Armed Offenders Squad member to be charged?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#193618 3-Feb-2009 09:30

GeekGuy: 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.

Once again in this thread someone has demonstrated little knowledge of how things work in the real world.

Ask yourself this; If someone had already shot at you and is holding a firearm how long does it take for them to lift it up and shoot yourself or someone else? Probably less than a second.

It's fine sitting at your computer and saying they should have done this or that but the reality is that in these situations you have to act almost instantly.

No doubt if the AOS had stood there and done nothing and the offender had shot someone else you would be posting on here asking why they hadn't acted.....

GeekGuy

590 posts

Ultimate Geek

#193622 3-Feb-2009 09:38

As a matter of fact, I have been shot at and have also been in a hostage situation overseas where the Police (SERT) guys have shot and killed the person but only after they had contained the situation.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#193624 3-Feb-2009 09:41

Right so if this person who you say took you hostage tried to drag you into a car and the police shot at him and got you instead would you blame them. Or if they hadn't done anything and let him drive away with you and he killed you what should they have done?

thekiwi

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#193626 3-Feb-2009 09:45

GeekGuy: As a matter of fact, I have been shot at and have also been in a hostage situation overseas where the Police (SERT) guys have shot and killed the person but only after they had contained the situation.

I yield to the experience and training that the AOS have to have made the correct decision. THe outcome wasn't, but I support the police in what they feel they had to do.

I would imagine it is hard to contain an open envirnment compared to say an office building/shop etc. This was out in the open and with it I imagine came all sorts of difficulties and risks. The person had shown they were willing to shoot at anything and anyone and for the police on the ground they presumably felt that things were escalating and that things were, at that very moment in time, as contained and "controlled" as they were ever likely to get.

I wasnt aware that the other person shot was from "shrapnel" ... and I wouldn't imagine the Police are using that sort of gun? Has it been stated that the other person shot was also from a police gun?

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#193630 3-Feb-2009 09:50

thekiwi:
GeekGuy: As a matter of fact, I have been shot at and have also been in a hostage situation overseas where the Police (SERT) guys have shot and killed the person but only after they had contained the situation.

I yield to the experience and training that the AOS have to have made the correct decision. THe outcome wasn't, but I support the police in what they feel they had to do.
I would imagine it is hard to contain an open envirnment compared to say an office building/shop etc. This was out in the open and with it I imagine came all sorts of difficulties and risks. THe person had shown they were willing to shot at anything and anyone and for hte police on the ground they presumably felt that things were escalatng and that things were, at that very moment in time, as contained and "controlled" as they were ever likely to get.

I wasnt aware that the other person shot was from "shrapnel" ... and I wouldn't imagine the Police are using that sort of gun? Has it been stated that the other person shot was also from a police gun?

I don't hink it has been officially released yet what actually happened other than the fatal bullet came from a police firearm. There has been some talk that the one bullet could have passed through the offender (arm) and then into the victim. I have also heard that a bullet that killed the victim could have been a ricochet. I guess we will have to wait until all of the reports have been finished, probably several months.

wmoore

510 posts

Ultimate Geek

#193645 3-Feb-2009 10:57

Firstly I haven't read the entire thread, so I maybe repeating what others have said.
Should the police officer be charged ? From the evidence I have seen and heard then no
it was a tragic accident. BUT the police on a whole have to look seriously at their procedures
when dealing with this type on incident in the future.
We have to remember this rarely happens in NZ (a gun man on loose shooting people)
Questions I have are..
* Could he have been stopped earlier on.
* Did we need ten police cars chasing him
* why was the AOS used and not the STG
* Was Halatau Naitoko told to stay down or taken to safety
* Could of police dogs been used as a way of dealing with it
* why did it take up to five shots and not once killing him
* how well trained was the officer who fired the fatal shot
Hopefully these questions will be answered when all the enquiries have finished.

Just a little side note on Police pursuits, How much training do the police get on this ?
Here in the UK a number of police forces have a dedicated highly train team of drivers.
They drive WRX and EVO8's, There are always two officers in the car, one to solely drive
and the other to do the running commentary back to control. All cars are fitted with GPS.
Their training includes controlled high speed 'pursuits' and boxing in techniques on the
motorways themselves and not just on a race track, in other words the training is done
in the real world.

My 2p worth.

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." -
-- Abraham lincoln

Tahii

115 posts

Master Geek

#193649 3-Feb-2009 11:27

I think I can answer a couple of those questions now. Just note that no, I don't have any inside knowledge, and my comments are only my opinion...

Ten cars - if this was in the US, he'd have had about 20 on his tail.

STG - as proved in the Aramoana incident, the STG cannot be called in immediately to deal with an incident. It takes a period of time to assemble them and get them to the scene (with Aramoana, they weren't on the ground until the morning after the incident started, I think.). I think this event just moved too quickly to even consider bringing in the STG.

