Kiwi Gun Blog

Protecting Responsible Firearms Ownership in New Zealand

The Police Union Are Complete Hypocrites

This is quite unbelievable.

In the latest issue of Police News Cahill is actually whining that it is not fair to compare one country to another because context is important!

lies.PNG

Shameless.

So its fair play to compare peaceful NZ to an American horror shooting for dramatic effect in the media.

Its OK to distort the failure of overseas gun regulations when seeking to impose them here.

But when the media questions the competence of his members who are killing people – then comparisons are unhelpful.

Got it.

Here is the other article he mentions:

ggggh.PNG

So punishing the lawful shooter is proving a failure in the UK – so lets repeat the mistake here. Good one Cahill you idiot.

Also of note in the latest issue was this:

uuuy.PNG

Remember the crim who returned with dozens of convictions, was given a gun license by lazy Police and then sold $50,000 worth of guns to a gang? Media wrote that story up as ‘Better records need to be kept – is registration the answer?’

The Blog were since told by police that this could not happen again. After their recent lies – We need to check that.

As for the Police Union’s beer and wine reviews…. You can read those for yourselves.

Join the conversation on social media. Click below:

facebook avatar fb pistol

The Kiwi Gun Blog

,

9 responses to “The Police Union Are Complete Hypocrites”

  1. Pav Avatar
    Pav

    The most obscene piece in his statement is,
    “Pulling the trigger is, without doubt,
    the toughest call an officer will ever
    make, and the rules surrounding it
    are clear – it must be self-defence or
    defence of another and has to withstand
    a robust legal test.”
    There is no robust legal test. The only acceptable legal test is for the killer to be charged with murder, and tried in a court of law.
    Most of us are aware that police have the same rights as the rest of the citizenry to use whatever force as you deem necessary to protect yourself or another. The difference is that you will be defending a murder charge, should you decide to use lethal force to defend yourself or another, whereas police will not even charge one of their own for executing an idiot smashing windows. Moreover police will conceal their identity with masks as well as bureaucratic obstruction, to prevent offending employees being identified for private prosecution.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Pete Avatar
    Pete

    Imagine if doctors and nurses were not to make patient welfare their primary concern. Disgusting.

    Final paragraph makes it clear that the police looks after their own first, not citizens, not the rights of those shot by police. Disgusting.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Pav Avatar
    Pav

    Ross Meurant has this to say; https://nzpca.co.nz/meurant-on-police-shooting/
    “My principal concern over the Christchurch shooting was that the police seemed to be trying to influence the legal process to avoid having to put the police officer who fired the fatal shots before a court. In my view the police sought to win the minds of the people through a public relations exercise at the expense of proper judicial review.
    As far as I am concerned, the day culpability is decided by a television spectacular will be a very sad day.
    As I read about last week’s shooting I also saw that a police spokesperson was saying: “They [the police] were only doing their duty.” Once again the spectre of deliberate interference in the due process of law seemed to me to be manifest.
    The law is very clear when police may kill a human being. They must fear, on reasonable grounds, death or grievous bodily injury to themselves or a third person and that the death or grievous injury cannot otherwise be avoided than by killing the offender.
    I do not pre-judge the lawfulness of the police action on that fateful day. It is for a court to decide whether the police shooting was lawful and justifiable.
    The sole purpose of my speaking out on this occasion is to bring into focus in the public mind the absolute necessity, in my view, of this case being judged in a court of law and not played out by police public relations people through the media.
    Preservation of the rule of law is far more important than preservation of the police.
    The place for the questions of culpability to be determined must be in a court of law.
    This embraces the concept of separation of powers. It is fundamental to our democracy. Only then can the public have confidence in their police and only then can the police hold their heads high.”

    Like

    Reply
  4. paul clarke Avatar
    paul clarke

    cahill was just scaremongering on talkback, spouting registration bullshit

    Like

    Reply
  5. Bruce White Avatar
    Bruce White

    Cahill, ( named “Pinocchio” by a number of people.) was on TV3 news 15 Feb and did his “lie” to the nation , that ” 1 in 5 Police officers have had a gun presented at them” The media have to provide unbiased reporting! so this lie must be pointed out.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Doug Avatar
      Doug

      That was pointed out at the Public Health seminar – he dissembled and blamed poor record keeping for the disparity between the ‘survey’ of his members (1 in 8 – about 2,000 plus incidents) and official “Police” figures released under OIA that show EIGHTEEN total prosecutions – 12 successful. Had to admit that it was members of the association he represents that are supposed to do this recording!

      Like

      Reply
  6. Pete Avatar
    Pete

    Here is a link to a Mike Loder (of Kiwi Gun Blog fame) radio call-in:

    Like

    Reply
  7. Pete Avatar
    Pete

    https://vocaroo.com/i/s1pjYbhZ19a6

    Like

    Reply
    1. The Kiwi Gun Blog Avatar
      The Kiwi Gun Blog

      Thanks chap

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Pav Cancel reply