Armed Offenders Squad member to be charged?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#192330 27-Jan-2009 17:09

I've hidden a couple of posts here due to borderline personal attacks, please keep this on topic. You are entitled to your opinion as everyone is.

We are here to discuss the topic, please refresh up on the Forum Usage Guidelines if you are unsure about what is acceptable posting.

Johnk

837 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 192

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#192343 27-Jan-2009 18:18

after more thought i withdraw my early comments.
i read somewhere online awhile ago ( no link, as memory a bit foggy) but in the states a similar accident happened to what we are talking about, and under USA laws the person at fault of the police being there ( crazy guy on p), got charged with murder or manslaughter of the innocent person. if it was not for him, that young man would still believe, i hope we have a similar law here, where he can charged with the responsibility of that mans death.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#192349 27-Jan-2009 18:30

thekiwi:
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?

You are right, someone is always held to account if an accident occurs no matter how minor. Unfortunately this is the official policy thought up by those that do not deal directly with the public and the troops on the ground level have to tow the line.

Even five or so years ago police did not have to put through any paperwork for minor accidents they attended. My advice is always to deal with the matter yourself if possible if you do have an accident. You only have to report it if someone is injured.

richgamer

224 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#192514 28-Jan-2009 16:10

you say it is illegal for an officer not to act. i would like to see proof of this tahii.

Tahii: 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.

Tahii

115 posts

Master Geek

#192517 28-Jan-2009 16:21

I am not sure if the Police's code of conduct is online. I will search for it shortly. In the meantime maybe you would like to find proof that Police are indeed legally allowed not to act.

*edit*
I have found the Police's code of conduct here - http://police.govt.nz/about/code-of-conduct.html

Whilst it is hard to pull out individual sentances like "A police officer must act", it does say that if a Police officer is negligent, it can be considered misconduct.

However, the whole notion that a Police officer can't or won't act is silly - if someone is in the Police, they are going to be wanting to do the right thing, otherwise why is the person in the force?! They're also going to have a partner beside them - from the code "Employees support their colleagues in the execution of their lawful duties, and challenge any improper behaviour, as appropriate, including reporting it."

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226

ID Verified

Trusted

#192527 28-Jan-2009 17:30

richgamer: you say it is illegal for an officer not to act. i would like to see proof of this tahii.

Any sworn officer is required to take some action should they see someone being harmed or at risk of being harmed.

Some of the comments you make are bordering on ridiculous.

What do you think the reaction would have been had the AOS had done nothing and let the offender drive away with a hostage who may then have been murdered? I'm sure it would have been a lot worse than the reaction after what actually occurred, most of the comments here and on other public forums seem to be in support of the police and understand the difficult situation they faced.

Given that the offender claims he can not remember anything about what occurred he was clearly capable of doing anything.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas from but they seem to be based on little common sense and show a distinct lack of understanding on how things work in the real world.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

richgamer

224 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#192535 28-Jan-2009 18:23

code of conduct aint a law. if police wont act they will probably be sacked from the police. just like if your employer has a code of conduct not to swear at work and you do then you will be sacked. nothing illegal about it. and to the people saying police won't act, well why are there proven complaints at the independent police conduct authority then and police sacked over their conduct? remember guys, there are corrupt cops in new zealand and around the world. just because someone is a cop doesn't mean they won't break the law. even george bush the former president got caught drink driving.

Tahii: I am not sure if the Police's code of conduct is online. I will search for it shortly. In the meantime maybe you would like to find proof that Police are indeed legally allowed not to act.

*edit*
I have found the Police's code of conduct here - http://police.govt.nz/about/code-of-conduct.html

Whilst it is hard to pull out individual sentances like "A police officer must act", it does say that if a Police officer is negligent, it can be considered misconduct.

However, the whole notion that a Police officer can't or won't act is silly - if someone is in the Police, they are going to be wanting to do the right thing, otherwise why is the person in the force?! They're also going to have a partner beside them - from the code "Employees support their colleagues in the execution of their lawful duties, and challenge any improper behaviour, as appropriate, including reporting it."