Five shots instead of one - I know front-line officers are trained to let off multiple rounds (generally two or three) instead of single shots. I will assume this is the same for the AOS. I believe two officers were firing, and this would easily explain the number of rounds used.

Training - To be part of the AOS, and not just in training, you'd have to be pretty darn well trained :).

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

wongtop

563 posts

Ultimate Geek

#193655 3-Feb-2009 11:51

I think that the police officer(s) involved should be charged and put before the courts. This is because not only do the police force have to be squeaky clean, they have to be seen to be squeaky clean.

In my opinion the cleanest way to do this would to put it to the court, and then the events are in the public domain. If they just have an internal investigation (even if the investigation is conducted properly and clears the officers), there will be those in society that will be alleging a police cover up.

I should point out by no means am I blaming the police for what happened. In my view it is just one of those things that happens, even though everyone (except the offender) was doing the best they can in the situation that presented itself. Accidents happen sometimes in every field of human endevour. We can do our best to prevent them, but sometime somewhere, accidents will still happen.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#193664 3-Feb-2009 12:23

wongtop: I think that the police officer(s) involved should be charged and put before the courts. This is because not only do the police force have to be squeaky clean, they have to be seen to be squeaky clean.

In my opinion the cleanest way to do this would to put it to the court, and then the events are in the public domain. If they just have an internal investigation (even if the investigation is conducted properly and clears the officers), there will be those in society that will be alleging a police cover up.

I should point out by no means am I blaming the police for what happened. In my view it is just one of those things that happens, even though everyone (except the offender) was doing the best they can in the situation that presented itself. Accidents happen sometimes in every field of human endevour. We can do our best to prevent them, but sometime somewhere, accidents will still happen.

More like the police force doesn't have to be squeaky clean, they just have to be seen to be squeaky clean.

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#193669 3-Feb-2009 12:40

bazzer:
More like the police force doesn't have to be squeaky clean, they just have to be seen to be squeaky clean.

BINGO.

So much stuff gets brushed under the carpet.

I just want to know that they absolutely had NO option other than to shoot to kill. Did they exhaust other possibliities I wonder? Oftentimes when I see people shot by cops, for some reason, the dogs are never bought in.

I really feel for the officer who pulled the trigger. He's gonna have this on his shoulders for the rest of his life. Punishment would be utterly futile compared to the massive burden of guilt that comes with screwing up that badly.

My very metal Doctor Who theme

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#193758 3-Feb-2009 18:38

BurningBeard: Oftentimes when I see people shot by cops, for some reason, the dogs are never bought in.

That's because there's generally not much to be gained by dogging them after they've been shot!!

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#193759 3-Feb-2009 18:43

Dratsab: That's because there's generally not much to be gained by dogging them after they've been shot!!

Slightly OT, never understood (and still don't) why the dog unit is delta and not K9 (person arrested). I would've thought K9 makes much more sense...

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#193763 3-Feb-2009 18:50

nate: Slightly OT, never understood (and still don't) why the dog unit is delta and not K9 (person arrested). I would've thought K9 makes much more sense...

very briefly, because it is OT - K9 (arrest) is simply part of the K code series, K1 being no further police action, K4 being a warning etc. An internet search will probably give you al the codes if you want. Dog beings with "D" so it's assignment from the phonetic alphabet is Delta.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#193764 3-Feb-2009 18:52

This type of situation is not suitable for a dog anyway.

Remember this offender had been shooting at people, trying to kill them.

When confronted by police he had a rifle in his hand and as I pointed out above it would take less than a second for him to point it and pull the trigger.

Why would you expect a police officer to risk his/her life or other members of the public by trying to negotiate in this type of situation? Clearly he had no problems shooting at people, as it transpired he was off his face on meth and I have no doubt at all that he would have kept on going until he was stopped.

Some situations where shots haven't been fired or there is more time to set up more options or the scene is more suitable then sure there are other tactics available. This situation was none of those, it was a split second decision to try to incapacitate the offender by using a firearm and clearly the correct one. Yes it was tragic that an innocent person was killed but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and things just do not happen like they do in the movies despite what some on here and other "experts" will tell you.

As for shooting an offender in the arm or leg that is almost laughable. If you seriously think this is an option go to a firing range and have somone fire a paintball gun at you whilst you try and hit a target, impossible. The only time this type of shot would be possible would be if you had a sniper set up with a relatively stationary target.

Tahii

115 posts

Master Geek

#193776 3-Feb-2009 19:45

nate: K4 being a warning etc.

Very OT, but a warning is a K6. K1 being Police attendance is enough, and K9 arrest made. NZ Scanners has these codes available on their website.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6