AOS shooting -TVOne sunday program

Any one see the doco on Sunday at 7pm last night ? Wow - seriously scary.
Raised some VERY serious concerns and issues around police/AOS use of firearms and their "investigation" that followed. Really feel for Richard Neville as the innocent party caught in the cross fire (literally) & seriously injured. (let alone the other poor guy who got killed.)
Great to see Richard with Nick Taylor as his legal counsel taking the police to task on this matter. Some one needs to.
While I believe that our police on the whole do a good job, often in very trying & stressful situations, this one appears to be a case where they got it wrong, very wrong.
The "cover up" that followed and the lack of acceptance of fault or error is VERY scary.
The information provided in the doco suggests that 2 officers involved made serious error(s) in judgement (firing thru a windscreen with a 223 round that by nature is fragmentary).
Then the police investigation including claims that the rifle used must have been "innacurate" (how at 20 paces could any rifle be a metre or two out on poi ??? & if it was then why was it in service ??), tampering with said rifle (evidence) and then using only selected photos from the scene that supported their (AOS) story & claiming that they did nothing "unlawful" leaves a very bad taste in my mouth & seems to point to a culture of cover up & mistruths to "protect their own".
The "evidence" shown on the doco leave the poilce with a huge credibility and trust gap.
Man up & deal with it sirs.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Yep i support the police, but for a starter your using the wrong rifle IMHO. I watched it and someone needs to man up, shooting through TWO layers of laminated glass screens would suggest he shouldnt have been on the end of a firearm. Its a sad situation and hard to believe there has been no apology or contact made. These guys seem to be above the law of this country.

There's a few questions that need answered, how does a trained AOS guy miss by that much that close? And if he did shoot thru the truck window deliberately then that's pretty reckless.

The AOS, are rank amateurs, Walter Mittys to a man. I dislike the idea of rank and file police being armed because it will be worse when frightened children feel they have to pull their sidearm in a violent situation without adequate training under stress to give them actions on that work, if it were only gang scum that got killed, I would be very pleased, but the reality is that innocent people will get shot more frequently as more police resort to the "ultimate force"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

The AOS, are rank amateurs, Walter Mittys to a man. I dislike the idea of rank and file police being armed because it will be worse when frightened children feel they have to pull their sidearm in a violent situation without adequate training.

---

Allrighty then, that went downhill pretty quick ��

the book Alpha Zero the history of the AOS makes for great reading, very interesting and informative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

The AOS, are rank amateurs, Walter Mittys to a man. I dislike the idea of rank and file police being armed because it will be worse when frightened children feel they have to pull their sidearm in a violent situation without adequate training under stress to give them actions on that work, if it were only gang scum that got killed, I would be very pleased, but the reality is that innocent people will get shot more frequently as more police resort to the "ultimate force"

---

Care to quote what direct experience you've had with AOS operations and training?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yNHpfzX7GE...veryone!!!.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

Care to quote what direct experience you've had with AOS operations and training?

---

+Id say that would be highly unlikely Savage.
ummm-gents lets not forget TV is about ratings ,not fucking truthfinding -if these shallow little rating whores can twist a story to lift their they will.I m also suprised some of you seem tobe as gullible as to accept the verdict of the court of public opinion with without qualification.
Ive seen similat TV docos produced in psychiatric hospitals where film crews were totally inappropriate broke privacy and the final version had as much relationship with the actual truth as my arse does with albert einstein.
finally a lot of these so called documentary makers either produce to a hidden agenda,or use this to demonstrate the bloody great chips on their shoulders!
how do we know what happened -were we in the front line do we know exactly what when where how who ,what was said what assessments made .NO-so why offer a half cocked opinion.

Yup the media and the like are not interested in the truth just what makes a good story to sell.

I have been amazed how far the media and the like have gone, 6not to tell the truth about stuff I have been in the know about.


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yNHpfzX7GE...veryone!!!.jpg

---

And we all know what we will find in the last handful!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

Care to quote what direct experience you've had with AOS operations and training?

