Video shows armed assault on Kim Dotcom family home A New Zealand court has been shown footage of the 20 January dawn assault by police and the FBI on the home of Kim Dotcom, owner of the Megaupload file storage site. Dotcom and his co-accused – Mathias Ortmann, Fin Batato and Bram Van der Kolk – face charges of international copyright infringement related to content hosted on …
"Bit of an over reaction here don't you think?"
Not really. They were told they were going after a pirate so watched all the Pirates of the Carribean so they knew what they might be up against.
The large number of police was just in case Kim has a murderous crew with him.
The assault weapons was in case he was armed with cutlasses and cannons
The dogs were there to sniff out buried treasure.
The helicopters were there in case he tried to escape on his ship.
There was also a submarine that you didn't see just in case he was one of those undead pirates who could walk under water.
All perfectly reasonable
If I was police officer entering a residence in order to arrest someone who possessed a large number of firearms (which he did, I believe), I'd not want to politely knock, either. It's not really comparable to entering a house where there are no registered firearm owners, and no suspected risk of violent resistance.
Remember that he met the police with a shotgun to hand (according to them, anyway).
Additionally, Dotcom having lost his servers did not mean that he did not have evidence to destroy. And a large property makes that much more likely to happen, as there is time to do so. A rapid and dynamic entry drastically decreases those odds.
@AC.
Not sure how many times it has to be said........they had the plans, including the panic room.
Now, if I was entering a house of that size and wanted someone to start, where would I.......................maybe the panic room?
So, unless the walk was 15 minuts to the panic room, seems they were a little slow on the uptake. And to reiterate yet again, they were so concerned about the occupants that they chose not to wear body armour, so entering each room carefully and 'dynamically' doesn't seem to have been a worry to them. Anyway, a dynamic entry is about getting in quickly and clearing the building quickly. You absolutely don't take your time and give them an ooportunity to ambush you.
@AC.
So, according to you, anyone who perfectly legally and above board owns a gun (or number thereof) needs to be tackled 'dynamically'? If you hadn't noticed, the people who give the police most grief are actually those who keep guns WITHOUT registration (and therefore without police knowledge). Legal gun owners are relatively speaking a very law abiding group of people. Additionally, if I was assaulting someones house who I knew owned firearms and thought might have a propensity to use then, I think body armour would be my first port of call, but they chose not to wear any!! The risk of being shot was so high, no protection was required!!
Yes, according to police he had a shotgun in hand, although as their testimony to date has been somewhat suspect (as have their warrants), this should be treated with scepticism. The police, in a lot of countries, make a lot of claims after the event, which have been shown to be lies of gross misrepresentations.
Given that it took them so long to locate dotcom, your last point seems somewhat moot. They needed the raid to be dynamic so as to prevent him destroying data and then still took forever to find him!! Obviously, their tactics failed at every level.
"So, according to you, anyone who perfectly legally and above board owns a gun (or number thereof) needs to be tackled 'dynamically'?"
If I were a police officer, entering the home of a known criminal who has a security TEAM, who has the means and motive to destroy evidence and who once drove a policeman off the road, I would put my own safety and those of my colleagues above the discomfort of getting the suspect out of bed rudely at 6am, yes.
I would not knock politely, and nor would the UK police, given the circumstances. Perhaps entering the homes of armed people is handled more casually in the States, but in the UK it tends to be taken a bit more seriously. NZ seems to have a similar outlook.
"If you hadn't noticed, the people who give the police most grief are actually those who keep guns WITHOUT registration (and therefore without police knowledge). Legal gun owners are relatively speaking a very law abiding group of people."
Generally, yes; I agree. But again, he's not your average gun owner. The typical law-abiding gun owner does not pose for photos with assault weapons, drive other people off the road because they're in the way, nor have an on-site security team which includes a suspected gang member.
"Additionally, if I was assaulting someones house who I knew owned firearms and thought might have a propensity to use then, I think body armour would be my first port of call, but they chose not to wear any!! The risk of being shot was so high, no protection was required!!"
It's a balance of protection and mobility, and they made a choice. Maybe it was hot and they had a lot of ground to cover. Personally, I do find it mildly alarming that they didn't bother with it, too.
"Given that it took them so long to locate dotcom, your last point seems somewhat moot. They needed the raid to be dynamic so as to prevent him destroying data and then still took forever to find him!! Obviously, their tactics failed at every level."
I don't think that we can so easily judge that. There was more than one person in the house, and Kim was hiding in a panic room (which aren't usually advertised with neon signs, and are normally hidden, correct?).
They may have prioritised securing evidence, or arresting the security staff. Who knows? We sure don't.
"If I were a police officer, entering the home of a known criminal who has a security TEAM, who has the means and motive to destroy evidence and who once drove a policeman off the road, I would put my own safety and those of my colleagues above the discomfort of getting the suspect out of bed rudely at 6am, yes.
I would not knock politely, and nor would the UK police, given the circumstances. Perhaps entering the homes of armed people is handled more casually in the States, but in the UK it tends to be taken a bit more seriously. NZ seems to have a similar outlook."
