Police shoot and kill another person

[Patrick]

and if the cop hadn't challenged him with death he might have wrecked a few more cars and been alive to pay for it today.

instead the fuckin cop slaughtered him for the offence of property damage.

And if he didn't "challenge him to stop" and just sat there, what then? The guy had already tried to get into occupied cars, what if he whacked them on the skull while the cop sat there?

And, again...... He wasn't shot for property offences. He was shot for trying to stove in the head of the cop. Who gives a toss about a few broken windows?

as for police moral; that's no excuse to allow them to kill people for traffic and property offences

There is the old blame shifting again....

[idleidolidyll]

You wanted to know why we don't have cops on the beat and local bobbies anymore.

No I didn't; I suggested we needed more beat cops and less ticket givers, I never asked why. that was YOUR leap of untellect

[Coldrider]

The Napier cops was a different scenario. They attended a gathering of people (read: disorderly behaviour...) The axe man appears and they have no weapons... If they had firearms, my bet is they would have shot him too... but in the Napier case, at least his mates were there to take the axe off him, unlike the CHCH daisy pusher...

No, good policing in Napier at work, bet the coppas loved giving the hoods a good bash, hell it is not PC for their parents to do it these days, unless they are Samoan with a jandal yielding mother.

[idleidolidyll]

The Napier cops was a different scenario. They attended a gathering of people (read: disorderly behaviour...) The axe man appears and they have no weapons... If they had firearms, my bet is they would have shot him too... but in the Napier case, at least his mates were there to take the axe off him, unlike the CHCH daisy pusher...

so they shoot him because they don't have the patience or intelligence to look for a better solution: fuck em, they don't deserve my respect



TUI.... TUI.... Like it happens every day or something? WTF?????????? Blame the cops for the car chase that ends in a crash, blame the cop for the drug taker who tries to smash the cops head open with a hammer...

still taken in by police propaganda? tsh tsh! I blame the cops for not having the wherewithall, training, humanity, instructions to look for a solution that doesn't end in death.
In the end, I don't believe shooting the guy was the only way; it was an overreaction that lead to the tragic death of a human being and ALL unnecessary death is a tragedy.



The solution was reasonable... he wanted to go home to his family in one piece. You clearly don't want this to occur. Can you explain???

Drugged out madman intent on stoving in an innocent cops head verses a cop out doing his job....

bollocks! If he'd backed off and let the guy wreck a few more cars both would still be alive and all that would be hurt would be an insurance company's bank account.

[Coldrider]

Who gives a toss about a few broken windows?
There is the old blame shifting again....

Why was he interupted in his play then

[idleidolidyll]

And if he didn't "challenge him to stop" and just sat there, what then? The guy had already tried to get into occupied cars, what if he whacked them on the skull while the cop sat there?

And, again...... He wasn't shot for property offences. He was shot for trying to stove in the head of the cop. Who gives a toss about a few broken windows?



There is the old blame shifting again....

I see; challenge him to stop and if he doesn't, it's OK to kill him for damaging cars. Yes, he WAS shot for damaging property. The cop had other choices but decided to kill instead of using them.

The COP could have backed away and sought other means. There was no threat to life or limb other than to the cop AFTER the cop challenged him and offered the death sentence.

[idleidolidyll]

Why was he interupted in his play then

exactly!

let him smash up a few cars until a non lethal solution could be managed

[Coldrider]

I don't think so Tim. They were probably shot while holstering it

That may seem a prevarication but there are enough inaccurate ideas circulating hereabout already. And that's just what's in the news media

What is the difference on a technicality, did they intend to shoot themselves.

[Patrick]

Now, the police are routinely armed.

No they aren't. Never have "routinely" armed myself, but do have access if needed, as we all do. And this includes working on Auckland as well as may other parts of the North Island

Only to protect himself or others. Yet little by little (and I think i see the first signs of it in some of the comments here), the case will alter.

Unsure where you're at, here... the cop shot to protect himself???

And, if the criminal element come to realise that the first response of the police is likely to be lethal force, is it not logical that they will also arm themselves and "get in first"

Hello... they already are armed, look at DUTHIE, shot at two unarmed cops at West Auckland... BURTON on parole and look what he did, DIXON and the list goes on.... It is the Police who are not armed "routinely" and I for one hope it never gets that way.

"Did you realise that WINZ give away the equivalent of the annual Police budget in just 4 weeks? There's the problem right there."

