Don't take a knife to a gunfight !

**spudchucka** · 31st July 2006, 12:28

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

Shouldnt running at someone with a Machete be attempted murder? Or some charge with threatening someone with a weapon at least

It mostly comes down to the persons intent, did they intend to murder the other person or did they intend to scare the shit out of them and rob them?

Have a read through the crimes act and understand the ingredients of the offences before you decide what the appropriate charges should be. The cops need to look at the facts and then find the appropriate charge to fit the offence.

Or would you prefer it if the cops just decided on a charge that they wanted and then "found" the required evidence to prove that charge?

**The_Dover** · 31st July 2006, 12:35

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Or would you prefer it if the cops just decided on a charge that they wanted and then "found" the required evidence to prove that charge?

The pigs would never pull a dirty trick like that surely?

The fine upstanding members of the community that they are......

**Swoop** · 31st July 2006, 12:41

Originally Posted by spudchucka

We do train to use a .223 in reactive shooting from close range. I thought an expert like you would have known that?

If I go to an incident requiring the use of firearms then I will either have both weapons with me or I will have a partner at my side who is carrying the alternative weapon.

From a police point of view there isn't any point training to shoot a glock over 70 metres, you might as well throw rotten eggs at the offender. If we wanted to go to the Olympic games and win gold medals then by all means practice shooting pistols at long range but from a law enforcement perspective it has absolutely no merits.

I suggest you drop the topic before you make an even bigger arse of yourself.

How often do you shoot Spud?
Just training days, or do you hunt/target shoot as well?
Just interested.

**spudchucka** · 31st July 2006, 13:04

Originally Posted by Swoop

How often do you shoot Spud?
Just training days, or do you hunt/target shoot as well?
Just interested.

I don't hold a firearms licence. In the past I have been into bow hunting but I've never been interested in hunting with a firearm.

Hunting and target shooting have very little relevance in a discussion on police operational shooting. In fact, many of the experienced hunters who join the police have considerable difficulties coming to terms with reactive shooting of hand guns. The newbies that get the hang of it the quickest are often either females or generally just first time firearms operators.

**kickingzebra** · 31st July 2006, 13:06

Does not your police ID suffice as a fire arms license? I had been informed they did...
Curious, not feisty

**spudchucka** · 31st July 2006, 13:07

Originally Posted by kickingzebra

Does not your police ID suffice as a fire arms license? I had been informed they did...
Curious, not feisty

No. To own a firearm we still need to hold a NZ firearms licence.

**spudchucka** · 31st July 2006, 15:39

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

Is that what you say when you loose an argument and open your mouth without thinking?

Just add him to the ever increasing list of half wits that unfortunately frequent this site.

**The_Dover** · 31st July 2006, 15:41

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Just add him to the ever increasing list of half wits that unfortunately frequent this site.

Yeah, we have a fair few pigs on here these days, don't we?

**Swoop** · 31st July 2006, 15:46

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

when was this murder? he got off because he wasnt given his rights when in custody? Even if they were not given on the street they are given when in the watchhouse...and i dont know any detective who wouldnt give someone their rights before putting them on an interview.

Where did this happen? what time period?

He was read his rights after confessing THREE times to the murder. All this was inadmissable evidence in court.
He did not get off however.

**The_Dover** · 31st July 2006, 16:10

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

Nice one brainsurgeon.

Yeah? Still, I'm overqualified for being a pig and I have morals. Ok, I don'thave morals but I'm definitely overqualified.

**Macktheknife** · 31st July 2006, 16:13

Originally Posted by scumdog

The Glocks effective range is about the distance you could throw it.

Ah I see the problem you are having now! The police have become so underfunded they cannot afford ammo any more! It all makes sense now. lol
The glock is my personal favourite sidearm for working environments. I would go through 200-300 rounds per month on the range and was required to do a combat shoot every 3 months minimum. In my team, every person could put 17 rounds inside a 5 inch spread at 15m, this was not considered good, just good enough.
I have found that most police agencies around the world require the officers to qualify once or twice per year, with a much lower level of proficiency than this, I assume the same is true in NZ.
My only concern is that the officers should be trained sufficiently well that when required to use their weapon they do so safely and competently. Competent in this case is to hit what they are aiming for consistently, safely is to not hit anything they are not aiming at.
Swoop, you have either taken a windup too far or you are talking out of your arse, possibly both. Either way, its time to stop.
Scumdog, you know you have the respect of most.

**Finn** · 31st July 2006, 16:21

Actually the best weapon in NZ for stopping all the low life’s committing crime is to cut off their benefits. Even if we cut social welfare by 50%, we would have $30+ billion to play with. Even if a portion of this went back into policing, the cops would have more resources to work on preventive crime rather than working as glorified meter maids for the Government. We'd have to give the judges a kick up the arse too but you get my drift.

**Lou Girardin** · 31st July 2006, 16:25

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Don't know & don't care really. Why do we charge anybody with an offence? Convicting a murderer isn't going to make the victim unmurdered, convicting a dangerous driver isn't going to suddenly make them a safe road user, charging the guy that chopped down that protected tree isn't going to make it grow back.

You tell me why we have statutes that make certain acts or omissions offences? Tell me why we charge offenders if in reality it achieves nothing?

You are just being a tad silly now spud. You know I'm referring to cases where there is no need for punishment. But we have this mindset with our authoritarian classes that think every infraction must be punished.
The gentleman who shot the burglar did us a service, there is no need to go trawling for some 'chicken-shit' offence to nail him with. A warning would have been sufficient. And, apart form Philip Alpers, no one would have criticised the cops for doing so.