Island Life: The Guilt of Clayton Weatherston
285 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Strange that they were waiting for a Taser and a qualified operator when it went down.
Do Police Association spokesthings get a bonus for turning every damn shooting incident, car crash or broken nail involving a member into "If we had tasers, and could use them at will, things like this wouldn't happen"? For a start, that's highly debatable. And second, it's pretty tacky attempt to jack an uncomfortable story onto you preferred talking points.
-
Craig, to be fair, the media are the ones who've played up the "waiting for a Taser" angle. I saw that before I saw any comment from the Police Association. And, unlike O'Connor, the person who has commented admits that a Taser may not have been useful for this incident. He did make the point, entirely validly, that it would've given another option for consideration.
-
Strange that they were waiting for a Taser and a qualified operator when it went down. I was under the misguided impression that...I don't know... just point and shoot, point and shoot.
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but the NZ Police aren't known for being trigger-happy. In 150 years of policing they've killed fewer than 30 (25?) people. If they can avoid having to use firearms, they'll take the option. But, in this case, absent a Taser there's no other credible choice.
Pepper spray has an effective range of a metre, or less, which is far too close for comfort to a person armed with a weapon that could take your hand off. Batons? Again, you're inside slashing/stabbing range before you can really use them, and if you screw up deflecting a rush you've probably now got a serious injury. -
Off slightly but relevant, the police seem to think so.
Most people seem to think violence can be a legitimate resort when defending oneself or others from violence or threatened violence. All I know about the Mokaraka shooting is what's been in the media so far, but based on that I doubt it's especially relevant to what Matthew was saying.
Anything can now be considered a weapon.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say a meat cleaver and knives can be considered weapons.
-
Matthew:
Thanks for the context -- which wasn't entirely clear from the coverage I saw -- and I stand corrected. Even though the PA sends me bugfuck, if they're lifting their game from O'Connor's usual (sub-)standard credit is due and given.
-
Most people seem to think violence can be a legitimate resort when defending oneself or others from violence or threatened violence.
Precisely. Defence of self or another from an immediate threat to life is not an unreasonable circumstance in which to use violence, assuming the violence used is commensurate to the violence presented. It would also not result in the use of the provocation defence if it ended up in court.
With Mokaraka, he presented a threat to life. The use of lethal force is entirely justified. An ordinary person, faced with someone waving knives and a meat cleaver, would very likely consider their life to be in imminent danger. -
With Mokaraka, he presented a threat to life. The use of lethal force is entirely justified. An ordinary person, faced with someone waving knives and a meat cleaver, would very likely consider their life to be in imminent danger.
And, if said ordinary person shot the person.....oh that's right.....I am with Danielle, how many hands did the guy have?
-
I do wish to clarify that a dude wielding a meat cleaver and one or more knives, no matter how many hands he had, might need to be stopped by force one way or another. I am just confused about how one might attack with two knives and a meat cleaver if one did not have, say, an extra robotic limb.
-
...how many hands did the guy have?
Was the meat cleaver plus multiple knives thing something the police specifically said, or the media? Either way, I don't see the relevance to what Matthew was commenting on.
And, if said ordinary person shot the person.....?
Silly police. Why didn't they set their Glocks' to stun??
-
I am just confused about how one might attack with two knives and a meat cleaver if one did not have, say, an extra robotic limb.
Probably acted in a pirate movie. One knife between his teeth. Aaarrh!
-
One knife between his teeth. Aaarrh!
Silly me! Of course.
-
I am just confused about how one might attack with two knives and a meat cleaver if one did not have, say, an extra robotic limb.
And that was where I was at also. However ;) as mentioned above, it is not too common for the cops to kill but it is becoming more common. Violence is a societal problem that all we NZers have.
-
Violence is a societal problem that all we NZers have.
You spend a lot of time running around the neighbourhood getting your Jack Sparrow on? :)
-
Can anyone advise what the police did before guns for all the thugs with the knives and meat cleavers?
-
Can anyone advise what the police did before guns for all the thugs with the knives and meat cleavers?
Good question. I'm pretty sure that back in the (very) old days you just hired another thug to even things out.
