms act 1983,
section one
Rule 4: identify your target beyond all doubt.
.You must positively identify your target beyond all doubt before firing.
If in doubt DON'T Shoot
.Do not fire at movement only
.Do not fire at colour only
.Do not fire at sound only
.Do not fire at shape only

Rule 5:check your firing zone
Be aware of what could be hit in the area between you and your target,and the area beyond your target.
(ask yourself: what if I miss my target)

Well that was answered in a fatal way, by a totally innocent young person.


I guess these rule don't apply to the Police.

northwestern motorway is busy around that time, use of a rifle, how far would a bullet travel, somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5Km

Generally designed for hunters, where the hunted don't fire back at ya. However, used by Police every where.


I got this via email..accident indeed...

NZ Herald
24 January 2009

The killing of an innocent man by armed police during a confrontation with an armed man in Auckland yesterday was a tragedy, but police were given very little choice about their actions, the Police Association says. __________________________________________________ __________________________________

"Little choice?"

They had every choice. From the NZ Police website:

The 7 Basic Rules of Firearm Safety

Treat every firearm as loaded
Always point firearms in a safe direction
Load a firearm only when ready to fire
Identify your target
Check your firing zone
Store firearms and ammunition safely
Avoid alcohol or drugs when handling firearms


If it gets called an 'accidental' shot by the inevitable Police Complaints Authority hearing (in about 2012) then where was rule 2?

If it was aimed at the offender, what about Rule 4?

If it was aimed at the offender and missed, who else was in the line of fire? The now deceased Mr Naitoko, that's who. Try Rule 5.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________

Then, how about the Armed Offenders Squad?

. . . the AOS provides Police with the means of effectively and more safely responding to and resolving situations in which there is an actual or threatened use of firearms or other weapons against members of the public or Police.
The basic methods of operating have not changed - that is to cordon, contain and appeal to armed offenders.

didn't they do well? The words effective, more safely, resolving . . . do not seem to apply in this situation.

And of course there will not be compensation for the pregnant partner and family. it was 'an accident', you see.

They had "Little choice"

"It's not the gun that kills it's the man behind"

Hard to be accurate with a split second decision on if you yourself live or die, or someone else lives or dies if you don't fire, when you're staring down the offenders barrell pointed at you. Little time for little choices, in that blink of an eye, sometimes....


...when theres certain coppas that have certain lifestlye,attitude problems they may take it out on the criminals or in this case a teenager.

Are you trying to say that the officer took time out from the offender firing random shots, that he chose to take out this young fella??????????????????


We may (and should) condemn the police when they do something unbefitting their position (break the rules, etc); or when they are negligent; or when they are just pig-arse stupid. NAd when they do any of these things I will be among the first to condemn. I expect very high standard of those who exercise the Royal prerogative

I have not seen anything about this tragic occurence that persuades me that any of those three criteria are satisfied.

It is easy to critique in hindsight. In reality such situations move very fast , and are very confusing. Cops are human, they make mistakes. I do too .

The only comment I will make is that so far none of the silver braided ones have actually come out and said straight up "a cop made a mistake". I hope they will have the sense to do that

A top post. Don't expect the bosses to come out and look after their own, though...


Good post Ix, the only point I'd argue with is the assumption that a "mistake" was made. It could have been a ricochet, or something else. Tragic - but not an error.

Ultimately the prick with the .22 brought all of this about.

And for those few who say a .22 is a piddly weapon, not worthy of Glocks or M16s in response - a .22 pistol is the weapon of choice for professional killers. Light, quiet, small, sod-all recall, reliable etc etc..... And the M16 uses a .223 calibre.

and don't forget the cop who was recently killed by that slug gun.....


I thought the AoS used dum dum bullets specifically to prevent such a thing?

Banned by the Geneva Convention?


we carried a special round.. similar to the Black Talon or Hydrashock ..big holes.. huge stopping power.. wouldnt fragment or ricochet

Used to have Hydrashocks... Unsure if still in use.


It's ok the police security and procedures or training was so useless,because he would have located a weapon somehow, somewhere.

It's ok that an innocent citizen was killed by a police bullet because police training was so useless,because the real perp MAY have gone on to hurt someone else.

What crap

Didn't see the part where the police weapon was stolen from a car. Link????


....

Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty said it would be weeks before the full facts surrounding the shooting were known. It is the first time police have shot dead an innocent bystander.

"The armed offenders squad had one intention and one act to perform and that was to get that man away from there as quickly as possible with minimal harm to anybody," she said.

"The only intention that all the police at the motorway scene had was to apprehend the armed and dangerous man who had sparked the whole sad and tragic saga. There was no deliberate police action towards Halatau. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Ms Hegarty said investigators were working to find out which of the two armed offenders squad members had fired the fatal shot. "We don't know how many each AOS member fired until we do a formal interview."

The gunman's sawn-off rifle was found with one shell in its breech, indicating that one of "possibly many" shots had been fired.

I wasn't there so its hard to say anything. Reading some of the crap, its hard not to say anything.

An innocent is dead and that is a total tragedy. The cop who fired the shot is also suffering a tragedy, but not one as big as the family of the innocent.

The armchair critics all come out to play, as they always do. It wasn't them trying to stop this armed offender who was shooting at them. It was not them who stared down the barrell of this offender, wanting to save not only their own lives, but the lives of others. It was not them who squeezed off the round, honestly believing that it was safe for bystanders, not the offender, to do so. It is not them having to live with the result.

The family want to meet the cop who shot their son. Hard call. Could heal many wounds, for the family to realise how it came about, and for the cop to bare all to the family.

My sympathies are with the family and the cop and his family.

[BMWST?]

funny isnt it... wasnt so long ago we having a big debate about why the cops were being SO CAREFUL with a suspected offender with a gun.(where the dairy owner died while the scene was scoured for the offender with a (possible) gun

[The Stranger]

Rule 5:check your firing zone


Ah, I think you got rule 5 wrong.

[imdying]

I stopped reading a few posts ago, but many were commenting that perhaps the regular police shouldn't have access to weapons they might not be totally qualified to operate under stress.

Perhaps, but there's a reoccuring pattern here... they seem to have a lot of trouble recently with armed P heads. Seems to me that P is the problem, not the cops.

I vote give them all guns, and let them shoot anyone related to P. You sell P, bang. You buy P, bang. You use P, bang. You drive a vehicle with someone in it who has P on them (or in them), bang. There's a room of people all high on P, bang bang bang bang. This paragraph also contains another reoccurring pattern.

First one was the problem, second one is the solution... We'll have a whole lot less P heads, removing what appears to be most of the reason recently that the cops have had to carry guns, and we'll have a whole lot more front line police with experience in using their firearms in a front line situation.

Win win I say.

[Patrick]

funny isnt it... wasnt so long ago we having a big debate about why the cops were being SO CAREFUL with a suspected offender with a gun.(where the dairy owner died while the scene was scoured for the offender with a (possible) gun

BIG difference....

Coming into the hot zone after the event, and, as it turned out, after the offenders had left. As opposed to being in the hot zone, hot on the offenders tail.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.....

[SARGE]

big difference....

Coming into the hot zone after the event, and, as it turned out, after the offenders had left. As opposed to being in the hot zone, hot on the offenders tail.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.....

not easy .. When you are patrolling and you "suspect" some (insurgent, terrorist, offender) is in the area.. Your senses are on fire .. Every sound, movement and smell..

When he pops up and starts flinging lead in your direction its the same thing with an added smell..

"right now" is all that matters..

Tell you what.. I want everyone on here to go outside and find a cat ..

Now kick the fur off it as hard as you can ..


If you cant (WONT) do that for any reason .. You wont survive an armed conflict

[pritch]

join the army as infantry..


Been there, done that. Had the tee shirt, but it long since ceased to fit.

I understand that research has established that the average reading age of Kiwis is that of a 12 year old. Some of the more way out posts in this thread would indicate that there are those around for whom even that modest level of ability would be something to aspire to.

The only positive I can see in this whole sorry mess is that whatever their level of reading ability (or cognitive function) any one of us can feel free to jump on here and air their views. There are a lot of places in the world where if you started criticizing a Police killing, that'd be sufficient to make you the next victim.

[ManDownUnder]

...but daylight..stopped vehicle..young brown boy..bang..aren't no more...simple

So you're saying the cop either
i) had no way of anticipating an enquiry would find what you did and he would therefore lose his job, probably end up in prison and lose a hell of a lot in exchange fr taking out one brown skinned individual...

or
ii) Fully anticipated the reaction and did it anyway?

... were you sober when you wrote that?

[Robbo]

So you're saying the cop either
i) had no way of anticipating an enquiry would find what you did and he would therefore lose his job, probably end up in prison and lose a hell of a lot in exchange fr taking out one brown skinned individual...

or
ii) Fully anticipated the reaction and did it anyway?

... were you sober when you wrote that?

He probably was'nt MDU. Unfortunately you are dealing with a retard here who has an itchy red button finger when you don't agree with his crap and fantasy postings.
Maybe too much "P"

[Mom]

Absolute tragedy for all concerned here. My heart goes out to the family and friends of the young man killed. What a shocker!

Highly charged and obviously dangerous situation, started with a bag snatch, and ended with an innocent person killed by the police as well as another who required surgery to mend his injuries, a young couple traumatised by getting caught up in the middle of the drama. Heaven alone knows how many other "innocent" people were caught up in the drama, as this complete waste of oxygen drove around the place in his drugged up state, being hotly persued by god alone knows how many cops.

A friggen bag snatch, and this is the result.

Last words from me... I hate police chases :done:

[Kickaha]

... were you sober when you wrote that?

