The tragic death of Halatau Naitoko
January 26th, 2009 at 8:03 am by David FarrarIt appears to be the first occassion in NZ that the Police have accidentially killed an innocent bystander – Halatau Naitoko.
Your first sympathies are with the family, whose grief will never totally fade.
In my case there is also considerable sympathy for the Police involved. As the NZ Herald writes today, it appears they were forced to open fire to protect other’s lives. All the Police involved will feel awful at the loss of innocent life.
It goes without saying that there must be a fully independent inquiry (which the IPCA) of what happened, and also a determination of whether there is any criminal culpability.
I disagree with Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn who argues the Police shooter must face trial. He is actually arguing for a trial regardless of the facts. He is actually arguing for Police officers to have less rights than any other NZer.
I believe we should wait for the facts to be established, before you can possibly know whether or not this is a criminal offence. Having said that there will be some suspicion about what is and is not a fact. I recall the tube shooting in London a few years ago. Initially it seemed the Police actions were quite justified. Later it emerged it was a terrible terrible stuff up, and the facts were very different to what we first thought.
So I’m not going to place too much reliance on initial reports (including today’s one quoted above) and wait for the full investigation.
I’m also going to remember that the person who has major shared culpability is the gunman whom the Police were engaged in a firefight with.
Related posts:
- Accountability for death of Halatau Naitoko
- Arguments on Naitoko shooting
- The Naitoko family
- Audrey on National’s Women
January 26th, 2009 at 8:26 am
For a decade under the Labour regime, the police focussed their law-enforcement effort on traffic enforcement, to the exclusion of the prevention and investigation of actual crime.
What we have now is a highly-trained highway patrol trying to learn to become a policing agency.
It’s hardly surprising that this accident occurred. After a decade, the police are simply out of practice.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Looking at the photos in todays Herald article [url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10553601&gallery_id=104228]How It Happened[/url] its hard not to see how the Officer(s) can’t be charged as they failed to observe the most basic of firearm safety rules and had no clear line of fire when they pulled the trigger.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I have no problem with police making errors. Wouldn’t it be fine if they never did and no one was ever hurt. But what really pisses people off, especially the victims families, is the police closing ranks and making up stories before it’s even necessary. They’ve said they’ll suport the bloke who fired the shot – that’s fair, I have no problem with that either. That’s good and right. Most people need protection from the media these days and no doubt he’ll be upset too so peer support is needed. What is wrong is fudging to the public, making themselves look dodgy, and then hoping to win the hearts and minds of the population for when you need them later. The Police don’t seem to be able to find the middle ground between denial and lynching one of their own. So I’m not calling for heads to roll – none will anyway. I’m not interested in laying blame, even on the bloke who pulled the trigger. Those are small short term issues. What is more important is for Police to attend to their communications and public relations. That, to me, is the problem and that is what will most influence the course of future incidents, outcomes and the solving of crimes. Shit happens, but being ill prepared for the fallout is unacceptable.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Idiot Savant/No Right Turn is in good company with Ross Meurant demanding a trial. I agree with you DPF that lets see the facts before we rush to judgement. My question is where the hell is Howard Broad. No one seems to know where he is and the PM this morning was even wondering where he is – not a good look for the Police.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Had New Zealand not become a police state over the last several years I would expect a full and open enquiry.
I don’t.
Instead all I expect is politicking that will see at least one more young(?) life ruined.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I blogged on this yesterday. Let’s make sure that we spare a thought for the AOS officer(s) concerned, who will be deeply traumatised by Friday’s events. And at the end of the day, the responsibility lies solely with the offender, who will have his first “day in court” this morning.
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/01/spare-thought.html
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I disagree with Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn who argues the Police shooter must face trial. He is actually arguing for a trial regardless of the facts. He is actually arguing for Police officers to have less rights than any other NZer.
Bullshit. What I’m calling for is for the police to hold themselves to the same bloody standards they apply to the rest of us. An ordinary citizen who shot someone in these circumstances would unquestionably be prosecuted. So why not the police? Wearing a uniform should not put you above the law.