Errrr......known criminal? So, anyone who ever gets any criminal conviction is labelled one forever? Or, are you referring to the alleged copyright violation and therefore calling him a criminal before he's even been to trial let alone found guilty.
"Generally, yes; I agree. But again, he's not your average gun owner. The typical law-abiding gun owner does not pose for photos with assault weapons, drive other people off the road because they're in the way, nor have an on-site security team which includes a suspected gang member."
Not in the UK maybe, but its common in America and other parts of the world. Not everybody thinks of guns in the same way as we (the Brits) do and not everyone has a problem with them being in a photo. So, posing with guns is a pretty poor excuse of a reason to call him 'not the average gun owner'. Last time I heard, having an on-site security team wasn't a crime and plenty of American Hollywood stars have them and also pose with guns. Does that mean they're the same? A suspected gang member is just that...suspected. I could say I suspect you of being a gang member, but without evidence and a small detail of a trial, it's all unsubstantiated rumour.
"It's a balance of protection and mobility, and they made a choice. Maybe it was hot and they had a lot of ground to cover. Personally, I do find it mildly alarming that they didn't bother with it, too."
Fraid this simply doesn't wash. We're not talking about the 80s here. Armour today is pretty light and flexible (especially the type used by police rather than the army) and doesn't impede mobility to any great extent. If police choose to wear it all the time when patrolling perfectly normal streets, it pretty much means it isn't much of an issue, so the decision not to use it on this raid shows it was all show and absolutely nothing about risk at all. If the SAS assaulted the Iranian embassy in full 80s body armour given that they were abseiling, saying it was done because of reduced mobility is absolute rubbish.
"I don't think that we can so easily judge that. There was more than one person in the house, and Kim was hiding in a panic room (which aren't usually advertised with neon signs, and are normally hidden, correct?).
They may have prioritised securing evidence, or arresting the security staff. Who knows? We sure don't."
If securing him was a lower priority than securing the evidence, what does it matter how long it took to find him. However, it's the police themselves that are justifying the raid and its method by claiming this was important!! They can't have it both ways. Also, the panic room would have either been on the plans or been pretty obvious even though no labelled as such, due to the construction of such things.
All in all, the police are clutching at any straw to try and justify their Hollywood movie making antics. They are simply excuses and nothing to do with reality.
"Errrr......known criminal? So, anyone who ever gets any criminal conviction is labelled one forever? Or, are you referring to the alleged copyright violation and therefore calling him a criminal before he's even been to trial let alone found guilty."
Dude: Read up on the guy. He 'nudged' another car off the road during an illegal road race, because it was in the way. That's a little more than copyright infringement.
I'm also personally leery about people who feel the need to post photos on the Net of them posing with assault weapons, but that's just me, I guess.
"Not in the UK maybe, but its common in America and other parts of the world."
I'm not an expert on NZ gun laws, but I believe them to be a middle ground between the UK and US. NZ police don't carry firearms routinely, so I think a cautious approach on their behalf was probably justified.
"Last time I heard, having an on-site security team wasn't a crime and plenty of American Hollywood stars have them and also pose with guns. Does that mean they're the same? A suspected gang member is just that...suspected. I could say I suspect you of being a gang member, but without evidence and a small detail of a trial, it's all unsubstantiated rumour."
But we're not talking about a trial. We're talking about risk assessment. Remember that armed police kicking in the doors to bomb-making shops are dealing with "suspected" criminals, but still use caution and shock and awe. You don't say "oh, well we only think that they're violent criminals, so let's leave the guns behind".
"All in all, the police are clutching at any straw to try and justify their Hollywood movie making antics. They are simply excuses and nothing to do with reality."
Perhaps. Maybe even 'probably'. But I can understand them wanting to take a cautious approach and not just knocking and politely asking to pop in. Even in the UK your door would likely be pried off the hinges at 5am with a Hoolie Bar, even if there were no firearms on site. And if you were a registered firearms owner, armed police would attend.
I'm not justifying a helicopter and assault rifles, but I can see why the police were armed and hit at dawn.
'tends to be taken a bit more seriously.'
get tha fuck outta here - this is keystone cops from start to finish.
The real reason for the shock and awe apporoach, is cos MI5 had told them he had WMD on the premises.
boken warrant, no body armour, dodgy removal of evidence, a rapid and dynamic entry that took almost 1/4 of an hour to find the bad guy.....
You Ess Ayyy... Fuck yeah!
the term clusterfuck springs irresistibly to mind
@cornz1
I never said ALL were, but as a part of society, on average, they are more law abiding than non-gun owners. That is proven by statistics. Not to say you might not get a few over a long period of time who go nuts. The cases you are talking of, were due to mental illness and in at least 1 of the cases, police probably should have removed his gun licence beforehand as they were aware of his mental issues.
Rather than insult me ('nob'), perhaps you would be better off doing some research and seeing how many people die each year in this country due to legally held guns (through deliberate act rather than misadventure) against those through illegally held guns. Try looking up places like London and Moss Side etc. and see how many shootings there are with illegally held guns. Once you have these figures, perhaps you'll be able to realise both where the issue actually lies and also who the 'nob' is.......
