Thread: Kawerau siege - Stuff court report

Was interested to read this report today. Report is here:

Shots fired through wall by armed police officer during Kawerau siege | Stuff.co.nz

The parts I particularly liked (not):

"Roe fired "multiple shots" through the wall into the bedroom where the alleged gunshot had come from.

Under cross-examination from Warren, Roe revealed he had fired 17 rounds from his M4 rifle.
"It's controlled aggression," Roe said. "You are not out of control."

But earlier he’d said:

Roe said tear gas could have been used, however there was the possibility a child or an elderly person in the house as well as the person the police were seeking. It was a decision that had been made by his superiors to not use tear gas, he said."

Obviously his x-ray vision allowed him to ascertain that there were no children or elderly persons in the bedroom!

Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of identify your target :-(

Can not be too many kauri trees being felled these days to enable someone to use that analogy. Good old stuff.

Gotta wonder what their training is like and in particular their rules of engagement.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by NZ_noddy

Was interested to read this report today. Report is here:

Shots fired through wall by armed police officer during Kawerau siege | Stuff.co.nz

The parts I particularly liked (not):

"Roe fired "multiple shots" through the wall into the bedroom where the alleged gunshot had come from.

Under cross-examination from Warren, Roe revealed he had fired 17 rounds from his M4 rifle.
"It's controlled aggression," Roe said. "You are not out of control."

I didn't read the whole thing but that quote was right at the top. You left out the part of seeing his mate hit or being felled like a tree, just before firing through the wall.
I'm all in for a laugh at the police when they shoot themselves, or think what idiots when stray bullets are flying around town tying to shoot a dog.
However,
If I was in the house like him, and just seen my mate get hit, and I'm backed by the law, and a scumbag is shooting at me, you can bet I would be mag dumping that ar15 too. Is his family in there, I hope not, if they are, I'm sorry, but it's the scumbags fault if they are. I would be there trying to stay alive.
That is not safe practice while hunting, that is using reasonable force against a bad guy, while trying to keep your life.

Originally Posted by bully

I didn't read the whole thing but that quote was right at the top. You left out the part of seeing his mate hit or being felled like a tree, just before firing through the wall.
I'm all in for a laugh at the police when they shoot themselves, or think what idiots when stray bullets are flying around town tying to shoot a dog.
However,
If I was in the house like him, and just seen my mate get hit, and I'm backed by the law, and a scumbag is shooting at me, you can bet I would be mag dumping that ar15 too. Is his family in there, I hope not, if they are, I'm sorry, but it's the scumbags fault if they are. I would be there trying to stay alive.
That is not safe practice while hunting, that is using reasonable force against a bad guy, while trying to keep your life.

I think the issue is that he fired through a wall, through which he couldn't see. If they honestly believed that there may have been children or elderly people in the house, with enough conviction to not use CS gas or "tear gas" then why would firing through a wall be appropriate?

Originally Posted by Daggers_187

I think the issue is that he fired through a wall, through which he couldn't see. If they honestly believed that there may have been children or elderly people in the house, with enough conviction to not use CS gas or "tear gas" then why would firing through a wall be appropriate?

To protect the lives of other Police in immediate danger, including self?

Originally Posted by Tahr

To protect the lives of other Police in immediate danger, including self?

Sounds like they should have just gassed the house, donned gas-masks and apprehended him while he was incapacitated?

Originally Posted by Daggers_187

Sounds like they should have just gassed the house, donned gas-masks and apprehended him while he was incapacitated?

*and hope he was susceptible to the effects of CS gas.

I would have said that the Police reacted exactly the way they have been trained.

Originally Posted by stug

I would have said that the Police reacted exactly the way they have been trained.

Poorly then.

Originally Posted by Feral

Poorly then.

AOS members with East Timor, Afghanistan and Iran experience, I'd say with a degree of experience in this area that these chaps are the real deal.

Originally Posted by Danny

AOS members with East Timor, Afghanistan and Iran experience, I'd say with a degree of experience in this area that these chaps are the real deal.

What was the AOS doing in Iran? Firearm storage inspections?

Originally Posted by Feral

Poorly then.

I am not so sure about that. There is mention of try to use cover fire. So they were shooting through the wall towards the offender but not AT the offender in order to get the offender to "duck" so they could withdraw the wounded without further injury. In fact I would go as far to say that in the moment, police are human. yes they have more training but like any person, a split second decision is not usually one that should be over analysed by people who were not there and not making those instant decisions in combat. As mentioned earlier, the fact that the offender is alive is evidence of training and restraint. How much chance would that offender have had of survival if this had occurred somewhere like Texas? Shoot a cop there and see how long you last....17 rounds fired in that situation hell, anyone I know would have gone full mag reloaded and tried another full mag....

If I was that offender, I would be extremely grateful to be alive right now.....a jail cell has to be better than a coffin....

Originally Posted by timattalon

I am not so sure about that. There is mention of try to use cover fire. So they were shooting through the wall towards the offender but not AT the offender in order to get the offender to "duck" so they could withdraw the wounded without further injury. In fact I would go as far to say that in the moment, police are human. yes they have more training but like any person, a split second decision is not usually one that should be over analysed by people who were not there and not making those instant decisions in combat. As mentioned earlier, the fact that the offender is alive is evidence of training and restraint. How much chance would that offender have had of survival if this had occurred somewhere like Texas? Shoot a cop there and see how long you last....17 rounds fired in that situation hell, anyone I know would have gone full mag reloaded and tried another full mag....

If I was that offender, I would be extremely grateful to be alive right now.....a jail cell has to be better than a coffin....

I think there lies a problem in the very fact that our police don't carry or use firearms often and when they do get them out they are closely scrutinised by joe public. There does seem to be questions in the mind of the average person as to their level of training and ability to use a firearm in a professional manner, it seems that this is just the latest in a long line of incidents. Innocent bystanders shot, multiple rounds fired (without discretion?) at a vehicle in Christchurch recently (only one of them actually hitting the perpetrator), multiple shots used to bring down a rogue cow in a residential area etc, all this adds up to a public that is possibly concerened, or at the very least very interested in each case of a firearm being used by police.

I don't understand. I thought we had people to do this kind of work when negotiations have failed?