‘Bzzt, bang’ or ‘bang, bzzt’?
While I’m on the topic, there were calls for an arms race in this morning’s Dominion Post:
Police Association president Greg O’Connor said police welcomed Tasers but were concerned they could be issued at the cost of firearms.
“That can’t happen,” he said. “They must be ‘as well as’, not `instead of’.”
Why? So that you can taser your victim first before shooting them? Or the other way around?
Bookmark to:
August 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
A bullet through the chest is the gold standard when bringing down scum.
Sometimes you *need* to do it….
August 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am
…and then give them a quick taser afterwards?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
You could do a lot of things after, but it hardly makes a difference, does it.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Under OSH regulation for safety in the work place, the police must have at their disposal the means to protect themselves, the public, and the perpetrator.
It does not matter if it is a truncheon, tazer or glock. They will be armed, they will protect themselves and the public at the expense of a perpertrator.
Personally I prefer the gun, You do not see the insolent behaviour that is shown to our police force, in countries where their police force is OPENLY armed.
Something about the brown handle of a revolver sticking out of a holster that commands respect when dealing with police in Australia, USA, Canada and Europe.
Even security guards in Australia are armed. Scary but reassuring.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Frog, I think the taser, with all its faults, is a good tool, because I would much prefer to be shot with one than with a pistol. Sure some people may die from it, but far less than would die if they were shot with a pistol.
However it is a very short-range weapon, and not always effective. The police find themselves in all sorts of difficult situations. If a policeman is confronted with a thug holding a shotgun, he needs access to something a bit more effective than a glorified electric cattle-prod.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
>>Scary but reassuring
Yep. The British Police are sometimes heavily armed, and it is reassuring. Unless you’re a thug, of course.
This picture clearly says: “We don’t **** around”
newsday.com/media/photo/2005-07/18373398.jpg
Here, we’re still whining about tasers - which is quaint and cute.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Goodness me - please have regard to some simple facts.
Tasers are of limited range.
If there is a madman with a rifle with telescopic sites sitting in a clock tower gunning down women and children in a town square do you propose the police just sit there and watch? Do you expect them to run up the stairs with nothing but a taser?
Is so, would you volunteer?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Sorry toad, who is the “Victim”?
The police officer or the guy that just beat his wife?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Criminals already have access to weapons. Why shouldn’t our police have them as well?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
The Greenies like to pretend criminals are just misunderstood victims….
Perhaps a cup of green tea and a jolly good chat would bring him down from the tower?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I meant sorry frog, Sorry toad. ………this is getting confusing
August 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“Perhaps a cup of green tea and a jolly good chat would bring him down from the tower?”
Or time “out” to it
August 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
>>Or time “out� to it
Sending to the naughty chair might also work.
Whatever you do, don’t smack him.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
The reaction of the Greens to the excellent news that we will see our police armed with Tasers is disturbing.
It seems that the Greens would rather see our Police injured or killed than have scum and criminals Tasered, once again the Greens prove they are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than they are about the rights of the victim.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am
BP,
“Yep. The British Police are sometimes heavily armed, and it is reassuring. Unless you’re a thug, of course.”
Thats unless your unfortunate enough to “look like” an terrorist.
“The man shot dead by police in front of terrified passengers inside a subway car Friday was an innocent Brazilian bystander mistaken for a suspect in the abortive bomb attacks the day before, police officials acknowledged Saturday.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005 072300987.html
August 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Sleepy
There will always be mistakes made, are you suggesting that it is better to have bombs going off all over London than to arrest suspected terrorists?
August 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Not to mention that giving them such a weapon to the police can become a very slippery slope. Starts to be used in violent confrontations, then to subdue people who are merely uncooperative, then eventually those who get a bit lippy. It already happens when police are armed with only batons and maglites. I certainly wouldn’t like to see it happen with potentially lethal weapons.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
>>to “look like� an terrorist.
Yep. I was in living in London at the time. Terrible, but an isolated incident.
The whole city was on tenderhooks at the time. Very, very edgy, and stakes were high. There were other cells, and they did attack, and failed. A few weeks later, they mobilised more Police to London than at anytime since ww2 in response to a tipoff. There were armed police on every corner. There is no way of comprehending the atmosphere unless you experienced it first hand.
