Hard News: Tragedy into Crisis?
232 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
I don't know many who would have assumed they shouldn't expect help, and I'd previously dismissed the few I knew who did think that way as cranks with issues.
I guess in my case, I don't expect immediate help from the emergency services. I understand that there are limited resources, that there are circumstances that may mean I will not get help for some considerable time. That does not make my need any less important to me.
The shooting Navtej Singh reminded me of a similar murder near Palmerston North in 2001. In this case, a woman was shot, but managed to call police. It was unclear where the murderer was, so police waited until the AOS was able to cordon the farm property. The victim bled to death, all the time while on the phone with the emergency call-taker. The call was played at the trial.
-
I lost faith and respect for the police over 25 years ago when the police would sometimes find me on the street after another explosion of alcohol fueled domestic violence in my families home ……………………….. but in those days apparently ‘it was ok ‘ to beat your missus and family and the police kept firmly out of it.
Reading the media accounts of what happened and contributed to the shooting death of Mr Singh I am further disgusted with the actions ( or lack of ) from those who pretend to ‘serve and protect ‘.
As I understand the facts Mr Singhs family was pleading for the emergency services to help the dieing man, they repeatedly said the offenders had left.
Other customers entered and left the shop.
EVENTUALY the police allowed the emergency services and themselves to enter the shop ( what finally decided for them that there was zero risk ? ).
Now maybe my memory is faulty but can anyone else recall in NZ a case where liquor or small store robbers waited after the robbery to have a shoot out with police ?
Or any instance where a robber in NZ has held a gun to the head of one of their victims and made the victim pretend the robber had left so they could shoot/murder a police officer ?? .
Because it seems to me that the police are protecting themselves ( and endangering or in this instance helping in the death of a civilian ) from a risk which has about a 1 in 1000 probability or smaller of happening .
I can understand and live with the knowledge our court system supposedly works on the principle that it is better for a 100 guilty men to go free than for an innocent man to be imprisoned.
………….. and I think I’m getting an understanding that our police have a system where it is better for 100 civilians to die than for a policeman to cop it ………………………
As for the politicians jumping on the bandwagon with their chest thumping, non-solutions and rhetoric.That’s all it is and the natianals will be hard at it.
Keys little outburst yesterday in the house seems to show that they want to chant on about P and this distraction about Alcohol or P iss as I like to call it is a bit inconvenient for them.
-
and I think I’m getting an understanding that our police have a system where it is better for 100 civilians to die than for a policeman to cop it
What happened was awful. But for goodness sake, the police didn't shoot the guy. And missing from all the reports is any information on whether Navtej Singh would actually have lived had the police charged in on arrival. He didn't die at the scene.
You're talking about 26 minutes from the time the first emergency call was placed to the police entering the store. It wasn't until 15 mins after the call that they were actually able to confirm someone had been shot, and they were in the store 11 mins after that.
It's worth noting that the ambulance service was making no apologies for the wait. They didn't want their people dead either.
-
A S - "I don't know many who would have assumed they shouldn't expect help, ..."
The key thing is, positive information, where is the gunman now? That the gunman wasn't in the shop front didn't mean he wasn't still around.
It's shitty, but those stab proof vests aren't bullet proof.The alternative to this is leads to 'fog of war' situations and anyone in the shop could be shot as cops raid in an armed and aggressive manner.
-
Now maybe my memory is faulty but can anyone else recall in NZ a case where liquor or small store robbers waited after the robbery to have a shoot out with police ?
I'm not sure whether police had this information, but my understanding was that the robber got the money first, and then shot the shopkeeper in a psycho moment of maliciousness, seemingly for no reason at all.
Which would indicate to me that you shouldn't take your logic and apply it to a robber who shoots someone, particularly this one.
-
I concurr with your points Russell and agree with them. Mr Singh was killed by the person who shot him and not the Police. And those people have been arrested and the matter is now before the courst so we can't discuss it.
