by frog
In 2006, Rawiri Falwasser was seriously injured in the Whakatane police cells from being beaten for 20 minutes and pepper sprayed 65 times by Sergeants Keith Parsons and Erle Busby, Constable John Mills and Senior Constable Bruce Laing.
Yesterday the Independent Police Conduct Authority found the officers’ actions “unnecessary, unreasonable, and unjustified”. Earlier this year, the High Court awarded Falwasser $30,000 in damages for the incident. An earlier internal police disciplinary tribunal found the officers’ actions amounted to misconduct.
Even Police Minister Judith Collins, who seems to think the reason for reduced respect for the Police is the media’s refusal to cover up instances of Police thuggery and corruption, rather than the actions of rogue Police officers themselves, said [couldn't avoid admitting] the incident was “completely unjustified”.
But not the Police Association’s Greg O’Connor:
Police Association president Greg O’Connor said in hindsight it was easy to think how the officers should have reacted.
“Unfortunately the police do not have hindsight or time when they deal with serious situations like this.”
The four officers were trying to resolve a very difficult situation as best they could, he said.
“In hindsight they may acted differently but at the time they were doing what they thought was best.”
If any other union were to give tacit support such as this to brutal thuggery by its members the right wing bloggers would be foaming at the mouth. What’s the bet we hear nothing from them about O’Connor’s appalling comments?
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Sat, August 7th, 2010
Tags: Greg O'Connor, Independent Police Complaints Authority, Judith Collins, police, Police Association, police thuggery, Rawiri Falwasser
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
This is clearly complete thuggery. Those cops should be fired and then chucked in jail.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Rimu: The video recorded the pepper spraying which enabled each incident to be counted.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
see below from republican.co.nz 28 June 2008
“You can’t have it both ways” says Greg O’Connor of the Police Association, the man who has the unenviable job of justifying every questionable killing, every brutal assault and every case of misconduct by the New Zealand Police. O’Connor was trying to make the point on Radio New Zealand that you can’t have a New Zealand Police that refrains from using violence against people in custody if you also want a New Zealand Police which steps in the save the lives of the victims of violent crime.
O’Connor, in his stunning abuse of logic, confuses the job of policing (which properly undertaken requires a mix of restraint, courage and judgement) with brute machismo (which involves simply jumping in and bashing the hell out of anyone who gets in one’s way).
The reality is actually worse than what O’Connor’s “tough cop” scenario has to offer. The New Zealand Police have shown that they lack the courage to go to the aid of a dying gunshot victim, even when the risk to their own safety is vanishingly small. And at the same time they have shown their willingness to gang up in large numbers and use extreme force, involving the gratuitous use of pepper spray and batons against a mentally distressed prisoner.
The New Zealand Police must bear the direct responsibility for their own grievous actions and omissions. But indirectly responsibility lies with the political institutions of the regime. The New Zealand government has chosen to follow in the footsteps of its “very very very good friends”, Britain and the US, to whom every kind of torture and abuse is deemed to be acceptable as a matter of military necessity. The vile practices which the New Zealand government condones internationally in the ludicrously misnamed “war on terror” will inevitably be reflected in the way it conducts itself in the domestic arena.
Having said that, Greg O’Connor is quite wrong. New Zealanders can and will “have it both ways”. One day the New Zealand Police will be confronted by a moral force that treats its prisoners with compassion and does not hesitate to put itself in harm’s way to protect the lives of the innocent. When that day comes the public of New Zealand will emerge from the long dark night of their Stockholm captivity to this egregrious excuse for a police force.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1 (+13)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
O’Connor appears to support.. authoritarian rule by the Police. The Police were once called a service (aim to protect & serve the people) now they seem to be at war against everyone who steps outside their ‘blue line’. NOW they are the Police FORCE.. what next ? Jack boots, swastica arm-bands & shouts of “ZEIG HILE !!”. Aotearoa/NZ or Aotearoa/NaZi-land ??? Wake up all you apathetic Kiwis !
Kia-ora
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
36 (-33)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Of course if you have a lot of people on the breadline you need tough security forces to protect the well off. What there are left of them.
Increasing penalties does not cut crime, Giving people a reason to feel part of society from a young age does.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1 (+12)
sprout says “Sounds very much the sort of thing that came out of the southern states of the USA when there were stories of blacks being pulled out of rivers with multiple gunshot wounds being deemed suicide”
You’re right – sounds exactly the same. There’s probalbly dead people shot by police in rivers all over New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
4 
13 (-9)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
We’ve been hearing the “get tough on crime” message from National, Act and Labour for many years, we’ve seen significantly increased sentences, greater police powers, and more police.
