Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Alpine DPT


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57
Like Tree82Likes

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

  1. #1
    Member chainsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Silverdale
    Posts
    2,683

    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.
    sightpicture, rewa and Dago like this.

  2. #2
    OPCz Rushy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Nor West of Auckland on the true right of the Kaipara River
    Posts
    28,213
    The use of the words “forced to shoot” are definitely interesting.
    40mm, rewa and Dago like this.
    It takes 43 muscle's to frown and 17 to smile, but only 3 for proper trigger pull.
    What more do we need? If we are above ground and breathing the rest is up to us!
    Rule 1: Treat every firearm as loaded
    Rule 2: Always point firearms in a safe direction
    Rule 3: Load a firearm only when ready to fire
    Rule 4: Identify your target beyond all doubt
    Rule 5: Check your firing zone
    Rule 6: Store firearms and ammunition safely
    Rule 7: Avoid alcohol and drugs when handling firearms

  3. #3
    Member Savage1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western BoP
    Posts
    2,361
    Well, basic facts would tend to indicate that the shot that was fired hit the target vehicle's tyre. The vehicle wasn't disabled, travelling some distance to a location where the offender was identified and apprehended with the aid of a Police helicopter unit.

    I'd suggest that that single shot was fairly ineffective in bringing the event to a conclusion, and my understanding is that overseas experience is that shooting at tyres is a potentially high-risk and low-chance-of-success option given that the surfaces around the tyre are hard with a high chance of ricochet or deflection to somewhere where there is a high chance of disabling a vital system of the vehicle such as the brakes. Also, the tyre is a fairly small, fast moving target with a shot taken at a time of high pressure with weapons designed with general-use (coarse) sighting systems.

    Not questioning the action, but the choice of target is interesting and it would be educational to see the post-event analysis and debrief (unlikely that we will get that chance though).

  5. #5
    Member chainsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Silverdale
    Posts
    2,683
    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 ".
    outlander and rewa like this.

  6. #6
    Member Sideshow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,327
    The original op was asking a question not passing judgment. Himmm
    small_caliber and Mr Browning like this.
    It's all fun and games till Darthvader comes along
    I respect your beliefs but don't impose them on me.

  7. #7
    Just like Mimms the First
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Tai Tokerau
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by Mauser308 View Post
    .

    Not questioning the action, but the choice of target is interesting and it would be educational to see the post-event analysis and debrief (unlikely that we will get that chance though).
    If I had to guess the shot was "at the car" and just happened to hit the tyre. Honestly it's a wonder it even hit the car.

    As to the post-analysis the popo are required to present report to the comissioner or some such within 7days, and it is generally a matter of public record. Or maybe it only becomes public when it goes through ipca. I'll look it up when on PC but you should be able to search it...

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Taranaki
    Posts
    1,953
    The officer involved was not forced to do anything - he chose to take the action he did. After assessing all the details. It was his choice and he should be held responsible
    Cats have nine lives-which makes them ideal for experimentation...

  9. #9
    Just like Mimms the First
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Tai Tokerau
    Posts
    424
    From the article "[any event] can quickly escalate"
    Well yeah, when you add firearms to the situation...

    " fired one shot towards the vehicle,"
    So... not even an aimed shot AT the vehicle?? what was the intent here?? Whatvwas the advantage to taking a shot? Why only one?(was it really only one, or do they not want to have to explain the rest of the mag that he dumped into the neighbourhood)

  10. #10
    Just like Mimms the First
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Tai Tokerau
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by muzza View Post
    The officer ... should be held responsible
    lol! Mate there's a job opening at the marketing department for Tui.
    A330driver likes this.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Waikato
    Posts
    321
    At least the silly ol'fool got to sleep his drucken escapade off, better than what could have happened.
    rewa likes this.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    967
    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.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    BOP
    Posts
    16,999
    I thought, deadly force, was what cops were governed by? A dead car doesnt cut it?
    Boom, cough,cough,cough

  14. #14
    Just like Mimms the First
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Tai Tokerau
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by gundoc View Post
    The offender was clearly posing a threat if he had rammed occupied vehicles.
    Again an IF.
    I'm not AT ALL condoning impaired driving. But.
    Police carry firearms with the intent to incapacitate or kill humans. There is no two ways about that.
    So either the situation warrants drawing and firing, or it does not. And if it does, then it should be intentional and directed fire. And should land on target and achieve the objective. By all info available, this was none of those things.

    Anywhich, drunken fuckwit in a car...
    I mean really, it sounds just like every other weekend in hamilton.
    But what response do you feel would be justified? Popping off "one" shot is ok to you?

  15. #15
    Just like Mimms the First
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Tai Tokerau
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidGunn View Post
    At least the silly ol'fool got to sleep his drucken escapade off, better than what could have happened.
    Ideally he would have killed himself in a car crash doing no damage to anyone else or their property. Now he's a massive waste of police, lawyer, and court time, and likely all on the taxpayer's tab.
    Martin358 and 40mm like this.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 24-03-2019, 05:12 PM
  2. Arms Officer's own version of the law
    By Knoxy_09 in forum Off topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 18-01-2017, 09:13 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!