Tazers

[scumdog]

How do we deal with violent offenders?, you guys keep saying that over and over. I was a cop i dealt with violent offenders over and over never used my stick. So why would i need a tazer?.
...come on you can do it.

I too have not needed to use my baton or spray - but come the day I need something effective I hope I have it with me, be it Glock or Tazer.

And are you trying to tell us that EVERY situation can be overcome without violence or force? c'mon, you were just lucky.....or didn't stay in the job long enough.

[Ixion]

Anyone got figures on how many cops draw their batons to threaten or quell overly-lippy drunks? Or for those who have pepper-sprayed people for being cheeky?


By the nature of things definitive evidence of misuse will be ahrd come by. No cop is going to fill in a report saying "I pepper sprayed im cos I didn't like the way he was looking at me"

Does it happen? People in a position to have a good idea what theya re talking about seem to think so




Police use of pepper spray during a protest in Rotorua has come under fire from a District Court judge, who said officers failed to exercise tact, tolerance and restraint in policing a demonstration in January.

Judge James Weir has forwarded his finding to the Police Commissioner, saying the use of pepper spray in the case raised more questions than answers.




Gary Gotlieb from the Auckland District Law Society agrees, saying he frequently hears complaints of inappropriate police behaviour.


The Minister of Police told Parliament that there were 2000 recorded uses of pepper spray by the police in 2005. I do not know if it is possible that there were other , unreported , instances, but I would presume that it would be pretty simple for a cop to "forget" to report spraying someone, and such amnesiac instances would, by definition, be more likely to be those of dubious nature.

If we assume that half the pepper spraying would be replaced by taserings , then that would give 1000 people tasered per year. Plus unrecorded ones.

[Fluffy Cat]

Come on, how on an internet chat site in less than 2000 words can i cover every situation?. The sidearm i have no prob with but it has a whole different pattern of use ie the cuffed guy on the ground kicks up a fuss...bang bang double tapp to the chest, i dont think so. Might be thats what some want?, i don't know, but its not my line. But consider this, cuffed guy on the ground, zap with the tazer. Had undiagnosed heart defect.....this would be avoidable.
There have been recorded deaths in countries that use these devices.
How did police forces cope in the past are the times more or less violent?....Times are very much less violent.
Its a case of where does it lead, as for time in the job only four years. But this is in the Greater Metropolitan area of a small city called London with lets say 10 million people. Crime rates are different and i would think slightly higher in this area than say Auckland pop 1.5 million. Firearms incidents in this area are also high due to many factors but poverty plays its part. I never had a firearm but was trained to use one during my time in the army. Now i work in public hospitals guess i have a little experience. The use and carrying of firearms by police i have no probs with but tazers in my opinion are unnecessary, and may cause deaths that could be avoided. Remember the police are there to protect the public not harm the public.

[Wolf]

How do we deal with violent offenders?, you guys keep saying that over and over.
Because that is the function of the weapons.


But consider this, cuffed guy on the ground, zap with the tazer. Had undiagnosed heart defect.....this would be avoidable.
"You guys" keep saying that.

The conviction that so many people on here have that our cops are all thugs who'd like nothing better than to tase people that have already been subdued is truly astounding and not a little scary.

Honestly, if people here are so convinced that the cops cannot be trusted, perhaps they should accept SD's invitation and join up to build a police force of people who don't go around tasing cuffed people.

Lou, if the number of corrupt or violent cops is too high for you, then get ready to become unemployed because the percentage would be lower than the percentage of people who drive cars or ride motorbikes irresponsibly or dangerously so by your argument we should outlaw both as having an unacceptably high injury/mortality rate.

Consider this for a scenario: Cuffed crim on the ground calling the cop's mother 10 kinds of whore, cop forgets his professionalism and boots him in the ribs with his government-issued "Boots, Leather, Black - Feet, for the protection of." Chummy sustains punctured lungs from the busted ribs, drowns on his own blood.

That could have happened for a great number of years - long before pepper spray or tasers.

Shall we send the cops out naked because I personally know a way of turning every item of a cop's uniform into a lethal weapon?


The use and carrying of firearms by police i have no probs with but tazers in my opinion are unnecessary, and may cause deaths that could be avoided. Remember the police are there to protect the public not harm the public.

So shooting people with a firearm is less harmful than tasing them? Sorry, FC, I cannot comprehend your train of thought.

If the cops only had firearms with which to respond to those incidents where everything else has failed then there would be more avoidable deaths - deaths that would have been avoided if the police officer had access to a ranged, less-than-lethal alternative to drawing and firing a pistol.

You seem also to assume that the police are going to wander into every situation with the taser drawn and aimed, snarling "STEP AWAY FROM THE CAR, MOTHERFUCKER, GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND!" like something out of a bad cop movie.

Do the cops currently approach everyone with baton or pepper spray or Glock drawn at the moment? No. Yet you have this assumption they're all going to turn into John-fucking-Rambo or the Terminator the minute they get their mits on a Taser.

Thank you for inferring that our police force is comprised of gung-ho gun-mad children that vault into every situation guns a-blazin', and violent offenders that are just looking for an excuse to torture cuffed subjects.

I get to watch the cops in action bloody-near every day because of the number of street scum that infest Ward Street outside where I work. The scum became such a problem the cops set up a permanent base in one of the buildings so they can better respond to calls from the shops or concerned citizens.

The cops go past every day with pepper spray on their belts and frequently tell aggro, drunk, P'ed-up or just plain stupid gangs of youths to disperse, get out of the shops. Occasionally arrests are made.

Not once have I seen the cops draw their spray to intimidate, coerce or threaten any of the smart-mouthed, often belligerent scum (after all, it's their right to lurk inside shops when they have no intention of buying anything, pick fights or stare down shoppers, how dare the pigs ruin their fun?)

But you can believe what you like.

[Fluffy Cat]

Wolf man....chill out.
Go back read what i said then rant!.
Of course a gun is more lethal, a police officer that would spray a restrained man on the ground is unlikley to shoot the said man. Got it so far?.
But he may be tempted to use a less lethal weapon?, i think there is a higher chance that this sort of scenario will occur in the future. Purely because the choice is there!. In the past it would have been give him a wack with the stick or a punch. Now i can zap him a bit.
No i dont think all police officers are bad. Society needs some form of comformity, thats what makes it. But you can help people make choices by the structure of the system. So no tazer no zap, no accidental death, life goes on. Then again they have cops with sidearms in many countries around the world and it does seem to be the trend to turn them into walking battle waggons. You are as a cop a target for some people. This seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction. High profile but little substance. Will it really make a difference?.
As you said i can believe what i want but it did help watching it on tv along with thousands of others. That guy if i can use your words must have been scum?.

[Indoo]

Wolfs hardly ranting, hes making a coherent argument.

Obviously your experience in the UK being a bobby on the beat is vastly different to what being a cop is like over here, particulary in South Auckland and the likes.

I've had to use my spray around 8 times in 4 and a bit years on people, only around three of those times was it sucessful in stopping them. The other times it managed to distract them enough that we were able to overpower them. Had we not been big guys and lost, we would have had the crap beaten out of us if not worse. On other occasians we've had to flee back to our cars when guys have produced baseball bats and other weapons, the only thing that saved us was that we were more motivated to escape than they were to chase us.

I've pulled a firearm with the intention to use it only once, that was with a 14 year old drunken kid who had just slashed up his brother with a machete. He advanced on us with the machete even though we had guns pointed at him, fortunately he stopped, had he not we would have had to shoot and potentially have killed a 14 year old kid.

Had we had tasers we wouldn't have been put in that situation in the first place. I think its a bit pathetic that some people expect Police to put themselves in those kind of situations to protect the public, without giving them appropriate means to defend themselves. I would suggest to those people that before they make a judgement on whether or not Police 'need' tasers to spend just one Friday night out with Police in South Auckland.

Make the guidelines extremely strict and punish those who breach them, don't punish the vast majority of cops who will use it reasonably and in situations where the cops life or the crims will be saved as a result.

Although that said I would find it an ok alternative if my pay was to say go up to the 200k mark to compensate for the risk and we were given at least two whole days a week to train in martial arts and defensive tactics so we could become these amazing unarmed cops able to disarm baseball bat wielding maniacs with our bare hands.
And at least a 50 percent discount at Dunkin Donuts.

