Thursday, September 27, 2007

Murderous thugs

Christchurch cops were sending around an e-mail that promoted shooting people* carrying knives. Now they've killed someone because he was carrying a hammer.**

There's no more information available at this stage. But I'm guessing that people who think he probably wasn't white, and had a history of mental health problems, are unlikely to be wrong.

* By people we can assume they meant poor brown people - this is after all the police.

** I was thinking of calling this post "If I had a hammer" - but decided the current title was more direct.


  1. Anonymous8:08 am

    Maia - I believe the guy that was shot was about to smash a police officers head in with a hammer' this does not make the police murderous thugs. The guy was white and had, according to his flatmate, flipped out on drugs.

  2. Anonymous10:22 am

  3. Flipping out on drugs shouldn't be a death sentence. If the cop wasn't confident of restraining him without deadly force, he should have kept out of the way and called for backup. Saving a few more car windows isn't worth a human life.

  4. Anonymous12:10 pm

    As a taxpayer I dont pay the police to run away from criminals who are smashing up private (or public) property or any other violent behaviour for that matter. I have an expectation that the police will prevent the further destruction of property and to aprend the person responsible. It is the offenders choice to resist arrest or to attack the police and in doing so they face the consequences of their actions. we dont pay the police to be seriously injured or to be killed while on duty.

  5. I think shooting someone to death to save property is immoral. Property can be replaced but a person can't. However, if it is true that the police officer shot this man because he felt in immediate mortal danger, then fair enough, it was self-defense.

  6. Anonymous3:20 pm

    The cops dont and have not (in NZ anyway) shoot people for damaging property. They have however shot people in self defence, or to protect a third party.

  7. The day the manure will really hit the fan is when the police fail to shoot and a civilian gets killed.

  8. If the cop was in immediate mortal danger, it was because he put himself in that position, and knew he was doing so (if he didn't expect to be at risk, why the gun?) - that counts against self defence. There was no third party in need of saving.

  9. Anonymous6:51 pm

    > If the cop was in immediate mortal danger, it was because he put himself in that position

    Being a cop is putting yourself in danger. And future danger turns into immediate danger and eventualy past danger - that is how time works.