Tasers
The debate in Parliament yesterday around the use of tasers seemed entirely to be game playing by a government that, up until now had been unwilling to politically debate the issues around tasers – claiming it was an operation matter for police, not a political one for MPs.
Nonetheless, it is an important issue, and worrying too, as Keith noted:
Let’s be blunt about it. Some New Zealanders will die unnecessarily as a result of this decision – as have over 300 people in the United States – the home of the taser. So far this month we’ve seen five Americans die after being tasered…
Deaths are most likely to occur among the mentally disordered people, because in our year-long trial the taser has frequently been used against such people.
The use of the taser will not help police relations with Maori and Pacific Island communities because the trial statistics show that people from these communities have been the main targets. The introduction of the taser will be bad for race relations.
We know that the taser is very likely to be overused, despite the controls that the Minister has mentioned, as it has been overused elsewhere in the world.
Keith compared the taser to pepper spray and highlighted the way that police are using that the much less dangerous weapon in situations they should not need to (such as confined prison cells and against the Anti-GE protestor whom courts later compensated).
One of the traditional strengths of the New Zealand police force is that they are not heavily armed and have thus earned the peaceful respect rather than fear of most citizens.
The taser is a horrific weapon, one that can seriously injure or kill people.
There is also the serious question that taser use is, legally, torture. This was clearly stated last November by the United Nations Committee Against Torture when it declared that “the use of the taser X26 weapons provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture” – and was therefore contrary to the UN Convention on Torture. New Zealand is a signatory to this convention and must obey it. The fact that America and some other countries use the taser does not make legal what is clearly illegal under international law – and that is the use of tasers.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am
>>The taser is a horrific weapon, one that can seriously injure or kill people.
So is a gun. Given a choice, I’d take my chances with the Tazer, thanks.
How do you intend to subdue violent thugs? Read them a bed time story? Send them to the naughty chair? What happens when that doesn’t work?
You escalate.
It makes sense to put an escalation point between manhandling and a gun.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
>>ew Zealand police force is that they are not heavily armed and have thus earned the peaceful respect rather than fear of most citizens.
That may have been true in the past, but there is very little respect for authority left in society.
And when you see the state of leadership within parliament, it is hardly surprising….
August 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
regards your first point, see my next post BluePeter
August 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Frog, the tazer is just another tool as the situation escalates. The gun is necessary when all else has failed. The Tazer makes it less likely the gun will be used, which is a good thing, surely.
One again - you’re going to be shot by one or the other. Which do you choose and why?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
You’ve picked the key point BP - escalation. Opponents to tazers would say that with escalation comes greater harm. De-escalation, as utilized by negotiators in all sorts of situations is the other side of the coin. Adopting ‘zap em’ technology immediately weakens the hand of the negotiator and sets them on the road to redundancy. Then the climb on both sides (lawkeepers and criminals) to greater heights of ‘fire power’ begins.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I’d imagine the tazer would get used less than pepper spray, which would be the prior escalation point.
By that stage, you’ve finished arguing.
I also wonder if you’ve even been out with the Police on a patrol at night. I have. Go ask them if you can ride along - they’re pretty good about it. Anyway, I’ve seen the people they deal with. You get people charging out of the dark, f**ked up on P, swinging weapons. Put yourself in that situation. Go on. Then come back to me and lets see if you hold the same opinion on passive policing.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Yes BluePeter, I have been out with the Police on patrol (late afternoon -not night) but I know what you are talking about. Pepper spray is indeed an escalation point. Reminds me of the argument that cannabis is the gateway drug - wouldn’t that be tobacco, given that most children begin with a ‘nicked fag’ from mum or dad’s packet?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Great suggestion BP.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Greenfly, bad situations escalate anyway. We have a very well-armed citizenry by world standards (and no, you can’t legislate to reduce the number of guns because only the law-abiding people would surrender them, the criminals will retain them). A well-armed citizenry means well-armed gangs. Well-armed gangs require a well-armed police force.
Yes, things escalate. But you can’t say “lets reduce violence by stopping the Police being able to use violence” - that would INCREASE violence as criminals rule the roost. In order to reduce violent crime the police need to be better armed than the perpetrators.
The taser is a good tool, as with it a policeman can be better armed than a man holding a baseball bat.
A pistol is a good tool, as with it a policeman can be better armed than a man with a bb gun.
A rifle is a good tool, as with it a policeman can be better armed than a man with a pistol.
Unfortunately we live in a violent country now. The Auckland violent crime rate is, I understand, higher than that of LA. And you can’t fix that by saying “lets all have a family conference to discuss violence and have a group hug”. The police need to be able to stop violent offenders before they do more damage.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Would love to know what the policy is on compensation for those NZers’ families who are accidentally killed by tazers, as inevitably they will be.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
i.e. ‘we only wanted to subdue him, but uh…we killed him. Sorry!’
