Armed Offenders Squad member to be charged?

Forums › Off topic › Armed Offenders Squad member to be charged?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#192229 27-Jan-2009 10:56

TinyTim:
And now the offender wants to use his P-taking binge as a defence.

Sorry dude, if you take drugs then you should accept the consequences.

Yea agree totally ...a Druggie who ...ohh ...look ... also just **happened** to have a loaded gun with him!

Throw the whole damn book at him.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#192230 27-Jan-2009 10:59

Another thing that always annoys me when these unfortunate situations arise is that the media know that the police are not allowed to make any comment regarding fault etc due to ongoing investigations and possible court proceedings. So the media scrape some tosser like Ross Meurant out of the gutter and put his opinion forward like some kind of expert. What they fail to report is the circumstances under which Meurant left the police and the fact that his opinion would not be worth 2 cents to anybody that has a reasonable knowledge of police operating procedures.

Whilst this event has had tragic consequences for all those involved the fact that this is the first time an innocent bystander has been shot by police in 150 years plus is a credit to the police force. However, rest assured that even one death will be one too many for the police.

It's easy for the media to bash the police, much like they do when car chases end in innocent persons being killed. It would be much harder for them to ask why the laws are such that the maximum penalty for failing to stop for police is a fine??

I read "The Sun" website (just for the articles:-)) and they appear to have taken on some community responsibility and often run campaigns to have sentences stiffened or offenders kept in jail.

It's a shame that no media organisations over here don't have the sense to do something similar, there again that would be too much like hard work compared to bashing the police to sell newspapers.

richgamer

224 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#192267 27-Jan-2009 14:23

manslaughter is under the crimes act.

here is a guy who was charged with manslaughter because of an accident of him forgetting to secure his tree logs properly on his truck and it fell off and killed somebody, just like the aos member did something accidentally:

http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3721666&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

Dratsab:
richgamer: ...people still have to be punished for accidents. it is the law.

Which law is that exactly?
richgamer: if i am driving my car and accidentally hit someone and they die, i would be charged not with murder, but with manslaughter.

Not necessarily - it depends, as does everything, on the circumstances. Instead of the highest level charge you have already specified, you could be charged with reckless driving causing injury/death, dangerous driving causing injury/death or careless driving causing injury/death. However, I fail to see how your theoretical driving incident even closely equates with this topic.

Currently on TV they're talking about "if you go hunting and mistake your mate for a deer and shoot him you will get charged for what is clearly an accidental shooting" which is an entirely different set of circumstances again. Let's face facts - deer don't shoot back, so there is no pressure to take a shot in the first place. If you don't clearly identify your target and you shoot your mate, then it's only fair you get charged. I also disagree with term "accident" in relation to shootings.

People don't accidentally get shot. Someone either has the weapon in an unsafe state or deliberately pulls the trigger. in the deer hunting case, someone deliberately pulled the trigger after failing to clearly identify their target. In the real life case to which this topic pertains, a member of police (AOS aren't necessarily all males so I won't say he or him...) has deliberately pulled the trigger after clearly identifying their target.

However, very sadly, the projectile has hit an unintended target for reasons which we are not yet privy. If the enquiry into this shooting shows there was recklessness or negligence on the part of the member, then yes - charges will be laid. And on the face of it, the AOS member was acting lawfully in the execution of their duty which excludes any "intent" (mens rea) which is a necessary part of most crimes.

Edit: I was wondering how long it would take you to post on this subject - 2 days...lol.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#192273 27-Jan-2009 14:42

richgamer: manslaughter is under the crimes act.

here is a guy who was charged with manslaughter because of an accident of him forgetting to secure his tree logs properly on his truck and it fell off and killed somebody, just like the aos member did something accidentally:

http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3721666&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

Dratsab:
richgamer: ...people still have to be punished for accidents. it is the law.

Which law is that exactly?

No, that wasn't an accident, that was negligence. We don't know that there was any negligence on the motorway on Friday.

richgamer

224 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#192274 27-Jan-2009 14:46

how do u know this is negligence? the dude said he secured all the load. maybe the equipment failed or someone else sabotaged his load.

TinyTim:
richgamer: manslaughter is under the crimes act.

here is a guy who was charged with manslaughter because of an accident of him forgetting to secure his tree logs properly on his truck and it fell off and killed somebody, just like the aos member did something accidentally:

http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3721666&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

Dratsab:
richgamer: ...people still have to be punished for accidents. it is the law.

Which law is that exactly?

No, that wasn't an accident, that was negligence. We don't know that there was any negligence on the motorway on Friday.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#192291 27-Jan-2009 15:25

richgamer: how do u know this is negligence? the dude said he secured all the load. maybe the equipment failed or someone else sabotaged his load.