It is a pure wonder that he wasn't riddled if he met the police with a shotgun. Police tend to get jumpy and adrenalin-hyped after a while on the job. There was a time (about four years) in my life when I was frisked roughly once a month, sometimes two or three times. I never have found out why. It was extremely irritating and occasionally unnerving when one partner would play target while the other crouched behind a car door and you could tell from posture and arm position that he had his weapon out. I used to think Britain might be a safer place police-wise, but being part Portuguese in descent, I now wonder.
That guy was probably crapping himself. Helicopters, people with guns, etc. A "subdued" security guard?
If I had one, I'd have my shotgun handy as well.
And WTF - loads of people in America have guns and do US cops storm a house first? Kim isn't going to pop a cap in the ass of someone who politely knocks on the front door, and ask if he would mind accompanying him to the station.
And why didn't they arrest him when he was out of the house?
In which case all thy had to be concerned about was him escaping, especially since the officers were told the didn't need body armour.
I have taken time to think about this and can now say that it was intended to terrorise him and anyone else there.
Those involed should be arrested as terrorists.
Hardly a puzzle. The USA says "frog" and countries like New Zealand just jump. And in the USA, when the RIAA/MPAA says "jump" the US government doesn't bother asking "how high", they just follow the orders of their corporate masters.
"Rule of law" my hairy buttocks. They trashed that in the 50's and haven't looked back since.
The Colt Commander is a pistol, chambered in 9-mm Parabellum or in .45 ACP. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Commander>
The Colt Commando, which is what I suspect you meant, is a rifle, chambered in 5.56-mm NATO and is the submachine gun version of the M16. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Commando> It has a noticeably shorter barrel, and hence is less useful at longer ranges, than either the M16 or the M4. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Carbine> (Note that the M4 is a carbine, not a rifle, and is designed with close-quarter combat in mind. Note also that there is now a 'version' of the M4 which is classed as a SMG, not a carbine, and which also has the name 'Commando', in a triumph of marketing based on the success of the original, 1960s-vintage, Commando and of the success of the current M4 line. It is actually based on the 1960s Commandos, not the M4s.)
The traditional military uses for the Colt Commando are those of other current SMGs: something for use by vehicle crews, military police, and special forces operating in dense urban areas or other locales where sight ranges are likely to be short and the lack of effect at long range is not likely to be significant. Civilian uses typically involve special duty police forces; again, long range is not likely to be a useful factor, but high cyclic rate and large magazine capacity is. Therefore this would be _exactly_ the type of weapon used by paramilitary special assault police, such as those NZ constables.
"The Colt Commando, which is what I suspect you meant, is a rifle, chambered in 5.56-mm NATO and is the submachine gun version of the M16."
No; it's a carbine.
It fires rifle ammunition and would be considered large by SMG standards.
You can cheerfully cap people from 300m with it and pass APWT with it, if you've got a good eye. You can't do that with an MP5.
"Therefore this would be _exactly_ the type of weapon used by paramilitary special assault police, such as those NZ constables."
No; it shouldn't be. Paramilitary weapons should be small enough to use in confined spaces, and the Commando is a carbine and less than ideal for that. More to the point, police weapons shouldn't have ammunition that can cruise through walls and people like 5.56mm does. An actual SMG like the MP5 is much more appropriate.
> Methinks someone wanted to play some real life Counter Strike and used the raid as an excuse... any other explanation is just too mind bogglingly stupid to contemplate.
You mean the explanation as to where the FBI pressured the New Zealand Government into launching a real life Stazi assault on Dotcoms home. This in retalation for his alleged piracy of some US corporations.
>Methinks someone wanted to play some real life Counter Strike and used the raid as an excuse...
It's not as simple and innocent as that, thought, is it?
This is a demonstartion of the overwhelming access to force, and willingness to delpoy it, in the interests of The United States' Copyright Cartels, their political wing (the US Government) and their leveraged territories around the world (every country whose governments can be 'leaned on' through the threat of withdrawal of economic 'stimulus', or outright prejudicial sanction).
This is a display of force. By Universal, by Disney, by Warner, by all those nice people who bring you your favourite entertainments.
Nice people aren't they?
dmaidlow, I believe you may have got it! Why else would I find this line in a local NZ news item -
"The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed. "
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7429534/Kim-Dotcom-takes-the-stand-over-raids)
Surely this can't be the Crown's idea, since if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. It must be that they don't want any unauthorized footage from the movie being pirated on teh interwebs.
Maybe dotcom should launch a movie based on his experiences, put it in stores for a price nobody is willing to pay, and then host it on a megauplload type site. Then he can complain when nobody is buying it, get the USA to destroy another legitimate business, giving him an opening to relaunch megaupload.
Pirate bay had the right idea with their satelites.
Helicopter, 4 vans of armed police officers, kicking the sole unarmed suspect to the floor? How typically bloody American. I do hope the kicker gets his arse sued by DotCom for use of excessive force.
It sounds like the yanks got themselves a bit over-excited when planning this raid. He's a suspected wilful copyright infringer, not an armed drugs-baron!
I look forward to seeing this case continue to collapse in both NZ and the USA. The worse the DoJ and Hollywood come out of this, the better.
"unarmed suspect"
That's frankly balls. There were firearms on the property. To quote the police:
"In this case, there were firearms on the property - as exhibited by the photos of Dotcom with guns - and experienced security personnel."