[DPF: What are the circumstances? The ones in the media that are not proven? I'd prefer to wait until the circumstances were established by a credible authority. And you also overlook a key issue - the police officers were required to be there, and are required to try and protect the public. The law actually does give them legal protection for using firearms in some circumstances. Now I don't know if this will apply here, but I want the facts and the law to be clearly established rather than kneejerk calling for a trial regardless of the facts and the law]
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 9:39 am
The police are tasked with defending the public from dangerous criminals. The offender was in the process of firing at the police and apparently at civilians. I am not sure a trial for the police officer is the right course of action here. An inquiry as to the the actual facts is required.
From what I have heard and read so far I think that once again I think too many people think it is like movies where Dirty Harry fires one shot and kills the bad guy. The Police fired a number of shots until the offender went down. I think it was plain unfortunate that a civilan got hit. This whole situation is the worst possible outcome for everyone involved but it should not be forgotten that the fault lies with the offender.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
DPF: Someone was shot. They weren’t the person the police officer was supposed to be shooting at. That’s your evidence of offence and prima facie case for careless use right there (and that is exactly the thinking the police apply in other accidental shootings, BTW). Necessity etc are defences to be determined by a jury. If you wish to argue that a prosecution is not in the public interest as the police must be unaccountable to do their jobs, you’re welcome to – but you can expect to be taken as seriously as Greg O’Connor on that front.
[DPF: Unlike you, I am not jumping in to judge if a prosecution is necessary. The fact the wrong person died is not per se gounds to prosecute. There are many factors such as how close were they to the offender, why were they forced to open fire. Your policy of prosecute all police who accidentally kill fails to take account of the individual circumstances. I want those circumstances to be known before the decision is taken]
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
“but I want the facts and the law to be clearly established rather than kneejerk calling for a trial regardless of the facts and the law”
The same should also apply to Greg O’Conner. Within minutes of the shooting he was defending the police.
I would be a bit more sympathizer of the police if it was not for the police pushing to prosecute the gun shop owner who did not kill anyone.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Given the tone of some comments both from the police, media etc why bother with establishing the facts. No one it would appear wants these as it would mean we might have to confront reality. I agree with DPF we should await the findings of the various inquiries.
As an aside I am bemused by the constant statements by all concerned that this the first time the NZ Police have unintentionally shot and killed a bystander. Surely they do not mean that on other occasions they have deliberately shot and killed bystanders?
As an additional aside why is Lynn Provost, who I believe is not a police officer by training and may not even be a sworn officer, the Acting Commissioner – rather than Rob Pope?
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
There’s no question that the armed mongrel who was trying to hijack the truck was responsible for the innocent courier driver’s death.
The police would receive more support, however, if they didn’t so enthusiastically hound citizens forced to shoot to defend themselves or their property. Like the Northland farmer trying to scare off petrol thieves and the Auckland gun shop owner’s son.
If the police think the community’s lefty-liberals will defend them they are deluded.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
As an aside I am bemused by the constant statements by all concerned that this the first time the NZ Police have unintentionally shot and killed a bystander. Surely they do not mean that on other occasions they have deliberately shot and killed bystanders?
Nope; its a reflection of the fact that our police are not routinely armed, do not use firearms as a first resort, and are generally careful when doing so. I like that, and I’d like to see it continue.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
As an interesting aside I not that Key was rather dismissive of Howard Broad on TV one this morning, when asked by Henry were Mr Broad was “on this issue” Key replied “I have no idea where Mr Broad is”
Looks like we might be getting a new Police Commissioner.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am
> It appears to be the first occassion in NZ that the Police have accidentially killed an innocent bystander – Halatau Naitoko.
Well, there was a case in Wellington several years ago when the police made an early morning visit to a gang member’s house and shot him dead as he was coming to answer the front door. He wasn’t armed. From memory, the officer who killed the gang member wasn’t charged with any offence.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Ross
You are thinking of the Paul Chase shooting.
The cops shot a gang member dead…..does anybody really care about that?
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:23 am
IS said: “An ordinary citizen who shot someone in these circumstances would unquestionably be prosecuted”.
Not necessarily. I recall a burglar being shot and killed by a prying neighbour in Auckland a few years ago. The neighbour could’ve called the cops and let them deal with the burglar but the neighbour decided to take a loaded gun and investigate. He wasn’t charged with manslaughter or murder, though I think he was charged with possession of a gun in a public pace.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I am all for the police being armed but I think you’d have to be fairly naïve not to see the lack of training in this case.
Vote:I’ve been a hunter for over 30 years and, granted – the deer aren’t shooting back but I have to question the basics of firearm safety here.