[Fluffy Cat]

Funny that i am not trying to argue.
But you are trying to tell me that south Auck is not comparable to areas in London like say Brixton or Aston in Birmingham etc(you must be joking). Possibly not but i think you need to go there first. Me i am from Birmingham and i know where i can go and where i cant. NZ will have very few of these places and i lived in south Auck for a year and there are some rough types for sure but its just not on the same scale. My beat area included Sheerwater the largest council estate in the UK when it was built. The core flats on this estate are 5 floors high and are surrounded by 3 floor units, which fan out to terrace houses. There are 2 schools in this estate, and two industrial estates.I think it used to take about half an hour to go from one side to the other.But it was'nt a bad place. Poverty is poverty and bad people are the same everywhere you go.
Never had a gun or tazer just a stick and a radio. We were lucky that we bordered the Met and could call on them for assistance. I think that is a big difference to here, as you just do not have the troops. Yeah i've been booted out of pubs a few times doing the checks, like i said, on the radio and 10mins later 20-30 of us ready to do our check. I've been in a few situations involving guns, crossbows etc and lady luck was always there so only a bump and some stitches. As a police officer i always felt obliged to put myself in danger if needed,that was afterall my job.
I agree with you on many of your points but i still am not convinced that electrocution is the way to go.
I think you should transfer to a Brit city for a year or so. Make sure you work innercity, i never did but then i came from one. Then tell me how they compare to south Auck. Try Manchester, Coventry,Birmingham,London etc, and if you already have, what happened to the memories?.
I really think a large part of the prob is staffing but even in the Met and, they have over twentythousand officers there still are not enough.
I thought we policed with consent...

[Indoo]

Funny that i am not trying to argue.
But you are trying to tell me that south Auck is not comparable to areas in London like say Brixton or Aston in Birmingham etc(you must be joking).

I was born in England and lived there a while in a number of places althought mostly manchester area (which I don't think is as bad)and to be honest from that, but also speaking to a ton of UK cop's they find places like South Auckland far worse. Simply due to the amount of domestics and violence that goes on that you are expected to deal with on your own with absolutely no chance of backup.

Having to go into someones home and face them in home territory not knowing what to expect takes a toll. The amount of times you have to talk yourself out of a hiding is shocking, and I don't think Police should ever have to rely on the gift of the gab as much as we do now, having to talk crims out of giving them a hiding because they are out gunned and out manned. Hell alot of the time one up units are sent to violent domestics on there own, simply because we do not have the resources.


Never had a gun or tazer just a stick and a radio. We were lucky that we bordered the Met and could call on them for assistance. I think that is a big difference to here, as you just do not have the troops.

True, we don't.


I've been in a few situations involving guns, crossbows etc and lady luck was always there so only a bump and some stitches. As a police officer i always felt obliged to put myself in danger if needed,that was afterall my job.

Your obviously a bigger man than me in that instance. I can't really accept being assaulted and relying on lady luck to stay alive. With a family I don't feel obligated to put myself in unnecessary danger because they come first, not the ever grateful public.


I agree with you on many of your points but i still am not convinced that electrocution is the way to go.
.

I think your over stating the effect tasers actually have based on the U.S example. American cops also pump 60 odd rounds into unarmed 'suspects' because they thought they might have had a gun. U.K cops are of a vastly higher calibre to the U.S in general and I think its interesting how tasers are panning out there compared to the states.

[scumdog]

Indoo said it all in the above.

So at present the need for Tazers could be obviated by more staff being made available (to a greater extent) according to Fluffy Cat, - yeah right, like that's going to happen with this tight-arsed Government!

Tazer leave wounds so unneeded use of them is going to leave a 'trail' that will require explaining - it's not that you can have the argument "He Tazered me" - "No I didn't" - "Yes he did"- "No I didn't" etc.. as there IS proof the Tazer was used.

Another of my 2 cents worth on this site. (must be up to $1:28 by now).

[spudchucka]

Was told that there have been sixteen deaths atributed to taser use. Not too sure if that is true but my source is usualy right on what he quotes. Anyone got the defintive answer on this??

Skyryder
16 deaths? In how many deployments? The information that I've read says that most deaths have been when the subject has had a pre-existing heart condition. How are the cops to know whether the mad fucker wanting to cut out their liver has a heart condition or not?

How many deaths would there have been in those situations, (cop or non cop) if the cops didn't have the Tazer but used a firearm instead?

How many lives have been saved through the use of Tazers? Has anyone bothered to find that out?

[Patrick]

16 deaths? In how many deployments? The information that I've read says that most deaths have been when the subject has had a pre-existing heart condition. How are the cops to know whether the mad fucker wanting to cut out their liver has a heart condition or not?

How many deaths would there have been in those situations, (cop or non cop) if the cops didn't have the Tazer but used a firearm instead?

How many lives have been saved through the use of Tazers? Has anyone bothered to find that out?

Haven't read the whole thread, but I guess many people are moaning about Tazers. It is only one step removed from shooting someone with a semi auto, which has a much higher kill rate. It aint rocket science folks.

Tazer or semi auto... hmmmm choices, choices....

[spudchucka]

I have carried firearms quite frequently - in order to hunt - and even that entails a degree of care and responsibility the average unarmed civilian does not need to exhibit. I can only guess at how much greater that responsibility would be if I were carrying a firearm with the licence to use it to kill or maim another human if that should become necessary.
Pointing a firearm at somebody is a very humbling experience. Thinking about how close you came to pulling the trigger is even more humbling. Wondering what exactly it was that caused that crazy fecker to comply is the million $$$$ question, they are all different and the knowledge that the next one could work out totally different is at times a hard thing to reconcile yourself with.

[spudchucka]

Try this scenario then, a drunken guy has been arrested and cuffed and is lying on the ground calling a cops mother 10 kinds of whore.
Copper forgets his professionalism and gives chummy a zap or 3 with his taser.
Chummy has a heart condition and dies.
Couldn't happen?
My opposition to arming cops with these things is purely because they can't all be trusted with them. OK only a few will abuse them, but a few is too many.
They lied to us about the use of speed cameras, laser guns and pepper spray, they're lying to us about these too.
You'd rather good cops were killed or maimed because they didn't have the necessary tools to protect themselves?

[Grahameeboy]

[QUOTE=scumdog
Another of my 2 cents worth on this site. (must be up to $1:28 by now).[/QUOTE]

Can hear your penny jar rattling..................

[Grahameeboy]

You'd rather good cops were killed or maimed because they didn't have the necessary tools to protect themselves?

I agree............no time to think of later consequences when you are dealing with what is happening.

It is a shame that the Police need to resort to tazers, however, good old paly police work just isn't working........at least with tazers you live to live the tale and will probably think twice.....unless of course you have a heart condition.....guess Police will need to check pulse rates beforehand???

[Wolf]

Tazer leave wounds so unneeded use of them is going to leave a 'trail' that will require explaining - it's not that you can have the argument "He Tazered me" - "No I didn't" - "Yes he did"- "No I didn't" etc.. as there IS proof the Tazer was used.
I'd think the cuffs would also leave some "pretty" marks if you did the Electric Fandango whilst wearing 'em.

This is rapidly becoming a pointless argument, alternating between "the face of crime is changing and the police need the means to defend themselves - less-than-lethal for preference" and "the small number of cops that might abuse them means that none should have them. We all know how crooked the pigs are."

No matter what saner minds might say, there will always be those conspiracy theorists who will just take it as read that a significant number of cops are as bad as the gangs and that the taser will suddenly become their weapon of choice - despite the fact that it is potentially lethal and leaves incriminating marks. They''ll just work on the idea that these teeming masses of crooked cops won't stick with the tried-and-true boot or truncheon which, although they leave marks, can be explained away with "Dunno, must've bin when 'e tripped down that flight of stairs, Sir."

FC, those who've been here a while know exactly what my rants are like - on a still day, you can hear the eyes glazing over...

Countering your assertion that our cops are going to misuse Tasers (it makes me wonder about the cops that you worked with, big on cudgelling cuffed prisoners were they?) and asking how using a Taser instead of a firearm is guaranteed to cause "avoidable deaths" does not constitute a "rant".

The level of violence in crime has escalated dramatically in recent years - a case in point being the Westie that was stabbed in the throat when he went out to challenge a guy who was tampering with his motorbike - once upon a happier time the would-be thief would have just legged it when he saw the owner approaching, relying on the fact that the owner would be more than happy the prick was off the property and his bike was safe. Now, the scum seem to think it acceptable to damn-near kill people for having the gall to ask WTF they're doing.

