Thread: AOS shooting -TVOne sunday program

Originally Posted by Kscott

Police shooting of Halatau Naitoko - short version
PDF Report - long version

Sweet. Thanks for that. Will have a read tomorrow.
Will be good to know more info than the distorted facts the media gives.

"I don't know you. I don't know your history, experience etc. But I do know the police have the right to use deadly force to arrest or prevent escape of an offender (Sections 39 and 40 of the Crimes Act) while those called to assist police do not!

Therefore your comment that police have no more rights under the Crimes Act is incorrect."

CLARIFICATION (I ain't learn to my earlier posts)

"The Police have no more rights than you or me when it comes to firing at people "

Police and those called to assist a constable only may use force intended to cause death or GBH.

"You and me" cannot use deadly force except in self defence (Sec 48 Crimes Act) even though we may arrest someone under citizens arrest powers we can't use deadly force.

So police do have more rights to fire at people.

Originally Posted by Michael B

One of the best comments in this thread!




I don't know you. I don't know your history, experience etc. But I do know the police have the right to use deadly force to arrest or prevent escape of an offender (Sections 39 and 40 of the Crimes Act) while those called to assist police do not!

Therefore your comment that police have no more rights under the Crimes Act is incorrect.

Sorry for the delay but I have been away. My background is fairly well known so I won't go into it. I am sure you could find out if you made some inquiries. I reiterate that the Police have no more rights than any other citizen when it comes to taking a life, nor do they have any more rights regarding discharging a firearm with reckless disregard. They do have powers of arrest and they may lawfully use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect such arrest, but they may not use deadly force unless there are reasonable grounds to fear for someone's life, just the same as you or me (remembering that citizens also have powers of arrest under certain circumstances). It is worth noting that the Police have duty to uphold the law, not to act as judge and jury without being answerable to the public. I don't have any problem with the Police shooting at offenders under the appropriate circumstances, but they must do so without endangering any innocent parties. Police bullets that have missed their intended targets have done quite a bit of collateral damage in past years, and unless they tidy their act up, will continue to do so.

The part on hearing loss surprises me. (Btw can watch this on demand tvone.co.nz)
The guy is or was a blacksmith, banging a hammer on steel all day long. Thats some loud stuff. Perhaps, and rather likely there was hearing loss from long exposure to this repetitive noise? OSH advises over 85dB becomes ear protection required. While it does show he wears ear plug around his neck, for how many years did he not wear anything?

As far as the shooting itself goes....we I wasnt there, but I back the police 120%. They cant always get it right, but they give it a damn good chance every time.

Originally Posted by gundoc

Sorry for the delay but I have been away. My background is fairly well known so I won't go into it. I am sure you could find out if you made some inquiries. I reiterate that the Police have no more rights than any other citizen when it comes to taking a life, nor do they have any more rights regarding discharging a firearm with reckless disregard. They do have powers of arrest and they may lawfully use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect such arrest, but they may not use deadly force unless there are reasonable grounds to fear for someone's life, just the same as you or me (remembering that citizens also have powers of arrest under certain circumstances) No not the same, it specifically says you need to be a constable or person called upon by a constable to use force which is likely or intended to cause death or GBH. It is worth noting that the Police have duty to uphold the law, not to act as judge and jury without being answerable to the public Are you trying to say that Police have shot at offenders when they haven't been justified just to inflict punishment?. I don't have any problem with the Police shooting at offenders under the appropriate circumstances, but they must do so without endangering any innocent parties Have you considered that doing nothing could be just as dangerous to people? I'm guessing you have no real experience with Policing on the front line and just how fluid and unpredictable these situations get. 99% of shots taken by Police will endanger members of the public somewhere, to think they could do their job without doing so is fantasy. Police bullets that have missed their intended targets have done quite a bit of collateral damage in past years, and unless they tidy their act up, will continue to do so.

I can honestly say that if I was sitting in a truck on the motorway and a methed up offender that'd just shot at Police was pointing a sawn off shot gun at me, I'd be hoping the cop would do his job and would pull the trigger, not be worrying about getting named and charged and end up doing nothing to help me. It's not a perfect world.

No not the same, it specifically says you need to be a constable or person called upon by a constable to use force which is likely or intended to cause death or GBH. True, but the use of such force must only be used in circumstances which would be normally governed by both the law on self-defence and discharging a firearm with reckless disregard.
Are you trying to say that Police have shot at offenders when they haven't been justified just to inflict punishment?. Why not? It has happened before. I am sure several members of this forum have been the victim of needless Police violence. I know I have!
Have you considered that doing nothing could be just as dangerous to people? I'm guessing you have no real experience with Policing on the front line and just how fluid and unpredictable these situations get. 99% of shots taken by Police will endanger members of the public somewhere, to think they could do their job without doing so is fantasy. I am well aware that any shooting in a public place has inherent dangers, however the Police have a duty of care to the greater community and must ensure that any action taken does not cause more harm than good. I know it is a fine line, and I well realise the stress problems incurred in those situations. A proper level of training that covers decision making as well as marksmanship is needed. The current level of Police firearms training does not!