5 shots fired by 2 police. None of those shots was a direct hit on the offender, but one of those shots hit and killed an innocent guy.
Either the cop is an incredibly bad shot , or panicked– or both
January 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
IdiotSavant
I think you missed what adamsmith1922 was trying to say. It is another example of bad English in our newspapers. They should not use the word “unintentionally”.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Ross Smith wrote at 10.20am: “Well, there was a case in Wellington several years ago when the police made an early morning visit to a gang member’s house and shot him dead as he was coming to answer the front door. He wasn’t armed.”
Also to all those hammering on about identifying the target before pulling the trigger. If someone is holding a gun at their head and threatening to shoot, and pray the police will fire first, I say get on side!
I think in this case Ross, the police had gone to arrest the man and believed he would armed. in answer, the man sought went to the front door carrying an exercise bar. An usual item to take to the door unless it was for potential use. In the dark or dim light it would have been very easy to mistake this for a rifle, and if he raised it either for use or to throw away it’s easy to see how a marksman would have decided to shoot. He did.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Wait for all the facts to be released, of course, but there is something not particularly intellectually robust about firing indiscriminantly around innocent people in order to protect them. The guy in the truck says that if the police hadn’t shot, he’d be dead right now. Well, that young guy IS dead right now; it might seem like a fair swap to survivor, but it is a complete failure for the police.
I’m more interested in what happened when the guy swapped cars, and whether the police had a better chance to take him out but choked.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:43 am
The saddest thing here is the death of Halatau Naitoko, and the saddest thing after that is that we can’t trust the police to tell the truth.
The fact that the gunman was carrying a sawn-off rifle clearly indicates criminal intent, but I have yet to come acrss anyone who has mentioned this.
Patrick Starr: it’s worse than you say. There were 5 shots fired by 3 police, and one of the police fired a pistol. It is reasonable to assume that the pistol was fired from the side of the motorway, towards a moving target, and without a clear line of fire. IMHO this is clearly wrong, more so in view of the fact that at least two riflemen were present.
Pistols are personal defence weapons and are only accurate at very short ranges.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/the-police-kill-an-innocent-bystander/
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am
“An ordinary citizen who shot someone in these circumstances would unquestionably be prosecuted.”
An “ordinary citizen” cannot experience the “same circumstances” because a police officer is sworn to meet certain objectives of law enforcement that go beyond what is required of civilians. I/S’s contention fails on this rather basic point.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Kiwipolemicist wrote at 10.43 above: “Pistols are personal defence weapons and are only accurate at very short ranges.”
Greg Yelavich might disagree with that, but then he can spend two or three hours a day practising, and that’s not practical when you are doing it on pay and find target practice boring.
One point that may be worth looking at is the ammunition police use. I think it’s been stated in the past that they use soft, hollow-nose bullets that tend to splatter rather than ricochet when they miss a soft (that is human) target. The proffered reason is that this is safer for bystanders than hard nose bullets ricocheting about.
These types of bullets are banned under the Geneva convention, because of the severe injuries inflicted. If the police are using them, might this account for the fact that shootings by the police seem to be nearly always fatal?
Vote:Shouldn’t we expect more cases where people are wounded by police bullets rather than being killed?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am
kiwipolemicist. Im going on what the police stated on the news. There were 5 shots fired by 2 AOS. One of them fired 4 rounds. That is what concerns me – ’4 shots!’ If this is correct then that shooter shouldn’t be on the team.
Vote:I realise this is contrary to what Noreen Hegarty is now saying but Im sorry, I don’t accept her statement; “We don’t know how many each AOS member fired until we do a formal interview.”
January 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Well, no actually it is the Crown Prosecution Service who must be satisfied that a conviction has a reasonable chance of being secured. From what has emerged so far the offender aimed his weapon at truck driver Richard Neville after already discharging several rounds at Police. The Police obviously feared that Mr Neville may have been about to be executed and felt duty-bound to take immediate action. The fact that Halatau Naitoko’s vehicle was in the background but tragically in the line of fire probably did not enter the officer’s thought process in the split second that was required to make the decision to open fire. This may not constitute an offence. And if the CPS believe that most juries would struggle to agree that criminal offending has occurred and it was anything other than a terrible accident then they could not prosecute.
