A tazer instead of a smack
The Telegaph reports:
The officer was called to the girl’s home in Ozark, Arkansas, by her mother because she was behaving in an unruly manner and refusing to take a shower. …
In a report on the incident the officer, Dustin Bradshaw, said the mother gave him permission to use the Taser.
When he arrived, the girl was curled up on the floor, screaming, and resisting as her mother tried to get her in the shower before bed.
“Her mother told me to take her if I needed to,” the officer wrote.
The child was “violently kicking and verbally combative” when he tried to take her into custody and she kicked him in the groin.
He then delivered “a very brief drive stun to her back,” the report said.
The officer has been suspended – not for tazering the ten year old, but for not having the mandatory video camera attached to it!
Interestingly one could argue that under Sue Bradford’s law, an officer could tazer a child, if it was deemed reasonable force for purpose of preventing disruption. Unlike the Borrows amendment, Bradford’s law does define limits for reasonable force.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
When my daughter was very little she could undo her seatbelt while I was driving and would refuse to get back in her carseat. No amount of “discussion” or distraction would make her sit back in her seat, partly because she would scream so loudly that it was impossible to be heard. (which of course was part of her overall strategy)
I then had the option of:
A. Continuing on to my destination with my daughter unsafe in the car (Not an option) (Also illegal)
B. Doing nothing and waiting till she had calmed down. (My daughter could tantrum for hours at a time)
C. Giving her a quick smack, refastening her seatbelt and continuing on our way.
Commonsense prevailed and I chose option C, and while I did not have to do it very often, it was the only option that worked under these particular circumstances and with this particular child.
I am sure the Children’s commisioner and Sue Bradford would see this as child abuse – I call it parenting.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am
Since your actions were preventative -
1] to prevent an accident
2] to prevent an illegal act
you would appear to have not broken the law.
You mention no corrective motive.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am
A lot of similar style stories come out of the US, almost on a weekly basis. It seems odd to me that someone would involve the Police in a household argument with their 10 year old, let alone give permission to use such force on them.
I’m still undecided on whether frontline police should be issued tasers here in NZ.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:57 am
“I’m still undecided on whether frontline police should be issued tasers here in NZ.”
I’m not. The answer is no. Issue them with side arms. A twelve gauge, short barrelled, pistol grip, streetsweeper as the primary weapon and a 9mm Glock or similar as back-up.
I base that on the fact that the frontline cops get fuck all range training and that it is not easy to hit anything at more than ten yards with a pistol when under the stress of a confrontation unless you are very experienced. A shotgun is easy to use with minimal training.
The twelve gauge is light, short, (in pistol grip style) hence can be easily worn in a long holster and at short range one does not need to be a dead eye dick to ground a target. Also it has less carry than a single-bullet type weapon. Loads can be various ie: beanbag, shot, buckshot, solid depending on circumstance.
Why piss about with the pacifists weapon a taser?
November 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Please do argue that point, David. How would it be possible under the current law to tazer a child?
And how would that change under the Burrows amendment?
I’d really be curious to hear that one
November 21st, 2009 at 11:09 am
eszett – the Bradford law did not change the level of force that was allowed, merely the circumstances in which the use of that force would be lawful.
Riding crops, bits of two-by-four, etc. were found to be lawfully used for correction under the old law (i.e. were considered by juries to be reasonable force). Under Bradford’s law the definition of reasonable force has not changed – if riding crops and two-by-fours were reasonable force then, they’re reasonable force now. The use of that force for reasons of correction is now illegal, but the use of that force for preventing disruption is not.
That said, I’d note that DPF is missing a “not”.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:17 am
I can’t quite see how a “light parental smack for the purposes of good parental correction” would help here. Or is that phrase intended to encompass beating the kid until she stops?
November 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am
mjanderson
And if tazers are not accessible to front line cops there is another ‘Waitara’
waiting to happen. It was that incident which triggered the police to look for some non lethal way of disabling people like Wallace.
johnboy
The whole objective is for the officer defending him or herself or others to induce such major trauma as to immediately disable the offender. A Glock with police issue ammunition or a tazer meets that need. A shotgun or similar generally would not. An offender full of adrenlin is capable of inflicting serious harm even if fairly seriously injured.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
peterwn:
You have obviously never used a twelve gauge to kill anything. I have. End of story.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
peterwn
A twelve gauge with a solid will take down an Elephant.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Graeme,
I doubt that anyone would have found the use of a tazer against a child reasonable, certainly not for correction purposes, even under the old law.
Question:
Is there a situation where under the current law the use of a tazer against a child would be permissible and how that then would not be the case under the Borrows amendment?
November 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
You would however think that there is one child that is going to think twice before arguing the toss with the cops in future.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I could turn that back to you. Was there a situation under the old law when discipline with a two-by-four would be permissible? I’d have said not, but a jury unanimously disagreed with me. Who knows what a jury would decide?