But seperate to that I stand by my feeling that there needs to be a review of SOP. I get the need to keep police and ambulance officers safe, and I agree with that too, but I'm concerned that policy dictates they wait as long as they did when common sense should skew towards the notion that the offenders have left the scene (As the family said). Instead we're told an equally likely scenario is that the perps have stayed 15 minutes at the scene, possibly lying in wait so they can kill some cops (or 'bust a cap' as some so eloquently put it earlier). Really?
I have to agree with NZ Native:
Now maybe my memory is faulty but can anyone else recall in NZ a case where liquor or small store robbers waited after the robbery to have a shoot out with police ?
Or any instance where a robber in NZ has held a gun to the head of one of their victims and made the victim pretend the robber had left so they could shoot/murder a police officer ??
Yes, we can all agree these scenarios are possible but usually they're reserved for television crime shows.
</aside>The Police should be happy to get so much support here on PAS for their SOP, given readers weren't so supportive of their Tuhoi adventures.
-
That’s all it is and the natianals will be hard at it.
NZ Native, you can dismiss this as partisan special pleading if you like (though I think my record would suggest that blind hackery isn't one of my character flaws), but it would have been pragmatically smarter for Key to just stand up and say "Yes, Prime Minister -- firewater bad!"
Like it or not, I think he made an entirely fair point that the rhetoric and the reality don't quite stack up. Heavens forbid that the Prime Minister actually has her assertions subjected to any scrutiny, because the media seem to be totally AWOL. Again.
-
I'm not sure whether police had this information, but my understanding was that the robber got the money first, and then shot the shopkeeper in a psycho moment of maliciousness, seemingly for no reason at all.
And you have this information because the Police gave it to you (via the media). We all got this story, but we don't get to see the footage ourselves, so we take the word of the media/Police. I'm pretty sure the Defendant will claim the rifle discharged accidently and that he didn't mean to kill Mr Singh, And hopefully the footage will be good enough for the jury to decide the veracity of that claim.
But my point (in this instance) is that the Police always skew the story to fit their needs. Scott Watson was "known to the Police" and making a nuisance of himself with the ladies at Marlborough Sounds on NYE, the couple found shot dead in their car at 1am on Tuseday underneath a Waikato underpass were just an ordinary decent kiwi couple and their killer must be found ... these are all spin from the Police seeking either clues or a conviction.
-
And there's the other staple: slimey lawyers* setting the guilty free via loopholes....
Don't worry, Nick, all this political correctness gone mad is going to be done and dusted before you know it. Isn't it a delicious irony that we love to sneer at the evil Amerikkkans, but while the Supreme Court is reasserting the writ of habeas corpus, and we're getting busy kicking legal protections for accused criminals to death because it's so damn inconvenient and doesn't play on the primetime news.
-
A S,
Shep, what you're talking about doesn't seem to have much to do with the part of my statement you're quoting. You are talking about a different issue. I simply stated how in my experience, most people actually seem to have a genuine expectation that help will be forthcoming. Restating why it wont be, doesn't do much to alter a potentially widely held mis-conception.
I spent some time last night asking myself why this had me so het up.
What got me to post in the first place was the question Russell posed, about whether the police handling of things like this contribute to their having lost the battle of perception.
I thought that they had, I still believe that once all the inquiries are completed, shortcomings will be identifed and changes will take place in terms of policy and practice that will deal with those shortcomings.
As this discussion has gone on, one thing has increasingly puzzled me. Why if the police know, or have reasonable cause to expect that they are unlikely to be able to render timely assistance in a situation like this, why have they been so adamant that shop keepers should not take steps to try to protect themselves?
Isn't it a bit of a cynical position to take on the part of the police?
The concept that people mustn't take the law into their own hands, and protecting people from crime is the role of the police is all well and good, but if in reality that protection has quite a few riders attached to it, and in there is no guarantee of any protection, is that really acceptable?
Does this sort of thing contribute to the scepticism with much a lot of people view the police?
I don't know the answers, but these sorts of thoughts do cause me to question a few previously held beliefs.
