Police admit shooting innocent 17-year-old

[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!?

[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.

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!



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)

[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.