August 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
And now I see the next post - well yes, i’d rather be tazered than shot, and i’d imagine there are policies to deal with the outcome of police using lethal force.
Apologies for the jumbled posts.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:09 am
StephenR
Gee, that would be terrible, imagine if Antoine Dixon or William Bell had been accidentally killed by the police, I can just hear the outrage from the vast majority of the public condemning the Police for their deaths.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Those guys should’ve been shot, I don’t think there’s much question about that. I don’t think the cops would’ve even considered a Tazer there.
But when a drunk guy stumbles towards the police with a plank of wood, and gets killed for it? What then?
August 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Can someone clarify this for me (apologies if it has already been discussed) - during the period of the tazer trials, police in the trials drew their guns twice as often as is usually the case.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
In order for the police to avoid being hurt they need to KEEP THEIR DISTANCE. A police officer is going to get hurt when he ends up wrestling with a suspect. Police are taught to avoid that situation. The Taser is good at dealing with that.
And the idea that a drunk guy swinging a plank of wood should get some compensation for dieing is absolutely absurd and clearly being put forward by someone who doesn’t understand responsibility. The simple answer is you shouldn’t be swinging the plank of wood in the first place. Of course in New Zealand if you get injured while breaking the law, we look after you and pay you money (only in a loopy country like NZ would this be seen as a good thing).
But then i would expect this kind of attitude from a party which one doesn’t respect the law and two doesn’t respect the police who are out on the front lines every day.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I agree. The thing is, we will soon be seeing more unintentional deaths at the hands of police (not a *lot*, but some). Is this simply balanced by the fact that *presumably* less police will be getting hurt?
August 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
StephenR:
We should not be seeing an increase in deaths at the hands of police, as the taser will be able to substitute for a firearm in some circumstances thus reducing deaths from firearms. Although there is a risk of death by taser it is much lower than if a firearm were used.
Should there be an increase in deaths, which is debatable, it should be balanced by the fact that hopefully less police and public will be getting hurt. It will be further conteracted by the fact that the tasers will be acting as a deterrent to offenders and so hopefully reduce overall crime rates.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Yes. I am in favour of this, just.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
You’ve got to wonder, if knowing that police are carrying tasers now, a crim might arm himself with more than just a knife if he thinks he might be challenged/interrupted during his activities. As the police increase the ante, so must the crims.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Probably a good reason not to liberalise gun laws…i think if i was a crim i’d equip myself with the best weapon I could get my hands of, regardless of what the police had…
August 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
what’s the correlation between those who favour ‘the loving smack’ and those who support tazering. Close, I’m betting.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
StephenR:
I would also equip myself with the best weapon I could get my hands on. It wouldn’t be difficult to get hold of something better than anything in the regular police arsenal (although I understand the armed offenders squad is better armed).
The point is that under our current laws, criminals can already be well armed. If you liberalised the gun laws criminals wouldn’t be able to be much better armed than they already are, criminals don’t respect the current law anyway. Their victims would be better armed however. If you made the gun laws more restrictive, law-abiding people would be more poorly armed but the criminals would still be armed the same - they wouldn’t respect the new law either.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
what’s the correlation between those who favour ‘the loving smack’ and those who support tazering. Close, I’m betting.
Comments like these are why the greens will never be in power in this Country
Thank God
August 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“But when a drunk guy stumbles towards the police with a plank of wood, and gets killed for it? What then?”
Then it is one nil to the good guys.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
panda - when one pro-smacker who doesn’t support tazers, comments, I’ll begin to see the light, perhaps. I’m especially interested to hear from the regular commenters here, Mr Dennis, big bro, Blue Peter, even, god forbid, dad4justice!
August 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
One doesn’t necessitate the other. As I’ve been at pains to point out, I don’t think smacking is a particularly great idea, but for some kids, at a certain stage, it does work. That is why it should not be banned.
Tazers are clearly a good idea, as they provide a means of control that doesn’t involve shooting someone. If you don’t want to get shot by a tazer, might I suggest you don’t make a habit of breaking the law and inflaming the Police.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
As BP says, one does not necessitate the other.
However the happy-clappy view that all “assault” is equal and wrong, means the same people will often end up both:
- Opposing smacking as assault, whatever the good reason behind it.
- Opposing tasers etc as assault, whatever the criminal has done to deserve it.
The view that not all physical force is “assault”, and physical force may be justified in some instances, will lead to the same people feeling smacking is ok in some circumstances and that physical force is appropriate to use against criminals.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
If the regulation of the use of tasers was the same regime currently applying for the use of guns, would Greens support that?
