Police Superintendent Tusha Penny talks to media after a man was shot by police in north Auckland.

OPINION: The shooting by police of a 29-year-old man north of Auckland over the Easter weekend followed a familiar pattern.

It began with a routine call to a man acting "erratically" in Onehunga and quickly spun out of control, ending with the man dying in a hail of police bullets on SH1 south of Warkworth.

It was a "tragedy", police said.

DAVID WHITE/STUFF The 29-year-old man's car was stopped by road spikes north of Auckland.

The usual round of investigations have been launched - a criminal inquiry and an internal one into procedures surrounding the incident, as well as an inquiry by the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

READ MORE:

* Man dies after being shot by police near Pohuehue

* Under Fire: why are more people being shot by cops?

Finally, the Coroner will hold an inquest.

If history is a guide, the following will happen: the officers will be cleared of any criminal liability (no charges have ever been laid in such a case, in modern times at least), little, if anything, will come out of the review of procedures and the IPCA might criticise aspects of the build-up but will ultimately find the shooting was "justified" because in the moment, the officers genuinely feared for their lives.

The coroner might make some recommendations, which may or may not be picked up by police, and will also absolve the officers of any wrongdoing.

But is that good enough? Did the man need to die? What could have been done differently?

DAVID WHITE/STUFF The scene of the police shooting, early on Saturday.

Stuff's Under Fire series last year found that New Zealand police shoot almost as many people as their counterparts in the UK, despite a much lower population.

Critics said they were often too quick to rush into situations, creating stand-offs that resulted in gunfire.

Controversial former police officer and MP Ross Meurant reckons all such cases need to go before the courts, the only place where the facts can be impartially assessed.

Others say police officers need far more tactical training than is presently the case.

For their part, police bosses don't see a problem.

"We shot at six people last year out of millions of interactions with the public - I reckon it's pretty low. It's not like we're getting 12, 15, 20 people being shot - that would be concerning," Superintendent Chris Scahill told me.

Obviously more facts will come out as inquiries into Saturday's incident continue.

For me, there are a few things that need looking at. The man's vehicle was spotted by a rural officer parked by the side of the highway with its hazard lights on, according to Superintendent Tusha Penny.

The officer pulled in behind the car but it drove off, then stopped again a short time later.

The driver then got out of the vehicle, "wielding a machete and threatening the police officer at the door of his car".

The officer retreated, Penny said, and the man took off at high speed.

This was the crucial moment, in my opinion.

It's not yet known what was said between the officers on the ground and the communications centre and what decisions were made about what to do next.

Lance Burdett, the former police crisis negotiator and now a resilience coach, said last year that police often think doing nothing is not an option, but in fact it should be the first option.

"Why don't we stop, take a breath, have a think about things ... and then work through the what ifs ... and get things right. When we go into that fight or flight response because we feel we have to do something, things go wrong," he said.

According to Penny, additional officers and the Eagle helicopter were called in on Saturday.

The man's car was spiked about 3.50am near Pohuehue, and he got out of the car and came towards officers with the machete, at which point he was shot.

The officers probably genuinely feared for their lives in that moment, but did they need to be there?

Had they planned for just such an eventuation during the chase and when the decision was made to use spikes?

Police say they were protecting themselves and the public, but was there any immediate threat? Could they not have followed at a safe distance, observing the man but not engaging?

It's easy for me to criticise - I wasn't having to deal with a dangerous and rapidly evolving situation.

My main concern is that police don't seem willing to accept that they could do things better. They seem happy to accept that one or two people will die each year from their bullets.

The IPCA is carrying out a review of the recent spate of fatal shootings - now nine in the past three years. Hopefully something meaningful will come out of it.