Police admit shooting innocent 17-year-old

**SARGE** · 24th January 2009, 21:33

Originally Posted by Headbanger

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

It was red.....right?

chartreuse ...tinged with mauve ..

**Robbo** · 24th January 2009, 21:59

Originally Posted by 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

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.

**Headbanger** · 24th January 2009, 22:02

Originally Posted by SARGE

chartreuse ...tinged with mauve ..

You just made those words up right?

**SARGE** · 24th January 2009, 22:11

Originally Posted by Headbanger

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** · 24th January 2009, 22:15

Originally Posted by marty

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** · 24th January 2009, 22:22

Originally Posted by firefighter

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** · 24th January 2009, 22:27

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** · 24th January 2009, 23:13

Originally Posted by 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

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.

You could see it coming after that futile attempt to shoot the bloody dog!

Pathetic. John.

**twotyred** · 25th January 2009, 00:11

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

**oldguy** · 25th January 2009, 01:23

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** · 25th January 2009, 06:17

Originally Posted by SARGE

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** · 25th January 2009, 06:38

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 25th January 2009, 06:40

Originally Posted by oldrider

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.

You could see it coming after that futile attempt to shoot the bloody dog!

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** · 25th January 2009, 06:42

Originally Posted by 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

So true Mr Fossil...

Too much hot blood rushing around....