Yesterday morning 3 police officers undertook a routine drugs search warrant in a suburban house in the provincial city of Napier in the Hawkes Bay area.  Next thing all hell breaks loose and within minutes we have a fatally shot police officer, and another 2 police officers and a civilian (the offenders neighbour) severely wounded.  It's worthwhile mentioning for non-New Zealand readers that the police were unarmed, a common situation for a routine search warrant in New Zealand.  At time of writing we have an armed siege that has now been going on for over 36 hours with a heavily armed and motivated offender, citizens unable to leave their houses, and law enforcement tactical units and negotiators doing an excellent professional job to contain the situation and protect lives as best they can.  This is one of the most protracted armed incidents in the history of policing in New Zealand and will be a huge learning curve for all involved and an opportunity for the public to see the skills and dedication of the police.  Yet, always, there are the armchair critics who are more than ready to comment and add in their two cents worth.

Now, I'm the first to admit I'm a bit biased as I've had the privilege of being involved with police tactical units and negotiatiors here in New Zealand for over ten years.  I have huge respect for the boys and girls in blue who undertake these roles.  It is amazing, however, how often ill-informed comment seeps up through the cracks of media efforts to cover (ie. develop) the "facts", and talk back radio hosts efforts at posturing and opinion generation.  Driving to Auckland airport this morning (on the way to catching a flight home to Christchurch) it amazes me how quick people are to judge, comment, and give their own expertise.  Fortunately I don't believe this is necessarily the majority, but it sure is a very vocal minority.  As I said to the taxi driver, about the talk back host we were listening to, "This guy's full of bullshit."  A few facts.

1. The police are not assassins.  They can only use deadly force when in genuine belief that a human life, including their own, is at risk.  The offender has no hostages (we assume) and unless police place themselves deliberately in harms way the risk to life is minimal.  To do anything else invites the inevitable liberal backlash and, quite rightly, raises questions as to the police role as judge and executioner in this case.
2. Time is the main assistance factor in negotiations - boredom, food, water, warmth, shelter, drugs and alcohol wearing off all improve decision-making clarity and the probability an offender will peacefully surrender.
3. Unless you are in a command centre involved in the incident, or a police officer involved at the scene, you know squat!  Everything is speculation as to motive, skills, and resources available to the offender.  Television experts, including those who make guest appearances, should know this!
4. The police will be evaluating what they definitely know and taking into consideration a range of possibilities based upon verifiable information of value/relevance.  Hearsay information and comments from friends/family/acquaintances to the media will all be considered by police as leads but it is unlikely the media have a better picture of the offender than the police do. 
5. The police are not going to tell the media what their plan is.  I don't think I need to state why that is the case, yet it amazes me that some members of the media continue to think the police will.
6. Light armoured vehicles (in this case the Army LAV's) are good bullet stoppers.  If you need to go somewhere when someone may be taking shots at you with a high powered rifle with a reasonable calibre bullet that can go through a police car or an ambulance then they are nice to have around to act as a shield.  That the Army is there in a small assistance capacity does not mean that the police cannot handle the situation, and reinforces the fact that the commanders on the ground have identified a resource they may need and asked for it to keep their options open.
7. Finally, yes the police, especially the Special Tactics Group, have the skills to enter the house and end the siege but not without some risk to themselves or the offender.  Why take that risk when the offender has no hostages and the civilians in the area are as safe as they can be made to be?

So, that's my two cents worth.  A bit of informed comment for a change!