Cops have said today that it is clear that Tom Phillips had help recently, judging by the stuff that's lying around in the second camp. And what police are planning to do is to trace where that stuff came from.
So if it's not stolen, where did it come from? Who gave it to Tom Phillips? If it's bought, who bought it for Tom Phillips, who were the guns registered to?
Now, this is incredibly frustrating to talk about because as of Monday, there is a suppression order in the courts, which means the full picture here is not out.
But even without that full picture, I think that what we already know is serious enough for his accomplices to understand that they are in big trouble if they get caught.
One man is dead, a police officer almost died, and those children were put in harm's way - basically every single day that they were in the bush. At any time, they might have come across a police officer.
Now imagine how much more dangerous it would have been if it wasn't just one child, but all of them who were with him when he was confronted by a police officer and pulled a weapon on that officer and kicked off a gunfight.
He took a child to rob a bank, he took a child to burgle a dairy, he took a child to burgle PGG Wrightson, he gave his daughter a gun.
She pointed it at someone during the bank robbery. At any one of those moments, who knows if they come across a cop, he pulled his gun and kicked off a gunfight.
Now, the accomplices cannot say that they didn't know. This has been going on for years.
If they were helping him as recently as police believe, then they knew - and they deserved to be dragged before the courts for it.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
28 comments:
Heather, I would strongly suggest you step back from the wall to wall media coverage of Tom Phillips and his kids. It’s the typical overkill by an nz msm media short on resources and talent. And that’s definitely not you.
Why not start a discussion in the same vein on the assault on women’s rights by a cabal of law commissioners pontificating on gender identity rights and pushing it to become legalised?
goes on every day in Auckland and thats apparently ok - robberies, burglaries, theft, ram raids, GBH, shoot ups and when caught they get PD and are lionised even by the courts. No police witch hunt for their supporters. Tom Phillips isnt evil, hes a symptom of broken NZ
I hope they never trace it and they leave his family to grieve in peace.
Was criminal as are any who helped him. He was also a bad father for what he did to his children.
Just imagine if there was some focus on the Family Court and the irreparable damage it inflicts on men in this country.
Get to the key area of concern.
This article is incredibly naive, and I find it difficult to believe it is by a professional journalist.
There are ALWAYS many versions and perspectives on events and rarely is it black and white.
I find it rather childish the threats aimed at those who may have aided the deceased.
Their motivations are unknown and with a warped logic to suppress any independent analysis or story perhaps it will remain that way.
I believe this website might also reconsider who they invite to contribute articles and focus on those who seek truth rather than throw tantrums.
Wow. There are some "unusual" comments here from "anonymous".
Just asking the question, heather: if police cannot penetrate the cone of silence by three people (and their associates, one presumes) to make an arrest over the violent killing of ruthless empire two years ago, then it’s obvious all Phillips’ family and friends and associates, the township in fact, have to do is keep mum. And that would be my advice. Omertà by the gangs is neither exclusive nor copyrighted.
This tragedy has all the hallmarks of having been a very poorly planned and considered police operation. It has all the hallmarks of nothing more than a rush of blood to the head by the local police staff. With a very substantial probability that it might go horribly wrong
Were senior police staff outside the region contacted at all ? No one has suggested they were and much of the police communication has already been detailed. Was there any consideration that such a confrontational approach might end as it did ? What was the rush after four years of such a minimal effort by the police that it needed to be brought to a conclusion with guns and roadblocks in the middle of the night knowing there would be children present ?
If senior police management out of the district had been contacted and the matter given greater and more reasoned analysis would such a course of action been followed ?
I hope not. Because the tragic result was always a very possible outcome.
What does Doug mean by “unusual”?
Anonymous @ 2:66
Considered opinion is usually given based on what is known, not on what we think should have happened.
Hopefully the truth will out and those directly affected can go forward without too much scaring.
Well to this point in time there has been no indication that senior police management from further afield ,ie Hamilton or Auckland were involved in planning the operation. And they have spoken volumes on this incident already.
Imagine if the child had been killed. But I can't imagine they thought of that .
It was a polite word for "stupid" !
We must wonder if the presence of embedded media wanting a story hyped up the police to an act so ill-consdidered
Whatever the truth I doubt some or many would change their preconceived opinions based on their biases and conspiracy tendencies. Other axes to grind manifest themselves in the slants on here. And snide comments.
I would like to see what the court is keeping under wraps for now.
Questions I have are 1. He originally had custody of the children. I heard comments as to why from people in Pio Pio on Tuesday. Cannot be said here. The history of this leads to :
2. Questions over agency and other involvement in the custody matters and disputes.
3.. The Phillips family told Stuff they had been shafted by police and media several times. What were those alleged shaftings and when?
The matter had reached a stage where it needed to be closed for the children's sake and reintegration. Whatever was going through Tom P's mind things were escalating.