---

Da fact are: someone was killed and someone was severely injured and the crim was untouched, the training need addressing or maybe not, Im undecided:wtfsmilie:

Even if you take away the media's bias view it's rather concerning that none of the shots fired by the AOS connected with thier intended target from a relatively close range - they are highly trained operators so we are told.
How can the civilian have such a different version of events yet the bullets trajectory seems to back his up?
Also why would you strip the weapons down before an incident review had be conducted and by a senior officer as well.
Don't know but sounds odd to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wsm junkie

Even if you take away the media's bias view it's rather concerning that none of the shots fired by the AOS connected with thier intended target from a relatively close range - they are highly trained operators so we are told.
How can the civilian have such a different version of events yet the bullets trajectory seems to back his up?
Also why would you strip the weapons down before an incident review had be conducted and by a senior officer as well.
Don't know but sounds odd to me.

---

Well im just fucked if I know:ORLY:

In a few short words, they made a mistake. Police or not, we all do, we're all human.

Sometimes the police (not just in this country too) can get abit rough around the edges when it comes to their mistakes which is unfortunate... Cover-ups/inquires into their negligence etc but for the most part they do a great job & I have alot of respect for them.

Policticains on the other hand & the gate keepers (selected desensitizing-facist media)... ruin it for eveyone. Please go home. the world could do without you for sometime...

Spot on sasquatch😆

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Jesus wept it was a bloody one off situation even for the AOS-and human nature being what it is ,mistakes can be made(id like to think few and far between in this instance).

As for the other allegations please name your sources,as shitstirring grubby wee journos sure as hell wont!

whilst Im on my hobby horse lets not forget the bloody clowns who namby pamby to these types ,who allowed this lowlife to see the light of day beyond the bars of a cell.who supplied him with weapons drugs and encouragement to go on his godforsaken crime spree .These mongrels deserve your comtempt and questions about conduct as much as the AOS do if not more
.The tragedy that happened was a singular probable once in a lifetime occurence and is probably still agonised over by those who were actually present at the very instant. Do they really need a bloody bunch of amateur sleuths and psychologists turning up all this crap all over again???FGS leave it to the assorted keyboard warrior on tardme message boards and the likes,whod either crap themselves or run a country mile if you even showed em a gun.they also think drink driving txting driving etc is still a game some of them!
sure its everyones right to an opinion but like arms socks and a..holes everyone has em and they too STINK

It was a while ago but we used to train and share some training with STG/AOS.

I do not recall if it was the case back then but I would think a strict selection of personal for those roles is/should be required.

It happens in the forces for certain roles as not everyone has the goods mentally (most important) or physically.

There should be regular refresher training and testing. Fail and you're off that role until you pass within a time frame.

Money also has a huge amount to do with quality of training and trainers. So maybe that is an issue.


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Whilst I support the Police generally, there is no doubt (based on several court cases and other instances I have been involved with) that there is a 'we make the rules as we are the Police' attitude that starts at PNHQ and trickles down through the ranks. It is only when a few concerned (or affected) citizens take them to Court that the law triumphs over Police 'policy' and other activities. Over the years I have had quite a bit of contact with Police firearms training and have a very low opinion of the general standard of Police use of firearms. This is not really the fault of the individual Police trainers (some of whom are quite skilled) but a combination of PNHQ policy and worse, the over-confident attitude of many (usually quite inept) officers when undergoing training The Police have no more rights than you or me when it comes to firing at people - yes, they are exempt from various provisions of the Arms Act, but not from the various 'misuse' provisions, nor from the Crimes Act. I have been involved in cases where people have been charged and convicted of 'misuse' offences which were much safer to all concerned than the Police shooting on the Auckland motorway. The Police actions in tampering with evidence are certainly worthy of prison time, and not to bring charges against the officers involved in this particular shooting is both a gross misuse of Police powers and a travesty of justice. Sadly, this is far from the first time that Police have actively covered up their misdeeds, and I am afraid that it will take a large and stiff-bristled broom to sweep the rot out of the department.