-
You spend a lot of time running around the neighbourhood getting your Jack Sparrow on? :)
Well it just seems violence is every bloody where and cops wanna electrocute or shoot and there isn't any between.There are lots of reasons for the public going off on a tangent and drugs legal or illegal are proving to be just one example. We hear often that the person was really placid, the nice guy next door, and our solution is fast becoming shoot to kill (in the chest is kill) or electrocute.It is really sad and watching Parliament TV is just depressing but I digress. Innit great we're gonna build more prisons cos when Mokaraka gets out of hospital, he can go to one. Nevermind, as you were.
-
ah, the good ol' days.
-
last comment directed at Sam's...
-
Can anyone advise what the police did before guns . . .
Once upon a time they had plastic guns.
-
From the article Sophie linked to: "Neighbours said police tried to reason with him as he waved the meat cleaver around. A towel covered what he had in his other hand."
There's no suggestion (so far) that the police were trigger happy here.
Well it just seems violence is every bloody where and cops wanna electrocute or shoot and there isn't any between.
Well, the argument is that the taser is between doing nothing/waiting till someone is harmed/risking their own lives even more on the one hand, and shooting. Not that I've made my mind up on the taser issue, but it does seem like a "no win" situation for the cops here. What did you want the police to do, get into a knife fight?
-
I'm sure Harry Potter would have had no trouble disarming the guy.
Maybe we need to be sending our police to Wizard School.
-
With Mokaraka, he presented a threat to life. The use of lethal force is entirely justified. An ordinary person, faced with someone waving knives and a meat cleaver, would very likely consider their life to be in imminent danger.
And, if said ordinary person shot the person
They would very likely not be charged with attempted murder/murder, and if they were they'd have a very good chance of getting off on self-defence. They may have to answer questions about why they had a loaded firearm in that situation, but that's a different story. There is direct precedent with Greg Carvell, who was not charged with any kind of violence offence for shooting a knife-wielding man who was terrorising his gun shop.
Please don't try and argue that the police should be held to the same restrictions as the general public. We employ them and give them powers to do things so that the general public don't have to! They were in that situation because of their job. Do you now wish them to be denied greater access to protective measures at the same time as demanding that they "do something" about these situations? In that case, why bother having police at all?
-
What did you want the police to do, get into a knife fight?
Maybe Sofie's thinking a big group hug? She alluded to there being a large number of officers present.
Personally, I have no problems with the police using firearms in this situation. Even with the availability of Tasers I still don't have a problem with it, and wouldn't have had even if a Taser had been present. Knives are lethal weapons, and I don't expect the police to put themselves in danger just because it might offend the delicate sensibilities of some segments of society when lethal force is used to neutralise a lethal threat. I don't take the view that it's only appropriate to use firearms in response to firearms, and that any lesser weapon should be dealt to with group hugs and singing round the camp fire.
-
Taser is electrocuting. don't see that as between.
What did you want the police to do,
How about get the neighbours watching away ,stand back from the tantrum and wait for back up to reassess?Check out if there is any history, find if mental health issues and if professional in that area are available,have a cop (maybe a detective detecting)checking if next of kin can be located for info? Try at least to help the guy.If he was a harm to himself I would accept suicide, that is understandable but if the cops are trying to protect him against himself then shooting doesn't help anyone, including the cop who shot.I am just speculating.still think we can do better.If not I will then ask,if holding a hammer is deemed a weapon, can the police come around to our house and check out the 2 guys next door,I'd like to know what they are gonna do to all the banging going on over there? All I can hear is smashing and banging, and they used to be such nice neighbours. ;)
-
and our solution is fast becoming shoot to kill (in the chest is kill)
No, in the chest is disable. Police policy is, and always has been, shoot to stop. Shoot to wound is Hollywood bullshit, and has no place on real streets, with real cops using real guns to fire real bullets at real criminals, and with the real potential for a real miss that injures a real innocent bystander.
The largest mass is the torso, and that's the only part of the body at which a shot should be aimed by a police officer who's not a sniper, with a sniper rifle, lying in a sniper perch. Anywhere else is easily missed, and may well not incapacitate the target. Once lethal force is justified, the intent should be to neutralise the threat as immediately as possible. That means the largest part of the body in order to achieve maximum disabling effect. It's an unfortunate side-effect that this is frequently fatal, but death is not what the police set out to cause.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.