Tazers
September 30th, 2007 at 8:57 am by David FarrarThe latest Police shooting appears to be a good example of where a Tazer may have saved a life.
Anyone who thinks that pepper spray would be effective enough in stopping a charging man with a hammer aimed at your head, should try offering their own head up to be made into scrambled eggs.
It’s amusing to read that the group “Campaign Against the Tazer” claims not to be against the Tazer in all circumstances. Greg O’Connor pointed out that makes their name look pretty silly then.
There is an argument against the Tazer. Because it is (almost always) non-lethal, there is a risk Police will use it when it isn’t necessary. We’ve seen this in the United States (mainly with private security though). And in NZ we have seen occasions when Police have used pepper spray without proper justification.
But it is a balancing act. Does the risk of tazers being used inappropriately outweigh the likelihood that lives will be saved (both Police and attackers) by having available a weapon between pepper spray and a pistol?
I don’t think it does, and that Tazers on balance will be a good thing. However the Police will need to clamp down ruthlessly on any use of them when not justified.
Tags: New Zealand
September 30th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Surely most of the responsibility must lie with the person who has placed themselves in such a position of jeopardy, that they run the risk of being subdued by a pepper spray, tazer spray or firearm?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
The problem is the use will be abused no matter how clear the rules are. And people will lose their life possibly when its use is being abused (though the perpetrator will be facing homicide charges if a proper inquiry is ever allowed). But on balance I favour its use but whether it will save lives I am less sure.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Personally I hope Marie Dryberg is happy. As a result of her stupid campaign against Tasers, another person is dead. She should have this on her conscience.
Of course as a lawyer that is probably a forlorn hope.
I have to say, there is a moral here. If you are prepared to attack property and then confront cops with a weapon, you will get shot. End of story. What was supposed to happen, the cop run away? the offender get reasoned with?
Once upon a time there was a concept known as personal responsibility in this country. Actions lead to consequences.
The cop should get a commendation, not the endless flagellation that has commenced.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Tazers are not the only option. Would a shotgun loaded with rock salt fired at the appropriate range (50 -60 metres) not bring the guy to his senses? A shotgun has fives shots compared to one with a tazer. I do not profess to be an expert with firearms but do know how to you one. I would be interested in the view of someone experienced with the use of a shotgun.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am
“the Police will need to clamp down ruthlessly on any use of them when not justified”
I totally agree. However what if this does not happen (the clamping down), will you call for the removal of the tazer? And who is to be the judge of justification, the Police themselves? Given that a person who has been ‘tazed’ in unlikely to be a credible witness, then (in the absence of video) we will never know accurately about instances of ruthless usage. We will be left solely reliant on individual Officers’ subjective assessments of what is acceptable.
If the taser was to be used *only* in situations like the one in point (accepting one version of events over the other here that is), then there would be no problem. However, if it was to be used as a standard tool to induce compliance then we will suffer a decrease in the quality of our Policing (with or without tazer deaths).
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 10:17 am
If they’d employ Police who aren’t a third of the physical size of your average hardened crim, they might not need so much weaponry. It’s like sending in Argentina against the All Blacks. Let’s face it the only way Argentina would have stood a chance is if they had been armed!
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Yet they managed to arrest Duthie, who was armed and had already fired at police, without bloodshed.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am
The push to have tazers is connected to politically correct ideas about police wimmin carrying out front line duties. Weak little blond bimbos fresh from NZ’s fucked up education system and full of bullshit socialist/feminist/ Marxist concepts about equality are not in reality able to utilize the threat of violence the way male police officers can. The tazer adjusts for this lack.
The danger with this idea is that man hating jack booted power seeking feminazis wearing police uniforms will be tazering men for no reason other than their gender. Get rid of the stupid idea of wimmin front line police officers, and tazer use will be much less of a danger to society, and possibly not even necessary.
