Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Grant suggested that police have a policy of rescuing fallen comrades above anything else. That's pretty micro.
I did? Seems rather unlike something I would say. I did manage to say this, "'Making sure nobody else dies' should not extend privileges to the criminal. Police policy in this case will only embolden more criminals to attempt to "out do" the Napier episode."
and this, "When an officer has been shot and is lying in a driveway the first response should be to attend to him. If a criminal in a house is shooting at people who try to approach then the criminal should not be extended any right to life. Every attempt should be made to assist the fallen officer and the risk should be placed upon the life of the criminal (as much as possible)."
I did not suggest the police have any policy. I was responding to the claim that Russell suggested was the best policy. I see no reason to place the right to life of a criminal firing upon police and public over the slim chance that Constable Snee might have benefited from medical treatment.
If that is police policy then it is seriously misguided.
In a situation like this their policy response is cordon, control and contain. I think the main one there is always control - control over the scene and control over the offender. You have to know where he is and what he's doing.
He was in a house shooting at people. For over a day. You call that the police being "in control"?
There was obviously plenty of evidence that Molenaar went rampaging down the street shhoting at Constables Diver and Miller, and the civvy neighbour. That is a police officers worst nightmare. If he reacted like that to officers running from his property, then it was likely he would have done so again had an attempt been made to rescue Len Snee.
Then the AOS shoots him as soon as he reveals his position. Problem over. Or you'd prefer he just be left till his ammo runs out?
But as I mentioned above, the key word on policy and procedure is expected. Their are manuals written on how to investigate at the scene of a homicide, aggravated robbery, sexual assault - all situations where standard procedure can and should be carried out. But this scene in Napier was one out of the box. And police officers are highly trained to follow the only procedure they know when the unexpected occurs: cordon, contain and control.
Rubbish. The police are not prepared for the rescue, being unarmed. The AOS is and should be trained, one would expect, to deal with armed offenders .. that would make them being called an ARMED OFFENDERS Squad somewhat relevant... don't you think?
Sure it would have been heroic and made for a great Mark Sainsbury interview had an officer gone charging in and pulled Snee to safety. But unfortunately it would have been shocking police work.
Oh, dear God. Is this the best PA has to offer? Utter mischaracterisations and over-reactions to the most banal of comments? Have you guys never dealt with simple concepts before?
The police are not armed. They could never have achieved what I believe should have happened. The Armed Offenders Squad is trained and policy should reflect that training. In Napier the officer lying in the driveway, regardless of his condition, should have received priority attention. The perpetrator hindering his assistance should have paid with his life.
Surely you can see the common sense in that?
-
I hadn't noticed anyone criticising the police (other than that Dexter) for this situation
I assume you'll be able to show where I have criticised any officer of the law or the police in general.
I have not called into question the courage or competence of any group or individual. I have condemned the policy that was lauded by Russell in his blog. It is a bad policy to extend to a criminal any right to life when an officer of the law is lying shot in a driveway.
Policy should be that every attempt is made to rescue the officer and the risk should be placed upon the criminal hampering such efforts.
-
Oh, right. I see where I'm going wrong. Clearly you're right.
But, hold on a minute....
What if Jan (or some other future nutjob) is psychotically insane, but not actually as dumb as a rock?
So, instead of leaning out of the window screaming 'come on coppers!' with a bulls-eye stencilled on his forehead in his dead mothers lipstick, maybe, just maybe, he turns off the lights and draws the curtains and lies on the floor most of the time making it just a little bit harder for him to see out and shoot out, but extremely difficult for anyone to see in.
And, maybe, just maybe, this nutjob who has spent months fortifying his house has cut loopholes in the walls which he can shoot out of, but which are, like, rilly rilly difficult for the police sniper teams to even see into, let alone shoot into.
So, your elite snatch squad is all ready to go and grab the body. They're lined up by the wall all ready to go. All they need is confirmation from the sniper team that they've taken him out - 'shoot on first sight' as you put it.