No, just an Idiot

[gatch]

A tragic story. This accidental shooting will further interfere with police rights to bear arms and ultimately will cost many more innocent lives. A shortsighted public assault on the police leads to further erosion of its deterrent and thus its ability to enforce law and order. The blood of the innocent bystander is entirely on armed criminal's hands and if the policeman will be charged instead of the criminal, it will mean a triumph of injustice. By lashing out at police you people are lashing out at those who stand between you and criminals. Do you want them to stand between you and criminals armed only with hot air rhetoric and funny looking uniform?
No one would have been hurt if the criminal would have been brought down earlier. Every member of the police force must be trained to use firearms and required to possess one when on duty. Period. You want to live in a thugocracy where only criminals are armed? I sure don't.

Spot on I think.

Terrible that this young dude was shot and killed, absolutely terrible, what has happened cant be undone, BUT its also terrible the the polizia were called to reaction to a situation such as this..

You can point and bitch at the fuzz until all your limbs drop off but ultimately this situation WOULD NOT has arose if that cock-smack fuck-up had not of picked up a piece and started pointing it at people, as for explaining why all 5 of the police fired shots didn't hit the offender I don't know, having some experience with firearms (military and civilian) you can miss on any given day, for any number of reasons, even with a properly sighted and loaded rifle, that's BEFORE you factor in bullets being fired back at you (something i hope to never experience).

[Patrick]

When he pops up and starts flinging lead in your direction its the same thing with an added smell..

That'll be the bowels emptying.... the "flee or fight" natural body reaction.....


Been there, done that. Had the tee shirt, but it long since ceased to fit.

Damn. Got a wet suit that is the same!!! Must be this Naki air..... Can't be the donuts, can it?


Absolute tragedy for all concerned here. My heart goes out to the family and friends of the young man killed. What a shocker!

Highly charged and obviously dangerous situation, started with a bag snatch, and ended with an innocent person killed by the police as well as another who required surgery to mend his injuries, a young couple traumatised by getting caught up in the middle of the drama. Heaven alone knows how many other "innocent" people were caught up in the drama, as this complete waste of oxygen drove around the place in his drugged up state, being hotly persued by god alone knows how many cops.

A friggen bag snatch, and this is the result.

Last words from me... I hate police chases :done:

May have started as a "friggin bag snatch..."

You forget he was in a stolen car? With a sawn off firearm? Firing random shots at people and Police? For long enough for the AOS to return to base, kit up and then get out to him still?

A horrible "worst nightmare" tragedy for all concerned.

And just to top it off, I hear the arsehole today in court says he doesn't remember any of it.

"P" anyone?

[Swoop]

"P" anyone?
Already suggested in my original post (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1905825&postcount=64).
How many bag-snatchers go out with a sawn-off rifle?

[Grahameeboy]

Actually Graham, he did shoot truck driver Richard Neville as he tried to hijack his truck and may have gone on to shoot more people if his rampage had continued. Eye witnesses also spoke of crossfire and it's possible that a ricochet bullet could have also been the cause of the tragic death of the young dad. We may never know the exact cause.
As for NZ not being "The Wild West" try and get that message across to the criminal element who start and instigate these situations and not the ones who do their best to stop it. Would you prefer it if next time there was an unstable lunatic on the rampage with a gun that the police decided "Fuck It, we will get the blame no matter what" and just left it up to the public to sort it out for themselves. I don't think you would.
Cheers

I agree in part but if they did not have a clear shot then there would not have been a richochet plus firing on the motorway with cars on the other side is surely a risk.

In American the Police having guns does not stop the criminals so I do not agree with you on this point.

I am saying that the Police have rules and the question is whether they followed these...I support the Police but that does not stop me from saying negative things as in this case.

[SARGE]

That'll be the bowels emptying.... the "flee or fight" natural body reaction.....


AKA...holy shit.. first you say it,, then you do it




Damn. Got a wet suit that is the same!!!


yea.. thats why i dont wear a wetsuit or race leathers.. i look like a condom stuffed with walnuts



And just to top it off, I hear the arsehole today in court says he doesn't remember any of it.

"P" anyone?

sorry if i offend anyone here.. but i say wall off an island (south??) take all the confiscated drugs and a bunch of hammers and chuck them over the wall and give free boat trips to anyone who wants to go..

come back in 2 years and mop up


darwin will sort it out..

[SARGE]

wow.. refreshing change.. green bling from the KB cops (most of them).. usually its red and blue bling..:crazy:

[XxKiTtiExX]

"Damned if you do damned if you don't." I'm sure if they didn't "shoot" and this crazy fry brain managed to knock a few people off (remember he was letting off shots) we'd all be in a rage about that also, and blaming the police yet again for not "doing their job." Sadly, a young guy has lost his life far to early all because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If anyone deserves to be blamed for what has happened it should be the fry brain fuckwit who decided to steal cars, handbags and carted around a sawn off shot gun popping off shots, and pretty much started the whole shibang. But its okay you know he was on "P" and can't remember anything. :blink:

[ManDownUnder]

If anyone deserves to be blamed for what has happened it should be the fry brain fuckwit who decided to steal cars, handbags and carted around a sawn off shot gun popping off shots, and pretty much started the whole shibang.

+1 ................ oh and blingo!

[puddytat]

sorry if i offend anyone here.. but i say wall off an island (south??) take all the confiscated drugs and a bunch of hammers and chuck them over the wall and give free boat trips to anyone who wants to go..

come back in 2 years and mop up


darwin will sort it out..

Not the South Island man.....White Island in the B.O.P, active volcano that frequently emits toxic gas....

[SARGE]

Not the South Island man.....White Island in the B.O.P, active volcano that frequently emits toxic gas....

nah man.. i was kinda wanting to pay a visit to that

[FJRider]

im a big fan of the .45APC hollow point for situations like this.. no thru and thru and the perp stops after one shot..usually goes 2m backwards

with a big hole in their back

[Swoop]

...and carted around a sawn off shot gun popping off shots...
You are quite correct in that this P-brained moron is the root-cause of all this.
BTW, it was a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle and not a shotgun.
Thank goodness, as well. It would have been a whole lot messier if he had a shotgun and been firing that.:bash:

[SixPackBack]

Condolences to both the young lads whanau and to the copper/s involved.

Armed defenders in my book are the 'good guys'-no question, looks like someone may have made a mistake and any blame lays firmly with the fucken psycho running around shooting, stealing and kidnaping-burn the fucker!

[Finn]

Maybe the police helicopter needs a new weapon for the P addicts some sort of grappling hook they can shoot at the stolen cars that shorts out the electrics like you see on films :D

They already carry a Bushmaster on board but it would be much the same result from the sky.

[The Pastor]

hang on. ive been away and missed all this.

was the kid who was shot standing on the footpath behind the criminal or was he sitting next to him in the stolen car?

[Dilligaf]

So I'm the only one who realises that this "Innocent" has a 16 year old "fiancee" and a two year old child with her.
Innocent my arse! You do the maths.
Not that I am implying that he deserved to die - but the crapola that comes out after - him being called a "role model" and a great guy yada yada.


Hmmmm me jaded much?

[Hitcher]

Hmmmm me jaded much?

I don't see your point. He was a bystander who was shot in error. His family is entitled to grieve his untimely death. Are you saying that young fathers, young Tongans, young courier drivers, young people in work, young sons, young lovers don't deserve public sympathy for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? I hope you're not advocating public extermination of such people.

[Dilligaf]

OKay, my point is that while I think that it is incredibly unfortunate that this young man died (and not the original bag snatcher...thus saving us literally millions not only in keeping in comfort in prison, but also the court costs etc) I find it typical of the media that now we have to have this chest beating and finger pointing.
Even this thread title claims that this young man was innocent. I question that - after reading that he and his fiancee had a child together when she was 14 and he 15. (made even worse perhaps once you also take into consideration the 9 months gestation period). Now forgive me, but legally they have both broken the law. Hardly the "role model" and "innocent" young man that we are being told about.
I pity the police - damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[wbks]

So I'm the only one who realises that this "Innocent" has a 16 year old "fiancee" and a two year old child with her.
Innocent my arse! You do the maths.
Not that I am implying that he deserved to die - but the crapola that comes out after - him being called a "role model" and a great guy yada yada.


Hmmmm me jaded much?

A 14-15 year old that most likely dropped out of school and got a job to support a family would be very deserving of praise, Dilligaf. Thought about it that way? I'm older and I'd about shit a brick if that happened to me... If he is 17 and has a 2 year old kid then it wasn't statutory, they were both underage... But there aren't many on this site that can honestly say they waited for their 16th birthay, or would have waited that long if given a choice...

[Dilligaf]

I hope you're not advocating public extermination of such people.


Oh and let's not get too overdramatic will we? Nowhere at all did I hint of any such idea :oi-grr:

[Hitcher]

Now forgive me, but legally that makes him a statutary rapist. Hardly the "role model" and "innocent" young man that we are being told about.

Legally it makes him nothing of the sort. Under New Zealand's laws you are quite within your rights to shag senseless your under-16-year-old girlfriend provided that you too are under 16. You just need to remember to withdraw immediately when you are aged 15 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds or face the full fury of the law.

And I would caution about making defamatory comments about people, particularly those who are unable to defend themselves. While such practices may lead to legal sanction, they are just plain rude.

[SPman]

Same as with the gun, if it's on your hip all the time and a part of protocol then it will just be another tool to use.....
To shoot at a car that won't stop for a minor speed infringement, perhaps....it happened over here last month...

The shooting of an innocent bystander (or bydriver) is every enforcement officers nightmare, and it is tragic that it happened.
The police actions, were the right thing to do in the circumstances and were forced on them by the actions of the looney with the gun!

