Shooting revives Taser argument

Shooting revives Taser argument - 28 Sep 2007 - NZ Herald: New Zealand National news

A man was shot twice, once in the chest and once in the leg as a man approached with menace and a hammer - he had already attacked a car in rage and was now threatening the officer. Criticism of the officer for firing is not allowed, as Police Association President has made clear saying: "Inevitably, armchair critics will speculate and make judgments about what could or should have been done." But that does not mean discussion of this issue is not important.

The officer fired two four or more bullets from reports of witnesses. Nobody can say that the officer did the wrong thing if his life was in danger. With such poor aim, one must question who else was put at risk by the firing of a lethal weapon by someone evidentially not confident enough in its correct use? Tasers have been misused, also.

Now we have Ron Mark - an unmistakably right-wing politician - saying that the "anti-Taser brigade" (we hope this blog is considered part of that) have gone all quiet about Tasers in light of this shooting. That rather over-bakes the point.

I doubt that the hammer weilding nutter even knew the Taser trial was over, and there is that nagging doubt aroused by the unbelievability of it (rather strongly expressed by a 5 year old). Did this shooting prove the need to "prove Tasers are required"?

It seems a single police officer was being confronted by a man wielding a hammer at close quarters - was the call-out response inadequate? Why was an armed officer in range of the hammer wielding man - what if the man got the officer's gun? It does not sound like police procedure were closely followed in the moment, so an investigation is sure to follow.

Was it a case of panic? A shot to the chest at close range is likely to be fatal. Ah - but not so if it was a Taser! Also, not so if it was a net, an immobilisation dart, or even a gun shot to the thigh.

Does having a gun or a Taser make the officer react differently to such a situation? It is true that the Taser makes it less necessary to train the officer properly in use of the weapon. That is not a selling point.

There is also the mute question, is there a motivation in having such an incident end so, shortly after the end of the Taser trial to establish a need for such a weapon in the hands of front line police? One certainly hopes not.

If it is a question of deterrence, it should not be. "A hammer wielding nutter risks death if unable to regain control when so ordered by police." is not the criterion upon which to rest future judgment. This death will be examined and the officer retrained if his reactions are at fault. If it was a Taser used in this instance, the dead man would likely still be alive, certainly, but that does not justify all uses of the Taser. Institutional use of a weapon is hardly justified because of the risks of other weapons.

We could say it is right for the police to shoot instead of using bombs. But the police using bombs is simply more wrong than police using guns. Neither one is a desired condition in New Zealand - but we choose guns as the "lesser evil", hence we chose Tasers as "less evil than guns".

Did we? When did Parliament setup the NZ police force as an army? Last time I checked front line police were not casually armed. Then there was a Taser trial which is now being reviewed (apparently this process will take 4 months - why?) and one month into the review, we have a "live demonstration" as to how Tasers may stop the police from needing to fire a weapon.

Some would have all front-line police bearing Tasers. We believe it would reflect a sad deterioration of police practices. The best way to fight crime is not to do what the criminals do, but to set an example of successful self-control. The Taser has not softened criminals. It is not supposed to be a deterrent and neither is the gun, both are weapons of last resort.

The examination of this incident will be concerned that the gun's use was not inevitable due to non-observance of police guidelines for dealing with such a person. We question if a shot at close range is a very rare police response to a man wielding a hammer with menace?

Police Act Review Wiki

Police Act Review Wiki Now you can help draft the new Policing Act in 2008 - by contributing to their Wiki. The home page suggests users should contribute in this form of "extreme democracy" but encouraging a national conversation on policing. "The new Act will need to cover a wide range of topics, from high-level governance to day-to-day administration. To help get people started, we've included some headings and a few example ideas. "But don't feel constrained. For instance, if you'd prefer to work offline and upload a complete Act for others to comment on, by all means add it beneath the one we've started (there's a space provided under the "Alternative versions" heading)."

Cabinet paper summarising results of public consulation, August 2007

Cabinet paper summarising results of public consulation, August 2007

It is indeed intellectually alarming to read the submissions summarised by the Cabinet discussion paper. There is a definite sense of a set of new legislations for the sake of having laws that legalise the activity of police is overtaken by internal opinion that essentially any redrafting is a statement of the status quo.

If there needs to be an element of tradition in Government that does not swing from right to left, it would seem that would be the Police - the keepers of the meaning of tradition. There is a simple truth to reality, and then there is opposition to that. Sometimes, Government by committee results in a synthesis of the black and the white. And that is called gray. It is duller to the eye and when applied to legislation, it is an attempt to say one thing when saying another that results in unclear motives for law.