"The sergeant said the second suspect was bodyguard Wayne Tempero. He had made several notes about Tempero, including his alleged association with the Head Hunters gang and his history as a well-trained security expert. The sergeant also noted Dotcom had a current and an ex-police officer on his security team. The current officer had possible experience with the Diplomatic Protection Squad."
So the guy has guns, a security TEAM which includes a probable gang member and a professionally trained cop. Imagine UK police getting briefed with that. You think you'd get a friendly knock on the door? You're living in a dream world if you do.
@AC.
How exactly did dotcom have a current police officer on his team? Was this a spot of moonlighting? Also, whilst others might resist arrest, are the police really suggesting one of their own (and potentially an ex one of their own) would put up resistance against them to the point of opening fire? If so, they really need to look at their recruiting methods!!
'You're living in a dream world if you do.'
And you're living in a Nazi stormtrooper world if you think they should. They had absolutely no reason to believe he would resist in any way, let alone open fire. This is clear as they chose not to wear body armour, which is pretty much standard when patrolling on the streets let alone go into a property. Yet, not required here.
Theres only one thing worse than bad police officers......and that's apologists for bad police officers.
"How exactly did dotcom have a current police officer on his team? Was this a spot of moonlighting?"
I don't know. Perhaps. But that's what has been stated by the police. Do we know their regulations as regards moonlighting? No; so I don't think we can just say 'that's not true' to it.
"Also, whilst others might resist arrest, are the police really suggesting one of their own (and potentially an ex one of their own) would put up resistance against them to the point of opening fire?"
Perhaps they were more concerned with the suspected gang member?
"And you're living in a Nazi stormtrooper world if you think they should."
Let's say that you are a police officer. You have a wife and kids. You are to enter the house of a criminal who has a team of security and firearms in the house. Even if there is only a 5% chance of them trying to murder you and you or one of your co-workers getting shot, would you knock nicely? If you were in charge of the raid and knew that if an officer got shot at, you would be personally responsible for telling them to knock nicely and leave the guns at home, what call would you make? Risk management.
" They had absolutely no reason to believe he would resist in any way, let alone open fire."
How can you say that with any certainty? And how can you say that about his security team?
"Theres only one thing worse than bad police officers......and that's apologists for bad police officers."
Laughable. Utterly laughable.
That you insinuate that I am the only thing worse in the world than a corrupt or violent policeman based on an internet discussion about a situation which you were not present at and have only a limited amount of information speaks volumes of you and your judgement.
@AC
1) The police suspected one of the security group had connections to a gang, not that they were a member of said gang. Connections could mean anything from a family member being in the gang to him dating the sister of the girlfriend of a brother to a member of the gang: It's not specified as to what the suspected connection was.
2) The police did a risk assessment and decided body armour was not needed. That indicates they didn't expect to be shot at, which indicates limited, non-violent resistance was the worst they were expecting.
So the only reason for the raid was to prevent any potential evidence present from being destroyed. Guns were deployed as a threat, which simply put civilians at risk of accidental shooting - which does happen, and is what DotCom claimed he was scared would happen. If it wasn't for that, the police should have turned up with an arrest warrant: No raid, no guns, just the warrant. Nothing else would have been needed.
@AC.
You don't get my point. If he could legally hire a serving police officer, that's fine. However, the police are trying to justify the operation partly on the basis they suspect there might be an attempt to stop them, including live fire. Are they seriously suggesting a serving officer would a) work for someone like that and b) not try to intervene if that happened. Bear in mind the officer would likely be INSIDE the house!! Also, I would have thought the ex police officer would be of the same thought. So, dotcom had used people for his security team that you would expect to side with the police during any attempt at entry.......Yeah. The work of a real bad boy there.
If the police really had any concern that they might come under fire, they would have worn armour. It isn't anywhere as bulky or cumbersome as that of the past and they wear it all the time whilst patrolling such hostile territory as residential neighbourhoods and just about anywhere. So, not wearing it on this raid shows beyond any reasonable doubt that they didn't expect anything. Anybody who believes otherwise is simply mad.
You are choosing to defend people who were clearly and obviously showboating, playing to the cameras and turning what should have been a perfectly normal raid into some sort of commando assault. Talk about lack of judgement. It's people like you defending them that simply encourages them to continue with this type of outrageous behaviour.
"You are choosing to defend people who were clearly and obviously showboating, playing to the cameras and turning what should have been a perfectly normal raid into some sort of commando assault. Talk about lack of judgement."
No, I'm pointing out the other side of the argument, which a lot of readers clearly bypassed on their way to passing judgement; ignoring or not knowing that there was a security team and firearms in the building.
Yes: The chopper and armalites are straight out of Miami Vice. Probably totally overboard.
But I'd have sent in armed officers as well. So would UK police.
"It's people like you defending them that simply encourages them to continue with this type of outrageous behaviour."
It's people like you making swift judgements in situations where all the evidence is not available and who make further snap judgements about the motives and reasoning of anyone who dares offer an opposing opinion who are the problem in my mind.