Surely tasers replacing guns would be a good thing.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Or if not replacing gun use being an alternative option applaying on those occasions.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Mr Dennis, I don’t really think crims are that well armed as it stands - using sawn off shotguns and hunting rifles is about the extent of things and seems to be rare(?). Liberalising gun laws would allow semi-autos, autos and I suppose lovely easy to conceal pistols, which would lead to a nice arms race amongst citizens who’re scared of crims; crims and also cops. Yech!
You’re right in that creating stricter laws would at best have mixed results - if they did so in the US, that would leave crims and authorities with weapons, and a citizenry unable to defend themselves - I think all they can hope for are thorough checks and registration.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:27 am
As someone who was fully involved in lobbying the government to ensure an adequate inquiry into the safety (or rather known lack of) of Tasers, including their long-term health effects, the documented 300+ Taser-releated deaths and usage creep - I am seriously concern that:
There will be deaths from Tasers in New Zealand. Those most likely to die from being shocked with Tasers are those with heart conditions, who are under the influence of drugs or are mentally/physically agitated - as already noted by Keith. There is no way of knowing who may have a health condition.
People who are NOT criminals but are non-compliant with police (for whatever reason (see post about respecting authority : )) - in the States not signing a speeding ticket, heckling speakers or forgetting your library card can get you Tasered!) Those people wrongly Tasered are as much at risk of death as those who are genuine criminals.
I am glad about the accountability that will come with the cameras that are going to be fitted on the Tasers. Though there were already serious doubts about training and the police’s ability to adhere to their own Taser manual - as seen during the year long trial.
I fear Tasers once introduced will be pulled and used by inexperienced cops who have been told by the Police Associsation, Taser International and the Police Commissioner that these weapons are safe and can be used on citizens without regard the risk of death.
I would be very interested to hear the views of those gung-ho Tasers supporters after watching videos of obviously abusive use of Tasers by police:
Tasers on Video on this page basically documents complete violation of human rights through use of the Taser on ordinary citizens who are doing NOTHING illegal or wrong.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/domestic-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id =1021202&n1=3&n2=850&n3=220
I just hope that we all understand how important accountability, transparency and strict regulations on training and use of this weapon are and that we demand such controls.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
StephenR: Hunting rifles are better than the police rifles I understand. And I expect there are far more pistols in circulation than we would be comfortable with, they used to be under far less restrictions than they are now and I doubt many have been thrown away. If you want to get a decent weapon in this country you can, licence or no licence. I don’t think we need to liberalise the gun laws too much, the current system works fine. But if we were to change it, we certainly shouldn’t bother trying to restrict them any more.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Ash:
I appreciate your concerns about police misuse. But police can already misuse batons. You don’t stop police misusing batons by not issuing them with them. You stop police beating people with batons by training them appropriately and enforcing appropriate disciplinary action if they misbehave.
Likewise, you shouldn’t try and stop a few police potentially misusing tasers by not issuing them to police. Rather, ensure that police are well trained, have cameras on the tasers to keep them honest, and discipline the few that misuse them if this occurs.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Mr Dennis, yes police can misuse any weapon they are given - Tasers however are not like batons, they are more like guns. The risk of kiwis dying from being Tasered is far far greater, a fact that the NZ Police Association and Taser International have been less than honest about.
It is wrong to have a police force out there with a dangerous weapon but;
no idea exactly how lethal it is because their organization has misrepresented the weapon - telling them it’s safe, and giving them instructions to use it against those who are at the greatest risk of death - those under the influence, the mentally ill (basically those exhibiting bizzar, agitated behavior though not necessarily a threat of harm or violence. Those with heart-related heath issues (like some in my family) if Tasered run the high risk of being killed.
I am all for police being accountable - though am discouraged when I hear the Police Association Spokesperson says on Cambell Live that the NZ public should never question the Police’s motives, work ethic or actions. That we should have complete trust without questioning the only authority in our society that is sanctioned to use force and violence is rather non-sensical to me.
I have faith in the vast majority of the Police force. But wonder how can we afford to look away when there have been so many incidents of appalling misconduct in recent times?
http://www.amnestyusa.org/domestic-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id =1021202&n1=3&n2=850&n3=220
Based on the way the American police use Tasers in the above link (see Taser Videos) does anyone have a view on whether they expect the police to use Tasers against peaceful yet possibly non-compliant protestors here in NZ? I know this is entirely possible and many people expect it to happen. I still have hope that NZ police will not abuse Tasers like their counterparts in the US, Canada, UK and Ireland.
Also, what do you think about the UN Committee Against Torture stating that Tasers constitute a form of torture and can cause death? Torture as a means to discipline crims and what about those innocents that are collateral damage? “Too bad buddy, take one for team!”…? Well, they’re Kiwis and this is a small country - we’ll hear from them soon enough.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Ash,
If tazers are not the weapon of most effectiveness. Please expalin which one you would prefer?