-
Come on, Scott Watson was found guilty & is riding a wave of public scepticism over the police, but he shouldn't be your poster child here.
-
Scott Watson was found guilty
Oh.My.Gawd.
Do NOT get me started!
-
It's worth noting that the ambulance service was making no apologies for the wait. They didn't want their people dead either.
Why is it that nobody's criticising them for this, I wonder? I'd love to see the court battle between an ambulance officer who ignored a cop's order to stay at the SFP (and got arrested for obstruction), and the cop who interfered with an ambulance officer seeking to provide urgent medical attention to a person who'd been shot. Interfering with a rescue is the crime, I believe. It'd be epic.
If the ambos had really wanted to get in there, they would've told the cops to go jump and just gone. But because they value their safety, they wouldn't ignore the instructions of the police OIC, or their own SOPs. So, clearly, the ambulance officers are just as gutless and cowardly as the police. -
A S - you're not talking about defensive capabilities, that would be bullet proof glass seperating the shopper from the product and retailer (as some latenight petrol stations do now - ok it maynot be bullet proof glass).
You're talking about arming the civilian population, with intent to use this force in an offensive and even preemptive manner, if they feel threatened, right?As you seemed to me to be advocating a more aggressive role of the police, you're now wanting that to be the 'right' of the public. Both of these situations will lead to more deaths and a massive change to the NZ way of life.
-
Nick - lets not go there & agree to differ.
-
BTW: I'm not suggesting Chris Comesky is slimey but I'm wondering if you are.
I used his name because he's Xue's lawyer. It wasn't meant to imply anything, it was simply using a name because one could be used in context.
-
Matthew - 1st rule of 1st aid - make sure it's a safe environment and no-one else is in danger.
Do any critics of the cops action here have a 1st Aid Cert?
-
A S,
Shep, you're putting words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about arming the civilian population.
I'm not talking about a more aggressive role for the police, as far as I can see they are doing a fine job of that themselves (when it suits them), and I'm not talking about a right to use pre-emptive force.
As you are probably quite well aware, there are already quite sufficient laws regarding reasonable force, and in relation to self-defence and the situations in which self-defence is justified.
I simply questioned whether this sort of apparently conflicting position has contributed to an apparent lack of faith in the police
There. Hopefully that has clarified things and you can rest assured I'm not advocating armed insurrection.
-
The concept that people mustn't take the law into their own hands, and protecting people from crime is the role of the police is all well and good, but if in reality that protection has quite a few riders attached to it, and in there is no guarantee of any protection, is that really acceptable?
The police have never guaranteed to protect you. Never, ever. To do so would require an armed officer at every entrance to every premises. All they can do is respond when advised of a situation requiring their intervention. If they happen to get there in time to take proactive measures, well and good, but if not then all they can do is deal with the aftermath.
You've shifted your perception. Before, you were angry that the police wouldn't rush into any situation they encountered without first ensuring their safety. Now you're angry that they didn't stop the shooting to begin with, in part because of their insistence that people not take the law into their own hands. That's an entirely different kettle of fish. That's not a failure to aid Mr Singh, that's an obstruction of his safety.
-
We all got this story, but we don't get to see the footage ourselves, so we take the word of the media/Police.
I thought I saw the CCTV footage on TV of this incident. Yes, TV3 showed stills at least.
And the Herald is clearly telling their story from the footage, not the police report:
The footage shows Gurwinder Singh walking around the side of the counter and holding his arms up in the air as if trying to reason with the armed man.
As the gunman swings the weapon towards Navtej Singh behind the counter, Gurwinder Singh escapes out the back of the shop.
Moments later Navtej Singh is shot in the chest.
-
Do any critics of the cops action here have a 1st Aid Cert?
It would appear not. Or if they do, they slept through the introductory remarks by the instructor, and significant repetitions throughout the course, about how their safety is paramount.
