|
|
Post by terauparaha on Jan 29, 2009 13:09:28 GMT 12
Anyone who thinks that police go the extra step and join the AOS just to do their duty and not for the buzz and excitement of it all is a dreamer.
|
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Jan 29, 2009 14:25:21 GMT 12
we Naki re your post "Let's at least wait for the enquiry to document the full circumstances of this incident before demanding that 'the police' somehow miraculously become infallible."
I not waiting for a full enquiry dont need to. As a pro- Police person myself i believe that healthy police would become critical comments of them, truly professional people don't have a problem with criticism.
The Police do have an appalling reputation of killing people by there guns in this country and enquiries have been found poor. there are so many examples the fellow in Christchurch 2 years ago shot and killed by the gun of the Police Officer and of course the vile killing by the Police Officer by his gun of Steven Wallace the enquiry there appalling and incomplete and now the killing of this young man in Auckland. The Police Officer must be charged and the Court can decide. The Police Officer will either be found to be guilty of or not quilty of.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jan 29, 2009 14:41:11 GMT 12
Is NZ a third world country? If not then we should expect the best service from all our government agency ie health and justice. Better than average doesn't cut it for me when lives are at stake. Why the hell do we pay those blardy high taxes for? Better than average is good enough for me, given that armed offences are not exactly a daily occurence in any neighborhood. The way the police allocate their budget is based on priorities. Hundreds are killed every year on our roads, which is why most of our police are trained to do traffic work. Armed standoffs are rare, and until recently, no bystanders had been killed as a result. Do you seriously think we should re-write the manual because one officer fired his weapon and hit the wrong target? Let's at least wait for the enquiry to document the full circumstances of this incident before demanding that 'the police' somehow miraculously become infallible. If any of those who have rushed to judgement on this board were actually there and saw the incident, speak up now. Tell us how close the police were to the offender, the victim, and other bystanders. Tell us who was moving in which direction, and who[if anyone] the offender's gun was pointed at. Tell us if the officer who fired the shot had come under fire at any stage. Give us the same information about the offender that the police on the ground had. Tell us how much experience the officers have using firearms in urban settings. Tell us what the officer thought he was aiming at. I can't judge this incident yet. I guess we all have opinions, but they can ony reflect our opinions of the police force as a whole, or our opinions of gun-toting thieves. I know which side I'd rather trust. Better than average is not good enough for me because it's just above mediocre. I am on the side of the Police, but I also want to know what happened and what caused this young man's death. I don't think that should be overshadowed in the rush to forgive the Police this accident. A young man is dead here. The officer who made the mistake is still alive and will get the chance to recover from this incident. The young man never will. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Jan 30, 2009 2:33:27 GMT 12
....and of course the vile killing by the Police Officer by his gun of Steven Wallace the enquiry there appalling and incomplete....[/ quote] One of the most comprehensive enquiries ever held, and in the process of being reviewed yet again by another independant tribuneral. Constable Keith Abbott was CLEARED of any criminal charges by the police complaints authority. Found NOT GUILTY of murder by a jury at a totally uneccesary private prosecution in 2002 The coroner is on record as saying that Wallace was bent on mayhem, was warned repeatedly that the officers were armed, and did not comply when a warning shot was fired. Wallace was a fool who threw his own life away. As with this latest incident, if the offender had not been there or had not resisted arrest, or had not threatened the police, the fatality would not have occured. |
|
|
|
Post by toerag on Jan 30, 2009 7:11:50 GMT 12
Bingbong and Naki, the Wallace case really got my goat. This incident was a another prime example where shot to disable should have been employed - come on golf club vs gun not to mention Abbott's prior dealing with Wallace.
|
|
|
|
Post by kokonutwoman on Jan 30, 2009 7:51:42 GMT 12
Anyone who thinks that police go the extra step and join the AOS just to do their duty and not for the buzz and excitement of it all is a dreamer. Can't agree with you there |
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jan 30, 2009 8:30:04 GMT 12
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Wallace have a psychiatric disorder?
|
|
|
|
Post by punga on Jan 30, 2009 9:05:14 GMT 12
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Wallace have a psychiatric disorder? surely anybody that requires an aos call out,has some kind of mental disorder? imho |
|
|
|
Post by kokonutwoman on Jan 30, 2009 9:31:53 GMT 12
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Wallace have a psychiatric disorder? I thought he was under the influence of P. |
|
|
|
Post by punga on Jan 30, 2009 10:22:36 GMT 12
also,shooting to injure,rather than kill "will" ,i believe, put innocent bystanders at more risk.
maybe thats what happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jan 30, 2009 10:37:44 GMT 12
It comes down to training and obviously ours isn't rigorous enough. I believe the Wallace incident occurred in the early hours of the morning. How many innocent bystanders would have been there in Waitara at that time of the morning?