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#192538 28-Jan-2009 18:28

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?

Now you're talking about manslaughter which is different from what you originally said. I'll be more specific with my question. What law says people have to be punished for accidents?

richgamer: you say it is illegal for an officer not to act. i would like to see proof of this tahii.

Take a look at section 9 of the Policing Act 2008. Each subsection is only a few words long so should be easy to understand - the subsections you will need to read specifically are a, b, c, d, e and h. Couple these with the Oath of Office already referred to by tahii. I'm not going to provide links for these because I think your own research should be taking precedence here.

Adamal

544 posts

Ultimate Geek

#193580 3-Feb-2009 01:50

It's a chain of events that started with a man pointing a gun at a police officer.
If that never happened, the innocent bystander would never have been shot in the first place.

The one to blame is the person that triggered these events.

I believe that the Police took the right action. I think they should have used more force in the first place, such as warning shots. I know there are people who won't agree with me, and thats fine. I don't disrespect other people's opinions.

Now, we'll probably see harsher restrictions imposed upon the police preventing them from swiftly acting to diffuse a situation like this.

Here's how I would have liked the situation to have been handled, although I imagine some won't agree (and probably have well informed reasons towards it)

Perpitrator exits vehicle, AOS target perp and order them to freeze.
If no response and perp still flees, fire warning shot in area of perp.
If still no response, then take aim for non vital areas such as arms, legs and fire single shot in order to disable perp.

This may seem like an 'over the top' response to the situation, but this is someone who threatened an officer with a firearm, and proceeded to speed down the motorway whilst firing the firearm out the window of the vehicle in a very rough direction of the pursuing police.
If it so happens that the perp is fatally shot during the process, then its unfortunate for them. They made their choice when they took the actions they did.

There will be people who don't agree with me on here, and I'm open to your critisism, but keep it logical, not slanderous.

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#193582 3-Feb-2009 02:08

Adamal: If still no response, then take aim for non vital areas such as arms, legs and fire single shot in order to disable perp.

It's a lot easier to hit the torso, especially if the person is moving.

scottjpalmer

6032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 790

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#193586 3-Feb-2009 02:39

Adamal: . . . Perpitrator exits vehicle, AOS target perp and order them to freeze.

Do they actually use the word "Freeze" in NZ?

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#193591 3-Feb-2009 06:53

Adamal:If still no response, then take aim for non vital areas such as arms, legs and fire single shot in order to disable perp.

Real life is not the movies. It's pretty much standard training everywhere in the world to aim for the biggest part of a person (ie the torso) and to fire multiple shots. The reality is several shots into somebody's arm won't necessarily stop an offender, particularly if they are spaced out or enraged. Multiple shots to the torso will typically incapacitate an offender which is the desired affect is.

Aiming for soembody's arm or leg while moving is stupid, it significantly increases the chances of bullets missing and hitting objects behind.

GeekGuy

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#193606 3-Feb-2009 08:45

What I find hard to believe is that they (Police) fired shots in the close precinity of bystanders, one was killed and another received shrapnel wounds to an arm.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#193609 3-Feb-2009 09:00

GeekGuy: What I find hard to believe is that they (Police) fired shots in the close precinity of bystanders, one was killed and another received shrapnel wounds to an arm.

What *exactly* should the police have done?

Stood there while the offender hijacked yet another? Told him to freeze like they do in the movies?

In this situation you were faced with an offender who simply was not doing to stop. This was clearly evident from the pursuit which under most circumstances would have been adandoned due to the unnecessary risk it posed however in this case the risk to other members of the public outweighted that risk.

If he had shot somebody while attempting to hijack that vehicle and killed an innocent person would you be criticising the police for failing to act and not attempt to take down the offender while the opportunity was there? Remember that he was stopped because he was shot, had this not occured what would the outcome have been?

GeekGuy

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#193615 3-Feb-2009 09:21

Firing shots like they did while innocent bystanders are near, is not very professional. I do not have a problem with that person needing to be shot but doing it while people are around him is not a very good judgement call on there part.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6