That and standing at the sidelines whining about the government in the internet, instead of doing anything. I'll wager I'm a lot more involved in liberal politics and protest than you'll ever be. If it matters so much to you, please get off your arse and come and join the protests.
"alleged association with the Head Hunters gang" <> "a probable gang member"
"photos of Dotcom with guns" <> "the guy has guns"
Please don't exaggerate. All you have is someone who might be associated with a gang and that Dotcom had his picture taken with some guns. In separate reports there is a claim that some of his security had licensed firearms, and that there was a shotgun (belonging to one of the security guards as I recall) in the panic room (red room) but nothing about Dotcom owning or keeping firearms.
And yes, even with all that, I'd expect a friendly knock on the door by a policeman with a warrant. The only exception is if they had evidence I had evidence of criminal activity that I might destroy given time, and in this case, the accusation was for a civil offense, not a criminal one. Or do you think the police should go in mob handed to every private home and business where there is a claim of a civil offense taking place just to prevent possible evidence being deleted?
"And yes, even with all that, I'd expect a friendly knock on the door by a policeman with a warrant. The only exception is if they had evidence I had evidence of criminal activity that I might destroy given time, and in this case, the accusation was for a civil offense, not a criminal one. Or do you think the police should go in mob handed to every private home and business where there is a claim of a civil offense taking place just to prevent possible evidence being deleted?"
Then you are clearly a law-abiding citizen who has reasonable expectations of the police and how they are treated. Good for you. If everyone was like that, the police could and would knock nicely.
Unfortunately, that's not how the police operate. And they don't operate like that because the actual scum in this world will be out the back window with a lap-top in a shot, in that situation. Plus they'd rather use shock and awe than even face the smallest risk of getting a kitchen knife or heroin needle stuck in them. Which is sadly what happens, too regularly.
Wot a cack of punts!
The raid may have had an 'American' flavour, but you'll see the same type of thing all over the West: Police who are completely entranced by all their gear & the excitement of it all, who treat us, The Public, with utter contempt. The Armed Cops in The UK are completely out of control, their MO being to kill first and don't answer any questions later. They're not subject to the law, but even if the IPCC & the DPP do allow a case to go forward, the Magistrates or Judges don't or won't hold them to account
I can think of Mr Duggan, and that poor Brazillian fellow... may a few more over the last decade. But I wouldn't consider these few incidents, in a country of 60 million people, to amount to our armed police to be "completely out of control, their MO being to kill first and don't answer any questions later."
AFAIK, the individual officers and their command structure have been investigated every time somebody is shot.... months of tedium that I for one would wish to avoid.
My take is that if our society decrees that it is necessary for some officers of the law to be armed, we must also accept some of the responsibility should an innocent person be shot. After all, the shooting officer is only human, and though he/she will have tried to explore (with drills and training) how he will behave in a real situation (with all its attendant urgency and confusion), they remain fallible. This is not to say that all coppers are innocent, just that some can act in good faith and to the best of their abilities yet still pull the trigger in a situation that, in 20/20 hindsight, turns out not to have demanded it.
Last I heard, a year after shooting Mr Duggan, we're still waiting for the officers involved to deign to answer a few questions about it from the IPCC. If they're not too busy, and happen to feel like it, naturally. No rush or anything... I mean it only caused a riot. Something tells me if a member of the public had shot and killed a police officer, he'd have been questioned and charged somewhat speedier than one year later...
reminds me of an old joke. Or was it a true story.
An old man hears a noise out in the back yard, and sees some kids hanging around his shed, so he calls the police and tells them "I think some kids are trying to break into my shed, could you send somebody over?"
The police replied that the soonest they could get anyone there would be 45 minutes, so he'd have to hold on until then. A few minutes passed and he called them again.
"No need to send the police now... I shot them."
A group of police cars were outside his door within five minutes.
"Last I heard, a year after shooting Mr Duggan, we're still waiting for the officers involved to deign to answer a few questions about it from the IPCC."
True, as of three days ago, apparently.
"If they're not too busy, and happen to feel like it, naturally. No rush or anything... I mean it only caused a riot. Something tells me if a member of the public had shot and killed a police officer, he'd have been questioned and charged somewhat speedier than one year later..."
Hearings into this kind of thing take years to complete. It's a balance between speedy justice and getting the full story in.
Saying that: Look at murder trials. Someone might have been charged for murder in a short period of time, but murder trials take YEARS. Hell: It took 9 months for the guy who burgled my house to finally even GET to court.
"Saying that: Look at murder trials. Someone might have been charged for murder in a short period of time, but murder trials take YEARS. Hell: It took 9 months for the guy who burgled my house to finally even GET to court."
That was so he could commit many, many more. Then, he could ask for them to be taken into consideration and get let off lightly. At the same time, police cleanup figures shoot up. Result all round!!
I don't think you want to limit this to armed police. The 'Brazillian fellow' was from my point of view, a failure of intelligence and correct briefing. The person who actually killed him believed he was up against a suicide bomber and under those circumstances, you have few choices and no real chance to be nice and suggests a surrender. If they're willing to die anyway, they're not likely to come quietly. Killing them quickly is generally (and especially in an underground train) the only solution (just hope they don't have a dead man on the detonator). Duggan is a bit different, but again, the police seem to have been briefed wrongly and were under a false impression of what they were likely to meet.
