A police officer was wrong to fatally shoot an Auckland man, as he did not pose an immediate threat, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has ruled.This is the first time in its history that the IPCA has ever found a police killing to be unjustified. But don't think that anything will be done about it. The IPCA effectively prejudged any court process by saying there was insufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the police won't lay charges, and the Stuff article implies that they didn't even bother with employment action as it would not lead to a different outcome. So, this officer is effectively still in uniform, free to kill again. And IPCA secrecy means we're not even allowed to know if they've done it before - that is, if the police are protecting a serial killer.[...]
It found an officer was unjustified in shooting the 34-year-old.
He posed a “low to negligible” threat to officers and the public when he was shot, the report said.
“The Authority has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the officer’s action in shooting Mr Turia was an excessive and unreasonable use of force.
Once again, the IPCA's vision of "accountability" seems to nothing but a bad joke, a fraud on the people of Aotearoa to give the impression of oversight, while really providing none.
And this matters. Because excessive and unreasonable force is unlawful. And the use of unlawful force which results in death has a name: homicide. Whether its murder or manslaughter depends on whether you think that deliberately shooting someone necessarily means an intent to kill, but either way it's a crime, and one for which this killer officer, and the killer force which hosts them, needs to be held accountable.