I'm not saying that Police or AOS are perfect, this is a disaster of monumental proportions and there is no real excuse for the officers missing their shots.

One difference in this compared to say a hunter shooting another hunter by mistake is that the officers were firing to protect themselves or others, not trying to get a slab of meat or a duck for the freezer, lack of action could possibly have been as bad as this mistake. Hence no charges under the Arms or Crimes Act, this was overseen by the Queen's Counsel if I recall correctly, certainly no Police coverup.

I have no idea why the firearm would have been dismantled, that goes against all investagative principles, it just blows my mind that it'd happened. I imagine heads rolled over that.

After watching that documentry a few things stuck out, 40% hearing loss and two blown eardrums from a bullet coming through the windshield?! Sounds a bit far fetched, also why is ACC not paying him anymore?

I do think it is a bit hypocritical to pay out to NAITOKO's family yet not a person who was injured.

However I don't want to see NZ go the way of the USA and UK with civil litigation everywhere.

^^^ Well said!

Yes. Well said.
And also the stuff in the show was from one side who is seeking money. There was little other information contained in the show which h related to the other stuff that happened.
We can't make judgements without all the info.
We weren't there.

And Im bloody glad I wasnt! I could have died! As savage says it was a monumental! but stop the bullshit, sort it out and pay for the cockup its just not right, the man injured was an innocent bystander, caught up in some bad shit. I also think the crim should be charged with murder, he should feel the full force of the law for without him none of it would have happened, he was the lucky bugger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotuku

+Id say that would be highly unlikely Savage.
ummm-gents lets not forget TV is about ratings ,not fucking truthfinding -if these shallow little rating whores can twist a story to lift their they will.I m also suprised some of you seem tobe as gullible as to accept the verdict of the court of public opinion with without qualification.
Ive seen similat TV docos produced in psychiatric hospitals where film crews were totally inappropriate broke privacy and the final version had as much relationship with the actual truth as my arse does with albert einstein.
finally a lot of these so called documentary makers either produce to a hidden agenda,or use this to demonstrate the bloody great chips on their shoulders!
how do we know what happened -were we in the front line do we know exactly what when where how who ,what was said what assessments made .NO-so why offer a half cocked opinion.

---

There are certain journalists that are known to put their own spin on things. One, a TV political editor, has been known to use quotes selectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim160

Yes. Well said.
And also the stuff in the show was from one side who is seeking money. There was little other information contained in the show which h related to the other stuff that happened.
We can't make judgements without all the info.
We weren't there.

---

One of the best comments in this thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gundoc

Whilst I support the Police generally, there is no doubt (based on several court cases and other instances I have been involved with) that there is a 'we make the rules as we are the Police' attitude that starts at PNHQ and trickles down through the ranks. It is only when a few concerned (or affected) citizens take them to Court that the law triumphs over Police 'policy' and other activities. Over the years I have had quite a bit of contact with Police firearms training and have a very low opinion of the general standard of Police use of firearms. This is not really the fault of the individual Police trainers (some of whom are quite skilled) but a combination of PNHQ policy and worse, the over-confident attitude of many (usually quite inept) officers when undergoing training The Police have no more rights than you or me when it comes to firing at people - yes, they are exempt from various provisions of the Arms Act, but not from the various 'misuse' provisions, nor from the Crimes Act. I have been involved in cases where people have been charged and convicted of 'misuse' offences which were much safer to all concerned than the Police shooting on the Auckland motorway. The Police actions in tampering with evidence are certainly worthy of prison time, and not to bring charges against the officers involved in this particular shooting is both a gross misuse of Police powers and a travesty of justice. Sadly, this is far from the first time that Police have actively covered up their misdeeds, and I am afraid that it will take a large and stiff-bristled broom to sweep the rot out of the department.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gundoc