What method should the police use to protect the public and themselves?
August 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Ash:
Your concerns are certainly valid. Nothing is perfect. We do need to be able to trust the police force, and when there are accusations of police misconduct we need to ensure they are investigated and dealt with appropriately. You are correct that police training needs to be comprehensive and deal with all issues surrounding taser use.
But:
“Also, what do you think about the UN Committee Against Torture stating that Tasers constitute a form of torture and can cause death?”
Batons are also a form of torture and can cause death. Guns are a form of torture and can cause death. Water is a form of torture and can cause death.
We shouldn’t not issue something to police just because it has the potential to be misused. If something can be misused we need to make sure it is not misused. If a police officer is corrupt enough to want to torture someone they’ll find some way of doing it, and it won’t be a taser with a camera attached. You must address the corruption, not the tool.
As Gerrit asks, what do you propose instead to deal with violent offenders?
August 30th, 2008 at 9:53 am
The old ploy used here by Mr Dennis and Gerrit,
” don’t criticise unless you can offer a better option”
is a nonsense and used to bully anyone with the ability to see that the Emperor has no clothes. Ash has explained very clearly a number of serious aspects of tazer use and your dismissal using the ‘old ploy’ just doesn’t cut it.
The French might have said, ” yes, the guillotine is messy grandmother, but can you name a better method? (as if it were her responsibility)
August 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Greenfly, I have acknowledged Ash’s serious concerns and would not wish to dismiss them at all. We are weighing the pros and cons, not ignoring the cons.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Apologies for the broken link…
Gerrit,
I do not claim to have all the answers rather implore that ALL the facts and concerns about Tasers are considered and addressed, and that the public and police are fully informed - which I assure you they are not.
The police do need tools to be able to help them in their work, which I am sure we will all admit is often difficult and can be fraught with danger. However, when I look at the obvious failures of the government and community to address gaping holes in our society that continue to result in violent crime, I wonder why our heads are so deep in the sand… and our response is to up the ante with arms rather than address the real issues?
Firstly our alcohol problem which has time and time again been directly responsible for violence and crime - this is a nation of boozers, and our children are growing up bringe drinking every weekend with scant regard for themselves or others in society. When roughly 13 year-olds and UP are out developing habits of getting boozed up, something is wrong with how alcohol is available and our view of how it should responsibly be consumed. What are we doing about it and is this not an obvious place to start cleaning up our act?
When drug (alcohol included)rehab centres are failing due to extremely poor service and no other reason - you really have to wonder about our commitment to actually reducing violent crime.
“Waiting lists send addicts back to life of crime”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4671377a20475.html
Rather than the introduction of another lethal-weapon - specifically one as controversial and with unknown effects as the Taser. I would prefer to see a number of changes in the further development of:
Community and inner city Police Programmes, Drug and Crime Rehabilitation Programmes, Youth Centres with a focus away from gangs, community initiatives to combat crime and instruments like Neighbourhood Watch revived.
Police do need to be better resourced and informed, though I think we should be taking a more thorough look at how to to best do this. There is a lot the community has to offer by way of aiding police and helping to prevent crime and young people getting involved in crime. It seems though that we are so lame at capitalizing on such community partnerships/involvement and would rather go for a quick and easy option - despite the added violence and risks.
I recall watching a programme sometime ago about P makers purchasing
certain chemicals from corner dairies in huge quantities without question - as a consequence of the show (which highlighted the easy with which these chemicals can be obtained) there was a resounding cry from dariy owners that they wanted to collectively take responsibility to stem this increasing problem. Actions such as this inhibit the crime from the outset and are far more favourable than violent confrontation at the other end.
I believe that if we seriously tackle these kinds of issues (with a range of different approaches) collectively, with foresight and strategy the need for Tasers will be mitigated.
Mr Dennis, I agree with most of what you have said regarding accountability and training. Though your comments on torture are concerning and don’t make much sense.
Anyhow, it seems the decision has been made and we will just have to wait and see. I am slightly reassured by the cameras - though that police have routinely escape prosecution for misconduct leaves me ever vigilant.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Good post Ash, I agree. We do need to be combating the cause of crime, not just acting reactively. Many youth (and then adults when they get older) who end up in crime have come from broken families. We need to support families and require greater accountability from fathers to their children, to reduce the number of children growing up without a father figure. We certainly need to counter the alcohol problem, one way being to raise the drinking age back to 20. If you don’t already know, I am standing for The Family Party, and we certainly recognise this and have a raft of policies to solve crime from both ends, all on our website http://www.familyparty.org.nz
Tasers and anything like it are just firefighting. We need to stop the fire starting in the first place. More info here:
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/police-get-tasers/