As Mr Neville has said he believed, in his opinion, the Police saved his life.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I thought media reports were that two police rifles were discharged – one fired once, the other four times. The officer who shot four times fired the fatal shot. I don’t recall that pistols were used.
My hope is that the investigation is complete and neither a whitewash like the original police investigations into the sexual conduct against Louise Nicholas, or a circus like the private prosecution of ‘Constable A’.
Another point is that police have no special protection in law for their actions, and if the officer acted without adequate regard for the safety of bystanders he could be charges with Manslaughter.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I am amazed this has not happened before although I would have expected it to occur with a non AOS officer toting an M4 (anyone recall the attempts to shoot a dog?).
This is just awful for all concerned but it is important to remember that if it wasn’t for some mad man trying to shoot people and threatening a bloke with a gun that kid would still be alive.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Jack5 – The ban on hollow points is only for military use. Hollows are the most common types of police ammo around the world.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Patrick Starr, Michael E: the NZ Herald said today:
“Altogether the police fired five shots, one by an officer with a Glock pistol and four by two armed offenders squad members with M4 rifles.”
Why on earth would anyone fire a pistol from the side of the motorway when there’s two riflemen present?
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“We have established that there were four shots fired from the firearm that we are advised that the bullet came from – thats an M4 rifle”
Thus spake Auckland Assistant Commissioner Steven Shortland on Saturday.
I guess he meant the type of firearm not an individual firearm though its somewhat ambiguous.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I am concerned that an investigation is going to take ‘weeks.’ Because of the circumstances it should be taking priority over everything else. The only aspect that could take a while might be some forensic tests especially if they have to be done overseas.
The officers in question should not be put on trial ‘on principle’ and with the greatest of respect, Ross Meurant should know better than to suggest this (or is it part of ‘cop culture’ to put someone on trial as a punishment in itself).
It is quite appropriate for the results of the Police and Independent Police Conduct Authority to go to Crown Law to see whether a prosecution is likely to succeed. However if it is considered that a prosecution should not proceed, the ‘opinion’ should IMO be made public so everyone can see the reasoning. However I would not hold my breath that this will happen.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I wouldn’t go as far as Idot/Savant in suggesting that the officer who fired the fatal shot should definitely be prosecuted – we don’t know enough about the circumstances to determine whether there is a prima facie case of any offence – even a low level one such as careless use of a firearm – yet.
But, as I have suggested over at g.blog, this tragic incident does call into question Police procedures. Maintaining public safety should always be the highest priority for Police – a higher priority than apprehending offenders. As has frequently happened with police high-spped pursuits that have resulted in fatal road crashes, it seems the Police policy, or at least their its application in some circumstances, does not always hold public safety as the paramount consideration.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The death of an innocent person is tragic. But let’s not forget that the police didn’t start this. The offender going down the motorway shooting wildly was the cause of this. The police were doing all they could to try and stop it.
I must say, and I would be interested to see if others feel the same way, the way the media report these things is shameful. The police always get the blame. When a tragic accident happens following a police chase for example, the media always blame the police. When anyone with common sense surely would say the problem was the offender driving at reckless high speed!
I think our police generally do a great job and I hope that law-abiding citizens will support them. In this case at least we should wait until the facts are in before rushing to judgement.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty:
“The armed offenders squad had one intention and one act to perform and that was to get that man away from there as quickly as possible with minimal harm to anybody,” she said.
This constitutes a massive FAIL in my books.
Plus I wonder why they stopped shooting after Halatau Naitoko died. Why isn’t the gunman dead? Sounds like he only was hit by shrapnel. I guess maybe that was enough to bring him down.
BTW: Whatever happened to shoot to disarm??
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Just heard the lawyer of the gunman on the radio. He claims his client was on a 5 day drug binge and has ‘no memory’ of the incident. How convenient. What an absolute $#%@ toerag. I’ve experimented with my share of illegal substances and nothing made me want to go on a violent rampage. The ‘blame it on P’ brigade will come out in force now, but I hope this doesnt lessen his bloody sentence (unfortunately innocent mr Naitoko got the sentence this guy really deserves).