I once saw a very extended list of person-safety priorities, intended for emergency services personnel, that went along the lines of:
You
Your partner/crew
Your further-responding crews/other responding services
Bystanders
Non-bystanding neighbours (eg: buildings down-wind of a gas leak)
The victim(s)Is first aid taught in schools? I got taught very basic first aid in standard four, and thought it was very worthwhile. Don't know if the safety message was imparted then, but it certainly would be now.
-
3410,
Surely the point is that the safety of attending officers must be balanced against the safety of the victims of the situation.
No one wants the Police to blunder in without ascertaining the risk to themselves and others. The other side of the coin is that people shouldn't bleed to death while officers ensure absolute safety. I'll wait for more details (of chronology, etc.) before deciding whether the right balance was struck in this case (and whether or not the current procedures for this type of situation is right).
One point though: The question of whether the Police acted quickly enough is not "a distraction"; it's important.
-
Isn't it a bit of a cynical position to take on the part of the police?
The concept that people mustn't take the law into their own hands, and protecting people from crime is the role of the police is all well and good, but if in reality that protection has quite a few riders attached to it, and in there is no guarantee of any protection, is that really acceptable?
I don't think those two things are that closely related.
Police wouldn't advocate shop keepers 'taking matters into their own hands' by having a gun on the premises, or pepper spray, or a baseball bat.
The best response to an armed robbery is to give them everything they ask for, as that's the most likely way to get them out of your shop and pointing a gun at you. The most important result is getting out alive. Sadly that didn't happen in this case, but that should still be the advice. Planning some other sort of response isn't good, as it's going to be more likely that there will be a shooting or a stabbing, and it's as likely to be the shopkeeper or a bystander as the robber.
The fact that maybe people now have more awareness that police will consider their own and ambulance officers safety before moving in shouldn't change that. The goal is not to get shot, if they arm themselves in some way, the opposite will occur.
-
A S,
Well Matthew, since you've explained why no-one should have an expectation of help or protection, is there a particular reason why I shouldn't be somewhat curious about why the police would advocate reliance on them in the first place.
Actually, before I was somewhat incredulous that it was somehow ok to leave someone to bleed to death. Again, that is a perception thing, you look at it from the perspective of the potential rescuer, I look at if from the perspective of the shot man. I suspect those perspectives will probably conflict regardless of how much we discuss them. I'm happy to park that part of the discussion if you are.
Just to clarify, I'm not angry they didn't stop the shooting to begin with. I'm just a bit saddened that an awful lot of people don't seem to be aware that they are pretty much on their own in a case like this, and that somehow that is ok. Admittedly I find the continued suggestion by police about not taking steps to protect yourself a little hypocritical in the context of the discussion that highlights just how alone you really are if something goes badly wrong. And no, Shep, I'm not advocating some sort of wild west, so you can relax.
I guess I should lower my expectations, and focus more on how to try to take care of myself and making damn sure to stay away from potentially dangerous situations now that my illusions have been dispelled.
Definitely an interesting discussion.
-
Surely the point is that the safety of attending officers must be balanced against the safety of the victims of the situation.
Oh, of course. But the scales are very heavily tilted toward the safety of the officers. In a big-city environment, where firearms-equipped cars aren't too far away and the AOS can be on-scene in an hour, the loading is even greater. In the wops, where it might be two hours to the nearest town of any importance and the AOS comes from somewhere that's further away still, the balance will be a little different but still heavily tilted.
As Russell pointed out a couple of pages back, the time from first call to the scene being declared "secure" was 31 minutes, from first call to entry was 26 minutes. That's not even close to a lack of balance of concern for the safety of the injured person - particularly since entry was made 11 minutes after confirmation was received that someone had been shot. If you've got firearms five minutes away (if that) when you find out someone's been shot, why would you suddenly rush into a situation? It's five minutes, and then you've got the equipment to deal with a potential gunman. I say five minutes because issue of firearms takes time, as does putting on vests and moving up from the SFP. It's entirely possible that firearms were arriving at the scene at the time that it was confirmed that there was a victim.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.