Gunshop employee charged

**Swoop** · 13th December 2006, 11:53

I have a small problem with the tactics used, if this is to be believed as presented.

"Ms Priest said Windrum approached the open driver's door and pointed his gun at Lowe, telling him he was under arrest.

Another policeman got into the passenger seat and tried to put Lowe into a headlock to prevent him from driving away."

If another officer gets into your line of fire, any chances of firing a shot have disappeared.

**spudchucka** · 13th December 2006, 12:34

Originally Posted by Swoop

From this mornings Harold.
Another (mis)use of a handgun?

After reading the Herald piece for a second time the greatest concern I have about this matter is that the cop is being defended by a guy called Dick Ear-Whacker.

**Clivoris** · 13th December 2006, 19:50

Originally Posted by spudchucka

After reading the Herald piece for a second time the greatest concern I have about this matter is that the cop is being defended by a guy called Dick Ear-Whacker.

Do you think his name got hyphenated after marrying Miss Ear? Poor bastard must have got hell at school...He's either grown up with an amazing sense of humour and great self-defense skills, or a huge chip.

**Ixion** · 13th December 2006, 22:18

Originally Posted by Fish

I've been thinking about this.

If Al was justified in drawing his pistol and putting his finger on the trigger, we shouldn't second-guess his decision to fire.

Charging him is complete bullshit. We can't arm our police officers and then condemn them every time 20/20 hindsight reveals potential imperfections in their decision-making under stress. I for one am not going to pretend that I could have done any better.

I sincerely hope the charge against him is thrown out of court.

Yith. Thats why I said it should be an internal matter. decision may not have been the right one (cos of risk of collateral damage to the other cop) but it's a justifiable one. A training/competancy issue (assuming it is anything at all) not a criminal one.

**Lou Girardin** · 14th December 2006, 05:43

Originally Posted by Fish

Nice rant! I didn't see anybody judging him, dude. Now chill.

I'll judge him. The wanker's seen too much TV. The unspoken inference is that he lost control after being driven at and opened fired without consideration for who was near his target.
It's not much different to the two cops who fired on a car near the Mercer gas station because "they saw something silver in the drivers hand and it could have been a gun"

**scumdog** · 14th December 2006, 07:33

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

It's not much different to the two cops who fired on a car near the Mercer gas station because "they saw something silver in the drivers hand and it could have been a gun"

Got to balance that against "Yeah, I saw the silver thing in his hand and never thought it would be a gun, shame he managed to shoot my mate before I realised it WAS a gun" scenario.

**jrandom** · 14th December 2006, 09:15

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

I'll judge him. Rassin' frassin' rootin' tootin' dog-blasted ornery no-account long-eared varmint...

Have you considered therapy?

**davereid** · 14th December 2006, 09:25

Seems to me we need guidelines as to when its appropriate to use a firearm or indeed any weapon in self defence.

(I remain unconvinced that the guidelines should be different for police, although I accept that they are going to be armed much more frequently, and exposed to risk much more frequently that joe public.)

To me the test should be something like it was in the old days... I can't quite remember it but it was something like;

"Every person has the right to use force in the defence of himself or others to the minimum amount necessary, in the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be"

Pretty clearly the court is the right place for any dispute or potential breach of the law to be heard. Not much point having judges if it can all be decided outside the court.

But clearer rules would make it easy to decide if it needs go near a court in the first place !

**jrandom** · 14th December 2006, 09:30

Originally Posted by davereid

To me the test should be something like it was in the old days... I can't quite remember it but it was something like;

"Every person has the right to use force in the defence of himself or others to the minimum amount necessary, in the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be"

The law already exists in (almost) those exact words.

Problem is, we also have some pretty restrictive regulations surrounding the storage and carrying of weapons, which would be the best place to start in terms of reform, if reform is necessary.

Put it this way - in NZ, nobody is on a better footing than a hunter in the field with an E-cat rifle who suffers an attempted mugging...

**spudchucka** · 14th December 2006, 20:08

Originally Posted by davereid

Seems to me we need guidelines as to when its appropriate to use a firearm or indeed any weapon in self defence.

(I remain unconvinced that the guidelines should be different for police, although I accept that they are going to be armed much more frequently, and exposed to risk much more frequently that joe public.)

To me the test should be something like it was in the old days... I can't quite remember it but it was something like;

"Every person has the right to use force in the defence of himself or others to the minimum amount necessary, in the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be"

Pretty clearly the court is the right place for any dispute or potential breach of the law to be heard. Not much point having judges if it can all be decided outside the court.

But clearer rules would make it easy to decide if it needs go near a court in the first place !

http://www.legislation.co.nz/

Go to Crimes Act 1961

Check sections 39 - 62.

Pay particular attention to sections 39, 40, 41, 48 & 62.

All sections apply to members of the police no more and no less than they apply to any New Zealander.