First step towards this objective is getting rid of the gender orientated politically appointed dickwads who have the cheek to call themselves Police Commissioners these days. Incompetent political favourites of the government. Bimbos and Klark arse-lickers most of them.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Redbaiter: I’m guessing it’s been a while since a girlie gave you a hug.
Anyway, I’ve always seen the anti-Tazer argument as a classic example of a refusal to consider practicalities over principles. The anti-Tazer crowd consistently focus on the benefits of their first-best options for making law enforcement less violent and gloss over the practicalities of Tazers vs. guns or knives vs. batons as the case may be.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
To me it is as simple as that the consequences of misuse of pepper spray and/or tazers usually allow the subject to complain later on and attempt to rectify the situation. This is not often the case when guns are used.
Pepper spray is abused, guns are abused, be sure that tazers will be abused esp. when the employee is only just out of training and panics under pressure. Just hope that the combination of a democratic state, investment in training, and decent salaries results in this being the minority of cases.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“Just hope that the combination of a democratic state, investment in training, and decent salaries results in this being the minority of cases.”
Yeah right Bwoocie…
For fuck’s sake.. what galaxy did you just timewarp in from??
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 11:47 am
It’s interesting how a cop blowing a guy away who was armed with a hammer comes up as an argument for more weaponry for cops. Like it’s the gun’s fault it went off. The cop knew the guy was rampaging so he deliberately picks out the most lethal weapon from his arsenal then puts himself where the guy can charge at him (although witnesses appear to be divided about this ‘charging’). He then kills the guy with 4 bullets. No waiting for backup, no tightening his helmet and grabbing his truncheon, pepper spray and 3 other coppers. No shooting a warning shot into the air or popping the guy in the leg. Just kill.
It’s probably true. Tazers would indeed be better than guns. But there are a ton of other options that could have been used in this situation. Like running away, for instance, and coming back better prepared.
OTOH, if I had a gun in my hand when a nut came at me with a hammer, I would shoot them. Which is exactly why I’d do everything I could to avoid that situation ever happening.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
James Cairney: You raise a very valid point: “And who is to be the judge of justification, the Police themselves?
Does that mean being hauled before a Police Disciplinary Tribunal Board for breaking Police Regulations and bringing Police into disrepute? Could a graver charge be presented?
Take the case of C Rickards at present facing a Police Disciplinary Tribunal Board on charges of breaking Police Regulations. After 3 years it still hasn’t been resolved.
Supposing it could be shown that prior to this he was alleged to have prevented and defeated the course of justice? Is this a matter for an internal investigation?
Where is the Philip Field case? There did not seem to be any outcome to the Cadet Bain shooting case?
Why are “Those in the Service of the Crown” subject to an “In-house inquiry”, whilst we ordinary Joe Bloggs are subject to being charged for offences under The Crimes Act 1961?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“Like running away, for instance, and coming back better prepared.”
Yeah, and leaving the perp to get on with his rampage.
FFS..!!! Who cares about the rights and safety and legal protection of law abiding citizens who may have been subject to this loon’s predations??
Pfffttt.. Liberals.. (pseudo ones that is)
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Chuck Bird
What do you want to know about shotguns ?
Yes salt might work in cases like this. Solids would do a better job
Where was the cop who fired these shots when Burton was having his killing spree in Welly? Why didn’t that drain on society receive such accurate fire ?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Burton was shot in the leg as he was wearing body armour. He didn’t charge the cops and they withdrew to discuss what they should do. They decided that as he was a danger to the public that they would challenge him and if he didn’t surrender, they would attempt to hit him in the legs in order to arrest him. Shooting for the head with a pistol is a risky business as they are likely to miss and you don’t know where the bullets mayend up.
Whatever powers or appointments are given to Police there is always a risk that they may be abused, that is why police recruitment policies need to be kept tight so that only balanced mature officers, capable of exercising a good sense of judgement are on the street.
For those who criticise the cops with the benfit of hindsight, remember when the cops go to a job they have a smattering of information given them from Police communications who receive it from people phoning in.
