Police admit shooting innocent 17-year-old

[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.

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

incident in which police mistakenly shot a 17-year-old courier driver dead on Friday

culminated in a teenage courier driver being mistakenly shot by police

Search for "Halatau Naitoko accidently" 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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

[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.

[Pixie]

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.

This attitude is also that of the NZ Police.

I believe that the AOS do not have individual firearms allocated to each officer,they take the first one that comes to hand,and do not get familiar with a specific weapon.

[Mr Merde]

This attitude is also that of the NZ Police.

I believe that the AOS do not have individual firearms allocated to each officer,they take the first one that comes to hand,and do not get familiar with a specific weapon.

This again contrasts with the armed forces.

We were issued with our rifles. We were encouraged to get to know our rifles. They were sighted in for yourself.

Yes you can pick up almost any rifle or pistol and be near enough on target but for accurate work it the firearm needs to be sighted in for the individual using it. Every one is physically different and every one holds a firearm differently. This impacts on accuracy.

I hate doing it but compare this with the US where each officer is issued with a fiream. The serial is recorded to that officer. He qualifies and trains with that firearm (even the SWAT teams). They know their weapons.

This takes a lot of time and a lot of training.

The average NZ police officer doesnt seem to get this and the AOS seems to meet political guidelines for training.

[ghost]

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).

Thats another way of saying "I'm just glad it wasn't may arse that got shot"

[Patrick]

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.

And good for you too.... (the non smoking bit...)

Which part is my opinion and which is hearsay? (Granted, it can be hearsay about the "through shot" or "ricochet," as that is yet to be confirmed or ruled out, but remains very much a possibility... otherwise it will be a seriously bad miss with absolutely terrible consequences...)

It is fact, not hearsay or opinion, that the kid was a passer by who had absolutely nothing to do with any of the thefts, purse snatching, shooting at the cops or offender... which is the opposite of what you seem to think/claim...???

He was an innocent bystander.

This attitude is also that of the NZ Police.

I believe that the AOS do not have individual firearms allocated to each officer,they take the first one that comes to hand,and do not get familiar with a specific weapon.

Wrong there Pixie... AOS firearms are individually issued, sighed in for that one and only member only. Different specialists have different weapons. Scoped rifles for the snipers, some shotguns, scoped bushmasters, some un-scoped.... and glocks for all.

Thats another way of saying "I'm just glad it wasn't may arse that got shot"

True... but he was there. He knows what happened, got to see it all up close and personal... way better than everyone in KB land, me included.

Glad it wasn't my arse that shot the kid.....

Condolences to the family just doesn't seem enough........

[spudchucka]

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.

Unless you were there and witnessed everything that took place, your opinions are also based on hearsay.