Where has it got us? More crime.
Isn’t it time to start getting tough on the causes of crime – like unemployment, poverty, and the inadequacy of our mental health and drug and alcohol dependency services?
Like or Dislike:
16 
2 (+14)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
They had all the time in the world, FFS. He was already locked up in the Police cells – he wasn’t going anywhere and wasn’t any threat.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3 (+8)
Toad, we haven’t seen them go far enough. We still have people who commit murder that are getting de facto seventeen year sentences. We still have people with dozens of offences who are running around. We have seen a lot of rhetoric but little action.
We have only gotten more crime because in spite of all the rhetoric, we are simply not tough enough. We need consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing. We need parole to only kick in after a significant portion of a sentence has been served, and only given to those who are well and truly ready to be released back into the community. We need prison to be a harsh place that people do not want to go to, not a place where an individual gets Sky TV. We need a return back to years gone by when crime was suitably punished and that punishment acted as a deterrent.
Like or Dislike:
7 
15 (-8)
People in these jobs are expected to be professional and respond appropriately or they will be in front of a court being judged in hindsight.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Here is a comment on reducing crime from someone who actually has some expertise in that area. I have put it on the blog as it is hard to find.
http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-reducing-crime.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
@ john-ston 5:14 PM
Ah, john-ston, you mean like this?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
No, I am not thinking of something like the penal colonies of Australia, I am thinking of gaols along the lines of what existed a mere fifty years ago. Prisoners were not given luxuries, they were given the basics. Prisoners were expected to earn their keep instead of just sitting around all day (and indeed, if we expected prisoners to earn their keep, then they could get useful skills at the same time).
How much harsher are penalties in the United States though? Given the inefficiencies of the appeals process for the death penalty there, to be frank, most of the death penalty prisoners get a twenty-five year sentence and then get executed. If we made a life sentence mean a life sentence, then we would get a lot less murder (especially since we wouldn’t have repeat murderers). If we had consecutive sentencing instead of concurrent sentencing, then we would not have people who get a hundred convictions.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
I can only stand in awe of anyone who thinks that the reason the death penalty isn’t a deterrent in the US … is because of the appeals process. Rather than the fact that most crimes aren’t exactly committed under circumstances where the committer is thinking “gee, if I just bludgeon him a bit I’ll get GBH … but make sure no stabwounds to the abdomen, that’ll get me bumped up to attempted murder!”
As for the hilarious “earn your keep … filthy scum who should be accorded no dignity!” I simply direct the honourable member to this post.
I’m sure companies profiting off the backs of what is essentially slavery will be most endearing to him.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
QoT, given that most death penalty prisoners in the US tend to wait about twenty five years before they finally get executed, for them death would be more of a relief than anything. If you notice a place such as Singapore where the death penalty is swift, it acts as much more of a deterrent.
The final paragraph of that post put me off – prisoners have harmed someone elses rights, and so it is only fair that they should be expected to earn their keep – and that should be used to compensate the victim of their crime.
That is of course unless you are soft on crime? And it was because we started getting soft on crime in the 1970s that the rate of it started going up dramatically.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Prison labour as described by NRT is basically slavery. Now, I’m an Anglo-Saxon culture geek so I’ve got some sympathy with the concept of wergild, but the main problem with that is that “tough on crime” folks generally want to (a) lock people up AND (b) complain they shouldn’t be paid at all AND (c) take their 40c an hour and give it to their victims [which will work out so well if we're talking about serial rapists, for example] AND (d) b!tch and moan if anyone so much as dares to talk about that money as compensation because nothing can bring the victims back!!! And nothing can undo the harm that has been done!!! Hang ‘em high and charge their families for the rope!!!
All I’m asking for here is a little consistency, and maybe an acknowledgement that either you do just want to impose a mandatory life penalty for everything or, if we are going to let some people out eventually, leasing them out to the private sector for a pittance and then taking that pittance away is probably not much of an inducement for them to reintegrate as productive members of society.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Why would labour, even where the income is largely taken away to pay for the results of their own actions, act as less of an inducement for them to reintegrate? The labour would give them some sort of skill – for instance, prior to the contruction of the Central Busway, Auckland’s Symonds Street had kerbs that had been constructed by prisoners doing hard labour back in the 1950s – those prisoners would have gotten a useful skill out of that.
I would also note that I am in favour of separating criminals based on their sentences – those with a total sentence of less than five years would be kept in one set of institutions, with those in prison for more than five years being kept in another set of institutions.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
john-ston. In the 5+ year set of institutions, should prisoners be pepper-sprayed 65 times?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Sergeant Parsons resigned before proceedings were initiated.