A better example would be the chap shot dead whilst naked and in his bedroom in Hastings. A naked bloke coming at you with nothing in his hands is hardly likely to be a risk to life and limb. I've watched several documentaries on armed police and have never failed to be appalled by their lack of skills and apparent lack of sense. I've also spoken to a lot of ex-forces personnel who now work for the police and to a man, they consider the armed squads appalling in every way. Basically, there's a fair number of very gung ho people getting into them (and the police in general) and they are giving the police a very bad name.
Another example is the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. How he got found not guilty I'll never know. He even admitted in court that he shouldn't have pushed/hit him!! Then, his past comes out. A list of complaints and abuse as long as your arm and yet he's still in the police!! You couldn't make it up.
Until someone starts getting the right people into the police and getting the wrong people out, this is going to continue. Unfortunately, there seems no interest in doing this and the various police federations/unions etc. all refuse to believe there is a single bad copper and will defend anyone.
I've got no problem with the police making mistakes, provided someone is held to account and the action of the individual was reasonable given what they knew and the circumstances etc. We're all human and make mistakes, it's just that some are potentially more terminal. However, between the courts and the police/IPCC themselves, we seem completely unwilling to hold anyone to account. The guy who killed Ian Tomlinson was guilty as sin. The guy who killed the Brazillian was probably not given the briefing and circumstances, but the person running the operation (Cressida Dick) and the intelligence people were guilty of incompetence. The intelligence forces didn't even properly identify the guy!!
"The Armed Cops in The UK are completely out of control, their MO being to kill first and don't answer any questions later"
What world are you in? A quick google shows that the Humberside police alone typically deploy ARVs 150 times a year. Are there 150+ people gunned down in Humberside by police every year? No.
Every time a policeman shoots a civilian it's front page news in this country. For days. Despite the fact that firearms units are deployed thousands of times a year.
A quick wiki: "In the year 2007-08, there were 6,780 Authorised Firearms Officers, 21,181 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used."
So firearms are used 0.03% of the time.
UK police from 95-2010 shot dead a total of 33 people.
Now the US figures appear to be suspiciously hard to find, but how about starting to look here: http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force before you throw your ill-thought comments around, for comparison.
Conclusion: You are talking utter, utter crap.
You seem to be arguing that, since Humberside Police don't shoot down 150+ people annually, all is fine, but you don't seem to really understand the statistics you quote, particularly in response to what I actually said.
The operative word was 'control' - do you think these guys are under anyone's effective control? I don't. They seem to be making up their own rules and are completely unaccountable. I didn't say they were getting their weapons out & arbitrarily shooting innocent people down regularly, though the number of cases when they do do that is rather frightening. A far better Google would be how often are the shootings they're involved in appropriate and perhaps more relevantly, how often are they called to account when they're not?. Never, seems to be the answer.
By any clear eyed measure, we can say with confidence that Terrorists and criminals cannot hope to achieve their ultimate aims, so long as we decide to oppose them. They can have the odd success, but the only people who can seriously effect our democracy & freedoms, threadbare as they are in The UK and in the West Generally, are our own Governments and their agents. You may not fear this is what they're doing at the moment, but I do.
When the pr*cks with the guns are not under effective control, are making up their own rules and are completely unaccountable, then you know you're in real trouble as a society. Recently, we saw UK armed Police on TV posing with their weapons, acting like children, delighted with the sheer excitement of it all. I don't trust them. Is it OK with you if someone you love is assassinated by these armed children and don't choose to answer for it? It's not OK with me.
It doesn't matter what the High Court comes out with now, they have no way of backtracking on the fact that NZ is clearly the US' little bitch. Seriously what a joke. Whoever signed off on the tactics used in this raid is a total and utter f*cking c*nt. Western police forces around the planet need to seriously evaluate how they treat members of the public because, apart from serving them when they aren't trying to knock seven shades of shite out of them for taking a photo, they are completely and utterly outnumbered. They'd do well to remember that fact as the London riots showed them.
Doubt that NZ is a bitch to Israel. New Zealand was seen as a soft spot to obtain passports fraudulently, until Israel got caught. Bit of a fracas, really.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/16/israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Israel%E2%80%93New_Zealand_passport_scandal
This is just SOP for them.
I have a few acquaintances which have been privy to the exact same treatment for charges even more mundane than those above.
Whether it is excessive or not is besides the point, just wanting to make it clear that you could be Joe Schmo accused of a violation in not having proper paperwork to ship cardboard boxes internationally and would get very similar treatment.
The only difference here is in how publicized the case has become, which may ultimately become its undoing.
@Psyx.
Yes, if you were wandering around slowly on your own. But, they had 15-20 minimum looking (supposedly) very hard. They also had plans of the house, including the location of the panic room. Wouldn't that be the first place you'd look?
Anyway, their dynamic approach was so aimed at surprise that they landed a helicopter on the front drive!! That'll only be detectable from a fair distance and give more than enough time to destroy/hide anything required. Their entry was anything but dynamic as evidenced by the fact they didn't know where he was (a dynamic attack to render the occupants hardless should start with knowing where they are) and had had enough time to get to a panic room. If the SAS had attacked the Iranian embassy in this manner, everyone inside would have been slaughtered. They would have landed in helicopters on the road in front, before sauntering up to the doors and windows and blowing them out, before casually strolling inside to find a hail of gunfire and loads of dead hostages.