Ironically, the "shoot to kill" policy has meant an innocent bystander got killed. Shooting someone traveling at high speed on the Auckland motorway seems more risky than shooting someone in the early hours of the morning in Waitara.
|
|
|
|
Post by punga on Jan 30, 2009 13:44:03 GMT 12
here will be an inquiry as the policeman did,i believe,unintentionally kill an innocent bystander.
the aos do not choose the situation where they are called in to sort these mess's out.because of this,there is always a chance that something can go very wrong,it doesnt matter how good they are.
sadly for the young boy and his family,something did go drastically wrong....
i feel for them,but theres no way id ever blame the cop,unless he was guilty of gross misconduct,which we will find out...
|
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Jan 31, 2009 13:31:18 GMT 12
......come on golf club vs gun not to mention Abbott's prior dealing with Wallace. Having sat on a jury where a teenage girl beat a grown man to death with a hammer,[coincidentally, also in waitara] I'd say that a golf club is just as lethal a weapon as a gun at close quarters. Cosnstable Abbott had numerous dealings with Wallace, as did every other cop in Waitara. Wallace was a violent drug user. He had plenty of opportunity to put down his weapon and surrender to police but chose not to. My only regret about this incident is that a good copper has been pilloried unneccesarily by the police haters. |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jan 31, 2009 16:00:02 GMT 12
......come on golf club vs gun not to mention Abbott's prior dealing with Wallace. Having sat on a jury where a teenage girl beat a grown man to death with a hammer,[coincidentally, also in waitara] I'd say that a golf club is just as lethal a weapon as a gun at close quarters. Cosnstable Abbott had numerous dealings with Wallace, as did every other cop in Waitara. Wallace was a violent drug user. He had plenty of opportunity to put down his weapon and surrender to police but chose not to. My only regret about this incident is that a good copper has been pilloried unneccesarily by the police haters. I remember the hammer case. That one was pretty awful, but it is completely different to the circumstances here where an innocent bystander got killed. The issues surrounding the Wallace case are contentious which is why there are still question marks over the legitimacy of killing Wallace. There's also the question mark over Police procedure after someone is shot and then not getting them quick medical attention. Similar question marks are over Police expediency with the dairy owner. As said earlier questioning Police actions does not equate to hatred or being anti-Police. There are definitely some out there that are anti-Police but I haven't encountered anyone on this thread that is that way. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Jan 31, 2009 20:08:34 GMT 12
I remember the hammer case. That one was pretty awful, but it is completely different to the circumstances here where an innocent bystander got killed. I didn't raise it in relation to the Auckland case, I raised it to counter the foolish notion that a known criminal armed with a heavy metal implement is somehow not armed and dangerous. we see things differently then sparrow. My position throughout this thread has been neither pro- nor anti-. All I have suggested is that some of the posters in this thread keep their criticism of the police until they have fuully acquainted themselves with the circumstances. The full facts will not be made public, and will not emerge until there is a proper inquiry. There are those who have questioned the inquiry process without bothering to raise any specific issues. To me, that is little more than anti-police hatred. Every shooting gets investigated, every finding gets publicised. If you can't face that truth, then you are just railing blindly against the police without any justifiable reason. |
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Jan 31, 2009 20:25:52 GMT 12
I believe Naki a robust organisation like the Police should be able to handle criticism however when situations are preloaded like with the comments very early on from Greg O" Conner the Police Association spokesperson are low grade and unfortunate. The Police are not fine with matters of Brown, and when you have situations like in Christchurch where the Police had visiting other Police Officers from up North who were in a inter Island Rugby team and in the Police changing rooms a Police Officer had written in lipstick on the mirror " F.... Off Black C..ts" are matters where there are inherit Bias. one would note the Police have never had a Police Commissioner who is Maori for example and there is inherit Institutional Racism and a tolerance for it. The Wallace situation was one that should have been handled differently and you [Naki] wrote "Constable Abbott had numerous dealings with Wallace, as did every other cop in Waitara." SO WHAT doesn't excuse professionalism whilst Abbort was found correctly "guilty" by many in the community said more for what happened here. The Police are littered with situations of misuse of fire arms where people have been killed by there hands let alone the situations where people haven't been killed but violently beaten.