It is only fair that the cops have the means to defend themselves when entering a hostile situation where the person's rage may well be redirected at them. They are there to protect the public, as you say. They cannot do that if they're bleeding-out on the floor of a South Auckland P lab. The cops are "public" too, they have families, friends and colleagues.

Or are you saying that they must defend the public at the cost of their own lives? Trust that the offender will be satisfied with taking the cop's life and decide to stop beating his wife to death with a 4-foot iron bar?

They're defenders of the honest public, not punching bags for crims to vent their spleen on.

For some considerable time it has been a fairly simple matter for cops to check a Glock out of the armoury - I work with ex-cops who used to "carry".

Funnily enough, they weren't all charging 'round like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood waving their pieces under people's noses.

I can see a time coming when our cops are going to be visibly armed like those in Aus or the US, and I'd personally be happy to see a ranged less-than-lethal option on their belt as well as the Glock - I would rest easier knowing that their training may well prompt them to draw the Taser rather than the Glock in a hairy situation. If they miss the perp and hit an innocent bystander with a taser, the statistical likelihood is that the person who was hit is going to survive - rather than the high likelihood of death were that bystander hit by a stray bullet.

I constantly make the distinction of ranged less than lethal weapon to stress that this is where the Taser is unlike the pepper spray and more like the Glock. Pepper spray entails getting very close to the violent offender, is ineffectual in wind and has a higher chance of hitting the wrong person - often the cop that used it.

The Glock has a greater range but is more likely to have lethal results, the Taser has an intermediate range and is less likely to cause death than either the Glock or pepper spray (yes, people have died from pepper spray - most due to respiratory problems or inappropriate handling after being sprayed.)

Batons are also merely "less than lethal" - they certainly aren't "safe" or "non-lethal".

And as to the level of backup you enjoyed in London, if a cop called for back-up here some other cop would have to put down his laser and then the ACC would be wanting a detailed explanation as to WTF the cop was thinking gallavanting about the place protecting his colleagues and sundry citizens when he should be policing their latest "cure" for the road toll.

[Wolf]

Of course a gun is more lethal, a police officer that would spray a restrained man on the ground is unlikley to shoot the said man. Got it so far?.
But he may be tempted to use a less lethal weapon?, i think there is a higher chance that this sort of scenario will occur in the future. Purely because the choice is there!. In the past it would have been give him a wack with the stick or a punch. Now i can zap him a bit.
If the retrained person is face down on the ground, there is an extremely high likelihood of death by asphyxiation if he were sprayed - decreased breathing passages, shortness of breath, unable to properly inflate lungs due to one's own weight and unable to lift oneself off the ground to aid breathing.

How many cops would spray or cudgel a restrained person? How many would be stupid enough to fire barbs into a restrained person?

1%? Less?

Then take the far less than 1% chance that they will die from being tased and you can see exactly how unlikely the scenario you describe is. You talk as if beating or pepper spraying subdued prisoners is a routine occurance and the percentage of accidental deaths from tasering is up around the percentage of deaths from motor vehicle accidents.

I had what I felt to be just cause to be extremely insulting and sarcastic to a cop once. Somehow I managed to avoid being cuffed and beaten up because of it - and this particular cop was a belligerent, arrogant, foul-mouthed prick.

If I encountered another shit like that today, I'd still give him the response he deserved, even if he did have a Taser on his belt.


So no tazer no zap, no accidental death, life goes on.
Care to apply the same argument to boots and batons as well? More people have been beaten to death by cops or accidentally killed by bludgeoning damage in the world's history than by Taser.


but it did help watching it on tv along with thousands of others. That guy if i can use your words must have been scum?.
Are we still talking about the clip of the cop tasing the woman?

Lovely unbiased bit of reporting, that, clearly showed both sides of the argument in a clear and impartial way. Love the way they showed the number of cops who had been gunned down in the US and had someone explain why the cops in the states tend to be a trifle paranoid when the suspect's hands vanish from view. Did a great job of highlighting that the clip was reviewed by police trainers and was deemed to be the correct response to the situation.

Oops, I'm sounding as sarcastic as Lou.

As I said, unless our level of violent crime alters to the point where people stopped for routine checks or minor traffic violations take to producing firearms and shooting at the cop who comes to challenge them, that sort of situation is not likely to arise here.

[Lou Girardin]

You'd rather good cops were killed or maimed because they didn't have the necessary tools to protect themselves?

That's the balancing act. And that's why all the negative actions by some of your colleagues are tipping the scales against you.

[Lou Girardin]

How many cops would spray or cudgel a restrained person? How many would be stupid enough to fire barbs into a restrained person?

1%? Less?



1% is around 70 rogue cops. I think that's a tad high for a professional Police force.

BTW. The woman being tasered was on her cellphone. I guess less than instant obedience warrants being tasered in some peoples minds. Especially some cops minds.

[Wolf]

1% is around 70 rogue cops. I think that's a tad high for a professional Police force.
So we'll go with "less", then.

"Rogue" some might be but stupid they are not (not if they've managed to stay on the job) so I doubt many of the rogue cops would fire a couple of barbs into a cuffed victim.

[Lou Girardin]

So we'll go with "less", then.

"Rogue" some might be but stupid they are not (not if they've managed to stay on the job) so I doubt many of the rogue cops would fire a couple of barbs into a cuffed victim.

They wouldn't pepper spray a cuffed man in front of TV cameras either.
Maybe the bosses should worry more about IQ than running 2.4 km.

[Patrick]

1% is around 70 rogue cops. I think that's a tad high for a professional Police force.

BTW. The woman being tasered was on her cellphone. I guess less than instant obedience warrants being tasered in some peoples minds. Especially some cops minds.

More like 0.1%, and all 7 of of em up on charges as we speak.

Less than instant??? NOt in this case though was it. How many times did they yell at her to comply and how many warnings were yelled? Just where was her other hand? "PERHAPS" she was reaching for that gun, as they so often do in the States...and so many cops widows can confirm...

Fry her arse... and they did... she is alive and well and I'm guessing she won't try that again, I guess.

[spudchucka]

That's the balancing act. And that's why all the negative actions by some of your colleagues are tipping the scales against you.
Not to the point that good cops should be unnecessarily put into harms way, I won't accept that.

[spudchucka]

1% is around 70 rogue cops. I think that's a tad high for a professional Police force.

BTW. The woman being tasered was on her cellphone. I guess less than instant obedience warrants being tasered in some peoples minds. Especially some cops minds.
I've seen several cell phone guns that you wouldn't want pointed at you, most of them out of the US.

[Wolf]

I've seen several cell phone guns that you wouldn't want pointed at you, most of them out of the US.
If I look hard enough on my hard drive, I could supply video footage of one.

Besides, one hand on the cellphone, fuck knows what the other one is going for.

I recommend that everyone read The Saturday night special,: And other guns with which Americans won the West, protected bootleg franchises, slew wildlife, robbed countless banks, shot ... with the debate over continuing same (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0883270161/002-2022610-4710451?v=glance&n=283155) by Robert Sherrill.

It's an old book (1973) but if nothing else it might give people an idea of the level of craziness with which US cops have to contend - if two women can have a shoot-out over a parking space, then blowing away a cop to avoid a ticket seems positively "sensible" by comparison. It's a delightful essay on the craziness on both sides of the law.

Add to those who have no sense of proportion (the use of lethal force to avoid a ticket): the number of wanted felons who might turn up anywhere, those who "just can't afford" to get another conviction, those that just have a grudge with the cops, the ones that got their hand slapped away the previous night, the actual psychotics, the drug users and those who have reasons not to want the cops poking their noses into the car, and you have a lot of potential for the cops to come under fire for something as simple as a routine check or telling the person they were speeding or the brake lights are not working.

I certainly hope New Zealand never gets to the level of insanity described in the above book to warrant the measures that the US cops have had to take. I don't think we will because I don't think NZ Govt would allow the advertising of "legal" non-functional GP machineguns (because the firing pins had been removed) followed immediately by an advertisement for firing pins for precisely that model of GPMG. Or advertising mortars as "ideal for target shooting or back yard plinking" (and "folds away neatly to fit in trunk of car").