Dynamic my a**e.
To be fair: If you hear a chopper overhead at 6am, your first thoughts aren't "they're coming for me!", and you're not going to be staring out of the window to see it. And if the chopper landed before the vans got to the building then it *was* the fastest entry. Look at the place: The front drive might have been decidedly on the long side.
How would *you* get in there faster, given a secure perimeter with modern security measures and an on-site security team, hypothetically?
And no: It wouldn't be the first place I'd go to, because it's kinda contained: Once someone is in there with a locked door, they aren't a threat, and they aren't going anywhere. I'd also probably be more worried about the security staff and prioritise them. Plus; you don't just run through a mansion to get to a room: You work through it methodically to make sure nobody is running out of the door behind you or pointing a gun at your back. I imagine that quite of few of those police also wouldn't be entering, but would be outside, making sure that people didn't run off.
The SAS had a lot higher budget. If NZ police put as much effort into every armed raid as the SAS did on the Iranian embassy, the taxes would be higher.
I just don't think we should just blithely condemn an event that we were no part of, with limited information. Maybe it was a total clusterfuck (and I am entirely open to the idea that perhaps they were all "fuck yeah: Let's burst in with assault rifles from a chopper and kick some ass, man!!!" - don't mistake me playing devil's advocate for me thinking that they acted perfectly), but I don't think that any of us are in the position to judge that yet, nor condemn anyone's actions at this point.
@Psyx.
I agree that we need far more information and probably will never get it. The most damning piece of evidence is their failure to wear body armour. It simply isn't an issue these days. It doesn't get in the way to any meaningful extent and rapid entry (for drugs raids etc.) into very confined houses (rather than this rather more spacious one) is done regularly by the met, with full body armour.
If they really needed to get in there quick, they would have infultrated the perimiter first and even with modern security measures, this isn't really an issue. There are many police units that specialise in exactly that. The helicopter would have been used with an IR camera to identify the location of the occupants and if they started moving etc. So, if everyone is sleeping upstairs and nobody starts moving, you're OK!!
For information, when raiding a house, speed is everything. You do not go in slowly as this gives them time to ambush you. Specialist teams that do this all the time have known this for years and practice extensively for speed. Again, you only need to look at how long it took the SAS to get into and out of the Iranian embassy. Going slow will get you killed. Yes, some police would be outside establishing a perimiter, but there doesn't exactly seem to have been a shortage. And, if they'd used the helicopter appropriately instead of showboating with it, they would have known where everyone was, so a lot of issues go away. Finally, did they cut the power when entering? That's pretty standard as well. Those going in have night vision, leaving the defenders at a disadvantage when the lights suddenly go out. To my knowledge, they didn't cut the power, or the telephone etc. Again, at odds with their intended purpose in performing it the way they did.
You would also be very surprised at how low the SAS budget is. The NZ police budget is without doubt much bigger. Until very recently (2000ish), the SAS were very low budget indeed. It has improved a lot now, but suggesting they have more money than a whole police force is well wide of the mark.
"The most damning piece of evidence is their failure to wear body armour. It simply isn't an issue these days."
It's incongruous, I agree. What was the temperature at that time? That's the only get-out clause that I consider viable.
"If they really needed to get in there quick, they would have infultrated the perimiter first and even with modern security measures, this isn't really an issue."
That's not getting in quick. Look at the size of the green spaces around the place. Why do that when you can just short-cut it all and land in the garden?
Plus, by your method, it'd have taken 45 minutes to find him, given 30 minutes to crawl around in bushes with wirecutters and jog across the lawn.
"The helicopter would have been used with an IR camera to identify the location of the occupants and if they started moving etc. So, if everyone is sleeping upstairs and nobody starts moving, you're OK!!"
IR doesn't work like that on buildings of that size, yet. Despite what the movies say. You can't see through that kind of roof space and several floors, even with thermographs.
"For information, when raiding a house, speed is everything."
Speed and security. You never leave stuff at your back. The army SOP is to put a grenade into every room and a round or ten into everything that could hide someone: Police cannot do that. That slows things down a bit. So you either send in some guys to quickly clear the place, or do it slowly, or send in a front-team to quickly sweep and follow it with a better search. So that first team are going to miss stuff, obviously... like maybe the panic room. I'm not excusing it; just pointing out that the timeframe might not be indicative of them being totally inept.
"Again, you only need to look at how long it took the SAS to get into and out of the Iranian embassy. Going slow will get you killed. "
They swung in the windows and were dealing with a hostage situation, having shoot-to-kill orders. That's an apple and an orange there, chap.
"Finally, did they cut the power when entering? That's pretty standard as well. Those going in have night vision, leaving the defenders at a disadvantage when the lights suddenly go out. "
Did they even have NVGs? Do the team even have them? If not, then clearly their budget is a little lower than those of special forces. I've certainly never seen UK police with them; armed or not.
"Secondly, the helicopters had been specially modified for low noise operation."