However, if a member of Joe Public pulled the trigger, a court case would ensue, even if he was ultimately found not guilty. In the Police's case, the same should happen - they are not above the law and the case should be treated as such - even if it is just as a public hearing. Someone not involved, has been killed. This is the right and proper thing to do.

And no - I don't think police should be armed as a matter of course.

[Swoop]

but the crapola that comes out after - him being called a "role model" and a great guy yada yada.
He certainly is a role model. A young chap who is prepared to work to support his future wife and young family, when he could have simply attempted to park himself on the State Life Support System (welfare/WINZ).

[HenryDorsetCase]

He certainly is a role model. A young chap who is prepared to work to support his future wife and young family, when he could have simply attempted to park himself on the State Life Support System (welfare/WINZ).

Uh, I think you will find he is not eligible for any state benefit because he was under 18. I think I am right in saying (but stand to be corrected) that you cant get the dole or nuffink until you are 18.

[Swoop]

Uh, I think you will find he is not eligible for any state benefit because he was under 18. I think I am right in saying (but stand to be corrected) that you cant get the dole or nuffink until you are 18.
I am aware of this, but the point is that he didn't just sit around and expect people to hand him money.

[XxKiTtiExX]

You are quite correct in that this P-brained moron is the root-cause of all this.
BTW, it was a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle and not a shotgun.
Thank goodness, as well. It would have been a whole lot messier if he had a shotgun and been firing that.:bash:

I don't know much about guns lol :confused: my bad

[HenryDorsetCase]

So I'm the only one who realises that this "Innocent" has a 16 year old "fiancee" and a two year old child with her.?

unpreposessing specimens, all. How did they get a breeding licence?

[Dilligaf]

Legally it makes him nothing of the sort.
Under New Zealand's laws you are quite within your rights to shag senseless your under-16-year-old girlfriend provided that you too are under 16. You just need to remember to withdraw immediately when you are aged 15 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds or face the full fury of the law.



Sorry Hitch, whilst I have changed my original statement to the view that he is not guilty of statutory rape, my research on NZ law still leaves me with the view that it is still illegal to have sex before 16. Since they were both similar in age, neither would have been prosecuted for rape, but they are guilty of underage sex.
Consumer has a page on law http://www.consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?contenttype=general&title=About%20sex&docid=648&category=Kids%20%26%20Family&subcategory=Safety&topic=Young%20people%20and%20the%20law&bhcp=1

and also this from the Beehive : regarding the slight change in law regarding consent.

Consequently, the danger now is that a message is received that under-age sex is condoned. This is not the case.

But hey, maybe he'd changed his life since this mistake...

And for those with questions about child support (from Consumer again):

My daughter Melissa, who is 16, is pregnant. She and her boyfriend Jack, the father, are unsure of their rights and responsibilities.

If your daughter has a baby, the father must help to pay for the child. If necessary, the Inland Revenue Department can use the Child Support Act to make him. If Melissa was under 16, you would be legally obliged to provide her with food and shelter.

Melissa and Jack may be entitled to receive an allowance or benefit during the pregnancy and for some time afterwards. They should contact Work and Income New Zealand early for more information, as eligibility varies widely depending on the circumstances

[Max Preload]

If the elements that randomly fire weapons at Police, aren't obeying the "rules"... why should police in their attempts to stop them. RULES apply to BOTH

Didn't your Mum teach you anything? Two wrongs don't make a right... :lol:


Burton's intent was suicide by Police. I am sure he would have located a weapon somehow, somewhere.

Or perhaps not. It certainly shouldn't be made easier for them though...


A 14-15 year old that most likely dropped out of school and got a job to support a family would be very deserving of praise, Dilligaf. Thought about it that way? I'm older and I'd about shit a brick if that happened to me... If he is 17 and has a 2 year old kid then it wasn't statutory, they were both underage... But there aren't many on this site that can honestly say they waited for their 16th birthay, or would have waited that long if given a choice...

Isn't it funny how in NZ you must appear to be redeeming yourself in order to receive praise and admiration and those who haven't fucked up largely get ignored?


Legally it makes him nothing of the sort. Under New Zealand's laws you are quite within your rights to shag senseless your under-16-year-old girlfriend provided that you too are under 16. You just need to remember to withdraw immediately when you are aged 15 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds or face the full fury of the law.

Correct. The young person in respect of whom an offence against this section was committed cannot be charged as a party to the offence if the person who committed the offence was of or over the age of 16 years when the offence was committed. (http://tinyurl.com/2yjy97) You're offending against each other and neither can be held accountable unless you keep offending once one of you attains the age of 16 until such time as the other attains the age of 16 years.


I am aware of this, but the point is that he didn't just sit around and expect people to hand him money.

There's no evidence of that - he was doing his mothers run because she was about to pop out sprog #9.

[HenryDorsetCase]

because she was about to pop out sprog #9.

mmMMMMmmmmm. must not judge........

[SARGE]

I don't know much about guns lol :confused: my bad

the loud end goes that way --->

[Dilligaf]

A 14-15 year old that most likely dropped out of school and got a job to support a family would be very deserving of praise, Dilligaf. Thought about it that way? .

Surely you jest? The mere fact that he took care of his responsibilities means just that. It does not make him a role model.
What a sad state society is in when hanging around when you've produced offspring elevates you to hero.


I am aware of this, but the point is that he didn't just sit around and expect people to hand him money.
Again, this makes him remarkable because....?

Hang on, I've just remembered I'm in NZ :bleh:

[Max Preload]

Sorry Hitch, whilst I have changed my original statement to the view that he is not guilty of statutory rape, my research on NZ law still leaves me with the view that it is still illegal to have sex before 16. Since they were both similar in age, neither would have been prosecuted for rape, but they are guilty of underage sex.
Consumer has a page on law http://www.consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?contenttype=general&title=About%20sex&docid=648&category=Kids%20%26%20Family&subcategory=Safety&topic=Young%20people%20and%20the%20law&bhcp=1

The 'Consumer' link (http://www.consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?contenttype=general&title=About%20sex&docid=648&category=Kids%20%26%20Family&subcategory=Safety&topic=Young%20people%20and%20the%20law&bhcp=1) is correct - in the example one of the participants is over the age of 16 and one is under - the one over 16 is committing an offence.


I'm fairly sure my son Wiremu, who is 14, and his girlfriend Faith, who is 16, are having sex. Is this legal?
No. Under the Crimes Act, the age of consent for boys and girls is 16. It is illegal for Faith to have sex with Wiremu.


Consequently, the danger now is that a message is received that under-age sex is condoned. This is not the case.

And not condoning and being illegal are two completely different things.

[HenryDorsetCase]

What a sad state society is in when hanging around when you've produced offspring elevates you to hero.


Maybe in that community it does.

[HenryDorsetCase]

the loud end goes that way --->

<---------- what if the baddie is over this way?

[SARGE]

<---------- what if the baddie is over this way?

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome

[doc]

OKay, my point is that while I think that it is incredibly unfortunate that this young man died
Even this thread title claims that this young man was innocent. I question that - after reading that he and his fiancee had a child together when she was 14 and he 15. (made even worse perhaps once you also take into consideration the 9 months gestation period). Now forgive me, but legally they have both broken the law. Hardly the "role model" and "innocent" young man that we are being told about.

I had similiar thoughts about his age and family status, but wouldn't air them in public. The guy is still an innocent victim. The internet has bought a sad era to our lives when you can sort of snipe at the dead from the anonimity of a keyboard.

This is sort of like women who have been genuinely raped, having to account for having sex previously, being bought up in court.

What ever this guy's background is he didn't deserve to die like this.

[HenryDorsetCase]

What ever this guy's background is he didn't deserve to die like this.

I do agree with that.

[Usarka]

Surely you jest? The mere fact that he took care of his responsibilities means just that. It does not make him a role model.
What a sad state society is in when hanging around when you've produced offspring elevates you to hero.



Another couple of beers and I'd be using foul language.

Have a go at the media, not the person involved.

He was known to some members of this site. Not that it should matter.

[XxKiTtiExX]

the loud end goes that way --->


Thats not what I was told

[Owl]

"P" anyone?

No thanks Patrick, but I'll take the cash equivalent if you're offering!:D

I could do with some more bike bits!:yes:

[Hitcher]

Sorry Hitch, whilst I have changed my original statement to the view that he is not guilty of statutory rape, my research on NZ law still leaves me with the view that it is still illegal to have sex before 16. Since they were both similar in age, neither would have been prosecuted for rape, but they are guilty of underage sex.
Consumer has a page on law http://www.consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?contenttype=general&title=About%20sex&docid=648&category=Kids%20%26%20Family&subcategory=Safety&topic=Young%20people%20and%20the%20law&bhcp=1

The Consumer reference supports what I was saying. If both parties are younger than 16 they are not breaking any laws. Reread the Consumer's examples: the girlfriend Faith was aged 16, which makes her older than the age of consent, hence she is breaking the law by shagging Wiremu who is only 14.

[FJRider]

the loud end goes that way --->

Ya dont point it unless ya mean ta use it... whatever weapon you have at hand...

[SARGE]

Ya dont point it unless ya mean ta use it... whatever weapon you have at hand...

...and if you pull it and DONT use it.. hope its made of something yummy

[FJRider]

This is my rifle...this is my gun. this is for shooting... this is for fun.......

[Tank]

So I'm the only one who realises that this "Innocent" has a 16 year old "fiancee" and a two year old child with her.
Innocent my arse! You do the maths.
Not that I am implying that he deserved to die - but the crapola that comes out after - him being called a "role model" and a great guy yada yada.


Hmmmm me jaded much?

I think throwing shit like that at someone is pathetic.

