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?