Sergeant Busby elected to be dealt with under the new process. He was demoted to senior constable, his duties changed and he was the subject of a written warning and a reintegration/rehabilitation plan.
Constable Mills received a written warning and was the subject of a reintegration/rehabilitation plan.
Senior Constable Laing pleaded ‘not guilty’ to both charges but was found guilty by the Tribunal on 7th December 2009. He has resigned from the New Zealand Police.
They were all charged with criminal assault, but were all acquitted, presumably because the jury found there was reasonable doubt as to whether they held a reasonable belief they were acting in self-defence.
So none of them went to jail, although two of the four resigned, presumably under threat of dismissal.
Wonder if any of them were subsequently given a job opportunity by Clint Rickards?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
That’s interesting, toad. Thanks.
I wonder what a rehabilitation plan involves?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Never let it be said I pass up an opportunity to link to a highly appropriate Bad Religion music video.
[frog: Sorry, QoT, but you've given us a bum link. I'm confident you were going to take us to somewhere interesting, so have another go.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For every story similar to Mr Falwasser’s that comes out – I would guess there are a thousand or more that do not see the light of day.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Reality Check:
On Radio NZ (Chris Laidlaw) a perenial crim talks about going in and out of clink and how for him he goes back for a catch up. He compares it to the TV series Cheers.
.
I’m a believer in doing whatever works best and that includes the stick. If the stick is used wrongly the authorites become indistinguishable from crims (as in the movies Shawshank…. but if they can be disciplined sufficiently and run prisons like the Japanese do and have have training, social skill development, training type carrots then that is better than our containment with comfort policy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
that’s true too, but it has its limits. We could provide an incentive not to commit crime but that taken to its conclusion that becomes extortion.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
13 (-12)
Mark says “For every story similar to Mr Falwasser’s that comes out – I would guess there are a thousand or more that do not see the light of day.”
Maybe not a thousand, but at least 400 – the number of assaults on police last year, when only a handful were ever reported.
Of course that doesn’t excuse the behaviour above, but look at the posts here, comparing NZ Police to Nazis, saying the NZ situation sounds like the southern USA when black bodies were being pulled out of rivers…(real world calling sprout and zedd ….anyone there???)
There is always going to be situtations like this when you have several thousand people dealing with thugs and violent offenders on a daily basis. It doesn’t excuse it.
But I can’t think of a single country across the globe where I would be more trusting of the police than here.
Any suggestions of a better police force?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
@photonz1 9:39 AM
I agree, but it doesn’t mean that we should sit back and let our Police service descend to the brutality and corruption that exists in many overseas jurisdictions.
I think the point of the original post is that O’Connor, who represents the union for Police officers, seems to think we should and is prepared to defend thuggish behaviour by Police officers.
If the members of the Police want to regain some of the lost respect they complain of, they should think about electing someone other than O’Connor to represent them. Nominations for the Presidency are open now, closing 22 September, for any of the many good professional Police officers who may be reading this.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
The point i was attempting to make was that when the evidence is obviously out of kilter with the statement it makes it clear that a coverup is occuring.
We are lucky to have police that are largely honest but there are historical and current examples of where practices should be questioned and honesty is not always present.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
toad – I agree completely. For years O’Connor has defended police – I suppose that’s his job.
But for years he has made the same mistake of defending the indefensible.
It does his cause no good, and harms the reputation of the police.
Similarly comparisons of NZ police to Nazis / black bodies in rivers etc is equally out of touch with reality.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
He is also of the opinion that the Police are “always right”.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Greg O’Connor remains the greatest peace-time threat to New Zealanders.
A little OTT
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
There seems to be a couple of themes we are seeing
a) Police treat us all as criminals who are yet to commit a crime
b) Police feel we have no rights to protect ourselves becuase thats their job, yet they are unable to be everywhere 24/7
c) An elitist view of themselves, ie they are somehow above the law
Police will gain respect when
a) They start dealing with the public in a respectful way
b) Citizens can start taking responsibility for self protection and crime prevention without fear of prosecution from the very people whom claim to offer that service.
An old saying
The state should not be able to prosecute you for taking the law into your own hands when there are no other hands to take it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
You think? Name me another person calling for New Zealanders to be shot in greater numbers.
I say again: Greg O’Connor remains the greatest peacetime threat to the lives of New Zealanders.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Oh dear, he did say that.
I thought your comment was a bit OTT too, dbuckley – until you supplied that quote.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Someone tell me again we don’t have a self-serving ‘uberbeuracracy’ in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
What irks me is that if we were talking anyone except Police, the perps would (quite rightly) be made fully responsible and locked up – instead we give them extra-ordinary powers – what message does that send ALL NZ’ers?
