Auckland city brought to a standstill

[postfach]

but for instance we dont know if the round passed through the crim then hit the victim. or if it only just missed the crim. or for that matter if it was a ricochet.

All quite possible, according to the news article i watched last night the round was fired from an M4 rifle, which means it would be a 5.56x45mm round.

According to wikipedia, they are capable of penetrating up to 50cm of soft tissue, and because of it's shape, prone to yaw in soft tissue. Could quite easily have passed through the crim and changed angle, hitting the guy who died.

Obviously all of the above is speculation, and should be treated as such, I'm sure all will be revealed eventually and until then we're all pretty much in the dark. Very unfortunate outcome, sadly I suppose it's not entirely unusual considering the circumstances though.

[snwtoy]

What i dont understand is the AOS are trained, now how could the officer who shot the boy be that much of a lousey shot.

Given how infrequently these situations happen in NZ, it's not a stretch to imagine it was the officer's first shot(s) in anger.

Still, as you point out, this is what they are trained for.

[Brick]

we dont know if the round passed through the crim then hit the victim. or if it only just missed the crim. or for that matter if it was a ricochet

thats true

or if the officer tripped and it went wild.

as sad as it is because someone died i can picture that in my head and it made me LOL

in a combat, coz this is what it effectively was, unfortunately sh*t happens.
when a shot is hurried and done under pressure your accuracy goes to hell.
i remember my first speed shots with a pistol. couldnt hit the side of a barn! yet when i had time i was a perfect shot.

when peoples lives are at stake like that it is in a way a lose lose battle, if you rush things may go wrong but if you tak your time to prepare, then it could be to late.

If it was just a normal uniform officer you could expect more chance of a slip up (although trained) but not from an AOS officer (unless something from above did happen)

only time will tell as the investigation continues though

[kim0663]

'bystander' where was this guy anyway? in his car ? or got off his car to see the 'action' for himself?

[Mr Revhead]

appears he was in his can in the next lane to the truck the crim was on

[solitaire]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10553456

Im not going to comment for fear of the hippie flames...

[Heylin]

f it was just a normal uniform officer you could expect more chance of a slip up (although trained) but not from an AOS officer (unless something from above did happen)

Although trained

hahahahah you dont the half of it a "trained" (if thats what you can call it) regular uniformed cop has 1 day firearms training per year, and shoots 25 mabey 59 rounds of 9mm from a Glock 17.

In comparison to that I shoot about 1000+ rounds per year and visit the range about 15 times sometimes more.

I think that 17 year old would have preferred me or any other one of our club members there, than the police.

But as people say we dont know what happened fully yet and may never know.

Police BTW use frangible ammunition, meaning it disintegrates on impact (hence the shrapnel injuries). I doubt it would have penetrated and kept on going.

[iOnic]

I think that 17 year old would have preferred me or any other one of our club members there, than the police.

half the people on here can barely operate a keyboard...I wouldn't go trusting them with a gun

[snwtoy]

But it wasn't the "regular police" firing was it? Wasn't it the AOS?

[Mr Revhead]

yes it was the AOS

and police get more training that one day a year
hell, even the police prisoner escorts get more than that and they are unsworn staff

[flygt4]

you'll find a lot of police officers probly enjoy shooting as a hobby too, and will do more than the minimum required training anyway. its just silly to assume that every police officer doesn't know how to use a gun just because they don't carry them all the time

I'd say it was the AOS officers who shot the 5 rounds anyway as all the news articles i can find report them being on the offender immediately to make the arrest, which means they were most likely the ones pointing guns at him anyway. I'd put money on them being more capable of making the best decision for the situation than anybody else anyway, as thats their job and what they are paid to do.

whats the point bickering about what was right or wrong anyway, its happened now, and it can't be changed. letting the offender run around highjacking cars at gunpoint was clearly not an option, (if you think it was then you are on another planet) and the people who are supposed to deal with these situations were there to deal with it.
unfortunately someone got killed who shouldnt have, but the only person responsible for that is the offender. if he wasnt cruising around highjacking cars at gunpoint, there wouldnt have been police officers on the motorway firing guns.