Trying to arrest him away from ALL the children (where they were away from bullets fired by EITHER side) was going to be a hard ask.
Perhaps the police were trying/hoping to achieve a peaceful outcome through others over time but it never happened. I would like to see more information come out.
I have a relative and former colleagues (Male) who went through protracted custody battles with debatable outcomes despite much evidence in their favour. It was unpleasant to say the least. One was driven to distraction.
I'm with Doug, if I think he means barmy! If my son had done something like that with my grandchildren - which he never would - I would have been out there every day - until I found him and marched him back home to stand in the naughty corner until he saw sense. What a farce King country!
Fully agree. Media overkill... and Police Minister too opinionated
Chuck Bird..... too easy to air mistaken and shallow opinions. Best keep zip on mouth. FACTS... Chuck - it is not up to you to decide.
You are RIGHT. Earlier players in the sad story are yet to examined. FACTS..... are useful.
Think cops are covering backsides???
There's this brilliant phrase I was taught back in the day by Mum and Dad. I've tried to live by it, and I think it should still apply today, even if social mores have changed. It's quite simple. Perhaps you will find it useful in your own lives: "Mind your own business."
Enjoying the banter and debate on this one. I can heard Darude - Sandstorm as I read through the comments
Matters like this that affect a community and relationships within it are I suggest many peoples' business.
Am I the only one to be rather taken aback (understatement) to hear the Minister of Police call Phillips a "monster" guilty of using his children as "human shields"? His evidence is his observation that most people don't take their kids into the bush for years on end. It doesn't seem to occur to him that most of us neither have the necessary skills to do so, nor have had the prior experiences that prompted him to do so. In other words, "monster" and using the children as "human shields" appear to be rather odd and unnecessary histrionics.
Which prompts the question, why the need for such melodramatics? Whose interests are best served by these theatrics? Not mine and probably not yours. Definitely not the children. Nor their family on both sides. It looks to me like it is designed to make the killing of Phillips more palatable to the public. And if so, one must wonder, why doest thou protest so much? In other words, it seems that the minister's protestations are the attempt to say "move on, nothing to see here" to those who have serious doubts about whether this was an optimal performance on the part of the police last Monday morning (understatement). Minister, the more you make such over-reaching protestations the more it looks like that.
The idea that those people who offered Tom Phillips assistance over these last 4 years broke the law and deserve to prosecuted for their efforts is certainly not unreasonable. However, it is not difficult to see how the context of this case easily raises potential situations that create moral and ethical ambiguities to test the best of us.
Imagine being a friend of Tom's that he trusts. You want the best for him and the kids. You find a way to contact him and do your very best to try and persuade him to finish this. You maintain his trust and the ability to remain in contact with him by assuring him you won't go to the police with his location. By fulfilling some of his requests you have an excuse and opportunity to meet regularly with him, give him the chance to talk to someone, another adult, he trusts. You sense you are making progress. Tom knows this can't go on forever, or even for much longer. Also, for whatever reason, you doubt that the police have the skills or ability necessary to diffuse the situation to the point where it can be brought to a safe and peaceful resolution. Tragically, it turns out you were correct in this assessment.
Now, those same police are coming after you for aiding and abetting Tom. You broke the law and will likely be prosecuted and punished. But. Do you think you made a mistake? Maybe you feel like you could have done some things better to persuade Tom to give himself up sooner. But you have no regrets that you didn't go to the police even though that meant you willingly broke the law. In your mind, breaking this law is pretty small potatoes compared to what you were hoping to achieve—a peaceful outcome for Tom and his kids. In fact now you know that your biggest decision, to not trust the police to handle this safely was far, far from a mistake. You were spot on. The evidence vindicates you on that point in spades.
You may turn out to be a criminal, but I for one do not judge you by the law alone for what you were trying to do—to be the best possible friend you could be in your assessment to a friend in very deep trouble, in his hour of greatest need. The future for the kids would have been infinitely better if you had succeeded. Hindsight proves it was worth the attempt.
The article in Stuff that included some of the police communication before the confrontation with Tom Phillips and his daughter raises some important questions. Tom knew he was being followed and probably assumed it was the police. The police knew that Tom and his daughter weren't wearing helmets and weren't using headlights. So when Tom ran over the spikes, he probably knew that the police were indifferent to his and his daughter's safety. He could very easily and reasonably have interpreted that as a physical attack on him and his daughter. Thus his response to shoot back at his presumed attacker may very well have been prompted by deep anger as well as an attempt at self-preservation to protect him and his daughter from further attack.
The early assumption that Tom started the altercation looks a lot less clear. No wonder the police were so upset with Stuff for revealing some of the communication.
So the witness who saw and reported the robbery should have 'minded their own business' ?
Exactly, Ellen.
As a father myself I totally agree with you.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.