From what I have read he was making the best of the situation and trying to the best for his family. And in that respect - there are a lot that can learn from him.

My wife had her first baby at 16 also. (not with me FWIW). Is she was shot dead because of some fuckwit raging on "P" - yes I would call her "innocent".

But there will always be the sad, pathetic and the losers, who can only look for the bad or the mistakes of others in order to make themselves feel better.

He might not be the perfect role model - but then few are. But I'd rather look up to someone like him than someone who makes gutless comment's like you have.

[SARGE]

This is my rifle...this is my gun. this is for shooting... this is for fun.......

oooh ra!!...


this thread is really helping to meet my daily Ignore List Quota ..

4 so far this week in here alone



4,382 active members.. i see less than 3000 of you....



(helpful hint to tell if you may be on the list.. if i've even ended a statement to you with the word...

"Jackass"


chances are good)

bwahahahahaha

[ManDownUnder]

Interesting write up in te Truth (http://truth.co.nz/TruthMain/FullStory.aspx?ContentAssembly=119)

The author puts a stupid spin on it "where did all the other bullets go - they're dangerous" followed by "they should use shotguns so they don't miss"... err yeah - excepting all the high speed lead that spreads and... oh never mind.

At least I take his point about them not being so lethal at anything beyond short(ish) range. I assume they're talking #4 shot or smaller... ?

Good old press putting a slight spin on it - rest easy - it IS the truth

[jrandom]

Interesting write up in te Truth (http://truth.co.nz/TruthMain/FullStory.aspx?ContentAssembly=119)

Jesus H. Christ. I would quite like to kick whoever wrote that shit in the mouth.

[Hitcher]

Jesus H. Christ. I would quite like to kick whoever wrote that shit in the mouth.

It's the same "newspaper" that encourages you to Text "babe" to 6000. Draw your own conclusions as to the profile of its target audience and the gravitas of its editorial opinion.

[pritch]

I assume they're talking #4 shot or smaller... ?

Who knows what Truth were talking? I seriously doubt that they do themselves.

Normal load Police use in the USA is I believe 00 (double ought) which is 9 x .33" cal balls.

Very useful for sweeping back alleys...

[ManDownUnder]

Very useful for sweeping back alleys...

LOL and wallabies - eh Smokin???

[Mr Merde]

LOL and wallabies - eh Smokin???


As good as solids?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Ive thought (and said) for a long time that any given squad of AOS guys need at least one guy with a Remington combat shotgun. 8 (I think) shot, 14 inch barrell. Get in the way of that and the miscreant WILL FALL DOWN. But relatively low muzzle velocity compared to a rifle and smaller chance of collateral damage.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Like LAPD SWAT do

[Mr Merde]

Ive thought (and said) for a long time that any given squad of AOS guys need at least one guy with a Remington combat shotgun. 8 (I think) shot, 14 inch barrell. Get in the way of that and the miscreant WILL FALL DOWN. But relatively low muzzle velocity compared to a rifle and smaller chance of collateral damage.

Back bored so that it throws 1 1/8 oz (32 gm) of shot in a baseball sized pattern at 20 metres

[HenryDorsetCase]

It's the same "newspaper" that encourages you to Text "babe" to 6000. Draw your own conclusions as to the profile of its target audience and the gravitas of its editorial opinion.

it fails both editorially as a newspaper, and as a device to titillate the masses. One clicks on Page 3 and gets a "non-zoomable" gallery. Unacceptable.

One requires nipples with those chups. mmmmm nupples.

[ManDownUnder]

As good as solids?

Wasn't there... keen to find out first hand though. 00's vs the 270WSM. Might be time to play the bang dead game down South...

[Hoon]

Ive thought (and said) for a long time that any given squad of AOS guys need at least one guy with a Remington combat shotgun.
Yep I agree with that. The NZArmy have just started using them too. They also take bean bag and buck shot rounds too.

Probably the best outcome that can come out of all this is that the Police are undertrained so need more training and funding. Although I am not totally convinced (even the best shot who trains 365 days a year can miss on a bad day), it will improve things but extra training will only lessen the risk, it doesn't remove it completely.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Every home should have one (http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/870mcs.htm)

[Winston001]

Every home should have one (http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/870mcs.htm)

Oooorrrrrrrr yus! Like the M4 option with the "accessory weapon". :love:

[Skyryder]

What absolute fuckin crap. The only blame here is with the asshole who started this whole situation and was firing shots at random in public including shooting another driver whos vehicle he was trying to hijack. Then he could have easily gone on to shoot you or one of your family. What happened to the young lad was tragic but was due to circumstances that were out of control. Your comment is not only ignorant but is racist as well and has been made before the facts of any enquiry have even been released.
:Oi:

The problem with this view is that if you take it to it’s logical conclusion you believe that the police are ‘never’ at fault due to the fact that their actions are always due to responses of offenders.

An example of this was the cop doing the U-turn that took out a couple of bikers. According to your opinion it was the fault of the speedster that the cop was given chase too.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

Jesus H. Christ. I would quite like to kick whoever wrote that shit in the mouth.


I agree, what a crock of shit, absolute shit.

And somewhere a little girl believes it.....

[spudchucka]

My point is that unless they are AOS memebers they shouldn't have firearms, or be allowed to use them.

Why not?

You'd rather allow a crazed offender to run around firing randomly while the AOS squad are paged, drive into the station, gear up, get briefed on the situation and arrive at the safe forward point that has been established by your preferred unarmed general duties branch, all before a weapon can even be aimed at the offender?

The reality is that that AOS squads are not sitting around polishing their weapons waiting for an incident like this to happen. They are not permanent, full time squads. They are made up of regular cops that do AOS duties on top of their regular duties.

A general duties cop is far more likely to find themselves in a situation where they are required to shoot an offender than any AOS squad member and therefore they should always have access to weapons.

[SARGE]

why not?

You'd rather allow a crazed offender to run around firing randomly while the aos squad are paged, drive into the station, gear up, get briefed on the situation and arrive at the safe forward point that has been established by your preferred unarmed general duties branch, all before a weapon can even be aimed at the offender?

The reality is that that aos squads are not sitting around polishing their weapons waiting for an incident like this to happen. They are not permanent, full time squads. They are made up of regular cops that do aos duties on top of their regular duties.

A general duties cop is far more likely to find themselves in a situation where they are required to shoot an offender than any aos squad member and therefore they should always have access to weapons.



agree..i think all you guys should carry and be trained like the u.s. Cops..every cop car in the states has a shotgun mounted in the front seat

[spudchucka]

Police don't actually have a lot of special powers. They have special authority to be armed. They also have the special liability of public expectation that they will deal with armed offenders.

There is no way this cop was "taking it out on a criminal". Its far more likely he was doing his job, to the best of his ability while being shot at by a madman.

Cops gain the authority to shoot under the same laws as a private citizen. That is to say they can only use reasonable force in the defence of themselves or others.

That means they have a special liablity as we expect them to shoot to protect us... but we will not offer them any special protection from mistakes.

I am glad I am not a policeman, expected to carry, and use a firearm in full knowledge that a mistake in a high pressure situation with someone shooting at me, would be treated by the law exactly the same as shooting a hunting buddy, or any other accidental shooting.

Section 48 is not the only section of the Crimes Act that justifies police use of deadly force.

[spudchucka]

That was another police related firearm fuck up. Did he not steal a firearm from a police car? Imagine if it hadn't been there to start with.

He was in the process of stealing the weapons when the cops shot him. He was already armed with a firearm and had used it to kill the Karl Kukenbecker(SP) guy, if the two cops had sat on their hands and done nothing, what further harm would Burton have inflicted?

[spudchucka]

I thought the AoS used dum dum bullets specifically to prevent such a thing?

Hollow points can stop in centre mass but if the round hit an arm or a leg it wouldn't stop.

[spudchucka]

Last words from me... I hate police chases :done:

Its much better to just let all offenders go free I guess.

[Warr]

Its much better to just let all offenders go free I guess.
Definately not.
Grenade launcher on the Police Helecoptor would have done the trick.
Goodbye car, goodbye offender end of story

[Patrick]

The police actions, were the right thing to do in the circumstances and were forced on them by the actions of the looney with the gun!

However, if a member of Joe Public pulled the trigger, a court case would ensue, even if he was ultimately found not guilty. In the Police's case, the same should happen - they are not above the law and the case should be treated as such - even if it is just as a public hearing. Someone not involved, has been killed. This is the right and proper thing to do.

And no - I don't think police should be armed as a matter of course.

Point 1 - agreed.
Point 2 - although not above the law, there are (and most definitely should be) certain protections from the law....

This cop was doing his best, UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.... (you all figure that part out...)

[jrandom]

Hollow points can stop in centre mass but if the round hit an arm or a leg it wouldn't stop.

What rounds are the Bushmasters loaded with? I'm guessing some form of SS109 type standard military ball ammo? (As opposed to expanding hunting type rounds.)

[Robbo]

The problem with this view is that if you take it to it’s logical conclusion you believe that the police are ‘never’ at fault due to the fact that their actions are always due to responses of offenders.

An example of this was the cop doing the U-turn that took out a couple of bikers. According to your opinion it was the fault of the speedster that the cop was given chase too.

Skyryder

Well if it was'nt for the actions of the offenders in the first place there would never be an event or situation occuring would there. Therefore the police are placed in an impossible situation where they are damned if they do and they are damned if they dont do.
I think that a little more support from the public in their favour instead of for the scumbags would be in order when these events occur.
As for the cop doing the U turn, that is an entirely different situation where one person made an obvious error of judgment that probably could have been avoided so your assumption of my opinion in this case is completely wrong.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Why not?

