Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Tragedy into Crisis?

233 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 Newer→ Last

  • Rich of Observationz,

    BTW, here's the UK manual that sets out procedures for police use of firearms. I'm not sure whether an NZ equivalent exists or is a public document.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4463 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    AS:

    Is this whole position of your's an intellectual exercise, or have you ever worked in a job where the consequences of a bad call or making a mistake can be life and death? I don't think you really grasp what your expectations entail to the people at the sharp end.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1810 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Meanwhile: a quick and dirty empirical analysis of Helen Clark's proposal to restrict liquor outlets in poor areas.

    Short version: since liberalisation in 1989, there has been a massive explosion in outlets, but actual consumption has declined. And this decline in consumption has not been reflected in police violent crime statistics (though that could be due to P).

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1642 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    I'd always been told all sworn officers, who were current (had done training) could draw firearms. The decison to approve use of firearms rests with shift supervisor.

    Correct. A senior sergeant or detective sergeant can authorise carrying of firearms for a shift by their subordinates. In extreme circumstances, as was seen in the Hawkes Bay after the McKibbin shooting, a regional commander can authorise blanket arming of officers for an extended period.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Because best practice is to restrict firearms use to a specially trained and selected cadre with the skills for such situations.

    Ok, is "front line" considered specially trained and selected, or are those cops just the first to arrive at a situation? Is this why we pick on the police as being incompetent because when they arrive, they are restricted at every firearm situation?If so,Why?(I watch too much Parliament TV)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6261 posts Report Reply

  • A S,

    You're expressing precisely the view that Kerre described. Somehow people in uniform are lesser beings than you, less worthy of life, with a subordinate right to go home at the end of the working day just because they've got a uniform on and a duty to help the public.

    Bollocks, I am. I'm expressing the view that someone who died, might rightly have expected some help.

    I'm also expressing a widely held view that the police will be the cavalry that will come to save people if things go wrong. The police are pretty keen to be seen as the defenders of the general populace (esp. when they want greater powers), and with that desire comes an expectation that they will be there when they're needed. If they aren't going to live up to that, then maybe they should tell us and stop playing on an untruth so we know that we're on our own if something goes wrong.

    If I'm out in the wops and crash, I could reasonably have an idea that it might take some time for emergency services to get to me. If I'm in the middle of the city, I would have no earthly reason to expect that someone wouldn't be along in fairly short order to help me out.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2007 • 256 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The obvious lesson from this is that if you ever find yourself confronted with an armed offender don't for gawds sake tell the Police he has a gun. Because you'll be on your own until they feel it's 'safe' to intervene. Tell them he had a knife and they'll come busting in. Tell them he's got a gun and they'll form a perimeter.

    Except for the obvious fact that a knife is a weapon, and police won't necessarily come running in blindly in that situation either.

    Next question, Why aren't all cars carrying firearms if some are?

    I believe this is operational procedure, in that in a normal situation, it requires the authority of a non-commissioned officer to authorise the distribution of firearms. Hence the firearms are routinely in the back of a sergeant's car.

    Ok, is "front line" considered specially trained and selected, or are those cops just the first to arrive at a situation?

    It's my understanding that every sworn officer, including those flying a desk, all the way up to the Commissioner, are active. Some will be out on the streets/cars, some will be in control rooms, various investigative units, pushing paper etc. The only cops that have limited powers are those on some sort of inactive list, which you can get onto through misconduct or serious lack of fitness etc.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6201 posts Report Reply

  • Nick D'Angelo,

    You're expressing precisely the view that Kerre described. Somehow people in uniform are lesser beings than you, less worthy of life, with a subordinate right to go home at the end of the working day just because they've got a uniform on and a duty to help the public.

    Ah yes, that perhaps explains why our soldiers are now only fit for peacekeeping duties. Or performing the Haka for Laura Bush in Afghanistan.

    Honestly, like the SUV thread I fear this one will not change anyone's opinion. Maybe we should all talk about the Rugby, I think we can all agree we won that!

    I was the first to complain when the Police shot Steve Wallace in Waitara. I felt they overreacted and could've handled the situation with less haste. If there's a live powerline on someone's car I don't expect the EMT to rush in with a wooden broomstick and try to pull the guy out. But (inquiry pending) I think it reasonable to accept the families assurances that the criminals have gone, and to enter the building with due caution. It's wrong to think that the cops should only have accepted the word of an off duty cop inside the liquor store.

    And doesn't the latter sound just a little like a TV cop show? If we're really going to live our lives like the plotline of a TV thriller then there really are Terrorists Among Us. (Which seems to be the on-going theme on SVU lately).