As we don't sell weapons over the counter to any bugger that walks in off the street and asks for one like they do in some US states, we're not likely to get the number of armed mental cases they get over there.

And just because the cops in the US felt the need to tase that woman, it does not mean our own cops will behave the same way. Bear in mind that the drill carried out by those cops evolved from approaching with care, challenging and then, if compliance is not forthcoming, drawing a loaded pistol with the knowledge that they may have to shoot the person in the vehicle. Nowadays some draw a less-than-lethal weapon (not all US cops are equipped with tasers and some have to fall back on the trusty firearm).

Do our cops currently approach vehicles in that fashion? No.

I've been approached by a large number of cops and not one has drawn a gun if I've been slow to respond. They haven't even felt the need to insist I keep my hands visible.

I know a lot of cops carry firearms, I know they also visibly carry pepper spray and they've carried batons for years. Why, if they have not previously behaved in a manner akin to the US Police, would they do so upon being issued with tasers?

Seriously, the potential has been there for years for them to approach vehicles with drawn pistols or pepper spray or to unship the baton at the slightest hint of resistance but they have not done so because that is not the way police approach people in New Zealand. Where is the evidence that the introduction of tasers will significantly alter police procedure?

The taser is just a weapon - and a less harmful one than a Glock, at that. The cops that will be using them are the same cops that have for years had access to substantial clubs, pepper spray and potentially lethal firearms.

No weapon is dangerous in and of itself - it is the person that wields it that is the issue. If anyone has issues with the cops having tasers, then perhaps they should have issue with the cops having access to pepper spray, firearms, batons and solid shoes.

Then they can bitch and whinge when they're being beaten senseless by some thug and the cops won't turn up because they are not equipped to deal with a thug wielding a baseball bat.

[Ixion]

,, If anyone has issues with the cops having tasers, then perhaps they should have issue with the cops having access to pepper spray, firearms [snip].

,,.

I do. The whole point of the police force introduced by Sir Robert Peel was that it was an UNARMED force. Once you issue a police force with guns, it is no longer a police force, it is military.

The only justification that has been put forward for the Taser is that it is more "moderate" than a gun. But that presupposes a valid case for an armed "police" force. Which is a major departure from the traditional British/kiwi concept of the police.

If NZ needs a paramilitary force then it should be instituted as such, separate from the police and subject to the same restrictions as the army , regarding assistance of the civil power. An armed "police" force is not a civil power it is a military one.

And if the rule of law has so far collapsed that military force (ie troops armed with guns or Tasers) is needed to maintain order, then a formal state of martial law should be declared, like in Timor (I would have no problems with such a declaration in some parts of Auckland) .

If we have as yet no need of military power in the streets , then we have no need of an armed police, whether that be armed with guns or Tasers.

I am surprised incidentally that no one has made the point of the inevitable reaction of the criminals. If cops are routinely "packing" then there is all the more reason for criminals to do the same. And if they cannot easily access Tasers, they can certainly access guns. So arming the police with Tasers must necessarily increase the likelihood of a taser armed police officer being confronted by a criminal armed, in like manner , with a gun.

[scumdog]

I do. The whole point of the police force introduced by Sir Robert Peel was that it was an UNARMED force. Once you issue a police force with guns, it is no longer a police force, it is military..

In Robert Peels day cops were less likely to be confronted by 'P' junkies, pump-action shotgun wielders or many of the other malaise of the modern world.

Society has taken quite a different track since those days - and not for the better.

And as for the argument that if the cops carry guns then so will the criminals?
The crims already do - just ask any cop about the sawn-offs, pistols etc located during searches, MOST of the time luckily they don't get used.

BTW:You know it's a white-trash loser broken-arsed household when they only have a cross-bow with a scope (apologies to our esteemed White Trash here).

[Wolf]

Years ago, when I was still in my teens, the cops had a display of weapons they had seized, one of which was a home-made pistol they had confiscated from a 14-year-old.

The crims are already "packing" and they're using their weapons on civilians as well - stabbing people in the throat for saying "what the fuck are you doing to my bike?", brandishing weapons at store owners and bank staff more frequently now and invading people's homes armed with shotguns, shooting the husband in the foot and threatening the family - including an infant - with said shotgun.

I believe we are in need of a "paramilitary" force to counter the level of violence in crime these days.

Personally, I'd happily set the NZ army to doing a lot of the grunt work that ties up police time to free up the sworn officers to do other things - ACC wants people waving lasers around? Get the army to do that and leave the police to investigate burglaries. Put the army out on traffic duty and get a few army lads as extra bods when going to domestics and brawls - I'm sure they can subdue a few thugs and take down basic statements.

Question: did the police in Peel's day carry truncheons? If so, they were an armed force. Armed with a potentially lethal weapon.

[Indoo]

Apparently having a thousand or so cops assaulted each year, 300 to the extent they have to take time off work and another 40 or so stabbed is acceptable to taser opponents and clearly shows that traditional methods are working.

Funnily enough those same opponents would never dream of putting themselves into the same kind of situations they accept cops to put themselves in.

I'm sure all these taser opponents would welcome the chance to spend a few shifts on the frontline so that they can quantify there rhetoric with a bit of actual real life experience. Give Keith Locke and John Minto a batton each and a small can of pepper spray and send them into a violent domestic involving a gang house where the local sgt of arms of the mongrel mob has decided to indulge in a wee bit of P and play a bit of baseball with the missus.

I'm sure they would be prepared to put themselves into that situation, after all they are not only expecting Police too, but also actively campaigning against Police being given any effective means of defense in such a situation.

[Edbear]

Seem to recall not very long ago, a cop in Auck. walked up to a guy in the street just to say "Hello" and talk to him, knowing he was a local crim type. Turned out the crim was on P and promptly stabbed the officer in the stomach. It's not peachy out there for the cops!

[Wolf]

We had the Armed Offenders Squad out our way the other week - Glocks, rifles, body armour and balaclavas.

Some plonker had threatened someone and claimed to have a pistol. The AOS got him, took him downtown and came back an hour later and raided his house, which was a P lab.

A few years back we'd just shifted into a house and walked less than 20 metres up the road to buy greasies for dinner (our cooking gear and food being in the piles of boxes strewn throughout the house).

We came outside while waiting for our order to cook and armed cops had blocked off the street and were turning vehicles away from the area, they were searching all vehicles leaving, as well.

We ate al fresco, sitting on the footpath, because we weren't allowed back into the street for over an hour while the cops hunted for a man who had loudly threatened to shoot his wife.

Personally, I'd rather have armed cops and AOS than maniacs threatening people with firearms and P labs down the road.

I wouldn't do their job for all the world so I'm glad someone's doing it.

As to weapons and armed response: Fuck East Timor, send the troops into South Auckland.

If people don't want the cops tasing people willy-nilly, then get onto the gummint to introduce tougher penalties for violent crimes and to appoint judges with sufficient cocks and balls to impose them - get the fucking offenders off the streets for good rather than letting them back out to terrorise neighbourhoods where they have to be reeled in by the police again. Arrest 'em once, for good.

[Wolf]

Give Keith Locke and John Minto a batton each and a small can of pepper spray and send them into a violent domestic involving a gang house where the local sgt of arms of the mongrel mob has decided to indulge in a wee bit of P and play a bit of baseball with the missus.
You kidding? They're a couple of armchair-rhetoric soft-cocks that would feel intimidated by the military might of 5+ Girl Guides armed with boxes of biscuits.

Either would shit themselves if you forced them to live near "Poet's Corner" in Hamilscum, let alone in Sth Auck. It's all well and good burbling that the crime rate doesn't warrant armed police when you live in nice, safe, Nobsville. It's different for those who live and work in less than savoury areas.

Policing policy being dictated by the likes of Minto and Locke is like marital advice from the Catholic Priesthood.

[spudchucka]

I do. The whole point of the police force introduced by Sir Robert Peel was that it was an UNARMED force.


For a long time politicians had been concerned about the problems of law and order in London. In 1829 Robert Peel decided to reorganize the way London was policed. As a result of this reform, the new metropolitan police force became known as "Peelers" or "Bobbies".
Times have changed since 1829, has the ills and evils of society remained static since the 1830's? No!