Whilst I support the Police generally, there is no doubt (based on several court cases and other instances I have been involved with) that there is a 'we make the rules as we are the Police' attitude that starts at PNHQ and trickles down through the ranks. It is only when a few concerned (or affected) citizens take them to Court that the law triumphs over Police 'policy' and other activities. Over the years I have had quite a bit of contact with Police firearms training and have a very low opinion of the general standard of Police use of firearms. This is not really the fault of the individual Police trainers (some of whom are quite skilled) but a combination of PNHQ policy and worse, the over-confident attitude of many (usually quite inept) officers when undergoing training The Police have no more rights than you or me when it comes to firing at people - yes, they are exempt from various provisions of the Arms Act, but not from the various 'misuse' provisions, nor from the Crimes Act. I have been involved in cases where people have been charged and convicted of 'misuse' offences which were much safer to all concerned than the Police shooting on the Auckland motorway. The Police actions in tampering with evidence are certainly worthy of prison time, and not to bring charges against the officers involved in this particular shooting is both a gross misuse of Police powers and a travesty of justice. Sadly, this is far from the first time that Police have actively covered up their misdeeds, and I am afraid that it will take a large and stiff-bristled broom to sweep the rot out of the department.

---

+1 I think the problem is that the police investigate themselves via the police complaints authority. It's a bit like saying that the AA know about cars so they should do both the investigation into traffic accidents and also rule on the verdict.

While it's a valid point that they were doing their duty when this mishap happened not persuing their recreation like all the hunting accidents that doesn't absolve them of respolsability.

If I was driving a digger as part of my job and ran oversomebody there would be a investigation and if I was found to be neglagent then it would rightly be manslaughter. Ambuliance drivers have been prosicuted by the police for dangerious driving while on the job.

Ambulance drivers are allowed to legally break the speed limit but the point is they can't do that irrisponsabily. It's the same (or should be the same) for AOS members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

+1 I think the problem is that the police investigate themselves via the police complaints authority. It's a bit like saying that the AA know about cars so they should do both the investigation into traffic accidents and also rule on the verdict.

---

Or an accountant being accused of fraud, then auditing their own books and making an official decision about their innocence.

Its definitely an issue - even if they do reach the right decision people will be suspicious of it, justice must be seen to be done and all that.

And if they make a wrong decision it can turn into a nightmare for innocent non-police parties to get justice. How many years did it take before the truth came out about that Alexandra cop who pulled out in front of a young kid, then lied about it and blamed him for the crash?

I know most cops are good guys doing a hard job, but the nature of that job means independent accountability is important.

I think the rules of engagement for our soldiers are much more difficult in a urban combat zone or peace keeping. If one of our soldiers accidently wounds or kills a innocent there is a full investigation. I think they have a much more stressfull job to do than someone on the back of a truck armed with a .22. That's my opinion anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

+1 I think the problem is that the police investigate themselves via the police complaints authority. It's a bit like saying that the AA know about cars so they should do both the investigation into traffic accidents and also rule on the verdict.

While it's a valid point that they were doing their duty when this mishap happened not persuing their recreation like all the hunting accidents that doesn't absolve them of respolsability.

If I was driving a digger as part of my job and ran oversomebody there would be a investigation and if I was found to be neglagent then it would rightly be manslaughter. Ambuliance drivers have been prosicuted by the police for dangerious driving while on the job.

Ambulance drivers are allowed to legally break the speed limit but the point is they can't do that irrisponsabily. It's the same (or should be the same) for AOS members.

---

The IPCA investigate the complaints, not the Police. And none of the IPCA are serving Police.
Yes, Police and Ambulance can exceed the speed limit, but if they crash or something go wrong, then they are to blame. Regardless.
Police are more likely to be prosecuted for any offences to prove they don't show favouritism.
In Auckland if they did anything wrong or were criminal, I guarantee the IPCA would recommend a prosecution. But they didn't so I guess they deemed it ok.

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what partial information people have. No one has read all the information or seen all the evidence. Or know exactly what happened. So how can people give an opinion on something they don't know about.

If anyone has a link or a copy of the Police and IPCA investigation, I would be keen for a read. Cause without that it is all guess work.

my 2 cents anyway.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!