    Simon Laan • Since May 2008 • 157 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    I/S: "empirical"? Bah! No wonder the mainstream media look down on bloggers, with their pathetic reliance on "facts" and "analysis" rather than moral outrage and simplistic sensationalism, which we all know are the vital pillars of proper journalism.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1039 posts Report Reply

  • Phil Palmer,

    Honestly, like the SUV thread I fear this one will not change anyone's opinion.

    It's changed one of mine. I used to think that the guy in the gun shop who shot a hold-up artist was unjustified.

    Since Nov 2006 • 34 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    If I'm out in the wops and crash, I could reasonably have an idea that it might take some time for emergency services to get to me.

    Then read my first post to this discussion. Where I talk about a real incident where the Fire Service waited an hour for it to be confirmed that power was off in the sector. They weren't taking their time to get there, they were there and standing around. They could see the driver, and had the driver been conscious (or even alive) they would've been able to see the fire fighters. It's an exactly equivalent circumstance. Are you going to castigate the fire fighters in that situation for waiting? If you are, I'll find out exactly which brigade it was and you can go there on a Monday night and tell them that they're a bunch of cowards. I'd love to know their reaction.

    I'm expressing the view that someone who died, might rightly have expected some help.

    And the way you're saying it says that you object to the police taking the time to ensure that they could render aid as safely as possible in the circumstances. By saying that they took too long, and should've gone in straight away, you're saying that the fact that someone had been shot should be ignored and they should haved immediately entered the premises.
    By extension you're saying that they're less entitled to expect to go home at the end of their shift, because you're denying that they have any right to examine the entire circumstances and take steps to minimise the risks to themselves.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Ah yes, that perhaps explains why our soldiers are now only fit for peacekeeping duties. Or performing the Haka for Laura Bush in Afghanistan.

    If they go to war, they've got guns. If they get shot, it's not because they were sent into a dangerous situation without a means to defend themselves. Even our peace-keepers have rules-of-engagement that permit them to exercise lethal force if required. It's disingenuous to compare the military to civilians.

    I think it reasonable to accept the families assurances that the criminals have gone, and to enter the building with due caution.

    And if the family's wrong? Then what? Suddenly you've got a bunch of dead or badly injured cops because they couldn't respond to force with like force. "Due caution" means being able to deal with a many reasonably-foreseeable events as possible, and when someone's been shot that includes the possibility that there's someone with a gun very nearby.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Dave Howell,

    Maybe we should all talk about the Rugby, I think we can all agree we won that!

    How about some bitching about copyright N*zis, that seems to be reliably good for some agreement. Today's contenders AP for charging bloggers $12.50 to quote 5 words, and Virgin for forbidding you to have an open wifi network.

    Auckland • Since Jun 2008 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    But (inquiry pending) I think it reasonable to accept the families assurances that the criminals have gone, and to enter the building with due caution. It's wrong to think that the cops should only have accepted the word of an off duty cop inside the liquor store.

    I agree there Nick but I also (sorta) see why it doesn't happen. I have experienced what I consider inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the police and once that happens, it is very hard to accept alot of what they deem appropriate.The police certainly had no problem storming through (straight through, I thought they might have opened it) the front door. Now I reason ,they were not worried about confronting weapons then because they wouldn't have known. I witnessed the police, weapons aimed at 4 teenagers in their car who were smoking a joint outside my home. No warning for any of us walking down the street.We drove ,most days past Xues car in our street with his wife in the boot while the cop was on duty beside it and many onlookers in the street were suggesting the boot might be better than digging up the garden.
    So Community help is needed, as so often requested by our Force and I do suggest while a family member may not have all the experience to determine the entire situation, they are a valuable help for the police and as a community we do want them to pay attention and really, if he is shot,bleeding,and I am there saying it is safe,it is their duty to serve and protect.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6261 posts Report Reply

  • Nick D'Angelo,

    If you are, I'll find out exactly which brigade it was and you can go there on a Monday night and tell them that they're a bunch of cowards. I'd love to know their reaction.

    Why don't we just have a dance battle to decide?

    Simon Laan • Since May 2008 • 157 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    past Xues car in our street with his wife in the boot while the cop was on duty beside it and many onlookers in the street were suggesting the boot might be better than digging up the garden.

    And if the police had just opened up the boot because it seemed like a good idea, nothing they found in the car would be admissible in the up-coming trial. Nothing, nadda, zilch. They have procedures around searches for a reason, and it's so that the likes of Chris Comesky can't get evidence turfed on a technicality. The law is there for a reason, and failure to follow the law will be countenanced by the courts in very few circumstances. If there had been knocking or yelling from the boot, forced entry would've been permitted as necessary to preserve life. The courts accept that, and nobody's going to second-guess a cop who hauls someone alive from a car boot. In Xue's case, that didn't happen.

    if he is shot,bleeding,and I am there saying it is safe,it is their duty to serve and protect.