Its fine to hang on to the principals of PEEL, by and large the NZ police has, but the reality is that society is violent, police have to deal with violent people in all sorts of situations on a daily basis. Police agencies the world over know how quickly situations can turn wierd and or extremely violent, thats why we train and equip ourselves to deal with these situations. The weapons carried are simply the tools required to do the job. Would you expect your builder to knock up your next house armed solely with and adze and some mud bricks?

Like it or not the police IS a pseudo military organisation, which also has under it's control sections of the organisation that are para-military, (AOS & STG).

Why don't we take it back further than PEEL to days of the Normans when there was no organised police force? Who in our modern society would take up the Hue and Cry?



Hue & Cry:
In the centuries after the Norman Conquest there wasn’t an organised police force and the job of fighting crime fell mostly on ordinary people. If somebody robbed you, or you saw a murder or other crime of violence, it was up to you to raise the alarm, the hue and cry. Everybody in the neighbourhood was then obliged to drop what they were doing and help pursue and capture the supposed criminal. If the criminal was caught with stolen goods on him, he was summarily convicted (he wasn’t allowed to say anything in his defence, for example), while if he resisted arrest he could be killed. The same term was used for a proclamation relating to the capture of a criminal or the finding of stolen goods. The laws relating to hue and cry were repealed in Britain in 1827.

Sounds like community policing in action to me and there are plenty of folks that would happily carry out summary conviction and execution upon anyone they caught with stolen goods.

[Lou Girardin]

Funnily enough those same opponents would never dream of putting themselves into the same kind of situations they accept cops to put themselves in.



I have, and I still oppose tasers. I even had to think twice about using my Maglite on violent offenders for fear one of you gentlemen had just been ticketed and wanted to get back at a snake. We didn't even get handcuffs till around 1981.
So we not only had bleeding hearts to deal with, but Police second guessing us as well.
So don't cry to me.

PS Minto faced the Red Squad, I think that was a bad as any domestic.

[Indoo]

Traffic cops got sent to domestics and other violent situations where they had to face offenders with weapons completely out of it on amphetamines etc?

Thats news to me, I would have thought angry speeders or drunk drivers would have been the extent of it. Times have also changed a wee bit Lou in the 26 or so years since 1980, offenders the type of offending and the type of force they are prepared to use, you can't even remotely compare it.

[Ixion]

[snip]


Like it or not the police IS a pseudo military organisation, which also has under it's control sections of the organisation that are para-military, (AOS & STG).

Why don't we take it back further than PEEL to days of the Normans when there was no organised police force? Who in our modern society would take up the Hue and Cry?



Sounds like community policing in action to me and there are plenty of folks that would happily carry out summary conviction and execution upon anyone they caught with stolen goods.

My point is that the military and the police have (should have) quite different purposes.

The purpose of the military is to kill people. As effectively and efficiently as possible. Politicians may weasel around the matter but reality is that a soldiers job is to take out the other guy without being taken out himself.

The purpose of a police force is to maintain the peace. Preferably without hurting anyone.

If the function of the police force becomes confused with that of the military then what you have is military despotism.

If the rule of law has so far broken down that military action is required (ie you need people armed with guns) then the situation should be handled by the military.

Personally I would have no issues with sending the army in to sort out some of the low lifes we have. Nothing like a tank coming through the wall to say you mean business.

But I have concerns when the response of the police seems to revolve around shooting people. Whether with Glocks or Tasers.It suggests that the police have lost contact with their function , and have adopted that of the military. Which is, killing people. If the rule of law is functioning that should be very rarely needed (and may be left to a few specialists). If it is not then leave the shooting to the army, and let them do whatever is necessary to regain control.

If a permanent para-military force is need (though I do not see why the regular army should not fill the role) then set it up as a separate body.

As to the hue and cry. It is still used, just those involved don't tell the cops.

Some number of years ago I lived in Otahuhu. There was a bit of trouble with burglaries and in a couple of cases they turned rather nasty. The police seemed unable to do much.

A local resident, having much experience of military command, organised the folk of the neighbourhood into a "Community Watch' Of an unusual sort.

He worked out plans of what each person should do in the event of a malefactor being detected. Each person was to 'phone three other people, then depending on the location of the problem follow a set procedure.

One night the old lady next door phoned. She had just seen a man breaking into her garage , and was frightened.

I set the plan in motion, phoned my three people and set off according to instructions across Anne's Bridge to intercept him if he took to the river bank. He did, pursued by a number of people in full hue and cry. I and another gentleman charged him as he came along the river with the neighbourhood in hot pursuit behind him .

He ended up in the river. We fished him out, decidely the worse for wear and frogmarched him back to the street where two very large Pacific Island ladies sat on him (literally - we put an old sack over him because he was very muddy).

Then the cops turned up. And let him go! And had the temerity to lecture US.

So, the military gentleman amended his battle plans, and when a similar thing happened a few weeks later, up the road --- we did not call the police. The would be burglar was released, very much the worse for wear, but never figured in the police reports.

There were only two other such turnouts of the posse burgensibus. And then we had no more trouble.

So, community policing of communities by communities still works.

I suspect that a good many rural areas have adopted such a policy after the Bentley case.

[Lou Girardin]

Traffic cops got sent to domestics and other violent situations where they had to face offenders with weapons completely out of it on amphetamines etc?

Thats news to me, I would have thought angry speeders or drunk drivers would have been the extent of it. Times have also changed a wee bit Lou in the 26 or so years since 1980, offenders the type of offending and the type of force they are prepared to use, you can't even remotely compare it.

Up to a dozen gang members, when you're on your own and any back-up is 20 km's away? There have been a few MOT cops killed in the line of duty too.
And it was a sole traffic cop that stopped Marty Johnston at Warkworth when he was doing a dope run to Auckland, if he'd had the power to search the vehicle and attempted to, Johnstone would have killed him.
It hasn't changed that much.

[Wolf]

And it was a sole traffic cop that stopped Marty Johnston at Warkworth when he was doing a dope run to Auckland, if he'd had the power to search the vehicle and attempted to, Johnstone would have killed him.
Which is why the US cops are so circumspect in approaching cars - it might be Joe Random Citizen on his way home from work with nothing to hide but then it might be a courier for one of the area's largest Crystal Meth manufacturers with enough product in the car to warrant killing an officer.

Drug runners are relatively rare in NZ, fortunately - certainly not enough to take the US approach to stopping vehicles - but the risks are there.

Ixion. I disagree with your take on the police cf the military.

AFAIK, the police in NZ are not permitted to "shoot to kill", merely "shoot to stop". The most efficient means of this is a bullet or two in the Centre of Mass. This may be lethal but is not always lethal - I recall reading that in the US, double-tapping the CoM has an 85% chance of being fatal: high but not a guaranteed kill. 15 percent of those shot in the CoM live to face trial.

The military, OTOH, is permitted, in times of military action, to shoot to kill. This means they are allowed to put a bullet through someone's head if they have a clear shot or open fire on full Rock 'n' Roll and obliterate the target if need be.

Also, the military tactic is to advance with readied weapons. The only police who do that are the AOS which is only called out when hostilities have already been initiated by the criminal. The rest of the police may well carry batons, pepper spray, guns and tasers but these weapons are holstered and remain so until such time as all other avenues fail.

There is a world of difference between sending out an officer who has a few weapons on his belt (to be used only in defence of himself or others if the situation degenerates) to try to sort out a domestic dispute and sending the military to storm the house, weapons at the ready, in which the dispute is taking place.

[Ixion]

Not a very good picture, but I would say it looks very like police advancing with readied weapons.

Back then they were only batons. In future such police charge must we expect Tasers and Glocks

[Indoo]

It hasn't changed that much.

It has really Lou, the advent of amphetamines has changed things markedly. These guys simply do not feel pain, do not listen to reason, are extremely aggresive and are incredibably strong and determined. Couple that with a Weapon and its not a pretty situation. If you don't believe me go along for a ride along with an I Car in Auckland for a night shift you must still know a few people in the job who could arrange that for you.

Society in general seems to be becoming more violent and more desensitised to that violence. Today Police are facing more violence, more armed offenders, offenders who are more likely to use force vs Police and offenders who are far harder to stop using traditional means.

You can see that reflected in the assault figures, more than a thousand cops assaulted each year, 300 to the extent they have to take time off work to recover? Its no wonder that we have such a high attrition rate when the greens and other rabid anti-police groups appear to expect us to be nothing more than punching bags.



