Police admit shooting innocent 17-year-old

[Dean]

Mikey? son of Mikey?

yep

[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_t...s_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...

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

1. Treat every firearm as loaded
2. Always point firearms in a safe direction
3. Load a firearm only when ready to fire
4. Identify your target
5. Check your firing zone
6. Store firearms and ammunition safely
7. 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:Me]

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.