Thread: officer was forced to shoot at the man's car

Really ???
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12282782

While I sympathize with the lot of cops on the beat, and the shite they have to deal with day in and day out, using language like this to justify shooting at a moving vehicle is a step too far.
It seems the media are bending over to help police HQ justify their actions & an escalation of the use of firearms but plod.
May be it was in a rural area ? maybe the line of fire was safe ? but who knows ? Shooting at a moving vehicle at speed has a low probability of success.

The use of the words “forced to shoot” are definitely interesting.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Really ???
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12282782

While I sympathize with the lot of cops on the beat, and the shite they have to deal with day in and day out, using language like this to justify shooting at a moving vehicle is a step too far.
It seems the media are bending over to help police HQ justify their actions & an escalation of the use of firearms but plod.
May be it was in a rural area ? maybe the line of fire was safe ? but who knows ? Shooting at a moving vehicle at speed has a low probability of success.

What is it with peoples desire to pass judgement without even knowing the basic facts?

Was the vehicle moving? If so what direction and speed? How far away was the officer when he fired? What type of firearm did he use? What type of threat did the offender pose to any person if his vehicle was not disabled?

Considering you think it's a step too far then enlighten us on the details, and at what stage would it not be a step too far?

What facts do we think we know? He was drunk, threatened cops with a knife and spade, driving recklessly and failing to stop putting other road users at risk, rammed multiple Police cars. What do you think should've been done? And you've got a lot more time and information than the officers had to make the decision.

Originally Posted by Savage1

What is it with peoples desire to pass judgement without even knowing the basic facts?

Was the vehicle moving? If so what direction and speed? How far away was the officer when he fired? What type of firearm did he use? What type of threat did the offender pose to any person if his vehicle was not disabled?

Considering you think it's a step too far then enlighten us on the details, and at what stage would it not be a step too far?

What facts do we think we know? He was drunk, threatened cops with a knife and spade, driving recklessly and failing to stop putting other road users at risk, rammed multiple Police cars. What do you think should've been done? And you've got a lot more time and information than the officers had to make the decision.

Id be keen to know exactly what the guy was doing when the shots were fired at his car.


Unless he was about to injure someone, and the shots were an attempt at preventing that from happening...

Somehow I doubt that is the case. And if it were the case, I am dam surprised another courier driver is not lying in the morgue.

my concern in this incident/report is more about the media & their choice of language - as per title "forced to shoot". and as above " using language like this to justify shooting at a moving vehicle ".

The original op was asking a question not passing judgment. Himmm

At least the silly ol'fool got to sleep his drucken escapade off, better than what could have happened.

Like all news media, the article was a mixture of hype, supposition and fact. There was certainly not enough info to take the officer to task at this stage. On the face of it I tend to lean in favour of the officer. The offender was clearly posing a threat if he had rammed occupied vehicles.

I thought, deadly force, was what cops were governed by? A dead car doesnt cut it?

Hope it wasn't one of those bad black guns that we can't own any more that was used to shoot at the car and hit a tyre.

Originally Posted by tetawa

Hope it wasn't one of those bad black guns that we can't own any more that was used to shoot at the car and hit a tyre.

But "we" would never use them for that purpose.

Makes a case for the police having RPGs

save the judges and get guns that fire wet bus tickets

so....baddie rammed some cars...one was dog handlers.....poor poochs in the back....the shot hit tyre....great stuff.....baddie put in custody....job done. nobody killed.
the reporters will more than likely got some of story wrong....
shite I heard this on radio and first thought was....FN good job..well done that copper..... my mind hasnt changed yet.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so....baddie rammed some cars...one was dog handlers.....poor poochs in the back....the shot hit tyre....great stuff.....baddie put in custody....job done. nobody killed.
the reporters will more than likely got some of story wrong....
shite I heard this on radio and first thought was....FN good job..well done that copper..... my mind hasnt changed yet.

Hey, he smashed a pub up as well, Rushy wont be happy at that, being a seller of Waikato...then bugger me he took all his clothes off...the vehicle was not stopped by the bullet...it ran out of petrol.