    And if you're wrong? If they're actually just around the corner, or in the car park, waiting for a chance to cap some pigs? Who's to blame then? You? No, don't think so. The blame will fall squarely on the cops who went into a risky situation without ensuring that they could deal with foreseeable circumstances. Would you be calling them gung-ho idiots in that situation? I would be. I'm being perfectly even-handed here, but I wonder how many of the people currently saying they should've gone in faster would be saying they should've waited if things had gone south. Can't have it both ways, people, you're on one side or the other.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Can't have it both ways, people, you're on one side or the other.

    Yes I can. I think some of our laws are an ass. I think generally our cops try to implement those laws accordingly. I even have the odd one as a friend :-) and I have heard them complain about the "bloody law" they have to uphold.The police ask for community help (often at news hour) so it becomes an expectation that if you can offer help ,maybe they can work out a way to try to speed up a bleeding dying situation. TV3 are asking for community help re yesterdays murder right now

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6261 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Can't have it both ways, people

    Yes I can

    No, you can't. If you're going to criticise them for waiting, you'd have to commend them for rushing in and getting shot if that was how it went down. Otherwise you're demanding that the police exercise perfect judgement in every situation, never err, and always be completely exonerated by the 20/20 hindsight that will be applied to any situation that isn't resolved to the utmost satisfaction of the inquisitor.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Also Matthew, Xues car should have been seized and removed from the street at the same time as the searching of house, digging of garden,etc etc. I estimate 30 people hanging and living around the house being occasionally watched by police.Anyway I digress, I think they are dealing with disclosure in Parliament today which is supposed to deal with Comesky .Wonder why he left the force?

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6261 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Also Matthew, Xues car should have been seized and removed from the street at the same time as the searching of house,

    For whatever reason, it took them as long as it did to work out that it was his car. Slack police work on their part, not running the plates of a car parked in front of the house, but it does happen. They also didn't know they were investigating anything other than a dumped child for a while.

    It was sloppy, but it happened, and because they went through the legal processes they can use the evidence gathered from the car. Had they not, it'd all be worthless and the case would be rather more difficult since it's hard to prove murder when you can't talk about the situation of the body.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3909 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Yes I can

    No, you can't. If you're going to criticise them for waiting, you'd have to commend them for rushing in and getting shot if that was how it went down.

    No I suggested that a person there e.g. the family member that was still in the shop not getting shot, wanted help for his cousin(I think) so as my next post said, maybe the police can figure a way to speed up their process.I understand it's not easy ,simple or fast in government and I ain't blaming the cops, just that it could be addressed.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6261 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Craig said up thread:

    Shep: Don't mean a personal dis here, but every time I hear phrases like "revictimisation of the victims of crime" I don't have a clue what the frak they're talking about.

    Its called Post traumatic stress disorder. It's a mental illness that involves excessive anxiety. ACC pays for it's treatment, but only to victims of specific types of crime.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2751 posts Report Reply

  • A S,

    And the way you're saying it says that you object to the police taking the time to ensure that they could render aid as safely as possible in the circumstances. By saying that they took too long, and should've gone in straight away, you're saying that the fact that someone had been shot should be ignored and they should haved immediately entered the premises.

    No, that is your interpretation of what I'm saying.

    What I have said is fairly clearly talking about consideration of the same situation through a different lens. What I have also posed is a fairly simple question. That is:

    Should the general public have an expectation that the Police will help them in an emergency, or should the general population actually be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own and that they should not expect any help until the risk is deemed acceptable?

    If the public should not expect help, fine. But it is something that would be nice to know before anyone else finds they need to rely on help that isn't likely to come.

    Even our peace-keepers have rules-of-engagement that permit them to exercise lethal force if required. It's disingenuous to compare the military to civilians.

    I think that if you check up on this, you'll find that the Police are defined as an armed force. They aren't civilians.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2007 • 256 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    Just as an aside, could we all stop talking about South Auckland as if it was this single entitied, many headed monster? Mangere East is different to Mangere Central is different to Yendarra is different to Flat Bush is different to Manurewa is different to Otahuhu. If you get my drift.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Dave Waugh,

    AS,
    No one (sane) should expect ANYONE in uniform or not to commit suicide for them, which basically is what you are suggesting.

    In all emergency/rescue services in NZ (and I've been trained in several of them) the first thing you are ever taught to do in ALL situations is make sure YOU are safe no ifs or buts. You can rescue/help no one if you are dead yourself.
    Common sense is your friend AS, avoiding it won't hep you any.......


    oh and on a side note, personally I think the response time to get the area cordoned off and the AOS on site was pretty bloody good......
    Not easy getting a bunch of people scattered all over town back to base, geared up and then halfway across town to the incident with AK's distances and traffic.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 86 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.