You'd rather allow a crazed offender to run around firing randomly while the AOS squad are paged, drive into the station, gear up, get briefed on the situation and arrive at the safe forward point that has been established by your preferred unarmed general duties branch, all before a weapon can even be aimed at the offender?

The reality is that that AOS squads are not sitting around polishing their weapons waiting for an incident like this to happen. They are not permanent, full time squads. They are made up of regular cops that do AOS duties on top of their regular duties.

A general duties cop is far more likely to find themselves in a situation where they are required to shoot an offender than any AOS squad member and therefore they should always have access to weapons.

I agree with you absolutely. I think GD cops should be armed with a Glock, and with shotguns and what not in their cars.

And "stab proof": fuck that, how about bullet proof.

Though even the stab proof must be hot as a motherfucker to wear.

[Headbanger]

If they were armed they wouldn't need stab proof vests, They could just shoot the fucker holding the knife.

[skidMark]

I cannot agree more...this guy from what I read was a bag snatcher so it was obvious the vehicle was either stolen or hijacked plus if the poor kid was not driving the vehicle how come he got shot if he was sitting in the passenger or other seat...hum


He was in the van.... got caught in the crossfire because the offender was trying to hijack the truck ....

he just ended up inbetween.

mate of mine was 2 cars ahead...

Just unlucky timing for the fella killed i guess.

[Sollyboy]

If they were armed they wouldn't need stab proof vests, They could just shoot the fucker holding the knife.

and thats how it should be , threaten the police and you should pay the price , the police like a barrier to protect us and i prefer see them well armed as it also acts as a good deterent too,maybe NZ should have a target of 50% frontline armed

[Genestho]

So I'm the only one who realises that this "Innocent" has a 16 year old "fiancee" and a two year old child with her.
Innocent my arse! You do the maths.
Not that I am implying that he deserved to die - but the crapola that comes out after - him being called a "role model" and a great guy yada yada.


Hmmmm me jaded much?

Innocent my arse? ay?
Blue blazes man, are you for real?
Im not upto date on it all, but what the hell does that have to with the kid bein shot dead, to be taken from his kids and "fiancee" or family?
Tell me that his tiny past really matters, or makes a difference to the facts?
Does that help the copper who was trying to protect OUR community feel any better?

I must've missed something......

[Patrick]

So I'm the only one who realises that this "Innocent" has a 16 year old "fiancee" and a two year old child with her.
Innocent my arse! You do the maths.
Not that I am implying that he deserved to die - but the crapola that comes out after - him being called a "role model" and a great guy yada yada.


Hmmmm me jaded much?


Innocent my arse? ay?
Blue blazes man, are you for real?
Im not upto date on it all, but what the hell does that have to with the kid bein shot dead, to be taken from his kids and "fiancee" or family?
Tell me that his tiny past really matters, or makes a difference to the facts?
Does that help the copper who was trying to protect OUR community feel any better?

I must've missed something......

Must be reading the "Truth" or something like it...

How he can't see that he was an innocent is a bit beyond me too Guzzi...

He was a passer by, in his work vehicle. Nothing to do with the chase, the shit head, nothing. Just drove along the motorway making his deliveries and bang - dead.

Perhaps it was a piss take? A bad one, but one all the same?

[spudchucka]

What rounds are the Bushmasters loaded with? I'm guessing some form of SS109 type standard military ball ammo? (As opposed to expanding hunting type rounds.)

Hollow point, never paid any attention to the numbers on the box.

[jrandom]

Hollow point, never paid any attention to the numbers on the box.

Good thing the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to cops, eh?

[scumdog]

Good thing the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to cops, eh?

More chance of stopping the bad guy with one bullet and less chance of penetration after hitting said bad guy.

[Skyryder]

Well if it was'nt for the actions of the offenders in the first place there would never be an event or situation occuring would there. Therefore the police are placed in an impossible situation where they are damned if they do and they are damned if they dont do.
I think that a little more support from the public in their favour instead of for the scumbags would be in order when these events occur.
As for the cop doing the U turn, that is an entirely different situation where one person made an obvious error of judgment that probably could have been avoided so your assumption of my opinion in this case is completely wrong.

You claim that the cop doing the U-turn was an error of judgment and that this is different from shooting an innocent person. Both are errors of judgment. One judged the road safe to perform a U-turn, the other judged the innocent person to be the perpetrator. There is no difference other than the event.

Your suggestion the police being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t suggests to me that you believe that the police should be able to perform their duties in any manner they see fit with no consequences should the public be injured or killed in the performance of their duties. If this is indeed you opinion then you need to seriously rethink the role of the police in today’s society.


Skyryder

[ManDownUnder]

Your suggestion the police being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t suggests to me that you believe that the police should be able to perform their duties in any manner they see fit with no consequences should the public be injured or killed in the performance of their duties. If this is indeed you opinion then you need to seriously rethink the role of the police in today’s society.

Skyryder

I see it as damned if they shoot and damned if they don't too. No problems with the police being held accountable for their actions... but keep in mind their actions were essential, taken under urgency in a remarkably dynamic situation where there's no time to form a consensuis on the best outcome.

Damned if they shoot... and damned if they don't.

[Robbo]

You claim that the cop doing the U-turn was an error of judgment and that this is different from shooting an innocent person. Both are errors of judgment. One judged the road safe to perform a U-turn, the other judged the innocent person to be the perpetrator. There is no difference other than the event.

Your suggestion the police being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t suggests to me that you believe that the police should be able to perform their duties in any manner they see fit with no consequences should the public be injured or killed in the performance of their duties. If this is indeed you opinion then you need to seriously rethink the role of the police in today’s society.


Skyryder

You assume too much Skyryder and so incorrectly. You are making outragous suggestions based on your obvious contempt for our police and the almost impossible job they have in trying to control law and order in this country. As i said earlier, if it were'nt for the criminal element that we now have there would not be an event or situation in the first place. You seem to be quite happy to sit on the sideline and criticise without offering any helpful suggestions or solutions on how things could be better out there.
Do you have a personal axe to grind or are you just a negative person? I would hope not.
Cheers

[Skyryder]

You assume too much Skyryder and so incorrectly. You are making outragous suggestions based on your obvious contempt for our police and the almost impossible job they have in trying to control law and order in this country. As i said earlier, if it were'nt for the criminal element that we now have there would not be an event or situation in the first place. You seem to be quite happy to sit on the sideline and criticise without offering any helpful suggestions or solutions on how things could be better out there.
Do you have a personal axe to grind or are you just a negative person? I would hope not.
Cheers

So how does your personal criticism of me validate your arguement.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I see it as damned if they shoot and damned if they don't too. No problems with the police being held accountable for their actions... but keep in mind their actions were essential, taken under urgency in a remarkably dynamic situation where there's no time to form a consensuis on the best outcome.

Damned if they shoot... and damned if they don't.

I'm not in disagreement with you here but I believe that this is for a jury to decide as they are our 'representitives' in respect to the law.

Skyryder

[SixPackBack]

You claim that the cop doing the U-turn was an error of judgment and that this is different from shooting an innocent person. Both are errors of judgment. One judged the road safe to perform a U-turn, the other judged the innocent person to be the perpetrator. There is no difference other than the event.

Your suggestion the police being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t suggests to me that you believe that the police should be able to perform their duties in any manner they see fit with no consequences should the public be injured or killed in the performance of their duties. If this is indeed you opinion then you need to seriously rethink the role of the police in today’s society.


Skyryder

You have a valid point. It would seem we are collectively guilty of applying double standards.

[Skyryder]

[QUOTE=ManDownUnder;1915695]I see it as damned if they shoot and damned if they don't too. No problems with the police being held accountable for their actions... but keep in mind their actions were essential, taken under urgency in a remarkably dynamic situation where there's no time to form a consensuis on the best outcome.

Damned if they shoot... and damned if they don't.[/QUOTI

I'm not in disagreement with you here but I believe that this is for a jury to decide as they are our 'representitives' in respect to the law. Correction. In respect of guilt or innocence.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

I may distinguish the two cases. The U turning cop, there was no real reason why he could not have waited until a safer place to do his U turn. At worst , the delay might have meant he could not hand out a ticket. Hardly major.And doing the U turn wherere he did, a reasonable person could have predicted that there was a significant danger inherent in it. He did not care. He undertook a dangerous (to others) procedure without need. So , he failed to exercise reasonable care. He did something that any reasonable person would say was dangerous to others , and he didn't need to

The shooting? Well, he had MUCH less option to wait. If all the AoS guys had stood back and waited , odds are that the nutter would have shot someone, and hijacked their vehicle. And firing at the criminal, a reasonable person would say "Well, there is some danger involved to innocent people. But, what are the odds that a trained marksman will miss badly enough to hit a bystander. And even if that should happen , what are the odds of it being fatal. Remote indeed. " . He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

Of course, as we all know, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten. Even so, he did only what common sense suggests was necessary and essential in the circumstances, and in circumstances where the likelihood of danger to others was remote. I suggest that he did exercise reasonable care. Not enough , tragically, but reasonable care is not equivalent to certainty.

Sometimes, people in such fraught situations must take a calculated chance. That is what they are trained to do , that is what they are paid for. If it sometimes goes horribly wrong, that does not mean that their actions were unreasonable

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

I may distinguish the two cases. The U turning cop, there was no real reason why he could not have waited until a safer place to do his U turn. At worst , the delay might have meant he could not hand out a ticket. Hardly major.And doing the U turn wherere he did, a reasonable person could have predicted that there was a significant danger inherent in it. He did not care. He undertook a dangerous (to others) procedure without need. So , he failed to exercise reasonable care. He did something that any reasonable person would say was dangerous to others , and he didn't need to

The shooting? Well, he had MUCH less option to wait. If all the AoS guys had stood back and waited , odds are that the nutter would have shot someone, and hijacked their vehicle. And firing at the criminal, a reasonable person would say "Well, there is some danger involved to innocent people. But, what are the odds that a trained marksman will miss badly enough to hit a bystander. And even if that should happen , what are the odds of it being fatal. Remote indeed. " . He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

Of course, as we all know, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten. Even so, he did only what common sense suggests was necessary and essential in the circumstances, and in circumstances where the likelihood of danger to others was remote. I suggest that he did exercise reasonable care. Not enough , tragically, but reasonable care is not equivalent to certainty.

