Thread: HDPA does indeed lie about firearms

Explain to me what the Crown is...

And after you have done that... kindly explain to me how your distorted idea of service and responsibility should be given any sort of power and authority...

Originally Posted by systolic

I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.

Wow, you can feel the contempt for the public through the bandwidth.

Way to perpetuate the "Police vs public" problems.

Attitudes like yours is a great argument why Police should not be permitted to carry firearms on a regular basis. Power has already corrupted your mind.

Originally Posted by timattalon

Discussing pro's and con's, is fine, but analysing and critiquing what they "could have" done when you are not there at the time when they make these decisions is far less so. We trust the govt to train these people to be able to be able to make these decisions under pressure and in situations we would never ourselves to intentionally become involved in so for us to second guess what they decide after analysing the situation as they are trained to do is akin to a child giving parenting advice to their parents. At the end of the day, that cop is out there doing a job that no one should ever have to do, so personally, I dont think people who do not have the full story and all the information can come up with an acceptable critique...And the only people who really know all the details are the ones who were there making those decisions at the time.

Except that our law requires exactly that.... everybody is subject to the law and you don't get a free pass because you know better...

In terms of scrutiny... after the fact is the only way to do it... and it has to be robust because I believe that anyone in authority is naturally inclined to take advantage if not held accountable...

You may be interested to know that, in a recently published book called something like The Architecture of Crime, the author noted that in Los Angeles the police helicopter was not allowed to follow in the line of the airport approach path. The author said that police chases changed shape as a result - the crims would lead the cops in the direction of the area under the flightpath and try to lose them there knowing that they wouldn't be tracked by the chopper

People respond to incentives


QUOTE=timattalon;518548]I know a few police personnel, and I feel better knowing people such as these are out there doing a difficult task. I appreciate this. As for the above points, out of the 11, I agree with 8 of them, and the remaining three I do not know enough about to form a legitimate opinion. I dont agree with most of the people I work with that much, so I believe that this says a lot about the calibre of our police here in NZ.

As for people being "5 oh" on our policy's, I will use an example that someone alluded to in the media and its foreseeable consequences.

After a police chase the other day a member of the public said " Its too dangerous for police to chase criminals past schools. They need to call it off as it is too dangerous...." If, that was to happen, will the result be safer school areas? Hell NO!!! It says loud and clear to every crim that you will get away if you speed past a school, and next thing every crim will INTENTIONALLY speed past a school knowing the cops wont follow. I pray that no one gets hurt, but I am also of the belief that chases should NOT be called off. If they get caught when they run, then the stupid ones will still run, but the remainder will not as they know it will only make things worse.....Some will get hurt in the process, as some always will, but in the long run, less will chance to flee if the consequences include THEIR death or injury....[/QUOTE]

I feel that 95% of cops are there because they have a genuine belief that they are there to help others, and do this to the best of their ability. Sometime their job training works and sometimes their other or emotional training takes over. Case . I ask my son when you come to a MVA (motor vehicle accident) what do you do? His reply dad I'm a Volly fire fighter first I get in and try and save lives. This is exactly the same background as my daughter (initial police training now) who helped me in a Hely winch rescue on Tuesday. These people 95% should be able to decide when and where they will wear and if need be use there tools of their trade as it were.
The other 5% are there for job security or ego's . It is not up to us armchair experts to decide how our police should protect themselves and others when that moment comes. The Police will always be up to scrutiny from the public and I take my hat off to them, NZ Police do a fantastic job in this country and are worthy of your support. Step into their shoes sometimes. My 2c's

Originally Posted by Ricochet

We're the people supplying your gun and the power to decide if you kill someone with it or not.

I think that gives us the right to discuss the pros & cons.

You are not implying though that the Police don't actually pay taxes themselves, can't participate in democracy and shouldn't make decisions about their own safety are you?

Originally Posted by Savage1

1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders?
3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
10) Sorry for the numbering
11) I think it should be the individual choice of the officer, providing they have been shown to be competent in handling the firearm and their decision making has been tested under pressure.

Savage1, you are correct, and you have my (sincere) apology. I was generalising and that is almost always wrong and comes from lazy thinking. Again, sorry. But I haven't spent lot of my life in an armchair and have seen plenty of what you folk have to deal with. I've also been helped by police a couple of times and been grateful for that. But police aren't immune to being arseholes, just because they're police, and I have seen some arsehole cops in action, too. I think the biggest problem is this "them and us" mindset, and that goes both ways, too.
With that sense of separation between police and the populace who pay for their protection and other services the problems will not be solved by arming police fulltime while obviously working on disarming everyone else. There should be no "us & them." It's supposed to be just us - apart from "them" who really do need to be in a cage.
I was caught up in the anti-apartheit stuff in 81 and saw the way police brutalised their fellow citizens, and "copped" a bit of it myself. Every one in this country has the right to an opinion, even me, but some of what systolic has written in this thread proves that the "us & them" standpoint is not going to be an easy fix. He is obviousy more into punishment than protection, arresting rather than assisting. And his sick example of "fucking a 9-year -old girl" compared to someone smoking a joint, is way out of line.
He typifies so much that is wrong between police and their fellow citizens. I've had my car stolen, and everything in it swiped and had no response apart ffrom having it towed and stored - at MY - despite telling them specifically that I didn't want it towed and was available to pick it up if it was found. The whole attitude seemed to be, "well fuck you, we'll do what we want."
Had my house burgled and never even saw a fingerprint lkit appear, let alone a cop carrying one. And you wonder why so many people have no respect for their police force? Yeah , yeah, "budget, blah blah." In the last 3 years before I retired I didn't get a budget increase either. Costs went up, pay didn't. Tough shit chit at your local church. Handle it. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say, including apologising to you for MY attitude. But don't expect me to support your wish to be armed fulltime, not when you've got weapons in your vehicle anyway. We don't see a friendly, caring cop; those days are gone. All we see is a collective blue uniform not doing its job. Or doing it badly.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

Wow, you can feel the contempt for the public through the bandwidth.

