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.

The Borrows’ Amendment is the basis of John Boscawen’s repeal bill.

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.

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.

He’ll go the same way as Helen.

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.

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.

Nice posts.

May I ask, would a fist be considered an instrument? Steel caps, whilst on one’s foot?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

A twelve gauge with a solid will take down an Elephant.

You have obviously never used a twelve gauge to kill anything. I have. End of story.

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.

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”.

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.

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