Sometimes, people in such fraught situations must take a calculated chance. That is what they are trained to do , that is what they are paid for. If it sometimes goes horribly wrong, that does not mean that their actions were unreasonable

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.

May it please your Honour, I concur with my learned friend, the prosecution rests.

[Robbo]

So how does your personal criticism of me validate your arguement.

Skyryder

You appear to be rather sensitive tonight. That was Not a personal criticism but a question for you as you seem to be quite happy to assume that you know what i am thinking when in fact you are miles off track. You also appear to be rather anti police when it comes to your criticism of anyones support for them.
Would you rather they just disbanded the entire police force and let the scumbags do what they want whenever they want?
I know i would'nt and i don't believe you would either so just take a chill pill and relax.

[SixPackBack]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

I may distinguish the two cases. The U turning cop, there was no real reason why he could not have waited until a safer place to do his U turn. At worst , the delay might have meant he could not hand out a ticket. Hardly major.And doing the U turn wherere he did, a reasonable person could have predicted that there was a significant danger inherent in it. He did not care. He undertook a dangerous (to others) procedure without need. So , he failed to exercise reasonable care. He did something that any reasonable person would say was dangerous to others , and he didn't need to

The shooting? Well, he had MUCH less option to wait. If all the AoS guys had stood back and waited , odds are that the nutter would have shot someone, and hijacked their vehicle. And firing at the criminal, a reasonable person would say "Well, there is some danger involved to innocent people. But, what are the odds that a trained marksman will miss badly enough to hit a bystander. And even if that should happen , what are the odds of it being fatal. Remote indeed. " . He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

Of course, as we all know, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten. Even so, he did only what common sense suggests was necessary and essential in the circumstances, and in circumstances where the likelihood of danger to others was remote. I suggest that he did exercise reasonable care. Not enough , tragically, but reasonable care is not equivalent to certainty.

Sometimes, people in such fraught situations must take a calculated chance. That is what they are trained to do , that is what they are paid for. If it sometimes goes horribly wrong, that does not mean that their actions were unreasonable

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.


Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.

[Skyryder]

Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.

The simplicity of truth. :2thumbsup

Skyryder.

[Swoop]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

The shooting? He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.
The AOS had used reasonable care and their actions were prompted by the offender opening fire. Up to that stage they were following along and (presumably) waiting for the person to go into a safe area where they could negotiate a peaceful surrender, which is their normal practice.
The offender opening fire prompted the AOS response, of defending an innocent person sitting in his truck.

[Ixion]

Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.


So they did, but what of that. Everyone takes calculated risks every day. We both take a calculated risk every time we over take. But, not a careless one, I'm sure. The heart surgeon takes a calculated risk when he decides to operate on old Mrs Smith. But I'm sure he is very careful, both in calculating the risk and in operating. A bomb disposal dude defusing a bomb is VERY careful, but takes huge calculated risks.

There is nothing wrong with a calculated risk, and sometimes, by definition, the bad event (the risk) will turn up. Sometimes Lady Luck throws you aces and eights.

The issue is whether the calculation was reasonable or not. The heart surgeon's risk is reasonable. Mrs Smith MAY die on the operating table. But the risk is acceptable, assessed against the need for the operation.

If anyone who took a calculated risk were to be condemned if it turned out badly, no matter how reasonable the calculation, then nothing would ever get done. There is very little in life that affords total certainty. Nor would we want it so.

In the two cases posited , the AoS guy's risk calculation was reasonable. The need was great the risk small. The U turning cops calculated risk was not reasonable. His need was small, the risk great.

[jrandom]

Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.

Qualitative differences in situations are not 'semantics'. The facts of each situation need to be acknowledged.

A traffic officer performing a dangerous U-turn to catch someone and ticket them is not in the same ballpark as an AOS officer shooting at someone who's already opened fire on civilians. It's not even the same fucking game.

Y'know, I don't enjoy reading criticism of police on this forum that I know is motivated by an annoyance about traffic tickets that's being projected onto everything the cops do.

The AOS's actions were reasonable in these circumstances, and the outcome was tragic. Attempting to conceptually link that to some traffic officer's ill-considered U-turn is fallacious and manipulative.


In the two cases posited , the AoS guy's risk calculation was reasonable. The need was great the risk small. The U turning cops calculated risk was not reasonable. His need was small, the risk great.

Yeah, wot 'e sed.

[Skyryder]

So they did, but what of that. Everyone takes calculated risks every day. We both take a calculated risk every time we over take. But, not a careless one, I'm sure. The heart surgeon takes a calculated risk when he decides to operate on old Mrs Smith. But I'm sure he is very careful, both in calculating the risk and in operating. A bomb disposal dude defusing a bomb is VERY careful, but takes huge calculated risks.

There is nothing wrong with a calculated risk, and sometimes, by definition, the bad event (the risk) will turn up. Sometimes Lady Luck throws you aces and eights.

The issue is whether the calculation was reasonable or not. The heart surgeon's risk is reasonable. Mrs Smith MAY die on the operating table. But the risk is acceptable, assessed against the need for the operation.

If anyone who took a calculated risk were to be condemned if it turned out badly, no matter how reasonable the calculation, then nothing would ever get done. There is very little in life that affords total certainty. Nor would we want it so.

In the two cases posited , the AoS guy's risk calculation was reasonable. The need was great the risk small. The U turning cops calculated risk was not reasonable. His need was small, the risk great.

The surgeon does not perform a ‘calculated risk’ without informing the patient of these risks and it is patient or his next of kin who has the final say. So your analogy of the difference between careful and calculated is erroneous. As is the bomb disposal expert as it is his life that is at risk and not in normal circumstances others. This is also true when we overtake. There is always the possibility that something may occur that puts us at risk but this in no way suggests that 'all' overtaking is calculated. The very nature of calculation is where there are two possible outcomes. One weighed in favour of the risk as against.

You are attempting to define the differences between calculated and careful in a context that has no bearing on this fatality. The officer as you say may have taken a calculated risk but was he was not careful in doing so and shot the wrong person.

This is not to suggest that the officer did not have the best of intentions. Perhaps if this line was deeveloped further by those that support the officer there may have been less criticism of his actions………..but surprisingly it has not.

Skyryder

[Hoon]

Once you are authorised to take such a shot, this risk has already been assessed and deemed acceptable given the situation. It's a tough decision to have to make with dire consequences if it goes wrong and I do not envy these guys at all.

The Rules of engagement for civil police are similar to the military....As soon as the offender pointed his rifle at the truck driver, the AOS guys are authorised to use deadly force. The imminent threat of the driver being shot outweighs the possible threat of someone nearby being hurt. Yes it may sound harsh but tough that's how it works.

There is a level of risk involved with taking this course of action and always a chance that innocents will be hurt and unfortunately this is one of those times. But taking no action is not an option. As long as armed crims are running amok endangering the public we will always need an armed response to meet this threat.

[ghost]

No means to an end justifies the killing of a bystander. Even if the only way to defend your life or the lives of others mean to take a shot at someone, you make sure that you ID the target and make it a good shot. No excuse of stress or urgency to put the guy down justifies shooting the wrong guy. Simple. Five shots fired, the guy should have been in a body bag, not arrested and sent to hospital. That in inself speaks volume's. Either the training or the equipment is not up to standard to do the job it was asked to do. And if it seems like I'm putting the boot in, I'm not. To me its simple, no excuse of expectations, or thats the job they do, thats what they take the pay for (probably not enough). No free ride on fuck ups...... and shooting civies is a fuck up.

[Hoon]

Simple. Five shots fired, the guy should have been in a body bag, not arrested and sent to hospital. That in inself speaks volume's. Either the training or the equipment is not up to standard to do the job it was asked to do.

Not really. Even if they trained 365 days a year there is still the chance that they will miss. More training may reduce the risk but it will never eliminate it.

Yes I do agree that more training/equipment will lessen the risk of this happening again but until I see facts that state otherwise, I do not support your claim that the officer that fired the shot was under-trained. Even Willie Apiata (and two mates) can miss the target on a bad day.

[ghost]

Not really. Even if they trained 365 days a year there is still the chance that they will miss. More training may reduce the risk but it will never eliminate it.

Yes I agree that more training/ better equipment will lessen the risk of this happening again but until I see facts that state otherwise, I do not support your claim that the officer that fired the shot was under-trained. Even Willie Apiata (and two mates) can miss the target on a bad day.

I too dont envy the situation that these guys are put in, more training may not reduce the risk, using frangeble munitions may not reduce the risk, it is inherantly a risky situation. Cant / wont comment on the actual officers training level, but certainly believe they could all be trained to a higher level. True, even WA and his two mates can miss on a bad day (more likely not) but then they too would have discharged a firearm recklessly, causing death....... Court case.

Man on back of ute, short range, M4, 5 rounds........ man not dead / fatally wounded? Overall somethings not right. Where did the other 4 rounds go, maybe the public was lucky no one else was hit.

[Mr Merde]

.....Either the training or the equipment is not up to standard to do the job it was asked to do. ...

My personal view is summed up here in this sentence.

Just what training does a member of the AOS undertake?