Way to perpetuate the "Police vs public" problems.

Attitudes like yours is a great argument why Police should not be permitted to carry firearms on a regular basis. Power has already corrupted your mind.

Why should cops not carry guns because of my attitude?

My flat is almost 40 metres from the nearest high voltage power lines, so I'm not sure how the power would corrupt my mind.

Although I did kick one of the labourers off the site for smoking dope at lunchtime a few months ago (the project manager caught him sparking up outside the bakery up the road). That made me feel powerful. The labourer was pretty useless anyway.

Originally Posted by Tahr

You are not implying though that the Police don't actually pay taxes themselves, can't participate in democracy and shouldn't make decisions about their own safety are you?

No.

Originally Posted by systolic

I thought the cops got their power from the Crown? Not the government of the day and certainly not the great unwashed "I pay your wages, you work for me" public.

I said "I think we have the right to discuss the pros & cons". That's worlds away from "I pay your wages, you work for me".

You unnecessarily escalated the shit out of my statement.

Originally Posted by Gapped axe

I feel that 95% of cops are there because they have a genuine belief that they are there to help others, and do this to the best of their ability. Sometime their job training works and sometimes their other or emotional training takes over. Case . I ask my son when you come to a MVA (motor vehicle accident) what do you do? His reply dad I'm a Volly fire fighter first I get in and try and save lives. This is exactly the same background as my daughter (initial police training now) who helped me in a Hely winch rescue on Tuesday. These people 95% should be able to decide when and where they will wear and if need be use there tools of their trade as it were.
The other 5% are there for job security or ego's . It is not up to us armchair experts to decide how our police should protect themselves and others when that moment comes. The Police will always be up to scrutiny from the public and I take my hat off to them, NZ Police do a fantastic job in this country and are worthy of your support. Step into their shoes sometimes. My 2c's

I think you are right but some here are arguing that arming the cops will increase the 5% and I think that it is true.
Certainly if the decision is taken for cops to have Glocks routinely carried then I fully support them having a lot more training than they get right now - if they carry then I want them to get training to use their tools safely

You have choices, solids, buck, smaller shot, Rock salt, flechers?,

Flechettes? I think

Originally Posted by 308

I think you are right but some here are arguing that arming the cops will increase the 5% and I think that it is true.
Certainly if the decision is taken for cops to have Glocks routinely carried then I fully support them having a lot more training than they get right now - if they carry then I want them to get training to use their tools safely

I support the police getting more training as things stand currently.

Originally Posted by systolic

Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?

What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed?

Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?

Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.

Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.

Drug convictions should result in automatic and immediate lose of any firearms licence held.

Do ya research. Countries and states that have legalised/decriminalised have a had a drop in usage BUT are doing much better with the extra tax $$$ coming in. This is a well known FACT. Oh, added bonus, cops have way more time as they aren't running around doing drug bullshit.

Originally Posted by Wirehunt

Do ya research. Countries and states that have legalised/decriminalised have a had a drop in usage BUT are doing much better with the extra tax $$$ coming in. This is a well known FACT. Oh, added bonus, cops have way more time as they aren't running around doing drug bullshit.

Unfortunately i pressed the wrong button-I dont fucking like and as much as all you oh yeah but taxes etcetc --do not and will lnever fucking see the screaming fucking misery this innocous wee herb causes with its instantaneous infantile pleasure .
yup its got a bastard brother ALCOHOL-if commonsense was a sire both would be aborted on conception!
this frequently tossed about shit about legitimising it is just that SHIT.I can show you things
that would literally curdle your turds I kid you not
You taxpayers have no fucking idea the cost you ,yes you pay for those who indulged.
Now before "you go fuck this sanctimonious cunt etcetc"-I am in favour of the cannabis as medicine -the proof is there Idont argue .FFS my late uncle in the early 80s was on legal heroin in his very final stages of cancer-yes HEROIN-unlike morphine it did not cause nausea&vomitting++++++++. shortly after his death it was removed from the medicines act
.prick of a rigmarole to actually collect the item and deliver to the patient anyhow.
IMHO-the sooner cannabis is legalised as a terminal stage analgesia the better-providing its prescriber is experienced in this field of medicine.
Iwork with drugs that could entice daschund to f..k madonna but our surveillance on these is better than any SISagent could ever dream about.the side effects alone are about as inviting as putting a stick teased cobra down ya y fronts and challenging it "bring it on"
In summary ..think about it..an idiot can legalislate -you the bloody taxpayer ultimately pay the cost of that decision -not the fucking idiot