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I don’t have enough information at this point to offer an informed opinion.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I agree with DF “I’m also going to remember that the person who has major shared culpability is the gunman whom the Police were engaged in a firefight with.” I am waiting to see what charges will be brought against him for the death of an innocent person. If his lawyer is making these statements it means he is setting up his clients defence to any of these charges. I hope he gets charged with murder but with our current laws I cant see how. He started the incident and was the cause of police firing and hitting the innocent victim.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Melanie R, one cannot shot to disarm. A shot into the centre of body mass will incapacitate; anything else leaves the target capable of killing. In movies the hero can shoot a pistol out of the criminal’s hands, but in real life hands move too quickly to be targeted.
I cannot understand why a pistol would have been used by the police, but of course do not know if one was used.
The police in NZ are some of the best in the world, but are sometimes criticised too readily by those who are pig-ignorant of what complexities are faced by those on duty- an ignorance that is all too often exalted as a virtue with the mantra “I don’t believe in violence”. I think that the procedural aspects of this case will need careful evaluation; the officer may well have followed rules which were drawn up by one of the previous government’s appointees, and which were inadequate because of a lack of appreciation of all factors that would be involved in a hostage drama. Following orders in the belief that the orders were both lawful and proper is a valid defence, after all.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Eisenhower, the fact that another vehicle was in the line of fire never entered his mind ?
Vote:Well it damn well should have, just what type of training are they bloody well doing that they opened fire without doing the most basic of bloody checks, such as if I miss where will the slugs end up.
Using a bloody pistol, how bloody idiotic is that.
The question that should be asked is did the police have time to get out onto the motorway so as to get a clear shot at him.
By the sound of it if the truck driver had shrapnel wounds he was bloody lucky he did not stop a slug himself.
Time for the AOS to stop prancing about trying to make out that they have all passed selection by wearing black uniforms etc.
Oh, and dump the bloody masks before doing some serious training.
And for christs sake, fit optical sights to all police rifles, it is a damn sight easier to get better marksmanship with opticals for recruits who have not handled weapons before.
Dump the so called anti-terrorist squad, no need for them at all, if the cops are up against well armed terrorists they would have no chance.
No, a Tuhoe woman with an angry tongue is not a well armed terrorist nor are kids on buses/
January 26th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I think that the NZ police have a major shortcoming in training to deal with riotous assemblies and armed offenders; one of the pleasant things about living here is the fact that they haven’t had the chance to put their training [such as it is] into practice.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I think Toad’s idea may have some merit. However, that depends on circumstance. It would have been more appropriate if the offender had of been heading out of the city rather than in the city. Ideally the police would want to get the offender into a less populated spot and block off traffic both ways before forcing the armed offender to stop -possibly with road spikes.
One thing that is bound to come in the future is model or drone aircraft. If one smashed into the windscreen shattering it that would make the offender stop pretty quickly. It would be best to smash into the passenger’s side if there was any chance of the car going out of control and killing an innocent person.
It would also be useful if the offender was on foot. A model aircraft smashing into someone at full speed would certainly slow them up. This might sound far fetched but the US military are working on such small aircraft as a means of minimizing civilian causalities.
All that would be needed for a car chase would be a model aircraft controlled from a helicopter.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Chuck, Toad’s idea has no merit. Police must never refuse to chase people in cars. There are sufficient checks and balances in car pursuit policies to enable frontline staff and the shift Inspectors to assess whether it should be continued or not, and at the top of that list is public safety. It is an anathema to any frontline policeman’s training to stop pursuing bad guys. They join the police to catch them.
The best comment here is from Calendar girl (repeated below):
“An ordinary citizen who shot someone in these circumstances would unquestionably be prosecuted.”
An “ordinary citizen” cannot experience the “same circumstances” because a police officer is sworn to meet certain objectives of law enforcement that go beyond what is required of civilians. I/S’s contention fails on this rather basic point.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
toad:
Public safety is ensured by catching offenders and putting them behind bars. By stopping police from catching them or chasing after them you are opening loopholes for the criminals themselves and endangering public safety.
“If I drive 100kp/h+, the police have to stop giving chase. Choice!”
“If I wave a gun in a public place, the police have to stand off. Choice!”
And so on and so forth. Deal with the offenders, get the message out that criminality will not be tolerated at any level and get the bastards. Don’t make it easier for them to get away, Toad.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Gooner said: …and at the top of that list is public safety.
It should be, but is it really in practice? If so, why have Police chases led to so many fatal and injury accidents?
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
toad:
How many have NOT led to fatal injuries and crashes?
