Police shoot and kill another person

[scumdog]

Four shots and as to date no mention of a life threatening situation, but hey I still got an open mind on this.

Skyryder

Well it certainly was life threatening to the dead idiot!!! Mwahahahaha!!

[Tank]

Well if the investigation is anything like the Rickards one we'll all be dead and gone before any colclusion as to the rights and wrongs of this is made public.

The whole thing sounds a bit gung ho. Four shots and as to date no mention of a life threatening situation, but hey I still got an open mind on this.

Skyryder

The paper currently says:

Manderson said the police officer who shot the man felt his life was "under serious threat". Manderson said the man was threatening serious harm to the police officer.


If a guy is coming at you with a hammer stating that he is going to do you serious harm I would call that life threatening.

[heyjoe]

It is too early in the piece to jump conclusions. The taser trial (and it was just a trial and evaluation) has now ended and use of the taser ceased. It was reported in the news a short while ago. I agree that it would be unwise to make the assumption that all four shots hit the guy. I am sure further details will clarify things later today. Following protocol is important in work where violence is always a potential everyday hazard. I await further news.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Well, it looks like we'll all get a say in how we'd like the cops to do their jobs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7015024.stm

[Joni]

My question is not really about this case alone... Im hoping someone can answer it for me...

Fair enough, when a cop feels they are under pressure, shoot! But 4 bullets? Hmmm excessive IMO.

The other night we were watching one of these cop programmes and police were empying their guns on people. I asked my partner why this happens, he says you need to keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat... surely one or two bullets would do that? Or am I being naive again?

[Finn]

but hey I still got an open mind on this.

So has the moron that got shoot... all over the pavement. He he.

I can't wait to hear from the family. "Oh he was such a lovely boy"

[Colapop]

4 bullets is really just two. I was in the army and we were taught to double tap (two shots for the price of one) Handguns are a lot more twitchy than rifles and it's very easy when under pressure to fire more than a single shot. I think 'under pressure' is the appropriate term here. Being in that situation, I'd fire more than one shot. The officer did not "empty the mag into the motherfucker" as some people (the media) would suggest is the intent in every armed conflict the NZ police have been in.

[Finn]

Fair enough, when a cop feels they are under pressure, shoot! But 4 bullets? Hmmm excessive IMO.

It's not like a video game Joni. Even at close range, a pistol is inaccurate especially when in a life threatening situation so it is normal practice to empty the bloody thing until the scumsucker hits the deck. One calculated shot works for a sniper, not for a cop with a pistolla.

[ghost]

My question is not really about this case alone... Im hoping someone can answer it for me...

Fair enough, when a cop feels they are under pressure, shoot! But 4 bullets? Hmmm excessive IMO.

The other night we were watching one of these cop programmes and police were empying their guns on people. I asked my partner why this happens, he says you need to keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat... surely one or two bullets would do that? Or am I being naive again?

No, not naive, there has been a lot of debate at to the stopping power of the current service round, aside from this and no disrespect, most police officers are not marksmen in the situation they shoot in so they may not place rounds on target effectivly. Given the situation of not having the time or space to establish if the target is hit effectivly enough to stop them the safest option for the police is to shoot unit the target either stops or goes down. There is no exact science on the number of shots this will take.

Aside to all the naysayers out there the police do not go around filling people with lead ( unless you count the ozzie federal police ) needlessly so dont beleive all that appears in the media and wait for a bit more factual information to come out, if it ever does ( thanks media )

[RC1]

"Oh he was such a lovely boy"

of cause he was a good man arent they always after they are taken down

[Hoon]

surely one or two bullets would do that? Or am I being naive again?

Putting it nicely....Yes.

Bullet wounds aren't consistent. You can fire one bullet and kill someone by hitting a vital organ, other times you can fire 12 and they'll still keep coming at you. You can't shoot to wound with any guarantee that you will only wound and not kill.

Hence the decision to shoot is really the decision to kill. If you decide to kill then thats what you aim to do. Since one shot may not kill you need to fire more to accomplish the task.

Say you lined up 100 individual cops each facing 100 individual hammer weilding maniacs intent on killing them. You tell each of those cops that they can only fire one bullet at their offender. How many crazies do you think will get through and kill their cop?? Do the same experiment again but this time the cops can fire as many rounds as needed.

Yes we must consider the offenders well being but we still need to provide enough of a safe environment for our Police on the front line.

[k14]

If only tariana turia would walk around with a hammer.

Nah i'd rather it be bradford, sue that is.

As for the "victim", good riddance. The world is devoid of one more meathead. If you are too thick to stop what you are doing when a cop draws his gun then you've got no sympathy from me. Good stuff to the copper for making a good job of it, unlike the case with the gunman loose in upper hutt, he killed him and which means no taxpayer money wasted on hospital treatment.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If you approach/threaten a member of the Police with weapon drawn....... its your own fuckin fault. The cop more than likely didn't give you the hammer and say "run towards me so I can shoot you", the person made the wrong decision and now his family and friends have to live with it, and Darwin says he doesn't get to live with his stupid decision.

I agree with this absolutely. I have no sympathy for this fuckwit, Stephen Wallace or his ilk either.
I was talking to someone about this this morning and they couldnt remember the name for the kaumatuas this morning and came up with "yoda's".. which I thought was pretty funny.

[HenryDorsetCase]

4 bullets is really just two. I was in the army and we were taught to double tap (two shots for the price of one) Handguns are a lot more twitchy than rifles and it's very easy when under pressure to fire more than a single shot. I think 'under pressure' is the appropriate term here. Being in that situation, I'd fire more than one shot. The officer did not "empty the mag into the motherfucker" as some people (the media) would suggest is the intent in every armed conflict the NZ police have been in.

As a taxpayer, Im putting my hand up to say that I wouldnt mind the extra expense of the extra rounds (Glock is what, nine? so he had five spare: he should get an efficiency medal or something.)

[HenryDorsetCase]

Well if the investigation is anything like the Rickards one we'll all be dead and gone before any colclusion as to the rights and wrongs of this is made public.

The whole thing sounds a bit gung ho. Four shots and as to date no mention of a life threatening situation, but hey I still got an open mind on this.

Skyryder

its worth repeating that if someone is threatening you with a hammer then that kind of meets any reasonable definition of "life threatening"