The Tazer Debate
August 31st, 2006 at 8:50 am by David FarrarKeith Ng has what I consider the best contribution around to the Tazer debate.
Keith has provided links to videos showing inappropriate Police use of tazers (including one simply horrible clip showing multiple taserings which kill the victim) but also clips of Police using them to protect the community etc.
Keith comes down on the side of the tazers being available for use, as do I. But this is not carte blanche for the Police to use them at any provocation. I was shocked by the TV3 footage of a police officer using pepper spray on a handcuffed man on the ground, and if incidents like that are allowed to continue, then support for weapons like tazers will dry up.
So the ball is in the Police court. They have them to use them, but how they use them will be the crucial factor in public acceptability.
Tags: New Zealand
August 31st, 2006 at 9:48 am
Only based on what I hear, but my impression is that – even possible by some official sources – they’ll be used more like pepper spray is (as opposed to like pepper spray is supposed to be) than instead of guns. Which is my main problem with it.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:51 am
This limp-wristed PC drien nonsense about Tasers is just another symptom of the weakness and degradation the lying commie Stalinists infect a country with wherever their disease gains hold. When I came back from overseas I was appalled to see unarmed police everywhere. No wonder they are not treated with the correct respect, and no wonder that we have hordes of disgusting lowlifes committing appalling crimes with complete impunity.
Look at that product of the immoral socialist system, that sub-human filth who killed the boy in the prison van…steps out of the van and gloats about it. That sort of irredemmable filth should be tasered non-stop until they quit convulsing. Then he should have been shot. That kind of common-sense policing would save the taxpayer millions in court costs and state run hotels (so called “prisons”).
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:04 am
Had Constable ‘A’ had a Taser then Stephen Wallace might be eligible for Parole about now.
Nuff said.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:20 am
I’m pro-Tazer availability, but anti the guidelines police have adopted for them.
They keep saying that they’ll be a last resort, but the actual written guidelines are the same as for pepper spray and allow practically unlimited discretion from the officer. I’d be against police getting hauled over the coals every time, but the police rely do need to issue a proper guideline.
It has been quite “Clark-esque” of the police to constantly suggest that they have stricter official guidelines when they only really have a ‘verbal guide’.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Careful BlueBalls Dear Leader will be around to give you a stern talking to and if you continue with you vile rantings you may be made to go to a family group conference- I bet that will get you shiting.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:54 am
david..you haven’t really had much to do with the police..(in your relatively coddled middle-class upbringing/existance)…have you..?
why don’t you go and talk to some ‘brown-fellas’ about this…?
or anyone living in ‘working-class’ areas…?
see who they reckon will be getting regularly zapped/fried with these new police ‘toys’…
(and no david..i think you’ll be safe…blumsky could be another matter though..eh..?..would depend how ‘frisky’ he was on the night..i guess..)
and surely that footage of the pepper-spraying that disturbs you..should indicate to you the culture/mores these weapons are going to..?
and why the fuck do they need them…
(apart from to give them hard-ons and wet dreams..?..)
they already have guns/clubs/pepperspray/dogs..
is that not enough..?
and where are the stats/evidence to indicate any burning..(excuse the pun)..need for these weapons..for the frontline police..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:59 am
Hey Blueballs, are you aware that US police offices are all allowed to carry guns yet they have very high violent crime rates, the highest rate of gun related deaths in the OECD and the 6 times the rate of prisoners per population of New Zealand.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:04 am
So thats what happened phil u, to much electric shock therapy.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:07 am
I tend to agree with Phil that I have not had explained to me what the pressing need is *now* for the introduction of Tazers. Our police operate fine without guns (save for the odd occasion every 20 years or so) and I don’t understand why police need Tazers, it seems, as a matter of priority.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:27 am
Personally I’d be quite happy to se the spoilt “rich” kids on the North Shore getting zapped when they play up, after all, the central issue is whether or not a crime or public nuisance is being created. As for Phil’s concern about “Brown fellas” et al…hey maybe the “Brown fellas” should stop being overly represented in the crime statistics…that might help eh…
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:35 am
I know enough people who’ve been assaulted by the police (some of whom have recieved compensation) to think that the introduction of the Taser is a bad, bad, idea. Until there’s an independent police complaints authority, and less of a tendency to use the most violent method available, this can rightly be seen as an attempt to acquire another weapon.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:41 am
redbaiter is posting as BlueBalls now? I thought he had some sort of ‘I only post under the one name’ thing going on?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:01 pm
phil(whoar.co.nz)- david..you haven’t really had much to do with the police..(in your relatively coddled middle-class upbringing/existance)…have you..?
Phil – have you? I come from a lower working class white family, have had plnety of experience with the police (had a bro arrested for receiving from what was at the time the biggest armed robbery in NZ), etc etc. And I am still all for the cops having tasers. Don’t get drunk and pick fights with them and I would suggest that you will be fine – no matter what colour you are. By the way, you are yellow aren’t you?
