Tazers

[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?

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.