Back then they were only batons. In future such police charge must we expect Tasers and Glocks

No offence but thats a pretty ridiculous statement to make, you can't really base an argument against tasers on the basis that one day New Zealand might possibly turn into some Orwellian nightmare and that Police might use tasers to supress protests. It would be a terrible weapon to use in that situation anyway, one cop only able to take out one protester at one time? compared to rubber bullets, tear gass, water canon etc?

[Patrick]

Not a very good picture, but I would say it looks very like police advancing with readied weapons.

Back then they were only batons. In future such police charge must we expect Tasers and Glocks

Yet another one sided story... where are the photos of the gang bangers in helmets having a crack at Cops, not protesting, just there to have a go.

Where are the photos of the razor blades sticking out of the protesters shields?

Where are the photos of the people throwing fire fudge?

Didn't happen? Yeah right... but that was another thread wasn't it?:Offtopic:

Maybe that is why there were batons drawn to keep them at a little more than arms length.

[Wolf]

It would be a terrible weapon to use in that situation anyway, one cop only able to take out one protester at one time? compared to rubber bullets, tear gass, water canon etc?
I made that point earlier - a Taser is an effective weapon against an individual but its rate of fire is appalling, it's no good at all for crowd control.

Batons, rubber bullets, water cannons and even the good ol' police-issue boots are far better against a crowd as they can be wielded quickly against many different targets.

If I were in the midst of a rioting crowd the last thing I'd worry about was a Taser. Even if one were produced, the chances of it being used against me, out of all the rest of the crowd, is negligible and I'm pretty sure that if anyone were tased his/her buddies would yank the wires out to get their mate back in the fray. Or just take out the cop holding the Taser gun.

In a mob situation such as pictured the police would be looking to subdue as many people as possible for as long as possible as quickly as possible. Having a cop standing around doing nothing but holding a Taser to keep one person out of action is not a viable means of achieving that.

Also, much and all as I disagree with the formation of the Red Squad and the use of the PR24 batons, the police were not going up against "peaceful protesters" they were going up against people who were engaged in riots.

The anti-tour protesters and the pro-tour crowd were having physical fights. The protesters weren't sitting outside the gates singing "Kumbaya" and "Give Peace a Chance", they were actively attempting to block people getting into the matches and charging the fences to stop the game. The pro-tour mob were likewise keen to "have a go" and were actively fighting the protesters.

What would you have the police do? Let the two mobs tear each other apart? People were getting seriously injured in the brawls, weapons were being used - a woman was carried off with a knife jammed in her skull. The brawls were escalating out of control.

This was not remotely like, say, the peaceful sit-in at Berkeley (sp?) University when the US police used rubber bullets on a bunch of long-haired caftan-wearing potheads who were not physically harming anyone.

To paint the cops as total villains in the events of the tour is exceedingly one-eyed. The crowds - pro and anti - were a pack of mongrels (some in the above pic even wore patches proclaiming themselves to be Mongrels - hardly "law abiding, non-violent citizens", huh?) and I am personally disgusted with the behaviour of my fellow New Zealanders during that time. The crowds actively engaged in hostilities against each other and assaulted each other and anyone who happened to be wandering past without discrimination or regard for other people's welfare.

I am not proud of the police response, but I am not proud of the people that made that response necessary, either.

But perhaps the cops should have stayed out of it. Let the pro and anti forces kill each other, destroy properties and brawl in the streets. If others get caught up in it and injured or get their houses trashed by hurled projectiles, serves 'em fucking right for living near there, eh. After all, we cannot interfere with our basic rights to beat the crap out of people with baseball bats and knife women in the head.

There have been a large number of peaceful protests in this country where the police have not come out in force against the protesters or if they have come out it has been to form a buffer zone between the protesters and any violence that might be directed against them.

To turn around and vilify the cops for attempting to stop a brawl and attempting to stop violent protesters from trespassing, vandalising property and assaulting people is unrealistic. I'm sure most here would be quite happy, should some bunch of people decide to protest against bikers and elect to physically attack anyone who rides a bike, to have the police turn up to prevent the protesters invading their turf and stop the protesters from hitting them.

FWIW I was opposed to the tour. Did I go out and protest against it? NO. I was too disgusted with the anti-tour mob and their tactics. I did not want to have anything to do with a bunch of people who spouted "end bigotry" and then behaved in a bigotted Us vs Them fashion and did precisely the sort of violence they vilified the people of SA for doing.

It was not NZ's finest hour.

And to cap it off, the government can turn around and pass legislation that adversely affects the lives of everyone in NZ and the people roll over and take it. Try to have a sporting match with a country perceived to be "wrong" and it's time to dig out the baseball bat and "teach those pro-tour bastards a fucking lesson".

Wise up New Zealand!

[Lou Girardin]

If I remember correctly, the '81 tour was relatively peaceful until the cops allowed spectators to have a go at the protesters on the field in Hamilton. Then it was all on.

[Wolf]

If I remember correctly, the '81 tour was relatively peaceful until the cops allowed spectators to have a go at the protesters on the field in Hamilton. Then it was all on.
I just remember hearing that the protesters got onto the field and that there was a riot between them and the spectators. I remember too the protesters charging the fences, trying to climb them or smash them down to gain access to the field to stop the game.

Funny how most other peaceful protests the protesters stand a little way away from their target, chant and wave banners and talk to the Culture Vultures while those whom they are picketing are free to come and go.

In the case of the tour the "peaceful" protesters attempted to physically stop the game by placing themselves on the field (trespass).

If they were "peaceful" they could have staged their protest outside the grounds, chanted and waved banners all they liked - so long as they did not physically intersperse themselves between the supporters and the stadium or the players and the field.

The protesters should not have been on the field where they risked a physical altercation with the supporters - both sides were spoiling for a fight.

Still think it's wrong that of all the social issues we've had over the years the closest we've come to Civil War was over a stupid game played by neanderthals with room-temperature IQs and because some other country was perceived not to place a suitable value on human life.

Pah! Where was the value on human life in the riots? It's wrong to call a person a "Kafir" and beat him, but ok to call a person a "fucking racist" and beat the crap out of him.

So they send in riot control cops armed with PR24s and then the protesters turned up they turned up armed and wearing helmets, with the Mongrel Mob in tow for extra muscle. That wasn't a protest, that was deliberate civil unrest - the use of the military would have been justified.

[spudchucka]

The purpose of a police force is to maintain the peace. Preferably without hurting anyone.
Absolutely. But, we can't call out the Army every time an offender uses or threatens to use violence, can we?

Therefore any effective police force needs the ability to use coercive force, they are after all the coercive arm of the state.

The tools required to be effective in the modern world are simply a reflection of society itself.

Personally I think the NZ public should be gratefull that their police are still willing to remain effectively unarmed and adobt well proven less than lethal tactical options rather than become routinely armed.

[spudchucka]

Not a very good picture, but I would say it looks very like police advancing with readied weapons.

Back then they were only batons. In future such police charge must we expect Tasers and Glocks
Tear gas and water cannons perhaps? NZ is light years behind in terms of riot control, if it happened again tomorrow there would be very little difference to what you see in the picture, except of course with the advent of the interweb, the crowd would likely be throwing home made pipe bombs etc.

And isn't wonderfull to see those fine upstanding and concerned citizens the mighty moron mob lurking two or three rows back from where the action is going to take place? They're my heros!

Whose the guy in the middle of the picture without a helmet and sporting a big beak? I bet that made a good target for somebody's minto bar? Its not you is it Lou?

[scumdog]

Not a very good picture, but I would say it looks very like police advancing with readied weapons.

Back then they were only batons. In future such police charge must we expect Tasers and Glocks
The Monkey Mob guys must have been too worried about crushing their Afros to wear helmets - or maybe even THEY realise there was nothing to protect?

[Wolf]

The Monkey Mob guys must have been too worried about crushing their Afros to wear helmets - or maybe even THEY realise there was nothing to protect?
Nah, helmets are for girls, donchaknow? "We'll leave them for the protester-pussies and the cops, we're staunch!"

[Lou Girardin]

Whose the guy in the middle of the picture without a helmet and sporting a big beak? I bet that made a good target for somebody's minto bar? Its not you is it Lou?

Not me spudly, I was sittin' on my motorsickle damn near shitting myself when 600 odd people headed towards me to block the northwest m/way.
There wasn't a red squad within 5 km's.

[Ixion]

Absolutely. But, we can't call out the Army every time an offender uses or threatens to use violence, can we?