Mate; That's entirely moot. You can still hear them half a mile away, and especially if they land in your back yard. And a chopper over Pakistan is going to alert armed militia a lot earlier than a chopper over sleepy NZ suburbs.
Post Script:
"Anyway, their dynamic approach was so aimed at surprise that they landed a helicopter on the front drive!!"
So did the SEAL team that took out Bin Laudin, remember? If people who do this kind of thing as a way of life think it's sometimes a valid way of launching a surprise attack, who are we armchair critics armed with only a partial view of the situation to disagree?
@Psyx
Somewhat different case. Firstly, the area around the Bin Laden compound was hostile ground. Secondly, the helicopters had been specially modified for low noise operation. Thirdly, there was only one way the operation was going to end. They weren't looking to arrest him and anybody in the way would have been (and was) killed. Totally and utterly different.
P.S.
They weren't a SEAL team. They used to be SEAL Team 6, but were removed from the SEALs and became DEVGRU. Totally different.
"So did the SEAL team that took out Bin Laudin, remember? If people who do this kind of thing as a way of life think it's sometimes a valid way of launching a surprise attack, who are we armchair critics armed with only a partial view of the situation to disagree?"
If they had shot Kim and disposed of the body at sea, it could of posed a danger to shipping.
>the news that the FBI illegally took evidence out of the country
That is what would piss me off if I lived in NZ. F__king FBI has no business being overseas being a total whore to the corporations. Eric Holder is the black Alberto Gonzalez and a total ass hat. Obama would be a lot better off if he didn't surround himself with Chicago and Harvard buddies who are worthless (such as Larry Summers).
I think I've said this before elsewhere...but...
He should have programmed an alternate-false U/P that would send out a command to remote wipe everything and trigger 0-1 overwrites. Give this U/P to all trusted admins and have the final instruction on the code to wipe out all other U/P's and to self-destruct the code.
Also, the servers should have an internal emergency "low power" backup energy source that allows the system enough power to remote wipe itself in case the feds decide to power off the servers to preserve the content.
Naturally everything would be mirrored in different world locations.
Tsk tsk.
Easier to have the data stored on encrypted hard drives. The moment it's powered off, it can't be accessed until the password is reentered. Standard OP is to take all the hardware for forensics. As soon as they power up, the drive is unreadable.
I'd also boobytrap the OS to reboot if it detected any funny business
@Psyx.
Well, if their 'approach' was designed to render it impossible for him to destroy this data, they clearly failed, as it took them at least 15 minutes to find him!! So, if the idea was right (lets stretch the imagination a little here), the police and FBI were utterly incompetent at carrying it out and they failed miserably.
All this was simply staged for the cameras, hence them handing the police helicopter footage over to a local news channel. It was a load of wi**y waving of epic proportions. You dare to do anything and this is what will happen......
"Well, if their 'approach' was designed to render it impossible for him to destroy this data, they clearly failed, as it took them at least 15 minutes to find him!!"
Maybe they located his laptops in the first minute, and clearly succeeded, though...
We don't have enough information to really know. As for incompetent... they secured evidence, nobody got shot, nobody got away. Ultimately the results were exactly what they wanted them to be, so that might be a harsh judgement. *shrug*
Now if the information was deleted, people caught bullets and fat-boy got away.... *that* would be truly incompetent!
Do you need justice? Real, Gawd fearin' jee-us-tice?
Then call "Hameic-uh Express" and we will deliver our justice right to your door!
Foreign soil? NO PROBLEM!
Due process? NO PROBLEM!
Human rights? NO PROBLEM!
International war crime? NO PROBLEM!
Didn't even ask us? NO PROBLEM! We'll do it anyway.
Hameric-uh Express - Over 200 years of defending freedom with gun in your face and our heel on your neck.
It's more than likely the reason the crown doesn't want the CCTV published is that it's likely to cover the panic room - remember the police have denied abusing Dotcom under oath and film showing otherwise would put them up on perjury charges.
NZ police have a long and sordid history of violence and abuse, up to and including gang rape in the cells, as well as a proven tendency to manufacture evidence to suit themselves (Arthur Allen Thomas, David Bain) in high profile cases. Part of the reason NZ politicians ditched the Privy Council as the ultimate appeal court was it kept overturning NZ court decisions with strongly worded statements about both police and prosecution behaviour.
There's been another high profile case collapse recently ("Urawera terrorists") in which the police made complete and utter fools of themselves and then tried to prevent evidence coming out. Local media have made more than a few Keystone Kops analogies in the DotCom case and I doubt they'll stop.
What surprises me given the USA puppeteering is that noone's brought up various similarities to plot elements in "sleeping dogs"
I have laid evidence and proof to the home office that a certain Belkin modem can just be hooked onto the 2 wires going to a property, never mind hacking, just a filter, and a laptop and modem clipped on with croc clips and the authorities would think its the line customer. Belkin has also been notified!
What has happened so far, nothing, the guy supposedly hacked into the US government, all the copyright things.
Normally an access code and handshake protocol is needed, for example Orange may have fti/xxxxxx and wacth7y, however ANYTHING will handshake with this modem!
Any solicitor out theretake note!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