Often it is like chinese whispers and the reality when they get to a job may be a lot more serious or trivial than what they have been told.
As for tazers, they are like any appointment, if used appropriately they can be an excelent bridging gap between pepper spray/batton and a pistol.
For situations involving non firearm weapons + violence they are a way of disarming violent individuals whether they are drugged or not.
Pepper spray is only effective up to 3 meters away and takes several seconds to take effect and there are around 10% of individuals it doesn’t affect anyway.
Battons are only effective at an arms distance.
I think there may be a small risk that when someone who is tazered hits the ground may cause them selves a head injury etc. but that is better than them falling to the ground dead from being shot.
I suggest that we all wait for all the facts to come out before judging whether this cop made an appropriate decision. On the initial facts I would say he did, but wait for the full story.
Just rememeber that cops should be allowed to go home to their familes in one piece no matter what they have do deal with during their shift
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Burt
What do you want to know about shotguns?
If you read my post you would see I said rock salt. They are hard pellets of salt. If fired at close range they would be fatal. If fired at a distance they would hurt like hell and give an indication of what to expect if one kept coming. I would be interested in the opinion of anyone who has done duck or skeet shooting
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Greg OConnor admitted on radio NZ that in this incident that the tazer would not be appropriate(due to the hit and miss chance of making of making a good contact with both prongs)
So this begs the question of when would it be the right time to use the tazer?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Ben W wrote: “It’s interesting how a cop blowing a guy away who was armed with a hammer comes up as an argument for more weaponry for cops.”
The argument being made is that cops should have less lethal weaponry.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Giving the cops less lethal weaponry would do what?!? Reduce crime or reduce injury to people involved in criminals acts?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Drawing him away from his centre of rampaging to somewhere isolated would be a better idea. If he stops chasing then there’s no need to keep running.
I’m referring of course to a copper who is totally unprepared except for being armed with a gun. A cop who has, say, a riot shield, or 5 colleagues armed with batons, would be expected to then have a go at the more usual pepper spray and vicious beating routine.
That would be good, but I’m not hearing that. I’m hearing that they should have tazers as well as guns. But if that makes them more likely to use the tazer and less likely to use the gun, then that is a good thing.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
KK wrote: “Giving the cops less lethal weaponry would do what?!? Reduce crime or reduce injury to people involved in criminals acts?”
Call me a bleeding heart but I would prefer crims arrested and tried rather than killed.
If you’re suggesting the outcome of the last police shooting was better because it ended in a death come out and say it KK.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Agreed
Did i suggest that? Did anyone answer the question? No on both counts.
What I get sick of are keyboard judges passing sentence on front-line coppers who are in harms way every day.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Did I “pass sentence” on frontline coppers? No, I said I’d prefer people didn’t end up dead.
The answer to what would less lethal weapons do is pretty simple – result in less people dead. Reduce crime – probably not but neither wopuld it raise it. However, I’d say argue dead people is a good outcome.
BTW: are you a bleeding heart by the standard which led you to agree I am KK?
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
richard, i didn’t claim that you are a keyboard judge – my first post on this subject was before we, um, ‘met’ here. apologies if my comment appeared to tar you so.
to be sure though, you did originally say that you’d prefer that crims were arrested and tried rather than killed. you’re now widening that to include anyone loosing their life which is good… considering the predicament that the copper in question was faced with.
i remain concerned that whenever a copper find themselves in the unenviable position of having to use force to defend life, limb and other citizens, there’s an endless stream of folks appearing from the cyber-woodwork citing police brutality, excessive force etc. it just seems a bit unfair on the copper to me.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Oops, proof reading lapse – “I’d argue LESS dead people is a good outcome.”
KK, I may have read too much into your earlier post. I agree that the police are often unfairly judged; by standards that those judging wouldn’t apply to themselves were they faced by the same circumstance that the police routinely find themselves in.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I asked my brother (a cop) about the use of guns etc in this type of incident and he said that all they have to defend themselves are guns (or dogs if one can be got in time).