,,.

Well, after the first few times, I think the number of people offering violence would dramatically diminish.

[Ixion]

,,, The pro-tour mob were likewise keen to "have a go" and were actively fighting the protesters.

What would you have the police do? Let the two mobs tear each other apart? People were getting seriously injured in the brawls, weapons were being used - a woman was carried off with a knife jammed in her skull. The brawls were escalating out of control.

,,,

Sounds good to me. And if the rioters start to spill over and affect peaceful folk not involved in the stoush, have the army send a few belts of machine gun fire into them, collectively.

Then when they've fought themselves to a standstill the police can go in and arrest anyone still standing. Won't need weapons by then.

I think it a pity the Riot Act was repealed. that was the way to deal with such matters. Give the parties a warning to disperse. If they do not, have the military (not the police) open fire.

(FWIW, I took no part in the Springbok stuff. I didn't really give a stuff either way.)

[Wolf]

Then when they've fought themselves to a standstill the police can go in and arrest anyone still standing. Won't need weapons by then
Pommy bloke I know said that when he was a lad in Liverpool that was precisely what the cops did with brawling bands of youths. They'd get the call that 20 or more youths were rioting in the park and they'd make a cup of tea. After they had their tea they went down and arrested anyone too stupid or too injured to have already fucked off home.

[spudchucka]

Well, after the first few times, I think the number of people offering violence would dramatically diminish.
Yep but we'd end up on the UN's bad book because there would be heaps of Minto / Locke types whinging to them about human rights abuses.

Then we would just end up having sanctions placed against us like those that were placed against SA during the aphatied.... apatite.... afartied.... the "we don't like blacks" era.

Then some country would invite the AB's for a game of rugby and there'd be a huge outcry and protests in that country because the lefties don't like playing rugga with folks on the UN black list and the cops in that country would taze all the protesters because they basically just hate the wankers and love beating up on them any chance they get.

Then you would just resurect this thread from the dead and say, "there ya go I fucken told ya the cops would abuse those bloody tazers".

So best we leave things as they are aye and just keep the army doing what they do best, travel the world, meet interesting people, kill them!:blip:

[spudchucka]

Not me spudly, I was sittin' on my motorsickle damn near shitting myself when 600 odd people headed towards me to block the northwest m/way.
There wasn't a red squad within 5 km's.
Was that a black and white motorcycle with a pretty red flashing light? Or were you just out for a sunday ride?

[Wolf]

Yep but we'd end up on the UN's bad book because there would be heaps of Minto / Locke types whinging to them about human rights abuses.

...

So best we leave things as they are aye and just keep the army doing what they do best, travel the world, meet interesting people, kill them!:blip:
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to spudchucka again."

FUCK!

[Biff]

Rifles are no good for close combat. That's what glocks are for. If taken by surprise, shoot from the hip. .

Shotgun. Large bore please.

[Edbear]

Large bore please.



Anyone around here fit that description?

[Wolf]

Anyone around here fit that description?
No more than 50% of the membership.

[Lou Girardin]

Sounds good to me. And if the rioters start to spill over and affect peaceful folk not involved in the stoush, have the army send a few belts of machine gun fire into them, collectively.



This not 1917, nor is it St Petersburg.

[Lou Girardin]

Was that a black and white motorcycle with a pretty red flashing light? Or were you just out for a sunday ride?

All white, with three! flashing lights.
Nothing but the best for us.

[Wolf]

All white, with three! flashing lights.
Nothing but the best for us.
No wonder you were nearly shitting yourself then. A mob of 600 - avg IQ = 100 divided by the number in the mob gives a Mob IQ of around 0.167.

Chance of them recognising you were a "shark" and not a "pig" - NIL. No protection on the bike, either.

[Ixion]

This not 1917, nor is it St Petersburg.

No, nor alas is it Vendemiaire 13th, year 4, nor L'eglise de Saint Roche in the Cul de Sac Dauphin.

But a whiff of the old medicine would work as well today as then.

[Lou Girardin]

No wonder you were nearly shitting yourself then. A mob of 600 - avg IQ = 100 divided by the number in the mob gives a Mob IQ of around 0.167.

Chance of them recognising you were a "shark" and not a "pig" - NIL. No protection on the bike, either.

Snake, for God's sake get that right.
Sharks are lawyers, the lowest insult one can throw.

[Wolf]

Snake, for God's sake get that right.
Sharks are lawyers, the lowest insult one can throw.
Oops, my bad.

You hadn't done anything to warrant being called an ambulance chaser.

[Swoop]

Dragging thread back on topic...

From the Harold:
Opponents renew calls to abandon Taser after damning report

The Auckland District Law Society report, titled Less Lethal? on the use of the 50,000 volt stun guns highlighted concerns about the casual and more frequent use of the weapon by police, a lack of insistence on strict compliance with guidelines, and a lack of guidance for multiple use of the gun.

Opponents have gone further, predicting that someone might die after being hit by the gun.

Campaign Against the Taser spokeswoman Marie Dhyrberg endorsed the report's findings, saying there had been a lack of openness in supplying information about the trial, which runs until August 31.

She said the report also identified the inherent dangers of the Taser being used on people taking drugs or suffering medical conditions.

"These problems and these risks are very, very concerning."

The risk of someone dying after being struck by a Taser had existed since they started being used, she said.


"That is well documented in overseas use of Taser. There are a number of Taser-related deaths.

"Hopefully, it will not happen in New Zealand but the risk is there."

"With all the issues taken together, this is a report in its entirety that is very damning.

Both Ms Dhyrberg and John Minto, of Global Peace and Justice, want to see the trial stopped immediately.

"We don't believe that the trial should proceed at all. It's very clear that the guidelines are not being followed and we run the risk here of the Taser being use as a first line of defence rather than as a last resort," Mr Minto said.

"If we do that, we are going to see people in New Zealand die as a result of Tasering."

Auckland District Law Society barrister Anthony Trenwith said "laser painting", where the laser beam was played on the victim as a warning, was "a trigger pull" short of firing.

"If there is a casualness developing in pulling the weapon and "laser painting", then there is a greater risk of casualness developing in firing it."

The society would like to see better auditing and reporting processes, increased consultation with the public on the use of the Taser, and that the final decision on whether to implement its use nationwide be put in the hands of an independent body.

The guns have been presented 56 times and fired on eight occasions since the trial began in four regions in September last year, all within strict guidelines, according to police.

The man in charge of the trial, Superintendent John Rivers, said today the guidelines were "very restrictive" and police were not being casual in their approach.

The Taser was a tactical response and a less lethal alternative to using firearms.

"Laser painting was standard practice when a Taser was being deployed and was essential, he said.

Verbal commands were given and the victim given the opportunity to submit before the Taser was discharged as a last resort.

New Zealand's procedures for Taser use, including monitoring and evaluation, were "exceptionally comprehensive" compared with other countries.

All instances where the Taser had been used were recorded on a police website.

It was unlikely that the trial would be aborted, Mr Rivers said.

- NZPA

[Chisanga]

Gotta make sure all those nice, polite criminals stay healthy and live long lives so all the do-gooders created by liberal governments feel validated and useful for the rest of their existence.

[scumdog]

Mehhh, more of the stupid criminal twats need to be shot dead - then they would be begging for the Tazers to be introduced.

Those alleged overseas deaths from Tazers would have been just as dead if the had been shot - at least the Tazer gave them a chance - more than I guess some gave their victims at the incident requiring the deployment of the tazers.

I guess I've already said that in this thread somewhere most likely.

[Wolf]

As a potential innocent bystander, I'd still rather be on the receiving end of a taser than a 9mm.

At least the taser projectiles won't go 500m up the street and through the window of the cafe where I'm having lunch with my family...

[Patrick]

Opponents renew calls to abandon Taser after damning report

The Auckland District Law Society report, blah blah blah...

Campaign Against the Taser spokeswoman Marie Dhyrberg endorsed the report's findings,

- NZPA

Guess what District Law Society Ms DHYRBERG belongs to??? Of course she supports it... she probably wrote it.

What a load of shit. All those laser targeted were doing nothing wrong and innocently going about their lawful business? All those zapped were doing nothing wrong and going about thier lawful business? TUI... TUI... TUI....

Police not following policy and reporting correctly on use etc etc? She obviously doesn't like what they are seeing because it doesn't fit into their views of banning the devices.