How many hours\days\weeks are spent learning their weapons and honing their instincts?

In the military you spend a long time getting familiarized with you personal firearm. You are taught, as a basic squadie to learn all about your firearm before you are taken to the range to learn exactly how it operates. You have to pass a basic markmanship level before being considered competent with your firearm. To become a military sniper you have to train for a much longer time.

If the AOS training is eqivalent to that of a military sniper I would be very supprised.

This, I must stress is only my opinion, I have no problem with police being armed and having to use firearms in the correct situation. What i object to is a lack of training in the use of such. From all I have seen of police armed offender teams in this country, and overseas, I get the distinct impression that they are military wanna be's. They dress in quasi military uniforms, they hide their identity and I have had the distinct impression of an an attitude of superiority. Even the military have a level of accountability that must be adherred to. In NI before openning fire a "yellow card" had to be read. A number of military have been taken to court to answer to their actions. When the UK SAS took out the IRA members in Gibralter they were all taken to court and the military had to prove their right to such an action.

I have a very good friend in the UK who happened to be a police officer and a target pistol shooter. He applied to join the UK eqivalent of the AOS in the UK and was turned down. The reason being that he "liked guns too much". When pistols were made illegal in the UK for civilians he applied again. As he couldnt put down pistol shooter on his application he was accepted.

Colin was and is a supberb pistol shot. He trained everyday with his own pistols but was deemed unsuitable until he lost his pistols.

As to the AOS officer I can only feel for the man. I have never been in his situation of having shot the wrong person. I have though been in a long range competition and discovered that i was placing my shots on the wrong target. it happens.

This is what training, trsaining and more training hopes to aleviate.

So once again just what does the training of a member of the AOS consist of.

From reading the posts of serving officers in the police who happen to be members of KB, I am severly distressed at the minimal training an ordinary police officer has to ubdertake to carry a firearm. I can only hope that a member of the AOS undergoes a 100 fold vevel of training.

It takes the military years to train a sniper and weapons expert. Is it the same for the police force? Unfortunately I very much doubt it.

Chris

[SixPackBack]

Qualitative differences in situations are not 'semantics'. The facts of each situation need to be acknowledged.

A traffic officer performing a dangerous U-turn to catch someone and ticket them is not in the same ballpark as an AOS officer shooting at someone who's already opened fire on civilians. It's not even the same fucking game.

Bullshit. A mistake is made a person killed or injured. Do you think the family would care as to the details?

Y'know, I don't enjoy reading criticism of police on this forum that I know is motivated by an annoyance about traffic tickets that's being projected onto everything the cops do.

Again bullshit. Do not believe you know me or what motivates me.

The AOS's actions were reasonable in these circumstances, and the outcome was tragic. Attempting to conceptually link that to some traffic officer's ill-considered U-turn is fallacious and manipulative.

The truth is Dan you have precious few facts to base an argument on and seem emotionally mixed up with this debate.

No doubt an investigation will take place and discussion can continue after the fact. You might have chilled out a little by then!?:crybaby:

[SixPackBack]

So they did, but what of that. Everyone takes calculated risks every day. We both take a calculated risk every time we over take. But, not a careless one, I'm sure. The heart surgeon takes a calculated risk when he decides to operate on old Mrs Smith. But I'm sure he is very careful, both in calculating the risk and in operating. A bomb disposal dude defusing a bomb is VERY careful, but takes huge calculated risks.

There is nothing wrong with a calculated risk, and sometimes, by definition, the bad event (the risk) will turn up. Sometimes Lady Luck throws you aces and eights.

The issue is whether the calculation was reasonable or not. The heart surgeon's risk is reasonable. Mrs Smith MAY die on the operating table. But the risk is acceptable, assessed against the need for the operation.

If anyone who took a calculated risk were to be condemned if it turned out badly, no matter how reasonable the calculation, then nothing would ever get done. There is very little in life that affords total certainty. Nor would we want it so.

In the two cases posited , the AoS guy's risk calculation was reasonable. The need was great the risk small. The U turning cops calculated risk was not reasonable. His need was small, the risk great.

Again when we have all the facts statements such as these can be judged, until then best for all to keep an open mind.

[Hoon]

Just what training does a member of the AOS undertake?

How many hours\days\weeks are spent learning their weapons and honing their instincts?

It takes the military years to train a sniper and weapons expert. Is it the same for the police force? Unfortunately I very much doubt it.

You are right. Something like 3 days a year and a refresher every 6 months or something? Sweet fuck all if you ask me.

I was a little shocked when I first heard this too. In the military I have often questioned the amount of training soldiers get and have got some pretty thorough answers so I have a good idea how they come to this conclusion. I don't necessarily agree with it but can understand why it is that way.

Basically the pencil pushers up top look at the role, identify what skills are needed and decide what level of competency is required for each skill (i.e. must score x on such'n'such shoot). The trainers then design the training and exams which confirm the students have attained this level. Due to budgeting/resource constraints they are forced to achieve this standard in the minimum time/cost possible just like any company does. If you can squeeze a 5 day course into 3 days while still achieving the standards set then they will do it.

So while 3 days sounds like fuck all to me, knowing what I know I am confident that they learn and perform all the skills required to achieve the standard that is set by the Government (and probably no more). If they weren't up to scratch they wouldn't be there simple as that. Yes some may say I have too much(misplaced) faith in the system and they may be right.

My opinion (based on the facts presented so far) is that I don't believe the officer is a fault ("fault" meaning he made the wrong decision or acted any differently than any other officer would have or was not up to the standard of training dictated by the Govt). Yes he is still responsible and to blame but I wouldn't say he is criminally negligent.

Should the investigation deem that the level of training they receive isn't of high enough standard then this is a Govt mistake, they need to revised what level of capability they want from the AOS and allocate the necessary budget/training to make it happen.

All views are of course my own personal ones based on my military experience so may not be relevant to Law Enforcement....

[Skyryder]

No means to an end justifies the killing of a bystander. Even if the only way to defend your life or the lives of others mean to take a shot at someone, you make sure that you ID the target and make it a good shot. No excuse of stress or urgency to put the guy down justifies shooting the wrong guy. Simple. Five shots fired, the guy should have been in a body bag, not arrested and sent to hospital. That in inself speaks volume's. Either the training or the equipment is not up to standard to do the job it was asked to do. And if it seems like I'm putting the boot in, I'm not. To me its simple, no excuse of expectations, or thats the job they do, thats what they take the pay for (probably not enough). No free ride on fuck ups...... and shooting civies is a fuck up.

Best post by far.:yes:

Skyryder

[scumdog]

No excuse of stress or urgency to put the guy down justifies shooting the wrong guy.

Was the wrong guy shot by intention - or as a result of a stray bullet?? Media keep saying 'mistakenly' shot as opposed to unintentionally..

End the result but not quite the same thing, is it??

[Max Preload]

Was the wrong guy shot by intention - or as a result of a stray bullet?? Media keep saying 'mistakenly' shot as opposed to unintentionally..

End the result but not quite the same thing, is it??

I feel that he was probably mistaken for the assailant, which makes it even worse because he didn't have a weapon. Either way, I put little to no faith in anything reported in the media being particularly accurate anyway, as should any rational, sane person.

[Skyryder]

Qualitative differences in situations are not 'semantics'. The facts of each situation need to be acknowledged.

A traffic officer performing a dangerous U-turn to catch someone and ticket them is not in the same ballpark as an AOS officer shooting at someone who's already opened fire on civilians. It's not even the same fucking game.

Y'know, I don't enjoy reading criticism of police on this forum that I know is motivated by an annoyance about traffic tickets that's being projected onto everything the cops do.

The AOS's actions were reasonable in these circumstances, and the outcome was tragic. Attempting to conceptually link that to some traffic officer's ill-considered U-turn is fallacious and manipulative.



Not in the same game?? Both events resulted in ‘innocent’ victims. That put’s the game in the same ball park. That there was no deaths in the U-turn incident had more to do with luck than anything else.

You assume that any critism of the police is the result of traffic enforcement that’s a dodgy call if ever I heard one.

As for reasonable. Not according to this expert and he should have some knowledge on the subject.

A former head of the German Anti-Terrorism Squad has criticised police procedure and operations in the events which led up to the death of an innocent Auckland teenager.
Berny Maubach says a complete overhaul may be needed after .


Skyryder

[scumdog]

Berny Maubach says a complete overhaul may be needed after .
[/I]

Skyryder

And what disgruntled baggage is this paragon of perfection carrying??

[jrandom]

The truth is Dan you have precious few facts to base an argument on and seem emotionally mixed up with this debate.

We should start a club!

:laugh:

I agree that shutting up until any official investigations have run their course is the wisest option.

For what it's worth, though, I do think that a cop performing a dangerous U-turn to catch someone who infringed a traffic rule really has nothing in common with a cop shooting at someone who's opened fire on civilians.

A cop performing a dangerous U-turn to catch someone who's intentionally running down pedestrians in the street would be a fair comparison.

And I don't quite understand the comments about 'emotional involvement'. It'd be pretty cold to not have any feelings on matters like this, wouldn't it?

[Skyryder]

And what disgruntled baggage is this paragon of perfection carrying??


I would presume that someone who has risen to the head of the German anti terriorist squad would have little baggage if any.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Again when we have all the facts statements such as these can be judged, until then best for all to keep an open mind.

Pfft, like that's ever going to happen here.

[ghost]

Was the wrong guy shot by intention - or as a result of a stray bullet?? Media keep saying 'mistakenly' shot as opposed to unintentionally..

End the result but not quite the same thing, is it??