Finally something I agree with you on. THAT is a waste of taxpayer money in a huge proportion of cases... as well as paying $90,000 each per year to keep the likes of BURTON, DIXON and company fed...

[Ocean1]

No, good policing in Napier at work, bet the coppas loved giving the hoods a good bash, hell it is not PC for their parents to do it these days, unless they are Samoan with a jandal yielding mother.

Believe I see the barest hint of a solution coalescing from all this drivel… Get the Samoan mothers out on the streets. Fuck most of ‘em’d scare me straight.

The fact is the time to administer “human” reactions to violent behaviour is when they’re much younger. By the time these idiots are waving clubs/axes/hammers at cops you continue to treat then as human only at the cost of other humans. Kill them before they get to me or mine thanks. Cheers.

[idleidolidyll]

quoting burton and dixon as an excuse to kill the latest human being is ridiculous. it's as fascile as saying tasers should be introduced for cops because they kill people with guns

[idleidolidyll]

The fact is the time to administer “human” reactions to violent behaviour is when they’re much younger. By the time these idiots are waving clubs/axes/hammers at cops you continue to treat then as human only at the cost of other humans. Kill them before they get to me or mine thanks. Cheers.

yep, that was my point about bringing back beat cops.

local bobbies walking about the neighbourhood would be a far better use of public money than tasers and handguns

[Patrick]

No, good policing in Napier at work,

Nope... good luck at work was all... good luck that they weren't armed.

bollocks! If he'd backed off and let the guy wreck a few more cars both would still be alive and all that would be hurt would be an insurance company's bank account.

Soooooooo..... call the Police, theres a guy smashing up cars with a hammer. You say, why bother calling the cops, coz they should sit there and do absolutely nothing anyhow?

The person who rang the cops... its THEIR fault!!!!!!!!

Or have I got it wrong again?????

I see; challenge him to stop and if he doesn't, it's OK to kill him for damaging cars. Yes, he WAS shot for damaging property. The cop had other choices but decided to kill instead of using them.

The COP could have backed away and sought other means. There was no threat to life or limb other than to the cop AFTER the cop challenged him and offered the death sentence.

After the cop pulled up, to do his job, as is expected by those who rang the Police in the first place, (you know, that bit about protecting life and property) this idiot tries to take him on with a hammer. So now the cop is protecting his own life and still the property of strangers.

This slant is what you don't seem to comprehend... he was not shot for breaking windows (is there an echo from Waitara going on in this guys head?). He was shot for trying to kill a cop. Full stop, end of story.

Why isn't your argument more like... "The Offender could have dropped his hammer?"

[Patrick]

quoting burton and dixon as an excuse to kill the latest human being is ridiculous. it's as fascile as saying tasers should be introduced for cops because they kill people with guns

Claiming I am using DIXON nad BURTON as excuses to kill the latest human being shows how out of touch with reality you really are.... where the hell did that little gem of yours above come from? Not this planet, surely???

[idleidolidyll]

Nope... good luck at work was all... good luck that they weren't armed.



Soooooooo..... call the Police, theres a guy smashing up cars with a hammer. You say, why bother calling the cops, coz they should sit there and do absolutely nothing anyhow?

The person who rang the cops... its THEIR fault!!!!!!!!

Or have I got it wrong again?????

Oh sure, ring the cops and have them bring a gun, my cars being attacked and I want the perp killed! fukkin yank philosophy.

If the cop can't handle the situation without resorting to a death penalty he should have waited for cops with brains to come and help him sort it out.



After the cop pulled up, to do his job, as is expected by those who rang the Police in the first place, (you know, that bit about protecting life and property) this idiot tries to take him on with a hammer. So now the cop is protecting his own life and still the property of strangers.

Sorry, I don't automatically buy into police propaganda the way you do. I believe there would have been other non lethal choices if the cops trained their grunts properly. The cop was NOT protecting his own life the ONLY way he could; he COULD have backed off for a while.

This slant is what you don't seem to comprehend... he was not shot for breaking windows (is there an echo from Waitara going on in this guys head?). He was shot for trying to kill a cop. Full stop, end of story.

Yes he was. The cop refused to consider non lethal alternatives and therefore the guy WAS killed for damaging property. That's the police message: "We don't value human life highly and we'll kill you or force you to kill yourself if you speed or break things"

It's time for this yank menatlity to stop.

Why isn't your argument more like... "The Offender could have dropped his hammer?"

I see, "drop your hammer or we'll kill you" is fine and dandy with you. tell that to me after someone you love has been slaughtered by police unwilling to seek non lethal alternatives