NZ Police: wrong to shoot

And the sooner the NZ Police stop killing people the better.

NZ Herald:
--
Police officers who chased and shot dead an armed teenager broke a number of police policies, but were justified in the shooting, a report into the incident concluded today.
Lachan Kelly-Tumarae, 19, died after being shot numerous times in a stand-off with officers in Hawkes Bay in March 2011.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) released its report into the fatal shooting this afternoon, finding the officer who pulled the trigger was "justified in firing as he genuinely believed his life was under immediate threat".
However, it also found other aspects of the police response that day "did not comply with relevant police policies or meet standards of good practice".
--

To start with it's hardly an "independent" body - we all know it is police investigating the police and they let each other off - so the report already lacks credibility.  We will never know what really went on, we only know what the police said went on.  A story that will obviously suit themselves.

The point here (like with other cases of killer cops such as the Waitara main street incident and more lately the killing at the Waitara golf course) is that it is the police that are the ones chasing, pursuing, hunting and advancing with firearms - not the teenager (he's trying to escape and flee - to a cemetery as it happens where there is no-one, so there is no immediate danger of anyone being shot by him at any rate).  It is spurious to claim a necessity to shoot (and to kill) as the police did in this case when they are the ones advancing.  It is quite simple: the person doing all the chasing and the firing (and all the killing) cannot claim self defence.  Just as Bruce Emery (who stabbed to death a teenager for tagging) couldn't claim self defence when he chased after and cornered the victim. 

The police seemed to have set out to kill rather than to contain and diffuse - a treatment reserved mainly for Maori. 

If the police put themselves into a situation where they are exposed and without cover in an armed situation then that is there doing - in this case they are on the attack after all and the offender is on the defensive. The police are manufacturing an excuse to kill when they claim they had no choice.  Was there any attempt by the police to do anything other than kill this teenager?  I ask that because of this sickening revelation:
--
The 19-year-old ran towards the cemetery, then stopped and turned around, aiming his gun at the armed officer.
"Fearing that Mr Kelly-Tumarae was going to shoot him, the officer discharged a volley of shots. Mr Kelly-Tumarae remained standing, and believing he had missed, the officer fired another volley of shots," the report says.
A total of 14 bullets were fired from the police officer's weapon, with four wounding the teen. Another bullet appeared to have passed through his clothing, the report said.
The IPCA said this explained the large number of holes in Mr Kelly-Tumarae's clothing - a total of 13 were found - which the family have questioned.
--

The police officer in question riddled this guy with bullets.  After the first volley - and no return fire from the teenager - the reaction from the cop wasn't to call on him to surrender again, or for the cop to seek cover - no it was to open fire with another barrage: emptying the whole clip by the sounds of it. That isn't self-defence that is a deliberate killing.  We call that sort of deliberate killing, murder.  He tried to kill him 14 times over.  Was the police officer still fearing for his life when they squeezed off the fourteenth round from their Glock?

David Farrar at Kiwiblog offers this black and white opinion - which although disturbing would be a common position of most people, ie. a cop-worshipping establishment mentality:
--
In that situation the Police had no option but to shoot him. If you have armed police telling you to surrender, you don’t point a gun at them. Mr Kelly-Tumarae is entirely responsible for his own death.
--

The police had far more control and were much more capable of making and considering their own options than a frightened, drunken teenager being chased around town.  The person who pulled the trigger - 14 times - is entirely responsible for the death.  Will they ever be held to account for their deliberate killing, ie. murder?  Of course not - this is New Zealand!  No policemen are murderers, no policemen are rapists, no policemen are corrupt...