I was surprised and wanted to know about shields and long batons but apparently these are only used for riot control.
So it seems that using a gun which should be the last resort is quite often the only tool available.
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
The shotgun Q. Well I’ve hunted goats with buckshot in NZ and shot elephants off crops with birdshot in East Africa (that would be like shooting people with rocksalt). Ele’s didn’t like the sting and would shuffle off in a hurry but occasionally it would just piss them off and so I always kept at least 50m away from them in a Landcruiser making sure I had a safe exit for when I had to floor it out of there.
Ele’s can move very fast and can absolutely trash a big 4WD if they decide to, and people in such vehicles are often seriously injured, even killed. While Ele’s are predictable in many respects, sometimes they catch even the smartest folk out. Cops would find it the same with perps. You can think its all under control and then its all on with only a microseconds warning and then you are running on reflexes learnt through training or previous experience. There isn’t a lot of time for thinking by then.
Rocksalt not a good option. Yes it would hurt but effective range would be 30m max as too wide pattern spread after that with the shorter barrel type shotties that police would use. There is no way of knowing exactly where in the spread the pellets (whether rubber or rocksalt etc) will hit. One time 2 fly past either ear and a few hit the chest. If perp is wearing a jacket there may be hardly any pain, another instance and perp cops one in the eye and loses the eye. You cannot place a pellet from a shottie as you can a single bullet from a rifle or pistol.
At closer range a charge of salt might hurt enough to stop the perp but people have different pain thresholds even those not hyped on drugs won’t always stop because of pain. If they are on drugs – can they even comprehend commands (can the brain process the info) shouted out at them? Not likely I’d think – depending on the drug.
What happens when perp is a serious threat to life and/or limb of public or police and he doesn’t stop after a load of salt. Does cop pull pistol and fire? Does he load a lethal shell in to shottie and fire? Honestly he won’t have time for either when its going down and if he has lethal and non-lethal shells to choose from I would bet that sooner or later a cop will make a fatal mistake loading the wrong type even if they are colour coded (not much use at night). Loading either type at the wrong time could result in a fatality, perhaps that of the cop if he grabs salt instead of lead when attacked.
Honestly people the ONLY way to safely put someone out of action is to injure them badly enough that they can’t injure others because their body won’t function properly for them to do so. Inflicting pain is an unreliable method (esp in a body pumped with adrenaline).
People don’t like to think about it, but its not hard to kill a person. A hard elbow or handchop to, or footstomp on, the throat is more than enough. How can a cop know a perps intent, even if he is unarmed? Fact is he is armed, fists/fingers are tools just like knives or guns. Tasering is probably the best option there is unless the mug has a gun – then he should be shot asap.
If firearms are presented by cops on people within 20m of them they should shoot to kill with them when they do shoot, otherwise don’t carry them.
As for the huge ‘text party’ violent house trashing parties like we’ve had in Hamilton where police are facing 500 people making mischief, its crazy to send even 20 cops into that even with tasers or guns. You can only taser so many people per minute and I would not like to see guns being pulled in such situations. Tear gas them. Thats the situation we are facing here in NZ now. Wasn’t hard to predict, we reaping what we have sowed.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 5:34 am
Yes, use the tazer, rubber bullets or fill a distraught man with lead , the big decision and it all depends on the attitude of the copper holding the shooter or inserting the baton ?
I see across the ditch front line wimmin in the police force are setting a disturbing trend which gives criminals the upper hand, as they are viewed as a pathetic pretty joke to the hard core thug . Go girls go , really !
http://www.news. com.au/heraldsun /story/0, 21985,22494154- 25717,00. html
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 9:29 am
Perfect Man, thanks for your reply. I certainly do not consider myself a bleeding heart. However, I think that there is big difference between bad and mad. Some people with genuine mental illness may pose a threat to the police. Years ago they would have been locked up. I think all options to subdue someone with a weapon other than a gun should be considered as an alternative to killing them.
