How's this for a Horror Story. Cop used False Names and put Firearms on the Register under the names of Unknowing LaFOs.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/south-...ds/YVLLAUCLXRA
Printable View
How's this for a Horror Story. Cop used False Names and put Firearms on the Register under the names of Unknowing LaFOs.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/south-...ds/YVLLAUCLXRA
Wonder if thats what they were checking on earlier in the year. I got a phone call from nzp saying they were checking discrepencys in some records all the info they had on my firearms was correct. Weirdly it didnt trigger the rego thing
article is no longer there
It is there, but not on that link
Less than 1 hour and the story's gone, Conspiracy theory's inbound soon ?
This should work
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/south-...H6HK2ZSZJUSMU/
Worst bit is the Police decided not to charge the cop.
Should Lose his job, his FAL, & maybe his marriage.
Shit, that’s disgusting at multiple levels. The cover up by the cops the most concerning aspect. Unlawful use of police data systems alone should be grounds for dismal immediately. The excuse that cop “didn’t gain any financial benefit” is pathetic!! What if guns had been stolen or used in crime ….some poor innocent LAFO would be hauled into court ?! WTF !!
Sounds like the Police were ok to sweep the mess under the carpet but the IPCA seems to be taking the right stance. Very interesting article, thanks for posting the links
You couldn’t make this stuff up.Mind boggling!
Marriage is a bit harsh. Probably be a lot more single guys on here if their wives knew how many guns they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by flock
As horrible as this is, it gives Colfo good ammunition for arguments.
The officer in question was subsequently deemed suitable to continue holding a firearms licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by flock
Well, I guess that sets a bit of a precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
But I hope not.
The bass turd should be GONE
It does raise the question
If a firearm is registered to Joe Bloggs, does Joe Bloggs have ‘an interest’ in that particular firearm?
Yeah - drilling down a little further, the question becomes who is liable for errors and omissions with the register? It does seem a little bit counter-intuitive that a substantial change like adding an entire new firearm to a license holder's ticket or possibly removing one, can be made to the registry without that individual being notified.
This really does form the basis of a fairly strong case against the registry with how it is currently set up - considering that a licence holder can be charged under the act for not having accurate registry records yet unless you know to go and look at it you'll be thinking everything is correct with no idea that your records have been changed.
I suspect that there is an admin burden and a risk to data security aspect that needs to be addressed before the system can be configured to notify license holders of changes to their records, and probably that will require the hiring of another 150 people to physically get through this work.
As far as hiding things from your better half, I put a deposit on a new rifle about 12 years ago as it was the last one in the North Island and they didn't know if they were getting more in. Was a reasonably high spec one, not too expensive but admittedly not cheap. I wanted it and had the money so I didn't see anything wrong with buying it. Well, how wrong was I? She still goes on about it now three or four times a year - elephants forget quicker!
I can't believe anyone buys that excuse "I did it so my wife didn't find out"
His wife shouldn't be able to access his information on the system anyhow so thats just some lame excuse he's made up to cover his real intentions
There HAS to be something missing in this story.
Deliberatly perverting the use and purpose of the registry by using a false name means he is clearly not "fit and proper" (disgusting term) to hold a firearms licence.
For a policeman to do this, when they are there to uphold the laws, makes hi9m unsuitable to be a memeber of the police.
And yet those who drift over the speed limit or holding odd views are vilifed.
I would suspect that part of the thinking with the internal investigation is avoiding publicity on these cases - although the independent investigation appears to have brought it out into the open. Doesn't make it right though and really does have the appearance of two sets of rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doghead
Well Colfo has got onto it too so it will get some publicity......Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
Fraud and criminal intent involving firearms....."Nothing to see here....move along now..."Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw
Get a speeding ticket and "you know this could affect your FAL......"
