ITN - Man and baby hit by Taser

ITN - Man and baby hit by Taser

Suspect Dies After Being Shot With Taser Gun

Man dies in JPD custody

Clearly, Tasers are used inappropriately and kill people quite often. In cases they cause injury, in New Zealand - Accident Compensation could be claimed by the Tasered if they fell and hit their head. When do the Tasers become weapons available to security firms in New Zealand? How about private individuals?

Of course the right to bear arms is sacrosanct in America, so there is no barrier to arming gangs, thugs or citizens. You could have a Taser in the cupboard under the stairs.

Bain wins last appeal

Sensational victory as Bain wins appeal - New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz

Legal history in more ways than one. Yet another botched murder case that resulted in a long prison sentence for an accused who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact the Privy Council said :

"In the opinion of the board, the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the nine points summarised above, taken together, compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case."

It said the convictions should be set aside.

It is the last case to be reviewed by the Privy Council in London. The last strand of Colonial rule has now fallen and New Zealand now has a Supreme Court. We hope it brings better justice.

Smacking and parental rights

Scoop: Marc Alexander - Smacking away parental rights

There is a law before NZ parliament to outlaw parents who hit their children.

Reactionary forces have voted against this justify it by saying hitting children is a parental right. A parent should be able to choose their weapons, select how to discipline children. The crimes act of 1961 says that a parent is justified in the use of reasonable force as correction towards the child. Marc Alexander in this article asks how hard is it to understand the meaning of "reasonable"? He says this law is adequate. It is not.

Modern thinking on the subject is that parents using ANY violent force against their children will not only make the child backward in life, but it forces the child into a set of calculations that eventually result in criminal actions. Violence is wrong, because children learn by example and hitting children begets a violent society. Extreme cases must be prosecuted. Parents need to evolve their disciple so the child is intelligent enough to solve problems. Children who are hit become teenagers who run away and commit crimes. It is too damaging not to change the law.

Keeping people "in line" is the language of slavery. It is the job of a parent to bring the child up to their best of their ability. Any culture of accepting violence toward children is regressive, socially. Child abuse is an intergenerational disease. The final result is that the child, now an adult, abuses their elderly parents.

Sue Bradford, the Greens MP that has put up the Anti Smacking bill has suffered death threats from irate parents. This is in itself evidence of why the law needs to be stronger so that very severe cases of child abuse as punishment can be prosecuted.

Right wing media claim that the bill removes a fundamental right of parents - to hit their own children. I question that parents have any such "right". Children do not belong to parents. It is time we saw children as our future.