this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1959 readers
37 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dave@lemmy.nz
RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz
28
Police shooting: Coroner rules Shargin Stephens' death was 'preventable' (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 3 days ago by Dave@lemmy.nz to c/newzealand@lemmy.nz
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Shargin Stephens was shot dead by a police officer in July 2016. Photo: RNZ/Vinay Ranchhod

Police tactics in the fatal shooting of Shargin Stephens showed a disregard for the right to life, according to a scathing coroner's report.

A probationary officer in "a heightened emotional state" pushed his way past experienced officers and got "unnecessarily and dangerously close" to Stephens, who was holding a slasher after smashing up a police car, and shot him twice with an M4 rifle.

Coroner Michael Robb ruled the death, in July 2016, was preventable and his 207-page report painted a picture of police chaos on the day, including a lack of leadership and a failure to de-escalate the situation.

The coroner said that, a decade on, it appeared police have learned little from the shooting, and the officers involved were defensive when questioned and still don't believe they did anything wrong. Police, though, say many of the changes recommended by Robb have already been implemented.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's a long article but basically an ex-military, inexperienced Police officer pushed through the line of more senior Police, murdered the guy, then lied constantly about what happened afterwards.

The officer has permanent name suppression, and I couldn't see anything saying they are no longer in the force. The coroner didn't go as far as to say they should face prosecution because it's reasonable they might have felt their own life was in danger, but it seems they unnecessarily put themselves in this position.

It's a super scathing report on Police and their disregard for life, and the bail check stuff is fucked up.

[–] Antigrav@mastodon.nz -4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

@Dave , I don't think it's fair to paint all of 'police' in the same one brush stroke.
While it is a more male oriented organization with often all the shortcomings of some lesser advanced members of that gender, a generalisation might be convenient but is unfair to all those doing the right thing.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 4 points 2 days ago

A few bad apples spoil the bushel.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The report paints Police in this way. For example:

He said L05's actions reflected his limited experience and "a level of panic", but also revealed the police attitude to the use of lethal force.

"It further highlights my concern that the current New Zealand police risk assessment encourages a justification approach, whereby being able to articulate a possible anticipated risk can be relied on to then justify a lethal force action."

It's clear in this case there was a junior police officer that made a lot of bad calls, but the article points out the coroners report highlights many failings of Police as a whole in their approach.

I'm not saying individual officers are all like this one junior officer. But Police, as an organisation, are not doing enough to train and support officers in taking the right approaches.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But Police, as an organisation, are not doing enough to train and support officers in taking the right approaches

Or ~~fire~~ redeploy the ones who can't make good calls in the field to positions where killing people isn't an option.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

One of the call outs in the report is a lack of leadership. If there was leadership on site at the time of this incident, the junior officer probably wouldn't have tried to take charge.

That to me points to something requiring training not something solved by moving people.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I read it as there were more senior/experienced officers there but they didn't correct the junior officer.

What is was trying to imply was that some officers shouldn't be (armed) on the front line. Ex-military especially.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 days ago

I read it as there were more senior/experienced officers there but they didn’t correct the junior officer.

Yes sorry I didn't mean leaders weren't present, but that they didn't show leadership.

What is was trying to imply was that some officers shouldn’t be (armed) on the front line. Ex-military especially.

There's an episode of The Rookie (or episodes or something, TBH I didn't pay too close attention my wife was watching it) where someone joins the police from the military and the training officer (why is also ex-military) is explaining to another officer basically that you are trained that there are you and enemies and enemies will try to kill you so and so on, and to become a police officer they need to be mentally reprogrammed to understand that call outs aren't to enemy combatants, they are to people who are fellow citizens who may have made bad choices but your job is to help them not kill them.

I can see that being a real issue for an ex military rookie joining the police.