I agree if Ferdinand Marcos was askes how many shoes Mrs Imelea Makos had do you think he would have known. Ask you wife how many handbags she's got & you will get a rude answer!:wtfsmilie:Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
I saw that. The skeptical me thinks it has something to do with being found to not be fit and proper then brings into question their suitability to use firearms in the course of duty, and thus their employmentQuote:
Originally Posted by BSA
bitter pill for me to swallow after the bully boy tactics me and my family endured while renewing my FAL , not having committed any offense at all ......ever
and a cop accesses the register steals identities and uses false identities to acquire firearms, subsequently police decide to not lay charges and still deem him fit to hold a FAL ....
its a croc of shit and further demonstrates police have no place administering the registry ..... and nothing in that article surprises me .
im glad im a laid back kinda guy that can roll with any shit life throws .....because if i wasnt my blood pressure would be thru the roof
The optics for Police are terrible. The stakes are high, and there is every reason for them to want this to disappear., and what better way than downplaying the damage by making up some really, really stupid reason that doesn't even make sense.
"The allegations were initially investigated by the police, who concluded the officer had not committed any criminal offences.
Police accepted the officer’s explanation that he used third-party names to acquire firearms to avoid conflict with his wife.
As a result, they found no grounds to proceed with either criminal charges or disciplinary action."
Amazing.
So despite being in possession of what are in reality unregistered guns,jeopardising other people's FALs and misusing data he is still deemed of sufficient character to be a member of NZP?
Banana Republic Policing.
wasnt a rugby player as well was he
that would just be the icing on the cake ayQuote:
Originally Posted by blip
"I understand it is an offence to provide information to the Police for inclusion in the Registry, knowing the information to be false or misleading in a material respect (Arms Act 1983, section 58A(4)). *"
nuff said
Nailed it!Quote:
Originally Posted by NZBeeMan
If he’s quite happy being dishonest about that what else in his day job is happy being dishonest with, goes to character.
If it’s legal then, we should all do it?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by stug
Story's gone or links don't work
Police do not require a FAL to use firearms in the course of their duties. Neither do military personel. If unlicensed, they are unable to access or use them outside of their job same as any other unlicensed person. but in saying that, they are/should be held to a higher standard due to the nature of their role.Quote:
Originally Posted by norsk
Personally I consider myself fairly liberal. Give people a second chance, try and see it from their side, if someone does something silly there must be more to the story than plain outright badness. Most of the time I think we have a high propensity to over react when people are just guilty of being human and often witch hunts can really be the fashion of the season.
But this story really shocks me and I think the actions of this individual are totally unacceptable and unjustifiable. One should never ever decieve their wife or partner, not for any reason, ever.
IPCA release:
https://www.ipca.govt.nz/Site/Outcom...ROQmAgEyRAjexw
Get that bus ticket nice and moist and get ready to slap him reeeaaaalll gentleQuote:
Originally Posted by Steelisreal
So for anyone who has found it necessary or desirable for whatever reason, to conceal a firearm purchase from their spouse. Especially anyone who has been found by said spouse to have procured, what is the most likely/most common way by which these things become known of. Is it:
(A)- The new firearm is observed in your safe or your hands.
(B)- A please explain is issued in regards to a 2k cash withdrawal from the holiday savings account.
(C)- A genius mate of yours mentions your recent aquisition within earshot or on facebook.
(D)- Your spouse can and will access the register and check your details.
(E)- Other method (Please specify below)
Other than for a few selected careers, I am betting it isn’t (D). If it is/was in the case of the thread subject, it would make for interesting dinner table conversation in that house.
Yep, it's gone again.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Maybe this scan (pdf) of the article will help?Attachment 264150
good work having the foresight to scan and save the article.....the cynic in me is thinking someone wants this buried while the review is still being worked on .....Quote:
Originally Posted by no1_49er
which would suggest more bully boy tactics (although the spineless media wouldnt need much "persuasion" when it comes to firearms stuff )and dare i say it .....corruption.
Hmmmmmmmm
Interesting.
And yet if a FAL holder gets a speeding ticket it can be deemed behavior that is not "fit and proper".....