It has been said before (some time ago in this thread now...) that those being Tazered are being fried only because fists, baton or the cheap and usually useless pepper spray is ineffective or will not work on many... the next option, depending on seriousness of course, is to shoot.

Death is probable when you are shot by a rifle or pistol. It is most unlikely and very rare with a Tazer.

Did she mention this in her report?

[Storm]

How dare you think logically and view both sides of the argument- this is NZ!

[Patrick]

How dare you think logically and view both sides of the argument- this is NZ!

My bad...:spanking: :spanking: :spanking: What was I thinking?

[MisterD]

If I read that blurb about the district law society report right, they are complaining that the plod have threatened to use the Taser 56 times, but only actually fired 8 times?

So, 85% of the time crims have thought better of it and given up...isn't that a good thing?

[scumdog]

If I read that blurb about the district law society report right, they are complaining that the plod have threatened to use the Taser 56 times, but only actually fired 8 times?

So, 85% of the time crims have thought better of it and given up...isn't that a good thing?

Shut-up you fool, this is KB where logic does not apply and emotional ranting is the norm........

[Toaster]

[QUOTE=scumdog;922899]Mehhh, more of the stupid criminal twats need to be shot dead - then they would be begging for the Tazers to be introduced.
QUOTE]

Sensible policies for a happier New Zealand.

[Edbear]

Mehhh, more of the stupid criminal twats need to be shot dead - then they would be begging for the Tazers to be introduced.
.



Mmmmm! By "they", you mean da dead people...?:innocent:

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=scumdog;922899]Mehhh, more of the stupid criminal twats need to be shot dead - then they would be begging for the Tazers to be introduced.
QUOTE]

Sensible policies for a happier New Zealand.

The thought of it makes ME happy.:yes:

And wouldn't all you riders who have paid good money for their tickets rather see said money being spent on hospitals/schools etc instead of supporting some slack-jawed, mouth-breathing lack-witted improvident oxygen robbing recidivist?? (and I include most politicians in this catagory, unfortunately most will never have to worry about facing a Tazer let alone a gun).

[Toaster]

[QUOTE=Toaster;923898]

The thought of it makes ME happy.:yes:

And wouldn't all you riders who have paid good money for their tickets rather see said money being spent on hospitals/schools etc instead of supporting some slack-jawed, mouth-breathing lack-witted improvident oxygen robbing recidivist?? (and I include most politicians in this catagory, unfortunately most will never have to worry about facing a Tazer let alone a gun).

Agreed... but fortunately I have never had a ticket.

[Patrick]

If I read that blurb about the district law society report right, they are complaining that the plod have threatened to use the Taser 56 times, but only actually fired 8 times?

So, 85% of the time crims have thought better of it and given up...isn't that a good thing?

You read it right... they are only interested in saving the dumb arsed minoroty 8 who have been fried, not the majority.... again....

[MisterD]

Shut-up you fool, this is KB where logic does not apply and emotional ranting is the norm........

My mistake...(adjusts tin-foil headgear)...so if the lawyers think we're warning too many crims compared to how many we're actually frying, it's an easy fix right? Just pull the fuckin' trigger pig!

[jrandom]

Tasers are awesome. Everybody should have one. Including coppers.

And, for those naysayers who doubt the wisdom and mercy of our esteemed thin blue line, I'm sure that the po-po would never, ever, ever zap, oh, say, I dunno... a handcuffed woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWaCD6jIH5Q)?

ROFL.

I want one.

TASER TASER TASER DEPLOY!

Yeah baby. Feel the burn.

[Guitana]

Tasers are awesome. Everybody should have one. Including coppers.

And, for those naysayers who doubt the wisdom and mercy of our esteemed thin blue line, I'm sure that the po-po would never, ever, ever zap, oh, say, I dunno... a handcuffed woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWaCD6jIH5Q)?

ROFL.

I want one.

TASER TASER TASER DEPLOY!

Yeah baby. Feel the burn.

If they're gonna get serious about using electrickery they should invest in a number of electric chairs as well!!!
I will even donate the steel and copper wire to get the project started!!!!

[Swoop]

One unarmed woman Vs three police - in a bathroom?
Tasered twice?
........................................
No apologies here. Unneccesary force. Simple.
Were they out of pepper-spray???
Low on 9mm rounds?
Baton in for servicing???


Unarmed woman Tasered twice in wet bathroom
Email this storyPrint this story 5:00AM Sunday March 25, 2007
By Stephen Cook


Stun guns
Zapped teen 'far from innocent'
Teen peacemaker Tasered, witness says
The use of high-voltage stun guns is again in the spotlight, after an unarmed woman was shot twice with a Taser gun within the space of just a few seconds.

The woman broke into a Titirangi home and barricaded herself in a bathroom on Tuesday evening, and although three officers were in attendance, police decided the best way to overpower and subdue her was with a Taser.

The first shot hit the woman in the leg, and she fell to the ground, and then police confirm she was Tasered again, seconds after they failed to properly handcuff her. The Taser stun gun fires two barbed metal darts at the victim and delivers a 50,000 volt electric shock.

Although previously police have said victims only risk injury from being Tasered, they now admit there is a one in 870 chance of a fatality.

This is the second controversial incident in the past week involving Tasers.

On Thursday, police were forced to defend new allegations of inappropriate use of a Taser after claims that officers had Tasered the wrong person during a fight in Henderson.

The 17-year-old was Tasered after allegedly resisting arrest, and although some eyewitnesses claimed he was an innocent bystander merely trying to break up the melee, police say they were justified in their actions.

Paul Marshall, the officer responsible for overseeing the trial of Taser weapons in the North Shore, Waitakere and Rodney police districts, told the Herald on Sunday that police stood by the decision to Taser the woman twice. She had a history of mental health problems, and there were fears she could have done harm to either herself or the three officers who attended the incident.

Marshall said the floor of the bathroom where the woman was found was covered in water, which meant it was difficult for police to overpower and apprehend her. Pepper spray was also not practical in such a confined space because of the risk some of the spray could end up in the eyes of police, he said.

The woman had been Tasered twice because she had continued to resist when she was on the ground and they were trying to handcuff her.

He denied any suggestion police had a "trigger-happy" mentality with Tasers and said that in this instance there had been no other option but to use the stun gun twice.

"They acted very professionally, and I am very happy with the outcome. On this occasion, we had to take control of her very quickly, and the Taser did it," he said. "There's no after-effects, no injuries, and we managed to get her to a place where she could get help for the issues she had." The woman, who that evening had been reported missing by her partner, was taken to North Shore Hospital and then transferred into the care of mental health services.

[Patrick]

Stun guns
Zapped teen 'far from innocent'
Teen peacemaker Tasered, witness says

The 17-year-old was Tasered after allegedly resisting arrest, and although some eyewitnesses claimed he was an innocent bystander Interpreted... "his drunken brawling mates say he wasn't involved much..."merely trying to break up the melee, police say they were justified in their actions.
BLAH BLAH


Reads all that... so where is the problem? Clearly once didn't work nor bother her... fry her again...solved!

Nutters, including females, have an inner strength average joe public would have no idea about... Seen it up front and personal, nothing was going to stop em... now there is something that can.

As for the other "incident" - he too ignored warnings and continued on his aggressive behaviour... dumb ass....

No apologies here either, seems to be necessary force... pepper spray does not work on "goal oriented people" (Ie: nutters/druggies/people with high pain thresholds/out and out angry people just to name a few...) Batons can break bones, Taser doesn't... guess which one she would recover from quickly?

Oh well, guess SOME OF it is still a cop bashing thread...:zzzz: :zzzz:

[Swoop]

It is interesting to note that there is a "review" currently underway regarding the "trial" use of tazers in NZ.

Big deal.

The "trial period" ended.
The result of which, is still awaited (Tui moment).

It appears a little bit strange that all parties involved have not waited until the outcome has been announced...

It is nice to see that the ecilops have already ordered 750 tazer guns, prior to the release of the outcome.

Getting the :Police: armed with tazers is no problem and will be a good move. Following due process appears to be another.

Non-lethal enforcement methods would be the better option, but wouldn't it be "really nice" to follow the direction of the employer (the taxpayer) once in a while?


Perhaps it sheds a little light on the actual amount of front line staff that require this device? What are the others doing? Shuffling paper, surfing tardme and KB?
(p/t boys!)