[touge rolla]

In comparison to that I shoot about 1000+ rounds per year and visit the range about 15 times sometimes more.

I think that 17 year old would have preferred me or any other one of our club members there, than the police.

Yep I bet you can get a bullseye while someone is shooting at you too.

That extra second or so it might take for that officer to get his aim perfect, on a no doubt moving target, could be the second a bullet hits him square between the eyes.

In some ways things like this make me wish we lived in a dictatorship where the government keep all this sensationalized crap out of the news.

edit: speaking of Police shoot outs, who's watching Channel 3 right now?

[matt dunn]

edit: speaking of Police shoot outs, who's watching Channel 3 right now?

Me, but i've seen it before too.

[Heylin]

its just silly to assume that every police officer doesn't know how to use a gun just because they don't carry them all the time

Well its not actually, for someone that shoots on a regular basis, Im still improving.

I failt to see how someone can shoot 25 rounds a year on their annual firearms training day and develop any sort of skill and accuracy.

Yep I bet you can get a bullseye while someone is shooting at you too.

That extra second or so it might take for that officer to get his aim perfect, on a no doubt moving target, could be the second a bullet hits him square between the eyes.

Wrong here too, the offender will be taking unaimed pot shots, an experienced shooter can afford the extra 1-2 seconds to aim for a kill with minimal chance of getting hit.

We are talking a P crazed addict taking pot shots at 25+ meters with a sawn off .22 (not exactly accurate).

You dont need a bulleye either, centre mass is about 20" size target. I can shoot that size at 50M with a 2- 3 second aimed shot and Im not even a competition class shooter.

Im not sure if youve ever shot before but even at combat distances of 6-10 meters, if youre taking pot shots and not putting any effort into aiming, even a person size target is hard to hit.

[iOnic]

so basically what you're saying is that you could have done a better job than the entire armed offenders squad did?

hindsight is always 20/20 mate - it's easy to sit at your computer and talk of targets and what you would have done/could have done etc but the truth of the matter is that when you have a crazed gunman pointing a gun at you and you have a split second to decide what to do.......your first thought won't be about what kind of gun he has or his shooting accuracy. This is not a "target" he is a human being and there are consequences behind every pull of the trigger whether he is an offender or not.

2-3 seconds is enough time for him to take several shots in your general direction and i don't give a shit how inaccurate they may be - you won't be standing around aiming at him while that shit's happening. and he sure as hell won't be standing still waiting for you to perfect your aim

I personally think given the facts that are available at this moment in time, the AOS did the best job they could under the circumstances they were in. Reality is ever so slightly different to a shooting range/counterstrike/etc etc. One mistake or 1/100th of a second too long and you or someone else is dead

[Jdawg]

The gunman was shooting at the bystanders trying to hijack their, take too much time and nobody left to save.

[Brick]

hindsight is always 20/20 mate - it's easy to sit at your computer and talk of targets and what you would have done/could have done etc but the truth of the matter is that when you have a crazed gunman pointing a gun at you and you have a split second to decide what to do.......your first thought won't be about what kind of gun he has or his shooting accuracy. This is not a "target" he is a human being and there are consequences behind every pull of the trigger whether he is an offender or not.

spot on

on the other hand it sounds like someone else is trying to blow their own trumpet a bit to much

[pc]

Sounds like it was a lose situation all round, any pausing and the truckie may have been shot by the baddie. The unlucky outcome was that preventitive action resulted in death of a bystander and bad PR for police.
I guess when these situations happen everyone wants to see a good outcome, but a nutter with a gun can never be a controlled situation

[Mr Revhead]

Im not sure if youve ever shot before but even at combat distances of 6-10 meters, if youre taking pot shots and not putting any effort into aiming, even a person size target is hard to hit.

i have, i can shoot from the hip at that distance an hit targets that size
but get $&#$% if you want me to try it while being shot at myself

as iconic said, easy to sit behind a keyboard after the event and say "couldve shouldve wouldve etc"

[pjay]

and if your caught with class A drugs thats a bullet in the head to.

Thats just silly. You cant put guns beside class A drugs. Apples with apples