I suggest that you many need to consider the difference from the wood and the trees. I am pro Police i even have one that lives down the road from me and he is a very nice person.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jan 31, 2009 21:44:28 GMT 12
Naki: this is from your second post in this thread. Wow, folks, you really have it in for the police, don't you? Instead of dealing with the case under discussion, you'd rather hunt for any incident that you can use to vent your anger through, even if it means going back to events that happened best part of thirty years ago. Which actually contradicts your statement that you have been neither pro or anti because you have stated that you are "pro" (as other posters have), as well as drawing the binary inference that others must be (or as indicated in your above post) "anti". Every shooting does get investigated, but I'm with the people who believes that there needs to be an independent inquiry which is not internal with the Police force and includes other parties outside of the institution of the Police. I've worked in many organisations where having your methods and procedures checked was just a part of the job. It was done on an annual basis and everyone had to be upfront about what they were doing in their roles. In fact I would say it was healthy. I don't understand why asking for a review of the process, operations etc of the Police is tantamount to being anti-police. Surely we should be going for having the most clear and robust procedures in our Police force (and that also should start with recruitment). |
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Jan 31, 2009 23:02:58 GMT 12
re Naki's thread comments I has just occurred to me there may been some underlying damage equavelant to the colonised mind that may not be apparent. A sub fear level that exists almost like a psychological splitting where he wants to have it both ways. That is he can only see the Police as triumphant and any harm done by the Police as deserved on those that it is dished out to a characteristic of those who have been bullied and lack courage, the most dangerous as that type of persona always sides with the torturer like can't see [chooses not to see] harm damage that someone else is to blame, that the Police in his eyes and his like have a sacred status.
This thinking is characterised by his postings, essentially there is always a scapegoat upon whom one projects all the “dirty” components of oneself or of one’s group-self.
Unfortunately these types comprehend absolutely no other language.
The Police often create work a rounds for any situation and there internal mantra is "We [The Police] must always look good on the outside."
[My Stars Are Extremely Great At The Moment.]
|
|
|
|
Post by toerag on Jan 31, 2009 23:23:52 GMT 12
I remember the hammer case. That one was pretty awful, but it is completely different to the circumstances here where an innocent bystander got killed. I didn't raise it in relation to the Auckland case, I raised it to counter the foolish notion that a known criminal armed with a heavy metal implement is somehow not armed and dangerous. . The notion is all in your head Naki, I merely drew the comparison between a golf club and a gun. I made no mention of it not being dangerous. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Feb 1, 2009 3:57:56 GMT 12
............ whilst Abbot was found correctly "guilty" by many in the community ....... Not correctly.. Constable Abbott has survived numerous attacks on his character since the incident, even though he was cleared in a proper inquiry, and then cleared by a jury in a totally superfluous private prosecution. Any half-assed fool can make a judgement based on the scant information published in the papers, I'll put my faith in those who have assessed all of the facts and found him not guilty. As to those who are trying to turn this into a race issue.......shame on you. |
|
naki
Full Member
Posts: 233
|
Post by naki on Feb 1, 2009 4:08:31 GMT 12
re Naki's thread comments I has just occurred to me there may been some underlying damage equavelant to the colonised mind that may not be apparent. A sub fear level that exists almost like a psychological splitting where he wants to have it both ways. That is he can only see the Police as triumphant and any harm done by the Police as deserved on those that it is dished out to a characteristic of those who have been bullied and lack courage, the most dangerous as that type of persona always sides with the torturer like can't see [chooses not to see] harm damage that someone else is to blame, that the Police in his eyes and his like have a sacred status. This thinking is characterised by his postings, essentially there is always a scapegoat upon whom one projects all the “dirty” components of oneself or of one’s group-self. Unfortunately these types comprehend absolutely no other language. If you can't kick the ball, please don't kick the player. I'll debate you on any subject, but trite amateur psychology is not my thing. |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Feb 1, 2009 11:37:31 GMT 12
............ whilst Abbot was found correctly "guilty" by many in the community ....... Not correctly.. Constable Abbott has survived numerous attacks on his character since the incident, even though he was cleared in a proper inquiry, and then cleared by a jury in a totally superfluous private prosecution. Any half-assed fool can make a judgement based on the scant information published in the papers, I'll put my faith in those who have assessed all of the facts and found him not guilty. As to those who are trying to turn this into a race issue.......shame on you. I don't think the incident to hand is a "race" issue, but I think there is suspicion about how Police are biased in NZ (not only NZ but other countries too) on matters of colour. Maori are three times more likely to be arrested and prosecuted than Pakeha people in NZ. This gives the indication that more Maori are committing crime, but in actuality, the Police get to choose who they will charge and put before the Courts. As for the Wallace case, it was the family's right to use due process and if the matter was superfluous then the Courts would have chucked it out. They didn't, but as you say, the officer was found not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as being innocent though. I have to say I have limited faith in a "proper" inquiry conducted by the Police. For issues of transparency they should utilise a more independent process. The matter of neutrality and objectivity with Police investigating their own has been raised time and time again in New Zealand. I agree with Bingbong, Greg O'Connor's actions do not help. In his swiftness to absolve the Police of any wrongdoing in the incident to hand, he has minimised the death of this young man. |
|