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Pascal, are you seriously suggesting that Police should pursue at all costs and in all circumstances, even if the pursuit itself causes serious danger to the lives of both the innocent public and the pursuing police officers? That seems to be the logical end-point of the argument you are making.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
You don’t fire a gun not knowing where the bullet’s going, if in doubt, you don’t fire. There are no excuses.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
No, but I am arguing that there are acceptable risks. You are suggesting whenever anybody can possibly be endangered the police should stop chasing. That’s ridiculous.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Gooner, what I am saying is that if a helicopter has got the offender spotted it make sense to me me for the police pull back rather than staying in hot pursuit and set a road block at the safest place for the public. This was not likely possible in this case as the offender was headed into the city and could have escaped on foot into a building.
There are times to call off a car chase and times when the police should not shot back like when the shooter has a crown behind him or her.
Basically, I agree with Pascal that there must be acceptable risks otherwise offendere are encourged to not stop for police.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
peterwn asks:
Yes it is. And there’s also a tendency to “throw it at the courts and see what sticks”. This results in an unnecessarily high number of people going through the trauma of arrest and trial, and the expense of mounting a defence, only to be found not guilty (and then having to live with people saying “not guilty isn’t the same as innocent” etc).
Like I/S, part of me would like to see the Police shooter put on trial because that’s precisely what the Police have a tendency to do with others. As I/S says there’s clear prima facie evidence of careless use and that would normally be more than enough for the Police to charge and let the court worry about guilt.
But it wouldn’t be “the Police” being put through the hell they’re only too happy to inflict on others, it would be one individual officer, who may well have acted entirely properly and not deserve the additional stress of arrest and trial.
So much as I feel as I/S does that I’d like to see them get a taste of their own medicine, it won’t be “them” it’ll just be “him”, so I too think an inquiry should be allowed to take its course.
And while we’re talking accountability, I think oob nailed it in the very first comment on this thread:
Those complicit in allowing this to occur, rather than standing up to political interference, are the ones who really deserve to be on trial. And we don’t even need to wait for an enquiry into their behaviour.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I hate to agree with an idiot but there must be accountability for this death. If the cop is AOS, a trained marksman, at the very least he should be sacked for incompetence.
Vote:I felt the same way after Graeme Burton was shot in the leg because these guys are trained to shoot for the chest. No where else. After seeing the cops try to shoot a dog and missing from close range with 12 or 15 shots I would have thought that a new instructor at the Police College would have been found by now. And the scumbag who caused this is still alive.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
FWIW – according to RNZ-National @ 1700, the Lawyer acting for the individual that the police were trying to disable, his client cannot remember any of the events of the last FIVE days, and ‘was surprised to learn that someone had died while the Police were attempting to arrest him’. It will be interesting to see what plea is entered.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
John, have you ever fired a pistol? Is so was it a moving target and was the target shooting back? In the case of Burton the police probably were shooting for the chest. I am not sure how close they were but i think it was some distance.
The only training a person could have for someone shooting back is combat experience. I do not think it practical to give the police that sort of training.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Now the idiots at the Herald are sying:
“…..the incident in which police mistakenly shot a 17-year-old…..”
How the fuck does the Herald know that he was “mistakenly shot”, was it not an accident, or did the bullet ricochet???? They need to wait until there has been an inquiry, before they go presenting their own anlysis. FFS.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Typical idiotic blue gun thugs. Bang , bang !! Where will the bullet land? Another costly exercise for the tax payer.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
[quote]# Andrew W (1206) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
January 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
You don’t fire a gun not knowing where the bullet’s going, if in doubt, you don’t fire. There are no excuses.[/quote]
So if the police felt they had a good (but not perfect) shot at an armed offender who was about to execute a member of the public, you would prefer they didn’t intervene??
Unfortunately, police work in real life isn’t so black and white.
Comments were made earlier about the police closing ranks when things like this happen. I agree it’s probably not the best response however it is perhaps inevitable when faced with a public who are always willing to jump to conclusion (usually against the police) without knowing even half the story.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
We have no idea what really happened, from the sounds of it the truck driver is lucky to be alive and the poor chap who died got hit in crossfire, As far as I’m concerned the Offender should be charged with Manslaughter not the police officer.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“Typical idiotic blue gun thugs”
WTF????