And they wait.
And wait.
And wait.
Just like they did in Napier, in fact.
I guess it's possible that things might not have gone according to plan. Do you think it's possible that things could have gone according to plan?
-
Grant, did you even follow the news on this? They got a shot at him and took it on day one.
I read that only two shots were fired by police.
Does this one shot constitute (or two) constitute what you would consider an attempt to get to the fallen officer? Guns can be fired for a number of reasons, Russell. Claiming that one was fired does not mean that every attempt was made to get to the fallen officer with all the risk placed upon the perpetrator.
-
By doing.....what, exactly?
Obviously not by doing something stupid .. which are all the ideas you seem capable of. How about this: Point snipers at the window he's shooting from. Move rescuers into safe position. Shoot on first sight.
Simple. Problem over. Officer rescued.
... and we'd avoid the case that actually happened where the perp went on shooting indiscriminately for the next day or so ...
-
When an officer has been shot and is lying in a driveway the first response should be to attend to him. If a criminal in a house is shooting at people who try to approach then the criminal should not be extended any right to life. Every attempt should be made to assist the fallen officer and the risk should be placed upon the life of the criminal (as much as possible).
-
"Making sure nobody else dies" should not extend privileges to the criminal. Police policy in this case will only embolden more criminals to attempt to "out do" the Napier episode.
-
Grant-you know nothing of the outlay of the street and area where this is going on.
I don't? I know it's a house in a residential area which leads me to believe that officers should be able to use other buildings to get next door on either side. From there it would take a matter of seconds to launch a completely successful incapacitation and rescue.
The tv cameras can not see it from their vantage points. It's a house on a hill side with pretty good views of the street and surroundings. Any movement towards the dead policeman would have left the the police completely exposed
Rubbish. They guy's in a townhouse. Not even from an airport control tower could a sniper do much about men moving toward his position through neighbouring houses.
This has affected a lot of people here and funnily the people most affected are quite understanding about the need to take things carefully. Rumours are flying around Napier though and depending on who you talk to around town he's an ok guy or a dangerous man. The truth's probably somewhere in the middle.
Wouldn't it be so much easier to have this over and done with in the first hour instead of making a long weekend out of it?
-
So far the 'Voice of Reason' is not you Grant -this whole 'fallen comrades' stuff is more out of the war comics we used to see when I was a kid
Oh, so if someone has written about heroic actions then those actions are automatically useless? Did you have a reason for sharing this inanity or are you just bored?
anyone who risks their own life to retrieve a dead body is IMHO being stupid - it's the same reason they left those Aussies tourists under the glacier for a week or so recently.
They DID NOT KNOW if he was dead:
Police Commissioner Howard Broad told media today that police had been attempting to recover Mr Snee from the scene without success.
"I understand a number of my officers have attempted to do so under direct fire from the house," he said.
"The fact we have got an officer we cannot get out from the situation, we cannot confirm finally that the man is dead is deeply distressing.
"He is in a position where we can say with reasonable certainty that he must be dead, but no one has been able to get there close to him and check that."
NZHeraldRegardless of his condition every attempt should be made to retrieve your fallen. I can think of no good reason why it should not have been done and done immediately.
And of course we need to be investigating how someone gets around the law and obtains firearms with out a license
I can tell you how. They steal, lie and coerce.
that's one good way we'll protect the police from this sort of thing in the future
No it's not. Every regulation you place upon weapons will only make you more surprised when someone gets shot.
if he stole them from the territorials and no one noticed there's obviously something going wrong there that needs to be fixed
Undoubtedly. In the meantime we had a police officer lying in a driveway for 30-odd hours. He's been retrieved now. Who is with in in preferring that the man had been given every chance at medical help rather than what actually happened?
-
Somebody has to be the voice of reason on this site, don't they? :)
Who's with me? Who would rather have seen Senior Constable Snee given every chance at immediate medical care with the criminal incapacitated rather than the current situation?