Very true, if it was an off target round that killed him, it is unintentional. using different munitions or firearms may lessen the danger, have always thought that 223 is not suitable for police work. In some circumstances yes, but a far larger portion of work would not require the range. A discussion for another time.

If it was a miss, what happenend to the other four rounds? They may have gone a hell of a long way if pointed in the right direction. Which leads back to training and the question of taking the shot / shots in the first place.

Still not trying to put the boot in, as in previous posts these guys are only doing the best they can with what they are given, often a thankless job, but a firearm was discharged, someone died, history sayes that it will end in a court case. Only the lawyers will gain. (maybe if it had been a lawyer on the back of the ute it would have been more rounds fired and no misses:eek:)

[spudchucka]

I feel that he was probably mistaken for the assailant, which makes it even worse because he didn't have a weapon.

50 year old p freak armed with a sawn off .22 rifle vs 17 year old clean cut courier driver???? Sure, I can see how you could easily get the two mixed up.:wacko:

[Hoon]

If it was a miss, what happenend to the other four rounds? They may have gone a hell of a long way if pointed in the right direction. Which leads back to training and the question of taking the shot / shots in the first place.

Like I said in a previous post to your same point, they are trained to take this course of action. Any cop put in the same position would have done the same thing.


As soon as the offender pointed his rifle at the truck driver, the AOS guys are authorised to use deadly force. The imminent threat of the driver being shot outweighs the possible threat of someone nearby being hurt. Yes it may sound harsh but tough that's how it works.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but until Police are issued crystal balls they are locked into a "Standard Operating Procedure" for a given situation. If you are proposing that Police should not shoot if there is even the slightest chance of an innocent casualty then they would never be able to shoot as that risk will always exist.

I do agree that the M4/bushmaster was not the ideal weapon for this situation. MP5 would've been better but wouldn't necessarily have changed the outcome.

Yep unfortunate that the Officer may need to be charged to appease public outcry. I wish it didn't have to happen but can understand why it needs to. He'll be dragged through the mud and probably be cleared (hey if it's OK to chase and stab a tagger). The same taxpayers wanting the answers are also footing the bill for the millions it will cost with only the lawyers benefiting. Totally unnecessary but necessary if you get my drift.

[ghost]

Like I said in a previous post to your same point, they are trained to take this course of action. Any cop put in the same position would have done the same thing.



Hindsight is a wonderful thing but until Police are issued crystal balls they are locked into a "Standard Operating Procedure" for a given situation. If you are proposing that Police should not shoot if there is even the slightest chance of an innocent casualty then they would never be able to shoot as that risk will always exist.

I do agree that the M4/bushmaster was not the ideal weapon for this situation. MP5 would've been better but wouldn't necessarily have changed the outcome.

Yep unfortunate that the Officer may need to be charged to appease public outcry. I wish it didn't have to happen but can understand why it needs to. He'll be dragged through the mud and probably be cleared (hey if it's OK to chase and stab a tagger). The same taxpayers wanting the answers are also footing the bill for the millions it will cost with only the lawyers benefiting. Totally unnecessary but necessary if you get my drift.

Agree and disagree, if there trained to take the shot regardless of risk, thats bad SOP. Its bad firearms practice too, and I hope its not the case. Any current serving officers to comment? Not saying he did, (or anyone did) but to tap off 5 rounds, with a human backstop (southern motorway, cars every where, houses behind), (wasnt there so dont know the actual facts) gutsy call. You would want to be pretty sure of your shooting ability.

He may need to be charged, totaly different situation, but in the past "they" have had no issues with prosecuting hunters who mis-identify thier targets and kill their mates. They even send them to jail, "probably" against the publics best interest. Different situation, but similar result.

Id like to think that in the course of there duty most officers would have a policy of trying to do no more harm than the people they are trying to apprehend, like you say though hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Anyone know how they actually got the guy? did he give up or did they grab him? What where his actual wounds, apart from ringing in his ears?

[Patrick]

You claim that the cop doing the U-turn was an error of judgment and that this is different from shooting an innocent person. Both are errors of judgment. One judged the road safe to perform a U-turn, the other judged the innocent person to be the perpetrator.

Geez... where do you get this crap from????


The simplicity of truth. :2thumbsup

Skyryder.

See above...


My personal view is summed up here in this sentence.

Just what training does a member of the AOS undertake?

Often hand picked, psychologically assessed (often), a selection course (just for selection as "suitable" for AOS), as well as the actual AOS courses themselves, firearms training every month minimum, various joint training exercises with "other agencies" as well as scenario active training. It is quite intensive.


You are right. Something like 3 days a year and a refresher every 6 months or something? Sweet fuck all if you ask me.

....

Twice a year for the average front liner. And they are usually the ones at the sharp end of the stick, until AOS arrive and take over.


I feel that he was probably mistaken for the assailant,

C'mon Max.... no where, anywhere... was he mistakenly thought to be the assailant, ever.


A former head of the German Anti-Terrorism Squad has criticised police procedure and operations in the events which led up to the death of an innocent Auckland teenager.
Berny Maubach says a complete overhaul may be needed after .


Skyryder


And what disgruntled baggage is this paragon of perfection carrying??

Beat me to it Scummy. "Former" often means leaving under a cloud. I'll take it back if he retired coz he got old.


Agree and disagree, if there trained to take the shot regardless of risk, thats bad SOP. Its bad firearms practice too, and I hope its not the case. Any current serving officers to comment? Not saying he did, (or anyone did) but to tap off 5 rounds, with a human backstop (southern motorway, cars every where, houses behind), (wasnt there so dont know the actual facts) gutsy call. You would want to be pretty sure of your shooting ability.



Its not the case. BUt if life is at risk, as the truck drivers was, action needed to be taken.

It is his words that I believe, more than any other. He was there. He saw it actually occur and isn't relying on the Harold or any other Media beat up.

His words were to the effect of, "I have no problem with the Polices actions. If they didn't act, I would be dead too." (Not an exact quote, mind, but definitely along those lines).

[Max Preload]

C'mon Max.... no where, anywhere... was he mistakenly thought to be the assailant, ever.


the chain of the events that led to police mistakenly shooting a teenage courier driver in Auckland (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10553745)


incident in which police mistakenly shot a 17-year-old courier driver dead on Friday (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10553608)


culminated in a teenage courier driver being mistakenly shot by police (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10554398)

Search for "Halatau Naitoko accidently" (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/halatau-natoko-accidently/search/results.cfm?kw1=Halatau%20Naoko%20accidently&kw2=&op=all&searchorder=2&display=10&start=0&thepage=1&st=gsa) on NZ Herald...

It might only be semantics, but I'd expect better of anyone purporting to be a journalist. I mean, I didn't even pass School Certificate English...

[Max Preload]

50 year old p freak armed with a sawn off .22 rifle vs 17 year old clean cut courier driver???? Sure, I can see how you could easily get the two mixed up.:wacko:



Again when we have all the facts statements such as these can be judged, until then best for all to keep an open mind.Pfft, like that's ever going to happen here.

Ever considered taking some of your own advice instead of merely dishing it out?

[Patrick]

It might only be semantics, but I'd expect better of anyone purporting to be a journalist. I mean, I didn't even pass School Certificate English...

It was a mistake to shoot the poor kid. You've lost me here.... not one of em said he was the assailant, or associated to him in any way....


Ever considered taking some of your own advice instead of merely dishing it out?

But he stated facts... a 50 year old P freak armed with a sawn off .22 vs a clean cut 17 year old.....

[Max Preload]

It was a mistake to shoot the poor kid. You've lost me here.... not one of em said he was the assailant, or associated to him in any way....

What I'm saying is you can mistakenly shoot the wrong person if you mistakenly identify them as the offender. It might be semantics but it's my opinion he got it wrong. One day we may find out.


But he stated facts... a 50 year old P freak armed with a sawn off .22 vs a clean cut 17 year old.....

It is pure speculation as to whom the person that fired the one fatal shot had identfied as the offender. The others might have got it right but that doesn't mean they all did and from his position he's saying they obviously all got it right based on his description of the offender and bystander. Having not seen the accused Stephen Hohepa McDonald you could just as easily say "middle aged gentleman vs polynesian youth".

[98tls]

It was a mistake to shoot the poor kid. You've lost me here.... not one of em said he was the assailant, or associated to him in any way....



But he stated facts... a 50 year old P freak armed with a sawn off .22 vs a clean cut 17 year old..... Don'T bother mate these geniuses could draw a circle and convince themselves they have re-invented the wheel.:zzzz:

[Patrick]

What I'm saying is you can mistakenly shoot the wrong person if you mistakenly identify them as the offender. It might be semantics but it's my opinion he got it wrong. One day we may find out.

He was never Identified as the offender. Whatever you're smoking, lay off it.:crazy:

It is pure speculation as to whom the person that fired the one fatal shot had identfied as the offender. The others might have got it right but that doesn't mean they all did and from his position he's saying they obviously all got it right based on his description of the offender and bystander. Having not seen the accused Stephen Hohepa McDonald you could just as easily say "middle aged gentleman vs polynesian youth".

Must be good shit you smokin... They shot at the offender as he took aim at the truck driver. One of the shots went through the offender/ricocheted or missed the offender completely, and struck the 17 year old who was not seen, in the line of fire past the offender... get it now?


Don'T bother mate these geniuses could draw a circle and convince themselves they have re-invented the wheel.:zzzz:

The above was my last attempt.... honest....:whistle:

[Max Preload]

Must be good shit you smokin... They shot at the offender as he took aim at the truck driver. One of the shots went through the offender/ricocheted or missed the offender completely, and struck the 17 year old who was not seen, in the line of fire past the offender... get it now?

I don't smoke anything except perhaps the odd tyre and, with all due respect, that is only your opinion which is based on hearsay.