This would include a shotgun, rubber bullets, tazer and pepper spray or mace. I have fired different weapons including a shot gun but am not experienced like you are. Having said that I would have thought that rock salt fired from a shotgun at 1 metre would stop if not kill someone. Even at 5 metres the person should be stopped.
I note you mentioned when chasing elephants from crops you allowed yourself an escape route. I presume the police arrived at the scene where the man was smashing up a car in a vehicle. Did the police officer have to get out of the car and place himself in a position that if the guy charged he had no option but to shoot?
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 10:37 am
Exactly. You’d have to actually be cornered for there to be no other option. I know it feels wrong for coppers to run away, but that’s what they always say to anyone else who gets in a fight where a serious injury occurs “couldn’t you have just walked/run away?”. And if the guy is sprinting, all the sooner he will tire himself out and be easier to subdue. Most likely he’d give up the chase after 50m or so, particularly if there were other coppers chasing him.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 10:59 am
“OTOH, if I had a gun in my hand when a nut came at me with a hammer, I would shoot them. Which is exactly why I’d do everything I could to avoid that situation ever happening.”
Ben – Police are supposed to put themselves in harms way so that ordinary citizens are not endangered. Can you imagine what would happen if a cop found himself confronting a Raymond Ratima as he was murdering his family with a hammer, but instead of intervening ran away?
I think you need to talk to some Cops about the reality of policing lunatics, especially ones hyped up on drugs.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Brian, getting a crazed guy to chase you away is helping to keep the other citizens safe. If the guy was about to bash someone else with the hammer, a shooting seems much more justified. If they are just going to bash the cop, then retreat, surround, pacify is a perfectly good option.
I know 3 cops personally, thx. Their favourite method for dealing with violent nutters is to beat them up. I don’t see this as particularly convincing, myself, and am glad that the decision about what powers the police have is not in the hands of the police.
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
whyt didn’t they just tackle the guy? Don’t they do any training for that?
I mean really – a hammer? At least coulda aimed for his nuts. Stop him breeding rather than for the kill…
Vote:October 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Kid says – why did you shoot my friend ?
Blue gun thug ; cops don’t get paid enough to go home in a body bag kid – now buzz off .
Sandra Manderson should resign now !!
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 am
I think that the issue of Tazers in NZ and Tazers in the U.S. are two seperate things.
There are three big problems with Tazers: As a “less lethal” device, they are used more frequently. This is becoming a major problem, especially because more and more, these devices tend to be used against unarmed (or even, in some cases, non-violent) people; in some of the worst cases, they seem to be used by police to silence dissent either through threat or action.
But that’s a U.S. problem – not an NZ one.
Ultimately, I think that the taser issue is a wrongful focus. If you trust the police to generally act in a manner befitting them, if you believe that they make the best judgements at the time and do so professionally and with courtesy, then you’ll probably feel better about the use of this newer weapon in police hands.
On the other hand, if you do not trust the police, if you feel that many times their judgment is compromised by personal goals and that there is little accountability for abuses of power, you won’t feel good about this newer weapon in police hands at all.
As an American, my views are skewed on this matter; I can tell you that I don’t trust my country’s police departments, generally. I think that NZ has more safeguards against police abuses than we have in the U.S., so I can’t presume to make a judgement either way.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Tough one this, if I were a cop and he was coming at me with a hammer I’d knock his head in with my night-stick, chuck him in the slammer and go home feeling good about it all!
Vote:Obviously the cops have resorted to using guns as the first option when faced with armed (guns or any weapon) violent people, a bit much really! The cops regularly carry guns, as an ex security guard I used to see it all the time. No amount of training is going to stop you using it if it’s on your hip and who can blame them when it’s all they’ve got! Bring back the truncheon or night-stick, I say.
Also, it’s time to go back to limiting the police to large, nasty blokes with handle-bar moustaches who can hold their own with the towns toughies in the local pub! Women and little blokes need not apply!