The purpose of the police is best expressed in simple terms:
e.g. "to keep order"

Overriding principals that make sense allow one to form more complex judgments later. It may seem very right-wing to say that basic principals aside, the function of police is fundamental to the operation of civil life. And if their function causes more civility, then their function is generally going to be more correct.

When the function of police is the creation of disorder (for example, the violent action of military police in Burma is out of proportion to the harm done by protesters who are merely exercising their ability to speak out) - society loses its essential guardians to chaos.

The role of a police officer is to maintain, not bring, order in civil life. If life is not civil, then the conduct of commerce becomes false. In a corrupt world, the Police will be corrupted. It requires the establishment of a social order for the Police to uphold for the Police to be police and not military.

And in the pursuit of order, the Police have a role to guarantee to society that wrong-doers will be found and pursued when it can be proven by a trail of reliable evidence (and not intervention by a convinced law officer) that harm has been done and then the full force of the Law is enacted by the officers to expose the truth to the balances of justice.

Police are not there to punish or judge. It is their function to bring order. The Police who confuse their function with the military are guilty of murder. Police who prevent violence are the most valued.

It is the function of Justice to redress wrongs. It is the function of Police to preserve and present the Truth and bring Order to those who seek chaos. If a Police officer breaks the law then that act is subject to Justice but investigation of the Police by the Police is to taint them so it is necessary to have a Civilian authority above the Police.

The Minister states "I believe the best way to facilitate consideration of the broad range of topics within the Police Act Review is to submit a suite of papers to Cabinet for policy decisions..." and "Timing wise, I intend to bring all six papers forward for consideration by the Cabinet Policy Committee in September 2007."

DIY protection

Straw promises greater legal protection for 'have-a-go-heroes' - Independent Online Edition > UK Politics

Interesting sign to see the UK advocating DIY vigilante justice by reducing the potential for them to be criminally prosecuted as a result of harm to perpetrators. So long as the harm is proportionate to the threat that is. So if someone attacks you with their fists and you shoot them, that is not covered. But if someone attacks you with a knife and you knock them out, you are probably not going to get prosecuted. Even if he gets accidentally cut with his own knife in the tussle.

It is not as if the law expects people to lay down dead at any approach by a mugger - far from it - but it is interesting to observe that a leniency to those that take measures against intrusion, from the electrification of windows to walking around with a loaded gun.

It appears to be bringing the UK law perhaps more into alignment with what we have in New Zealand. Under Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961, 'Everyone is justified in using, in defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use'.

Hence, New Zealand films that are violent tend to have been more so than UK films of the same ilk. Maybe so. But DIY justice does lend itself to more interesting fiction as it makes it tougher for those who wish to commit crimes in public. Making that something that people will react to is an interesting social experiment, it seems to me that the law covers us Kiwis to rugby tackle every shoplifter - and perhaps we do to some extent. But as our society becomes more exposed to violence it seems self evident that this sharp edge may require more careful definition.

In Great Britain, Police Can Use Taser Guns on Children | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom

In Great Britain, Police Can Use Taser Guns on Children | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom Is this the slippery slope of soft arming police with "undeadly" force, that they see as a device of torture administered in public? This trend toward totalitarian state control of society will also catch innocents in its juggernaut need to resolve problems we as individuals are not fit to resolve. Criminal behaviour is identified and sequestered into the constrained society of jails. The effect of such concentrations of criminals being made to have limited social contact but with each other is known to have a low effect, it can not reform anyone but could scare the wits out of a teenager considering the odds of a criminal enterprise instead of school. Such logic works well for the very stupid who do not learn to look after others as well as themselves from an early age. They see the world in terms of what it can do for them, only. Therefore we mete out punishment to "suit the crime". Tasers are not reasonable because they randomly kill about 1% of the "taser victim". Use of bully tactics and the teaching of lessons (humiliation) is now an instinct that, like the stocks of medieval times, can be applied to children - to teach then that lesson that a short jolt in prison used to serve. Guns at least can not be used without consequence. Just how long will this go on before some bright spark invents Taser resistant clothing?

Crime victims should get compo from state

Crime victims 'should get compo from state' - New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz

Victim Compensation is one way that justice is done, but when there are $50M in unpaid reparations one has to ask what the effect of the legal system is on victims. And if the Government pay reparations then the taxpayer is paying twice for the criminal. If the Government underwrote compensation so then the $50M in unpaid compensation would be like an unpaid tax debt. Makes more sense.