Borrows’ amendment would never allow a tazer (or 2×4, or riding crop, or any implement). It kept the same term – ‘reasonable force’ – but then specifically excluded any use of any implement. Any force used by way of an implement under Borrows’ amendment was defined as being automatically unreasonable.
November 21st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I think the drive stun on Tasers is distinct from the probe firing ability Tasers – it is more like a cattle prod than an incapacitating weapon. Its sole purpose is to inflict pain until people move where the owner of the Taser tells them.
This makes this feature of the Taser a weapon of torture, rather than a legitimate way to apprehend an offender who is attempting to injure police.
The old law said parents could use reasonable force for correction, and a long-standing law says police can use reasonable force to arrest people in certain circumstances, but aside from the ‘reasonable force’ part, these laws are fairly independent. Police are not allowed to deliberately inflict pain for the point of inflicting pain in NZ – whether it be via a smack or a Taser.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
The usual argument against equipping police with non-lethal weapons like tazers and teargas is that they are far more likely to use these in any given situation than if they were equipped only with a lethal weapon such as a pistol. The police officer in this scenario, would probably not have shot the unruly child in the leg in order to subdue her.
Based on the level of training, intelligence and professionalism shown by police forces around the world, there should be no objection to officers routinely carrying pistols and shotguns in the course of their duties. As long as everyone else wore full-body ballistic armour every time they stepped out of their door.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
@DPF: Why do you always spell “taser” with a Z?
November 21st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I often get irritated by the sanctimonious twaddle peddled in the debate on the pros and cons of smacking children.
Many good parents smack their children because the KIDS ARE GETTING ON THEIR TITS, and a harmless smack is utterly catharctic for the smacker, who might otherwise resort to harsher punishment if the irritation continued beyond all tolerance.
Most of us love our kids but we all have a breaking-point. The trick is knowing where to draw the line, and the vast majority of parents know it very well. We don’t need Govt. law on this issue.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Graeme
Nice posts.
May I ask, would a fist be considered an instrument? Steel caps, whilst on one’s foot?
November 21st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
A1kmm notes:
A study into their use in Australia has found that — rather than being restricted to use only to protect an officer from harm, as Police instructions clearly demand — cops are using them mainly to “ensure compliance” (i.e. “Do as I say or I’ll hurt you till you do”).
One member of the WA Police was recently filmed by several TV networks tasering a drunk who was getting rowdy outside the Magistrates’ Court — even though other Police were seconds away, the victim hadn’t attacked him (or anyone else) and was merely refusing to STFU and go with the officer. Despite such a flagrant misuse of the weapon, there have been no disciplinary proceedings that I’m aware of.
The other favourite use is when the offender is running away from Police who are too lazy and / or unfit to give chase. Several incidents of their use in that manner have also been caught on camera. Again, no disciplinary action despite it being against protocol.
Yet a policeman who used their computer system to run the number plates of women he fancied has been fired, prosecuted, named and narrowly avoided prison.
By all means hit them, the hierarchy sem to be saying, just don’t hit on them.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
Cram your party line Borrows amendment, its a useless law that does NOTHING and needs to be tossed out. Except Key has tied himself to it and doesn’t have the balls to say he made a mistke.
He’ll go the same way as Helen.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Luc – I’m not sure whether steel caps would be considered an implement. I’d guess not. Nor a fist. But this was the advantage of the Borrow’s amendment over the Bradford amendment. I’d argue using a fist or a steel-cap was unreasonable – so it would be illegal under the Borrow’s amendment as well.
It only explicitly made things illegal. It didn’t say a smack was okay. It applied the same rule as before – reasonable force – but specifically excluded things. It would still make illegal using unreasonable force, even if that unreasonable force wasn’t from the list of explicitly banned things.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Excluding implements is a no-brainer, and it is easily defined, so it makes sense to include this in the law.
Reasonable/unreasonable force is a lot more difficult to differentiate, it depends on the circumstances and also on the standards of those making the judgement. No matter which way the law ends up it will come down to subjective legal decisions.
I think the vast majority, especially in today’s spotlight, whould find any sort of kicking, steel capped or not, unreasonable. Use of fists /punching is a bit harder to clearly rule out – a light punch on the arm is a lot different to a punch in the face or head.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Murray – that’s not the Borrows’ Amendment. I think you’re thinking of the Dunne compromise.
The Borrows’ Amendment is the basis of John Boscawen’s repeal bill.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
The point is people – now that parents cannot spank their children then the use of force is only in the hands of the police. Therefore the police will have to discipline our unruly youth.This is happening now.
Police have been premanently assigned to selected south auckland schools. So it is quite possible to imagine a youth confronting the police and being tasered.
What we need is a return to sensible family policies including the ability of parents to reasonably discipline their own children. Otherwise the police will have to do it.
Also giving schools the option to reintroduce some form of corporal punishment would make sense. The worst thing that can happen to a school boy under this scenario is that he might get 6 of the best.
The worst thing that can happen under the present regime is that he might be tazered. I know which form of discipline I would prefer.