Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I predict high levels of direct action if/when development starts.
I did wonder about this.
There are significant costs associated with delays, security and general removal of non-cooperative warm bodies from the paths of bulldozers. I strongly suspect these haven't been taken into account.
And those are just the forseeable financial costs. The loss of goodwill will be not inconsiderable.
I am willing to bet that what we (Auckland) will end up getting once all the dust has settled (literally and metaphorically) is the option that no-one wanted built, at the increased cost that no-one wanted to pay.
I predict headlines over the next few years along the lines of: 'Completion of Waterview connection delayed again. Costs out of control.'
-
Well, despite the vitriol directed at Grant, it seems that the police did shoot at, and hit, the gunman on Thursday when they had an opportunity.
The 'correctness' or otherwise of Grants views is entirely beside the point.
Vitriol is being directed at him because:
1) It is painfully and embarrasingly obvious that he has zero knowledge of painstakingly thought-out police procedures, the easily available equipment and resources, what that equipment is capable of, and what the policemen/women using that equipment are capable of.*
2) At the time he started posting (last Friday afternoon), it was painfully and embarrasingly obvious that he had zero knowledge of the relevant facts on the ground. Several key points, such as the one you refer to, have only come out several days afterwards.
3) Despite 1) and 2) above, this hasn't stopped him jibbering on like a P'd-up monkey about what the police 'should' or 'shouldn't' have done. He has also dismissed out of hand the direct and first-hand experience of people who do know about these things.
Armchair warrior-fantasists living in cloud-cuckoo land with the sky faries, who inflict their opinions on those of us who are more or less engaged with the reality-based community, get on my tits.
*I claim no great knowledge of any of these things for myself. But I'm not the one criticising the job the police are doing.
-
But he did spend six years as a frontline policeman.
Yeah, but Grant's seen Die Hard, like, six times . And he's got a copy of Beverly Hills Cop that his big brother pirated for him from a mate. The audio's not very good though, so it's a bit difficult to hear what they're saying. Judge Reinhold is really really funny in it though!
-
Shooting possums is not a very effective means of pest control, and ditto for stoats, rats and ginger.
Ginger? I know redheads can be a bit short tempered sometimes, but I didn't know they'd been classified as pests!!
Oh, yes. Their days grow ever shorter, clearly.
-
I guess it's possible that things might not have gone according to plan. Do you think it's possible that things could have gone according to plan?
It might've. But since we don't actually know whether the police sniper team had the opportunity to take that particular shot, I recommend that we both STFU at this point.
From my very limited knowledge of the situation and 'good' police procedure, I personally don't think they put a foot wrong at this point. But I guess it'll all come out in the wash.
Matt Poole: really enjoying your posts on this thread, BTW.
-
Obviously not by doing something stupid .. which are all the ideas you seem capable of. How about this: Point snipers at the window he's shooting from. Move rescuers into safe position. Shoot on first sight.
Simple. Problem over. Officer rescued.
... and we'd avoid the case that actually happened where the perp went on shooting indiscriminately for the next day or so ...
Oh, right. I see where I'm going wrong. Clearly you're right.
But, hold on a minute....
What if Jan (or some other future nutjob) is psychotically insane, but not actually as dumb as a rock?
So, instead of leaning out of the window screaming 'come on coppers!' with a bulls-eye stencilled on his forehead in his dead mothers lipstick, maybe, just maybe, he turns off the lights and draws the curtains and lies on the floor most of the time, making it just a little bit harder for him to see out and shoot out, but extremely difficult for anyone to see in.
And, maybe, just maybe, this nutjob who has spent months fortifying his house has cut loopholes in the walls which he can shoot out of, but which are, like, rilly rilly difficult for the police sniper teams to even see into, let alone shoot into.
So, your elite snatch squad is all ready to go and grab the body. They're lined up by the wall all ready to go. All they need is confirmation from the sniper team that they've taken him out - 'shoot on first sight' as you put it.
And they wait.
And wait.
And wait.
Just like they did in Napier, in fact.
-
When an officer has been shot and is lying in a driveway the first response should be to attend to him. If a criminal in a house is shooting at people who try to approach then the criminal should not be extended any right to life. Every attempt should be made to assist the fallen officer and the risk should be placed upon the life of the criminal (as much as possible).
By doing.....what, exactly?
Shooting the shit out of the house while they send in a rescue squad? And potentially killing or injuring a whole bunch of residents in the surrounding area because of stray rounds (incoming or outgoing)?
Or running over to the body themselves, and heroically dragging it back to cover, while Jan's shots ping off the concrete around them, but magically keep missing the heroic rescuer, and also magically keep missing any peeps in the surrounding houses or area in his line of fire.
If your object is to avoid more officers 'shot and lying in driveways', or to avoid dead kids on the 6.00 news ('a stray police round hit little Katie as she was preparing for bed this evening...'), then your proposed tactics seem more than a little self-defeating.
Honsetly Grant, the reason a lot of people on here (myself included) think you're an A-grade dick is because you can't seem to post up an argument that a child couldn't poke full of holes in the space of a 'blues clues' ad break.
-
Do the LAVs have launchers for tear gas etc? Could that be what was visible?
Yup:
Multi Barrel Grenade Discharger (MBGD): 8 x 76mm grenade dischargers capable of discharging either smoke or high explosive grenades with an effective range of 60m.
Actually, that does make sense -- Hoyle told the press that tear gas had been shot into the house on Friday. It did seem unlikely to me that Hoyle would have lied about there only having been two rifle rounds fired.
I'd actually be very surprised if the smoke launchers on the LAV's were used to shoot tear gas into or into the vicinity of the house.
Those launchers are not intended as precision shooters. They consist of short sawn-off barrels pointing in all directions. When used, they fire off smoke canisters in all directions within an arc in front of the vehicle to create a smokescreen for the vehicle to advance or retreat behind.
Using those would be like throwing an open box of golf balls into the air and expecting some to land in a bucket 10 metres away.
-
And four of the above five animals taste mighty good (I refuse to eat possum).
Why? It's just as tasty as the other four.
-
oops, should have put that top bit in quotes.