The chances of things going wrong in such an environment were escalated, but not typical.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Blue Peter said: Sending to the naughty chair might also work.
You mean “Old Sparky” BP?
August 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
bb,
They didn’t arrest him. They shot him in the head after being subdued. Read the news story.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
>>the naughty chair
I mean the PC attitude to parenting, as practiced by friends of mine. My wife has (passively) banned their children from our house, because they are out-of-control brats.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
>>They shot him in the head after being subdued
Yes, but that was an isolated incident during a very stressful time. To think that happens often as the result of arming police is simply wrong.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
There are a lot of weak arguments here, so I’m going to add my piece (and then do some work - things to do…)
Those in favour of tazers tend to assume that these weapons represent a step down in force used by the police in a situation, rather than a step up. I have no reason whatsoever to believe this is the case.
I’ve already had a friend tazered by the police when posing no threat to anyone at all - thankfully it was caught on tape and the police were taken to court. I tend to think of police use of excessive force as the rule rather than the exception, having seen it too many times, and have no doubt that this torture machine will form part of the compliance policing that the police use routinely.
If the police were the same police that exist in the popular imagination, it wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, there are a a full range of temperaments in the police, particularly on the frontline. A strong and persistent culture of mateship means that police back each other up, even when they clearly shouldn’t.
I’m wary of giving any Government agency powers without strict oversight, because those powers will inevitably be abused, no matter how noble the intention. Giving police a weapon of torture which leaves no visible scars - as these are, is an extremely dangerous move. The fact that the police were caught whitewashing their very own report on the use of tazers should give the public no confidence that their use will be properly enforced, as you seem to believe. The judge reviewing their report was scathing in his criticism of tazers and the way the police handled them.
If we had a fully independent police complaints authority, with greater powers, I wouldn’t have so much problem with these. But we don’t, and will not have one for quite some time (never if the police have their way).
In the meantime, criminals will be tazered, disruptive people will be tazered instead of talked to, protesters will face the threat of tazering if they don’t do what the police want, and the police will have another option which is less violent than shooting someone, but more violent than most of their other options. Having presented as a cure-all, they will be used as one.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Typical emotive language from the Greens once again;
* “Instruments of torture”
* “Abuse of power”
* “People will die”
The challenge for the Greens is this, given that you do not want Tasers because you value the rights of the criminal over the rights of the victims then you need to tell us why and tell us how you plan to keep the police safe.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Correction above - it was ombudsman Beverly Wakem, rather than a male judge who was scathing.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Weak arguments are coming from you george, Address the question on how under OSH regulations for safety in the work place, will the police protect themselves?
How would you have the police deal with a belligerent offender? Talk to them? Cool, those students in Dunedin listened pretty good did they not? Headed the lawful request from the police did they?
Judging by the way the public are starting to take the law into their own hands, the police have already lost the battle.
Soon you the public wont need the police or an independent police authority, just a automatic weapon in easy reach and a glock on the hip.
Roll on the revolution.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
>>In the meantime, criminals will be tazered, disruptive people will be tazered instead of talked to, protesters will face the threat of tazering
Sounds good to me. Perhaps they’ll think twice about blocking rail lines, and engage in more peaceful, less disruptive, protests.
>>Soon you the public wont need the police or an independent police authority, just a automatic weapon in easy reach and a glock on the hip.
That’s the way it is going. Gun ownership is already high in New Zealand, and the growing sentiment is that the thugs are getting away with murder due to wet PC governance.
Let’s roll….
August 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I hadn’t heard about the taser cameras that will be attached and activated every time one is switched into ‘armed’ mode, nor that they will be stored in cars rather than on hips.
This alleviates most of the concerns I had about oversight in their use.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Good point Gerrit.
The police are happy to remind us that we cannot take the law into our own hands yet they also admit that they cannot defend us.
They would rather we were killed my machete wielding maniacs than take the law into our own hands.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
George:
Yes, those cameras will help to ensure correct use.
Many people who don’t want police to have tasers (or guns for that matter), are under the impression that we live in a happy society with low crime rates. This is not true. New Zealand’s violent crime rate is over DOUBLE that of the USA. Where police (and citizens for that matter) are armed, violent crime rates decrease.
