Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, I'm pointing out the inevitable consequences of a feeling of unaccountability: systematic abuse of power and apparent criminal behaviour.
Whilst ignoring the consequences of a feeling of over-accountability - total inaction, and letting criminals get away with their behavior. There is naturally a balance to be struck but I haven't seen much to say that NZ police aren't pretty bloody admirable on this score.
Tell me, I/S, what you would have done? Stood nearby shouting helplessly? Run up and grabbed the gun wielder with your bare hands? Shot the gun out of his hands from the top of Mt Albert? Let him escape with a hostage? Hurried home to blog about it?
-
Gareth, I'm glad there's stats to back my totally subjective feeling that the traffic flows a lot better than it did. It does stand to reason whenever you see what a herd of animals (including human animals) is like when a lot of them are trying to get through a bottleneck. They're actually slower than if they were a bit more ordered, and certainly being ordered is fairer and safer.
-
Ben Gracewood, I don't know if they're not yet working, or just not being used, but they definitely could be used to stop the flow of traffic onto the motorway in emergency incidents. A barrier arm would do a better job though :-) Preferably with a big sign next to them saying what the holdup is for.
I thought I'd get bitter on them when I first saw them, too. But now they've been in place for a while I think they're brilliant. No substitute for bigger roads, but absolutely a complementary device, for improving traffic flows and safety.
-
My point with the paintball analogy was that just because Ben wasn't very good at hitting a motionless paper target the first time he ever fired a pistol, doesn't mean it's actually an impossible feat - with practice you can learn to do that, and with more practice still you can learn to shoot a moving target (it's just harder, not impossible). My point was that more training, as you have also now mentioned, is necessary.
Maybe so, but my experience in a firing range was quite different. I found that I was far more accurate than my army buddy who had trained for years and years. I didn't miss the circle even once. When I spoke to him about this he said "Yeah man but you were taking 10 seconds between shots. If you're trying to shoot a human, you have to fire bursts. They're not stationary, and you have to keep the fire going so that they don't have time to aim at you. You can't just stand there with your whole torso exposed taking careful aim". When I tried what he was actually doing, firing rapidly, or from a quick point and shoot, my hit rate was appalling. He was definitely way better, and still, if there had been a bystander within 10 feet either side, he would have hit them.
So armchair analysis isn't really much help.
Similarly, he suggested that they don't go for head shots much. Of course it has a higher chance of killing, but it also has a higher chance of missing. You aim for the center of what you want to hit, which is basically "any part of them", since being hit with a bullet tends to take people out even if it's in their hand or any other non-lethal part. The shock of being hit by a large bullet anywhere is tremendous. Furthermore, an injured enemy soldier is in many ways better than a dead one, due to the distracting effects it has on the other ones, causing rescue efforts, and the demoralizing effects of hearing a friend screaming in pain.
It's a disgusting business, shooting people. Only in the direst need should it be used, and the circumstances are always crazy and confused. I pity anyone who gets involved.
-
It should be possible, in reasonable discourse, to make mention of the outcome of the Nuremburg Trials without it immediately being taken as comparing whatever is under discussion with the actions of the Nazis. Or am I alone in that belief?
Nope, I agree. But I don't think the principle of Nuremberg applies, since it was restricted to "war crimes", as I recall.
-
I'm also wondering how the police so succesfully diverted traffic that there was only one other car involved, by the end (apart from the truck and the van).
A possible final vindication for on-ramp signals?
-
Matthew, nothing in the Godwin Law says the comparison has to be to the other party. It's just a comparison of some kind, and that is exactly what I/S did. He compared the "Befehl ist befehl" defense used at Nuremberg, by Nazis, to what could be raised by some poor cop trying to save people's lives in NZ. In the context of the discussion that is precisely what he did. But why be pedantic? I already said that mentioning Godwin is not a refutation.
-
Rich, I was wondering who would get the prize for being pedantic about that. But even the cook is expected to know where his gun is, and keep it in working order.
-
Hardly. Merely a legal observation, pointing at the most powerful and far-reaching precedent.
Well it didn't reach much further than the vanquished. And it is a Godwin, although mentioning that is not a particularly sound refutation of anything. The lessons of WW2 are not less relevant just because they get used a lot. But it's massive hyperbole to apply any findings at Nuremberg to an accidental slaying in NZ.
-
One of the Kiwiblog regulars, Gooner, is an ex-cop and he has an interesting post on the issue.
It was interesting. The ex-army guy who then ragged him out reminds me so much of my flatmate in ozzie who had been trained in the army for several years. He had contempt for the police, on account of how little training they had with their guns. But he conceded my point that conditions that police operate under are totally different to soldiers. To a soldier, the gun is his life. He carries it in his hands any time he's doing his job. He knows where it is at all times (he related to me an incident where he briefly became unaware of where his gun was, and suffered many hours of grueling disciplinary action, and was nicknamed accordingly, so as never to forget). He tests it regularly. He certainly doesn't leave it in the boot of his car for months on end, because he doesn't want to find that the sights are out of alignment, or that it's become dirty, when he actually needs it. On a daily basis, he will fire it at targets in scenarios simulating combat. Furthermore, if he has seen any action, he has actually been in real combat, and knows how to keep calm whilst under fire.
All of these expectations are far too much even for the heavily armed Australian police, let alone the 'never even had to get the weapon out of the boot' NZ police. Hence the large number of slayings at the hands of the Australian police, compared to NZ.
I am totally opposed to police carrying firearms on their person, except for AOS, but I will not hold them responsible without a ton of evidence, for using them in a situation where it is warranted, and not being Annie Oakley.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 905 906 907 908 909 … 1066 Older→ First