I’m afraid the Historical precedents for this sort of Condonement never turned out well.
Yer I might sue ‘em too!
Right is right and wrong still wrong Mr Finlayson…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Frankly, we shouldn’t need O’Connor telling us that more Kiwis will be shot if the Police are all armed, common sense should tell us that, but in fairness, and with kudos to O’Connor on this point for his honesty, he is spelling it out in a way that most folks haven’t twigged, because, wierdly, common sense is not common. A fully armed Police service will kill more Kiwis than would other wise be the case.
I dont think thats a good thing. For at least two good sets of reasons.
Firstly, there is (in practice) no accountability for the actions of the Police. Sure, there are investigations, usually several of them, when actions of the Police do harm. But rarely is the action of an Officer ever deemed to be required to be tested in front of a jury. This isn’t because there is one law for the Police and another law for everyone else, but because of the differing processes that are used to under the law.
It is difficult to understand why an officer who accidentally shoots someone (example: Auckland courier Halatau Naitoko) idoes not have his actions evaluated by a court, whereas when a member of the public accidentally shoots someone they are pretty much always charged, often with careless use of a firearm causing death (e.g. this story).
Having an inquiry in between the even and a possible court case almost always seems to stop the matter going to court.
I’m sure housebreakers would like to have an investigation by their peers between their accusal and their court appearance; you would guess that the enquiry by the housebreakers would find no fault with the accused actions, and thus he would not have to appear before a jury.
On the same topic when an officer is injured or killed in the line of duty, he is injured or killed while “at work”, and thus when Sgt. Derek Wootton was killed while laying road spikes to stop a stolen car, there were several enquiries, but there wasn’t (and never is) a Department of Labour investigation for a workplace killing. There should be.
The second reason is the disproportionateness of killing people to avoid injury to police.
Recently, an (admittedly off-duty) Officer was seriously injured when he tried to break up a ruck involving several youths, all teenagers. Whereas this is bad, would it had been a better outcome had the Officer used his weapon to shoot a few youths to avoid him getting injured? I would say no, youths in body bags would be a far worse outcome, but a policeman using whatever means he has at his disposal to defend himself is seen as acceptable, and thus the official determination would be that the Officer had done was permissible.
Although I’m not a believer in the men and women of the Police service being injured being a good thing, it is a lessor evil than more Kiwis being shot.
In reality, Officers are (at least paritally) recompensed for the ususual risks directly attributable to being a Police Officer.
In the Second Submission of New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists in response to REVIEW OF THE WAY IN WHICH PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES ARE FUNDED AND ACREDITED BY ACC (May 2007, no longer online) the representative from Strategic Pay noted that “… nurses and Police Officers, when we did some evaluations to work out what the difference was, a new nurse and a new Police Officer came out within a few points of the same size, but, they don’t get paid anything like the same amount of money”
You would have to argue that the large excess of pay over calculated “job worth” was due to the unique risks associated with being a Police Officer.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Not only increased civilian deaths db – ime firearm accidents that kill Police are the prime cause of deaths amongst a routinely armed force.
You are right – essentially a bullet is Judge Jury and Executioner – for the dead have yet to report their feelings on the matter – kinda makes guns covenient for some.
When someone talks about ‘opening the floodgates’ one can only assume that there is a wealth of material that really needs to see the light of day.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I can’t resist relating a story
A goodly number of years ago the family were on holiday in New York, and on day 1, we wandering were about the Rockafeller centre. Suddenly, there was a commotion, and many (armed) policmen running around. We were quite concerned, veging on scared. We hear that a policeman has been shot on the subway.
On the evening news we find out that the policeman had in fact shot himself in the foot whilst deholstering his weapon.
That kinda supports your argument…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I’ve already asked Frog to give me a page to list the anecdotes I retain about armed Police in Melbourne – any serious study of such would show the notion of routinely arming Police to be sheer folly (for everyone).
A gun generally needs a human to work – and love ‘em or not dem umans will make ‘fall off de roof’ mistakes mon.
When I was in New York – the Crims had upgraded to home-made submachine guns – Policing was not a sought after job – 5 people shot each other on my local subway one night;-someone said “Watchoo Lookin’ at?” and apparently everyone armed on the platform drew and shot any visible threat.
Only made the headlines for a day – because that night a Puerto Rican up in Harlem wiped out 19 people with a sub-machinegun (all his Family and all the neighbours)
Do Firearms improve society, in anyone’s hands?
No Nyet Nein and Nada – you’d have to be crazy, paranoid or in the National Party to believe that
Guns have made the world a fugly place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)