Pity they missed you then.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Let’s not forget that it’s likely, based on the guy’s age and ethnicity, that the police have already saved his life numerous times. He is probably from South Auckland, already a place that resembles a Zulu Kingdom and it would be even worse if the police were not there. So if the sorts of legal niceties Toad and Savant and their fellow communists and terrorist groupies are advocating were in place, this guy might not have even libed to 17.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Dazedmw, if, as some reports claim, the offender had a gun to the head of a member of the public and was intent on killing that person, only a good headshot could possibly have saved that person, anything else would have only increase the likelyhood of the offender pulling the trigger.
Vote:The claim has been made that the offender was “intending” to shoot (you suggest “execute”) someone, there is no basis for making such a definitive assertion, the claim is only being made to justify the wild shots that the police fired, nothing more.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Maybe we should wait and find out what actually happened. The poilce concerened would have had a mere spilt seconds to evaluate the situation and to decide weather or not to aim and fire their guns. No doubt the actions of the police, over those spilt seconds, will be gone over for hours upon hours upon hours by people sitting in the safety and comfort of there air-conditioned offices, and with plenty of hindsight thrown in for good measure.
Why do i get the feeling that some people on the “left” would prefer a dead police officer?
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Let me start by saying the events of the last few days have been a tragedy on every possible level.
Having said this, some of the comments on here have been nothing short of idiotic, particularly when people are not on possession of all the facts.
Here is what we do know. The police have launched a homicide investigation. Based on the results, the authorities will progress as required. There is no fugitive. Public safety is not an issue. Suspects do not need to be identified. All the players in this tragedy are known, and accounted for. The one participant who is a real danger to the public, is in custody.
There are many who say that the police should not have opened fire without seeing where the shot may fall. That is easy to say 24 hours after the event. To those who say this, I say that this offender, who has opened fire at police at multiple occasions, and was DIRECTLY threatening a member of the public, was not going to hold back on a plan of action and stay in one position long enough for the police to examine the probabilities of every possible permutation of unfolding events before taking action.
If the police had done nothing, and the truck driver was killed, the police would be lambasted for vacillating and causing the death of that individual. These officers were faced with the worst possible situation, with the worst possible outcome. No policeman wants to be responsible for the death of anyone, and the officer concerned must be going through his own personal hell. Knowing that his actions have caused the death of an innocent, with all the pain and suffering that this places Halatau’s family under, will create a heavy burden that even the full justification of his actions will not ease. The constant baying by less informed members of the public is not needed.
To those calling for this officer to be charged, just for an instance, put yourself in his shoes. You have been placed on alert, told that a highly agitated man has been involved in a number of aggravated robberies, car-jackings, and other violent incidents city wide. This man is armed, and has shown a willingness to open fire at police, having done so on numerous occasions, including firing on the police helicopter.
He has been involved in an accident right in front of you, on the motorway, leapt over the median barrier, armed, and has confronted a member of the public with his firearm, while highly agitated.
Remember that this is all happening right in front of you.
What happens next?
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“Pity they missed you then.”
You know all things big blouse.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
What happened was, at the precise time the offender was in the cross-hair’s of the AOS and the trigger finger(s) squeezed, the driver of the truck (the tray on which the offender was positioned), slamned on the brakes (of the truck), propelling the offender forward. In less than a nano-second, the deceased (positioned in the line of sight and directly behind the offender), was exposed to the volley and was shot dead.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Andrew W, it is not a ‘claim’, it is virtually a fact. The truck driver said as much on Close Up tonight.
Paul Marsden, I think you have it in a nutshell there.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Gooner, perhaps you should read the rest of the sentence, and then explain how spraying bullets was going to prevent an offender with a gun to the head of a member of the public and intent on killing that person from doing so.
If Paul Marsden’s scenario is correct I don’t see how it mitigates charges of neglegence against the officer, as it means that the officer fired at a moving target and hit a stationary by-stander behind that target, thats about the most basic and foolish mistake to make when using a firearm.
While I think neglegence is almost certain, I’m not neccessarily arguing that it was criminal neglegence, the circumstances and training also need to be taken into account.
Vote:January 26th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
@ Andrew, you made a blanket statement without reference to this case. You said there was no situation were taking a less than 100% “safe” shot should be taken. I made a general statement as well, nowhere did i suggest that this case was an execution.
If you are going to start talking about this case, why don’t you wait until we know all the facts.
Vote:January 27th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Dazedmw, I said: “You don’t fire a gun not knowing where the bullet’s going, if in doubt, you don’t fire.”