Vote:-
August 31st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Brian – Phil’s neither yellow or brown. He’s green. I’ll let him describe his criminal background.
And were you talking about the Birkenhead branch of the BNZ by any chance?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Tazers are for compliance reasons, pepper spray is personal protection equipment.
Pepper spray is for Police Officers protection, Tazers are for the Public.
And when I say compliance I am not talking picking up your litter, I mean.. ‘stop stabbing that person to death’ type compliance.
These are the fundamental issues and why Tazers are being introduced.
Tazers have been used in several counties but it’s always the USA examples where all the trouble and critisism comes from. Lets face it, the USA is a different culture and climate than NZ.
Vote:The British experience would be closer to the mark.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:30 pm
phil – you really shouldn’t make assumptions. Apart from my political misdeeds I did as a youth have a number of
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Good article.
Pressing need = P. Pepper spray and even batons don’t stop P crazies – although of course bludgening some guy who does not feel pain until he stops trying to hurt you has some lasting side effects.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
brian smaller….
what an appropriate nom-de-plume..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Some sound advice from comedian Chris Rock on how to avoid trouble with the law.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-880897175401400927&q=chris+rock
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:58 pm
I wonder what the tazer-lovers will have to say when we have our first deaths, serious injuries, and abductions using them. I’m betting it will all be because of the degenerate left and their limp wrists. Isn’t everything?
I think that like almost all weapons, tazers should be available. But the control should be similar to that over firearms. Possibly slightly stricter since a tazer is a more versatile device for mischief, being easily concealable, useful for kidnappings, leaves no ‘fingerprint’, can be reloaded at a powerpoint, and is simply more tempting to use. As soon as crooks have tazers, the cops basically have to have guns. This device is the thin end of a stupid dangerous wedge that has done no good in most societies where that wedge is thoroughly driven home.
The need for high tech weaponry readily available in the hands of anyone in our society is as dubious now as it was since the invention of the musket. It leads to an arms race, which our police already easily win by virtue of their numbers and societal support. Police are protected far more effectively by the law and their own than by tooling up. Leave that to the army and times when it is really needed, like wars.
The casualties of that arms race will be police and society, not crooks, who are already casualties. We don’t need it.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Nice comment about S Wallace Blueballs. But, not ’nuff said. I met an ex cop who pistol shot and wounded an armed offender holding a knife at a victims throat. It was a good shot too I reckon as the offender was behind the victim. He felt that Mr Wallace had no need to die at all so Tazer’s are not a relevant option to raise in that case. That leads to a debate over whether good cops (remember them?) would need much control over their use at all. It also follows that bad cops shouldn’t have them at all. Given that Police standards have slipped I think, on balance, Tazer’s are a mistake without some rules rather than guidelines. I bet they’ll be misused soon enough.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:59 pm
“brian smaller….
what an appropriate nom-de-plume..
phil(whoar.co.nz)”
Unfortunately, depending on one’s viewpoint, it is the real name I was saddled with.
Gooner “And were you talking about the Birkenhead branch of the BNZ by any chance?”
Nah, it was early 80s. Armourguard truck robbery at a supermarket in Auckland.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 3:41 pm
so..dpf had a series of ‘blank spaces’ in his youth…
we can but wonder why/what…?
and mr smaller….i note by your words that you are trying to live down to your name…
(and hey..!..don’t sweat it..!.my sirname means ‘penis’ in maori…
if i can live with that load..you can handle being ‘smaller’..)
(yours in the recognition of ‘unfortunate accidents’ in name…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Ben
Vote:Hideous strawman argument there.
The topic was Police using them. In what possible twisted manipulation of logic does criminals using Tazers link to Police use?
Isn’t like the Police have a surplus weapons store or anything so you must be talking about criminals illegally importing them, so in what way would the Police use or non use of Tazers affect that?
August 31st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
As an ex Police Officer I have been involved in numerous brawls. Although we have pages of instructions on amount of force we were permitted to use in practise it came down to the most you were able to muster. If you haven’t been there you can’t understand it. Since I left,violence in society has got much worse,and more mentally deranged are in the streets. The Police have weakened powers,poorer judicial backing, and now minimal physical qualifications to join. There are more of them and they have better communication,but they do need aids such as spray and now tazers. Believe me there will be pages of instructions regarding the use of such weapons designed to protect the heirarchy and often ignored by good cops who will use their commonsense. Yes there will be abuses mostly due to panic decisions made on the spur of the moment and sanctimoniously judged over a lengthy hindsight in a crystal tower.It really comes down to whether we want the Police or the Thugs to control the streets.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Lance, it’s not a straw man, although I forgive your misuse of this term, since it’s used consistently wrongly on this site. Straw man is putting a weak argument into someone else’s mouth so you can knock it down. This is my own argument and I can back it up, since you ask, without any ‘manipulation of logic’ at all.