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/police-get-tasers/
Tasers are a great way of arming our police, to cope with our increasing violent crime rate, without having to get them all to carry firearms. They are certainly not perfect, and people have genuine concerns about them. But they are better than the alternative.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Bro “Hi Constable, I would like a gun license please”
PC “Sure thing Mr Bro, first of all I need to ask you why you want one”
Bro ” Sure, I want to shoot rapists and murderers who break into my home”
PC “You cannot have a gun for that”
Bro “Why on earth not?”
PC “Cos the law says that you have to ring the us and we will send somebody out”
Bro “But you never arrive or will be to late”
PC “That’s the law Mr Bro”
August 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Mr Dennis, your claims about crime are complete rubbish. The US has a murder rate almost 4 times as high as NZ, and our murder rate has been in steady decline since the late 1980s-early 1990s. Every other crime metric is related to reporting and policing levels, as you should well know.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
George, I actually provide a reference for my claims about US vs NZ crime rates if you follow the link. I am not discussing murder, which you wouldn’t try to stop with a taser - if its that serious you get a gun. I am talking about violent crime as a whole, which is much higher in NZ than the USA.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
BTW: The biggest scandal in NZ politics in recent memory is going down - right now - and Frog is banging on about Tasers.
One wonders why…..
(woof!)
August 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
No-one has directly answered frog’s question. Tasers and firearms must be “as well as” not “instead of” because differnent situations will require different responses. A situation that can be addressed by conversation should be addressed by a conversation, a situation that can only be addressed using a firearm requires a firearm. A situation that could be addressed with a firearm or a taser, it is preferrable to use a taser.
You don’t want to have only a frearm when you could resolve a situation with a taser. You don’t want only a taser when the situation requires a firearm.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Are the Green Party against tasers because their constituents are more likely to be engaged in criminal activities like illegal protests, marijuana cultivation, etc etc?
August 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Hey the police need Tasers, Its the only way they are going to be able to
stop parents in NZ from abusing their children by smacking them.
I mean imagine this scenario a police officer is driving along and sees on the side of the road a parent smacking their child. The police officer armed with a taser will be able to stop the car jump out and immediately taser the parent and save the child from a lifetime of group therapy(paid for by the taxpayer) over the child abuse.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ha ha…only a Greenie would think that I child might need therapy because they were smacked by their parents.
But full marks for the use of emotive language, never ever let the facts get in the way of your argument.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
By the way, while we are debating tasers:
- The ETS is being rushed through parliament by a desperate Helen Clark, who will be wishing to force it through while she still has Mr Peters’ support.
- Ms Clark has revealed that she was told by Owen Glenn about the donation to Mr Peters in February, and it appears that Mr Peters may have then lied directly to her about that donation.
The announcement about tasers yesterday is just a smokescreen, which you are doing a good job of keeping up frog.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
>>which you are doing a good job of keeping up frog.
Could it be called Poodle Politics?
August 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
BluePeter: close, it’s called dog s**t politics.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Mr Dennis - “By the way, while we are debating tasers…”
is there someone there with you, forcing your fingers onto the key board?
August 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
When will the Greens have the moral courage of the National Party and say they will not support any government that includes Peters?
Or, once again, are all their objections simply hot air?
August 28th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Don’t hold your breath BP
August 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
AW has answered the question posed by Frog.
Of course the police should have tazers, but as a less lethal option to a gun. Thus armed officers should certainly be allowed to use tazers.
The problem is that they are being issued to be a “step up” to the existing stuff that front line officers carry. Thus tazers are not a “less lethal option to a gun”.
Joy, if she is around, wont like me saying this, but its the truth: the value of a police officer is that he is willing to engage in situations with bad people and get hurt in the execution of his duty. My fear is that instead of engaging, a tazer will be drawn and used. This is clear escalation.
If this general scenario does come to pass, then an officer of the law has no more value than I have; I’m not willing to go hand to hand with a baddie, but with appropriate training, I’d quite happily shoot one with a tazer in defense of myself or others.
So under these circumstances of rampant tazer use, we’ve passed the point of no return, and I’d like to adopt the Texan model, where law-abiding citizens have more powers than the police. All law abiding citizens can carry guns, and can shoot bad guys with impunity. If the DA disagrees that the shooting was justified, its up to him to prove to a Texan jury that that is the case. And good luck on finding a Texan jury who will convict a good ‘ole boy who shot a son bitch who was up to no good.
Justice - Texan style…
August 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
“When will the Greens have the moral courage of the National Party and say they will not support any government that includes PeterS?”
They won’t need to, Peter’s is dog tucker.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
>>They won’t need to
They could do so as a matter of principle.
Wait….what am I saying…..
August 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Greenfly:
“is there someone there with you, forcing your fingers onto the key board?”
Yes.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Mr D. Is it God?
August 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
It is one of those really worrying pink batt insulation monsters from the TV ad. It keeps following me around and hugging me.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
A baton has been an instrument of torture since someone picked up a short log and bashed someone with it.
The Tazers have a built in video camera which switches on with the tazer so its use will be on record.
I have never seen a police baton with a camera built in.
Isn’t techology wonderful.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“Justice - Texan style…”
It has a certain appeal to it…
I could be the person on the clock tower, shooting ‘bad-guys’, promoting ‘justice’, sure sounds fun to me! Though using a bow would be more sporting, gotta give them a chance to escape, huh?
August 28th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Great point Owen
August 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Sapient
Will you be wearing a big white cowboy hat ?
August 28th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Well done aw. Succinct and accurate.
The case of the Stephen Wallace shooting in New Plymouth should provide all the evidence necessary that Tasers are a valuable ADDITION to the arsenal of the NZ Police.
However, it remains to be seen if the training standards, and moral standards of the NZ Police enable them to avoid using the Tasers more frequently than they need to.
I think intense scrutiny of their use will be well advised, and the camera attachments will be a good idea.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
# BluePeter Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
The Greenies like to pretend criminals are just misunderstood victims….
Perhaps a cup of green tea and a jolly good chat would bring him down from the tower?
…………………
Stop lumping Greeinies and the Green Party together BP.
[having said that they do try to mingle with us]
August 28th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
My view is that police who have been trained to use firearms should be able to use tasers.
In the same circumstances, where such decisive force is required, the officer has to decide whether to use a taser or a gun (one would presume that those officers receving training would be also given cues for deciding which to use).
This requires training to be maintained, rather than any officer being given a taser. Thus it is less likely that tasers would become a substitute for pepper spray, more as an alternative to use of the gun - which most police would wish to avoid.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:02 am
eredwen,
and the weird white leather boots with the sharp pokky things on the back.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I am all for giving the police tazers providing they are properly trained in the use, and are made aware that every time they use one, they may kill someone. In addition, I want to see a mandetory review of the camera footage whenever a tazer is fired, similar to any other officer-involved shooting.
It is the camera that sways me. The fact that the police now have good reason to video an incident should lead to better justice. Offenders have less chance of complaining about “police brutality” if their own actions are caught on camera, and individual police officers will think twice about misusing the tazer if they know that their actions will be also caught on camera and scrutinised.
Trevor.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Oh well, I do wish police would put camera’s on their guns.
RIP Stephen B.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I would rather cameras on the bobbys, if a camera on the taser is only activated apon usage then it doesint capture the situation which justifies the usage, or neccacarily the usage itself. Plus bobby camera footage would be able to be used for court cases.
Bring back the bobby hat
.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:59 am
dbuckley,
I am unsure as to why I would not like your opinion. Yes, I do support the introduction of Tasers for use by the police. The current breed of criminals are particularly violent and need more than an arm wrestle to be brought into custody.
Better a taser than a gun. Definitely. And yes, my family (who does include a plocieman) is well aware that Stephen Wallace is highly likely to have survived a taser incident.
By the by, re: W Peters, John Key really only said he would not have Peters in his Govt as a minister unless Peters is cleared by the SFO. Not exactly a com[plete “NO”. As usual, JK left wriggle room.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The camera on the tazer starts recording when the tazer is switched on, not when it is fired. Therefore it will usually capture what happened before it was fired. My understanding is that it also records sound, but I could be wrong.
Trevor.