Which is about the same number of words, but not quite the same meaning as: there is “no situation were taking a less than 100% “safe” shot should be taken.” Why not just quote me rather than paraphrase?
“nowhere did i suggest that this case was an execution.”
No where did i suggest that you suggested that this case was an execution.
“If you are going to start talking about this case, why don’t you wait until we know all the facts.”
1.That wouldn’t be as much fun.
2.DPF put the post up expecting people to comment on the case, as several of us have.
3.Unlike some others, I haven’t gone beyond the evidence as presented so far, I’m not out to convict the officer, or even say he must face trial, as others have.
Why don’t you go and bitch at others who have, in their own minds, already convicted or exhonorated the AOS officer involved?
Vote:January 27th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Rule Number 1 in the use of firearms is never to point a weapon at anything other than a safe target. Rule Number 2 is never to take a shot unless it can be done in complete safety.
I wasn’t aware that the NZ police are exempt from these rules.
It doesn’t matter where you go in the world, in a stress situation there is nothing more dangerous than a police officer with a loaded firearm. These folk can’t shoot for toffee – but fondly imagine they can. Hint: If ever you find yourself in this situation, hug the offender tightly – you will be completely safe.
[Nevertheless it's heartening to witness the excellence of the police PR spin machine. In my lifetime I have heard the term "killed in a crossfire" applied to the death of innumerable innocent civilians at the hands of "goodies" and "baddies" - but never as yet in NZ. So well done police HQ PR department at getting this classic, cliched and bewhiskered "wot us?" meme embedded into the transcript.]
However, luckily we still live in good old NZ. In many other parts of the world, South Auckland would be tearing its streets apart in a race riot right now.
Vote:January 27th, 2009 at 9:23 am
“Looking at the photos in todays Herald article [url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10553601&gallery_id=104228]How It Happened[/url] its hard not to see how the Officer(s) can’t be charged as they failed to observe the most basic of firearm safety rules and had no clear line of fire when they pulled the trigger.”
Yeah.. pointing in the direction of my fucking house!
Vote:January 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am
There is no such thing as “police chases”, there are offender pursuits.
These could be stopped at any time by the runner stopping and obeying ther legal requirement to do so by those we pay to enforce our laws.
The blame ALWAYS is with those that chose to break the law and run. End to bloody story.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Innocent Father/Son/Brother/Uncle/Cuzin/Friend KILLED ! hes dead. never coming back.
Q: who shot him ? A: Police Officer doing his job. Q: Did the officer do his job properly ? A: No, he did not, his judgement/instincts/adrenalin/over exitement/panic or whatever else meant that his kids/ will go on with out a father for the rest of their lives.
one of the most disgusting quotes i have heard so far ” he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time ” ,
what kind of comfort are those words to the family of the victim ?? thats a spit in the face. kick in back. deepheat cream to the anus. how about somebody go and shoot the officer responsible and then tell his family he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and see how his family like it.
Q: wrong place, wrong time ? A: No he was doing his job as a courier driver.
and the truck driver who had nothing but praise for the police ? to be honest : if i was him , i would feel the same way. just like anyone else would be in that situation. he is alive, but so are the other people who were involved earlier. the only person who died was the courier driver. AND the bullet did not come from the offender.
chances are if the police had not stopped the situation where it ended , the truck driver may still have been alive. i mean the offender didnt shoot anyone else/ he could of, many times, but he didnt.
Q: If the chase had not ended on the motorway where it did, could the truck driver been killed ?
A: Yes he could of been killed . by the bullets of the police. just like the courier driver.
now do i think the officer should be charged ? maybe, it depends on what all of the facts point to.
do i think he should be let off scott free and be allowed to continue on as part of the police force ? NO i dont think he should be let off scott free. YES he has made a tragic mistake he must live with for the rest of his life, but at the same time he should be held accountable for somthing. he had the gun, he had the power, he had the choice, he had the RESPONSIBILITY.
as much as i hate police for my own reasons, i dont personally believe he should be up for a murder charge. i dont like police but there does need to be order. the officer went in with the intention of stopping an armed offender but because of his cowboyism, has come out a killer of an innocent man. ( bottom line, He KILLED an INNOCENT MAN)
Vote:he should at least be stood down from being a AOS member and the training of AOS needs to be seriously reviewed/revamped .