I didn't find myself interested enough to read the link you provided, but you said yourself that it was "because of an accident of him forgetting to secure his tree logs properly on his truck". I'd call that negligence, wouldn't you?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#192298 27-Jan-2009 15:38

richgamer: how do u know this is negligence? the dude said he secured all the load. maybe the equipment failed or someone else sabotaged his load.

Did you even bother to read the story you linked to?

Here are a few quotes from it:

"It would have been impossible for a log to come loose if a truck driver had secured his logs properly, the Rotorua District Court has heard"

"Two men responsible for loading the logs told the court they did not see Whakatihi secure the logs on the trailer."

I fail to see anything that even resembles a link or common ground between both incidents.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fossie

1240 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#192301 27-Jan-2009 15:44

He shouldn't go to court. Nothing should happen at all. Except some counseling...

thekiwi

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#192302 27-Jan-2009 15:45

On an aside it does pose an interesting question tho as to when the Police do charge people whenever an "accident occurs".

I remember contemplating this a while back when an English Couple (I think it was a Daughter and her Mother) crashed off the road (I think it was in the Sth Island somewhere). THe Police laid charges against the daughter and I remember thinking at the time that we have gotten to a place where it is just not possible to make a simple mistake, or error judgement without appearing in Court.

Not directly related to the case of the AOS shooting, but can see the point where someone making a mistake invariable gets charged with something. I dont agree with it, but it seems to be the norm?

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#192303 27-Jan-2009 15:50

Fossie: He shouldn't go to court. Nothing should happen at all. Except some counseling...

Well put

Johnr

Tahii

115 posts

Master Geek

#192304 27-Jan-2009 15:55

Looks like I'm in the same camp as 99% of the others on here - there needs to be a full and fair investigation done before anything can be decided, but ultimately it would be a sad blight to see the officer charged.

Richgamer - Imagine if you got taken hostage, and AOS were called in to deal with it. I'm guessing you'd rather they didn't try to do anything, simply because they were too scared that there was a chance you could get injured (and that you'd sue them) or you might die? Even though that hostage-taker is armed, and probably going to harm you anyway?

richgamer

224 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#192316 27-Jan-2009 16:31

yeah i'd be ok if i was a hostage and the aos didn't want to help me coz there was a chance i would get injured or killed. after all, there is no law for the police to rescue anyone. if the aos said nah i dont want to rescue that hostage, that's fine with me, they would probably lose their job but there is nothing illegal about it.

Tahii: Looks like I'm in the same camp as 99% of the others on here - there needs to be a full and fair investigation done before anything can be decided, but ultimately it would be a sad blight to see the officer charged.

Richgamer - Imagine if you got taken hostage, and AOS were called in to deal with it. I'm guessing you'd rather they didn't try to do anything, simply because they were too scared that there was a chance you could get injured (and that you'd sue them) or you might die? Even though that hostage-taker is armed, and probably going to harm you anyway?

Tahii

115 posts

Master Geek

#192318 27-Jan-2009 16:42

All sworn officers (which, of course, includes AOS) have sworn to an oath, that they will uphold the laws of New Zealand. By this oath, they DO have to act when a crime is taking place. I do believe it is illegal for an officer not to act, in the way you describe, as the oath is part of the code of conduct for police officers.

Lets put this another way - no one gives a rats rear end if the cops do something right, yet, the media, and the community, go beserk at the one-in-a-million event if they do something wrong, whether they meant it or not. They're screwed either way.

thekiwi

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#192319 27-Jan-2009 16:42

richgamer: yeah i'd be ok if i was a hostage and the aos didn't want to help me coz there was a chance i would get injured or killed. after all, there is no law for the police to rescue anyone. if the aos said nah i dont want to rescue that hostage, that's fine with me, they would probably lose their job but there is nothing illegal about it.

Tahii: Looks like I'm in the same camp as 99% of the others on here - there needs to be a full and fair investigation done before anything can be decided, but ultimately it would be a sad blight to see the officer charged.

Richgamer - Imagine if you got taken hostage, and AOS were called in to deal with it. I'm guessing you'd rather they didn't try to do anything, simply because they were too scared that there was a chance you could get injured (and that you'd sue them) or you might die? Even though that hostage-taker is armed, and probably going to harm you anyway?

Woww ... so you have considered that your chances are higher witha nutcase carrying a weapon who has no respect for you as a person than trained professionals who fundamentally have considered the benefit to you?

Maybe I live in a world where I presume the Police know what they are doing, but I'll trust them 100% of the time before some nutcase with a gun.

munchkin

939 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#192327 27-Jan-2009 16:51

Tahii:
Lets put this another way - no one gives a rats rear end if the cops do something right, yet, the media, and the community, go beserk at the one-in-a-million event if they do something wrong, whether they meant it or not. They're screwed either way.

There's a saying out there:

"When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all."

It rings true every time.

Edit:

@Everyone, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the FUG's, but they mention to attack the idea, not the poster. I realize you may be frustrated, as are others - but remember, this is just multiplayer notepad.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6