I think Null jumped the gun on this and everyone has just followed suit without actually reading the email. Pretty sure everyone here has completely misjudged what this was about, the relevant line that makes me think this is "At around the time of the shooting there were a number of posts and links posted on kiwifarms.net <
http://kiwifarms.net> relating to the shooting and TARRANT".
To start with, see this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Police#Insignia_and_uniform
There's some stuff there about what equipment they have too, if anyone's interested.
John Michael is a senior sergeant (only 5% total of the force) and a detective. He's hit the top rank he can reach before he gets into management, he aint gonna be on diaper duty cleaning up videos from the net after an event of this magnitude. IMO he thought Null was Tarrant or an associate posting the original shooting thread. Why? Because Null found out about it from 8chan, and posted while the shooting was still ongoing, or very soon after it was over, and included links to the livestream and manifesto. His only unique distinguisher is the title "ooperator", before Kiwi was well known shitloads of people would talk to him onsite without even realizing who he was, its an easy mistake to make. The email specifically says "I am hoping you can help us with an investigation" ffs, if he wanted the video taken down he would've just said to hide the posts and store the information in the first email, note how he specifically writes "in relation to the shooting and TARRANT", no mentions of the video or content.
IMO Nulls not going to hear anything more about this, he said he was the guy that posted it and the cop would've checked with the SIS and realized that yes, Joshua Moon is some random guy that runs the farms, posts under the name Null and lives in a gulag, and that even if he was an associate he's out of reach unless serious evidence emerges linking him to the shooting.
Also about the email footer you guys are all spazzing about, it's talking about if you weren't the intended recipient, or if you were but then you share something sensitive (evidence attached for you to comment on / explain, for example).