Thread: Police Fire..... Bystander Safety?

Originally Posted by shooternz

We have three cops at our pistol club that train on their own time with their own funds, And they are damn good shots I am happy to have them in my neighbour hood
It is pity that more of them don't join Pistol clubs or the Deerstalkers to improve their skills, maybe the NZPA and NZDA should look into encouraging them to join with reduced fees

They get discounted fees at ASC, and at least one of our top trainers offers free one-to-one training. On one induction course I took, 5 of the 7 attending were police.

Originally Posted by R93

I am not 100% sure how accurate this is but I was told it is sort of discouraged for them to be members of gun clubs and the like.
I grew up with 2 of our local cops. Both in AOS and one used to be a club member. Not sure why he isint any longer.
The other when finished training comes down for a nosey if I am or others are there and has a play. Seems very interested yet when asked to join changes subject. Would be good to have them as members.


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

We had a serving officer as our president a number of years ago....and we are a fairly big club

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...arm-themselves
Thought this might be relevent.

I think that is for a few reasons, they are not 100% certain that the guy they got is the perp from last week (though very likely) and they are suspecting that he was not alone so there is a serious likelihood of accomplices with the same mind set who may be inclined to "have a go" (in retailiation?)

As someone who lives here, while I am not keen on Police being permanently armed, they too have the right to expect to go home at night after work. I would rather hear that the crim was shot, than the officer. We had that here a few years back and it is the cop that deserves to go home, not the scum that shot at him.

Here here!

As the OP I agree with the sentiments that if you shoot at a police officer and you are fired upon you deserve what you get.

That said I am amazed that it seems OK to have poorly trained officers using firearms on public streets with what seems total disregard for the consequences.

The number of shots fired with (I believe) only two hits on the target/perpetrator is staggering.
The fact that no innocent parties were hit was pure luck. I'm not talking about the drongo's that put themselves and their children at risk. I'm referring to rounds penetrating windows 200m away.

I don't know what the police rules of engagement are. But surely they include things like check firing zone?????

if not

How would the senior officers justify a member of the public's death (adult or child) collateral damage? bad luck?

How would you????????????

someone did have a window shot out
thankfully no one apart from scumbag criminal was injured. now i have shot many a round but never with someone shooting back at me. but i think the police need more range time and simulated combat conditions .
to the cop who got him: it must be weighing on your mind but he deserved every single grain of lead

Originally Posted by Tommy

They get discounted fees at ASC, and at least one of our top trainers offers free one-to-one training. On one induction course I took, 5 of the 7 attending were police.

Why do they need discounted fees?

Surely they could afford to pay full price with all the money they save from only having to pay half price at McDonald's.

@systolic: dunno about 1/2 price, when i lived in northland they ate for free at maccas whangarei.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why do they need discounted fees?

Surely they could afford to pay full price with all the money they save from only having to pay half price at McDonald's.

To encourage them to be members, why encourage a rift between Joe Plod and Joe Public? Did you charge them double in your pub?

Originally Posted by systolic

Why do they need discounted fees?

Surely they could afford to pay full price with all the money they save from only having to pay half price at McDonald's.

That went out a few years ago!

Originally Posted by spada

As the OP I agree with the sentiments that if you shoot at a police officer and you are fired upon you deserve what you get.

That said I am amazed that it seems OK to have poorly trained officers using firearms on public streets with what seems total disregard for the consequences.

The number of shots fired with (I believe) only two hits on the target/perpetrator is staggering.
The fact that no innocent parties were hit was pure luck. I'm not talking about the drongo's that put themselves and their children at risk. I'm referring to rounds penetrating windows 200m away.



I don't know what the police rules of engagement are. But surely they include things like check firing zone?????



if not

How would the senior officers justify a member of the public's death (adult or child) collateral damage? bad luck?

How would you????????????

The Police seem to think that a projectile that misses the intended target just falls on the ground, I don't think ballistics are part of the training course
if the trainers are ex military they don't have very much ballistic knowledge going by what friends that have been in the military have said.

Originally Posted by shooternz

The Police seem to think that a projectile that misses the intended target just falls on the ground, I don't think ballistics are part of the training course
if the trainers are ex military they don't have very much ballistic knowledge going by what friends that have been in the military have said.

Sorry man but that doesn't sound right regarding the ex mil police trainers.
Both military trainers I know were Warrant Officers in Infantry or specialist units.
You need a SAFFS course just to reach to Sgt in those careers.
SAFFS is pretty much 5 weeks of small arms, DFSW and Arty ballistics.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by spada

As the OP I agree with the sentiments that if you shoot at a police officer and you are fired upon you deserve what you get.

That said I am amazed that it seems OK to have poorly trained officers using firearms on public streets with what seems total disregard for the consequences.

The number of shots fired with (I believe) only two hits on the target/perpetrator is staggering.
The fact that no innocent parties were hit was pure luck. I'm not talking about the drongo's that put themselves and their children at risk. I'm referring to rounds penetrating windows 200m away.

I don't know what the police rules of engagement are. But surely they include things like check firing zone?????

if not

How would the senior officers justify a member of the public's death (adult or child) collateral damage? bad luck?

How would you????????????

They just don't care!
Basically bullying morons, who fantasize that our streets are a free fire zone. A hand-cuffed man shot in the back while on the ground. A van driver murdered on the Auckland motorway and a truck driver crippled for life in the same debacle .
Ten years on and nothing has changed.

Ross Meurant's position that police who use a firearm on another citizen have to be charged, as would happen to any other citizen, is overdue for implementation.
The courts are the place to decide guilt. Not the police management, not the media or the court of public opinion.

Removal of the police exemption from obeying the arms Act 1983, needs to be another change implemented if police are to be reconciled with the community that they are supposed to be a part of.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why do they need discounted fees?

Surely they could afford to pay full price with all the money they save from only having to pay half price at McDonald's.

is this dick trying to be funny?

Originally Posted by 40mm

is this dick trying to be funny?

Ohhhhh, the irony.