The link argument is twofold. Firstly, there’s a strong correlation between criminal gun use and police gun use. That’s just a fact.
Secondly, speculation on why that fact is a fact:
A/ Weapons being readily available to tens of thousands of people who are cruising the streets with them means they get lost, either by accident or deliberately. Coppers may want to give their spouse one, so they ‘lose’ it. Cops may have them nicked. Orders that have entered the country can get misplaced. Cops may be crooked and give/sell them to criminals. Basically there are a multitude of ways that weapons can end up in the hands of criminals once they’ve got past the hardest part of getting over the border in huge quantities.
B/ Because they are very effective for the purposes I already described – robbery, assault, kidnapping, rape, intimidation etc – owning one will be something most really nasty crooks will be keen on.
There’s also the ‘upping the ante’ issue, where crims need better tools themselves if they are faced with widespread tazers. Guns come to mind, as a deterrent against a cop chasing you with a tazer. Like I said, it becomes an arms race, as it has in so many countries already.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Baxter,
I actually read your comments with interest, because I do realise that you have reason to hold an informed opinion on Police work. This is a tough one. I accept that there ARE situations where tazers would make the work of front-line staff safer and more effective. In many cases it might reduce the chance of harm to the person being detained. There is some merit in the police asking for them and used sanely they would be a usefull tool.
But every time we give the state increased powers (and the Police are state operatives after all) there is the question of how responsibly those powers will be used. Unfortunately for the Police there are too many recorded instances of them abusing the powers they already have, eg prolonged pepper-spraying of people they have already handcuffed and subdued. There is no doubt in my mind that there exists a real likelihood that tazers will be used in exactly the same manner, to inflict punishment and retribution. Unlike a beating or shooting, electorcution normally leaves no marks or evidence that can be later used against the officer concerned.
How do you see the balance of this? Tazers would have real operational benefits, yet that benefit would be forfeited in the backlash if just one officer was caught using a tazer to torture someone.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Logix…I’ve never known a cop torture anyone. Excessive force yes occasionally and I have interceded to stop it once or twice.I have been accused of brutality in court by a mongrel mob member. Almost every gang member will allege Police Brutality in order to maintain his standing in the gang. I know very little about Tazers but if they leave no marks I am sure false allegations will be made.If a cop uses one he will have to submit a full report on the circumstances. The most likely adverse event may be if an inexperienced member panics fearing for his own safety and uses it when it is not justified perhaps in response to an oral threat. I heard a serving cop interviewed and if I heard rightly he said there were only 30 in the country for the trial, so for the trial at least there should not be any unjustified use.Cops are just like any other group of people in any other lawful situation.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 7:58 pm
nice you’ve never known a cop torture someone..
does beating/kicking the crap out of someone..smashing phone books into the side of their heads..
swinging them around..feet off the ground..by their hair…and smashing them into walls and filing cabinets in the police station office/room..?
this all in an attempt to get someone to sign a statment admitting some weed they had planted on that person was that persons’..?
does that count..?
and no..i didn’t sign their feckin’ statement…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Takes more than that to get phule to sign anything- cept for his benefit.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:21 pm
that’s quite good….little chicken…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 11:01 am
And when I say compliance I am not talking picking up your litter, I mean.. ‘stop stabbing that person to death’ type compliance
And there’s the rub. People who are opposed to tazers are concerned that that line between “pick up that rubbish” and “stop stabbing that person” will not be so clear. Personally, I think they are a good alternative to guns. Unfortunately I think their fatality rate is too low, for the police to limit their use.
I support the introduction if the police use them as an alternative to guns. I completely agree with DPF and suggest the ball is in the police’s court. However, I doubt that we will ever see tazers removed from circulation if the police misuse them.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 4:42 pm
I see in todays paper that only two Tazers have been issued to Porirua, that they will not be carried 24/7 and that it will require special authority from the officer in charge of the station before they are used, and kept in security when not in use. That will apply for the next year. In my view they are only likely to be used when and offender is armed with agun or knife and as an alternative to a gun.They might also be taken as security to the address of a known violent offender or perhaps when excuting a search warrant at a gang address or similar.
Vote:So Phil if you cause no trouble next time they pick you up you should be okay. Sure you weren’t hallucinating last time?
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:41 am
Interesting development in the US; at a library at UCLA the police used a tazer five times on a student. The student in question I think was being an ass; but still, he had comitted no crime, and at no point threatened the police or attacked anyone.
The concern here is that once tazers are introduced they will not just be used for situations which involve violence, but will be used as instant punishment for non-compliance. Argue with a cop; get tazered.
The other issue I have is that the word ‘tazer’ and ‘tase’ seem to eliminate whats going on – electrocution. People are being electrocuted.
No doubt there are some situation where tazers could provide a non lethal way to subdue a violent offender; but there should be investergations into each instance – much like with when a offender is shot.
Vote: