- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Friday, July 23, 2010

Police excuses for shooting turns out to be a lie


Stolen air rifle was pointed but not fired
Police have admitted a man they gunned down pointed a stolen air rifle but never fired before they started shooting. And the man's brother says it wasn't loaded.

Well, well, well - what do we have here? The Police originally claimed that they had gunned down a citizen because of a 'gunfight', then that was downgraded to a 'couple of shots', now it's 'oh he didn't fire once'. Now if we cast our minds back, Greg O'Connor was using this very example as proof of why the Police needed to be armed, really? Why did the Police need to be armed in a situation where the citizen gunned down didn't actually end up shooting one bullet at the cops???

Do we really want to arm all cops based on a lie about shooting at a citizen who didn't fire one shot?

8 Comments:

At 23/7/10 9:43 a.m., Anonymous jr said...

Mate, if you point a rifle at the cops, expect the consequences.

I doubt very much that they can identify it clearly as an air rifle (probably not with enough confidence to have a come day / go day attitude towards it being pointed at them) and they definitely don't know it's not loaded. Both facts are irrelevant to this case.

They shouldn't fudge bullshit excuses like "a phantom fire fight" or "shots fired" and they should be held to task for such a BS account.

But if you point any gun at the cops expect to be shot first, with questions asked later.

They can't take the risk that it is "real" and loaded, and that you intend to use it.

 
At 23/7/10 10:25 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

The public would have accepted the truth.
The police were justified & did'nt need to get creative with their story.
Pointing firearms at police is asking for it.

 
At 23/7/10 10:37 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mate, if you point a rifle at the cops, expect the consequences.
"


true that, but why oh why do the cops need to lie about it?

 
At 23/7/10 10:50 a.m., Blogger Bomber said...

That's what i don't get either, you point a gun at the cops, what do you bloody expect? But that's not the story they told, which now questions the story they are telling us now, did he point the gun or not? See now we can't trust their story at all can we?

That all aside, Greg trying to use this shooting as another example as to why all police should be armed all the time is simply ridiculous.

 
At 23/7/10 11:15 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be honest the First version of events sounded better..
An epic battle between the forces of everything that is good & pure versus a minion of Satan bent on blood-thirsty destruction & the spread of evil.

I think what this really illustrates is that our Un-armed police force is more than capable, & willing to shoot people.

More than capable....& willing.

 
At 23/7/10 11:15 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

See now we can't trust their story at all can we?

Really?
Perhaps we should let these men off without charges then bomber, seeing that we can't believe a word the police said?

 
At 23/7/10 11:27 a.m., Blogger Bomber said...

Perhaps we should let these men off without charges then bomber, seeing that we can't believe a word the police said?
Don't be silly anon, I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting they shouldn't have lied and Greg shouldn't have held it up as an example.

Did he point the gun or not, well the Police have three different versions so far, will this one stack up?

 
At 23/7/10 3:21 p.m., Anonymous jr said...

This sort of story reflects very, very badly on them. Damn good thing Johnnie Cochran doesn't live in NZ, our coppers would never get a conviction. It really is amateur hour at times.

As someone else commented, the truth would have sufficed here.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home