Rosemary McLeod finds herself lost when "civil libertarians" talk about Tasers. She reveals that the New Zealand Police would support the use of Tasers by citizens. She poses questions about a "droll incident" when a group of police took a large number of pot-shots at a dog near them and all missed the target.
How does this increase confidence in the general use of yet another weapon - when these same hands of these same police officers are just as likely to miss with a Taser as they would with a Lugar. Except Tasers are generally only very short range and guns are not, we hope. So, if the man with a hammer is out of range for the Taser does not automatically justify the use of a gun?
The public is already exposed to bad policing practices. Giving them guns they are insufficiently trained in is a clear and present danger. Adding in a non-lethal variety does not presuppose the replacement of these quietly armed random police wandering around missing dogs.
It is the right of every taxpayer to demand at least a decently trained police force. Until Karen Walker has a say in it, they may not be the most profoundly well dressed force in the world, but they can reflect good Kiwi values.
Arming police without training them to use deadly force correctly is both unsafe and illegal.
Giving them weapons that can be used to great effect without risking death in most cases, well I think we appear on the face of it to risk having many more dogs running around biting victims of sudden paralysis. Not sure they won't feel it, though.
The Civil Liberty I would like my Government to respect is the right to walk down the street without undue risk and a police force that is respected by the community. If the police are to be feared as the article suggests because of "who known how many are high on drugs and impossible to communicate with" (sic) then it paints a picture far worse than it really is. Tasers are useless against guns, and horrific when pepper spray is merely punishing. Yes there is a risk, the risk is escalation. The introduction of Tasers requires criminals to develop an effective defense. Tasers are easier to dodge than bullets. If the police are being turned into an army to fight the insane citizens, we have to be very sure that they are a) good at using those weapons, and b) ethical in their use.
The example of the police firing a gun at a dog is evidence that the New Zealand Police should not carry guns until they are expert in their use.
The fact that Ms McLeod can not trust a taxi driver for his earlier crimes is understandable, but the assumption is that nothing can change. That is simply untrue. The Police have changed a lot since the 90s. They take crime far more seriously. But let us not think them infallible, they make mistakes, too.
Handing out deadly weapons without training is simply insanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment