Police Association wishlist

August 20th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A blanket gang patch ban, raising the drinking age to 20, harsher penalties for fleeing drivers, and Tasers for all cops are some of the election year suggestions from the .

My views:

  • Blanket gang patch ban – no. the state should not dictate what you can wear in public.
  • Drinking age to 20 – no. Give it up. Parliament has now voted three times in 12 years for an age of 18.
  • Harsher penalties for fleeing drivers – yes. There needs to be a greater incentive for people not to flee from the Police, and end up killing themselves and/or others.
  • Tasers for all cops – possibly. I’d like to see data to back that up. How often does a cop have a situation where a taser would have been useful and justified?

 

Tags:

69 Responses to “Police Association wishlist”

  1. backster (2,140 comments) says:

    I agree with all the major points in their wish-list. Seems logical and commonsense to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (3,941 comments) says:

    DPF…
    You get 4 from 4. Good lad. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    I’d just like to see far less political correctness in the Police Force and would really appreciate them enforcing the law regardless of which tribe was breaking it.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Mark (1,471 comments) says:

    * Blanket gang patch – simply unworkable.
    * Drinking age – I would love to see it back at 20, stupid decision to lower it in the first place but that horse has long bolted and DPF is right it has been through enough votes already.
    * tougher fines for driving away – good suggestion and easy to implement.
    * tasers for all cops – one step away from arming all cops – like DPF I would like to see the data and could be convinced but im not there yet

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Padriv Ustoev (45 comments) says:

    I am surprised the police are not asking for some laws around helping to enforce modesty in public.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (5,007 comments) says:

    The last police not routinely armed – Britain (and much of the time there they seem to have submachine-guns at hand), Norway (guns in patrol cars which we have now followed), and NZ.

    How long can this last?

    Our police were armed through much of the 19th century, and this seemed to have settled a lot of people down.

    This thread is going to spoil jackinabox’s morning!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    Gang patches – just shoot them. They are not an oppressed minority, they are shit who have CHOSEN a profoundly criminal life.

    Drinking age 20 – fuck off.

    Tasers – yes. Provided there is zero tolerance for abuse a la pepper spraying cop…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,798 comments) says:

    Ban all gang patches?

    What if Dime decides to wear a “Black Label Society” jacket. Looks exactly like a gang patch. Do i get arrested?

    Sorry cops, banning clothing is a step too far.

    Drinking age – piss off. even though 18 yr olds are annoying in a bar.. deal with it. its the job you signed up to do.

    People fleeing the cops – double their sentence. has to be proper fleeing though.. not some kid freaks, drives 100 metres too far

    tasers – fuck yeah.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. GPT1 (2,116 comments) says:

    I’m pretty much with Dime.

    Failing to stop for red and blues can remain for literally failing to stop but without aggravating features of dangerous driving (I have seen failing to stop charges where the driver continues, safely and within the speed limit).

    Add a new one of failing to stop for red and blues by dangerous/reckless driving – two years.

    Tasers – seems a reasonable compromise from arming all police.

    And exactly re drinking age – if it was that bloody simple put it up to 25 and we’d have no issues at all. Tui ad.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jack5 (5,007 comments) says:

    RRM posted at 10.24:

    Drinking age 20 – fuck off.

    Didn’t realise you were still in your teens, RRM. You started posting (9578 on record) at a precociously young age.

    Re gang patches. Are these really just uniforms? Why do people get upset about people dressing up in offensive uniforms (eg Prince Harry going to parties) and defend gang trash uniforms?

    There’s an idiot who drives round Christchurch in a replica US Army jeep in a sort of American colonel’s uniform. He’s laughable. But the Mongrel Mob and similar outfits? No way.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. thePeoplesFlag (242 comments) says:

    The New Zealand police are an unbelievably incompetent organisation (botched: The Urewera raids. Botched: the Kim Dotcom operation) that has grown arrogant and lazy from want of proper political oversight.

    My wish for them is a minister who gives them a real hard kick up the arse and a proper, non-partisan agency to handle complaints against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RF (1,365 comments) says:

    Item 4 interests me.

    You only have to travel across the ditch to see how the Police routinely carry both sidearms & tasers. There are not wild shootouts in the street and if you ask the officers they freely advise that they would not want to be disadvantaged attending incidents that place them in danger and not have any means of taking control.

    Several Aussie cops I know worked in Christchurch during the quakes and were not happy being unarmed.

    I have carried a sidearm in the days when holsters were not designed as they are now to retain the weapon. Must admit I was very conscious of someone wanting to try and take if off me. Now its modern technology.

    Basically Policing is a very dangerous unpredictable job and the most routine traffic stop can turn out to be a fatal incident. Having your firearm locked away in your vehicle whilst you are several metres away looking down the barrel of a shotgun is not good for your stress levels.

    To those who are against general arming of the Police I suggest that you approach your local Police for a night shift ride along. What happens out there its a real eye opener.

    Lets be careful out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. TallGuy789 (1 comment) says:

    > Tasers for all cops

    If and only if they also have cameras.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    I am puzzled by everyone’s naivete – including you David – regarding gang patches. They are NOT just “clothing” and fatuous comparisons with the “Black Label Society” and Prince Harry’s unwise fancy dress choices are just that – fatuous.

    I spent a day in Wanganui being briefed by the Police and the local MP (Chester “all they need is love” Borrows) in order to advise the ACT caucus on whether we should vote for that Bill. Some of the video footage I saw – and what the Police told me – left me in no doubt that banning the fucking accursed patches was a good idea – in fact a no brainer.

    What ordinary citizens don’t understand is that these are resoundingly NOT PLU. For example, if scum brand #1 is at WINZ with the missus trying to con some more money out of them, and scum brand #2 arrives also wearing his “uniform”, then under their ridiculous code a fight is not just an option, but compulsory. I urge any of you who make fatuous comments about this to watch some video footage of terrified mothers and their pre-school children fleeing in terror while the two scum brands fight it out on the pavement in front of the WINZ office in Wanganui. I am no stranger to violence – I worked in the oilfield for 10 years – but what I saw was sickening.

    Or have a look at video footage of a kids’ playground full of smiling happy kids and their mums – until a couple of patched up scum arrive, at which point mothers hurriedly pack their children up and leave, because they know what will happen if a couple of members of scum#2 arrive.

    Although it may seem ridiculous to us, if you take the patch out of both scenarios, things are quite different. If Scums 1 and 2 are just dressed in filthy denims – but no patch – the vicious fighting is NOT compulsory, and they usually confine themselves to trading insults.

    Finally, find out what has happened in Wanganui…the gang patch ban has been a resounding success in lowering the incidence of gang crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    “Finally, find out what has happened in Wanganui…the gang patch ban has been a resounding success in lowering the incidence of gang crime.”

    It does not matter.

    It is a breach of fundamental liberties and its supporters are in the long term more dangerous to society than the gangs.

    Find another way.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Fentex (917 comments) says:

    Tasers for all cops – possibly. I’d like to see data to back that up. How often does a cop have a situation where a taser would have been useful and justified?

    I find the question of Tasers interesting. The logic is pretty simple; In situations where violence is escalating resorting to less lethal weapons rather than without that resort being available having a greater danger of needing to resort to lethal weapons would save lives and allow for violence to be curtailed earlier before misfortune might cause great harm.

    However in practice providing less risky weapons to the police encourages resorting to them rather than increased effort in resolving problems short of use of weapons. And that pushes gaps between the police and public that makes the first an enemy of the second. We should not encourage the police to have easy resort to forceful compliance.

    The argument, which is hard to resist, that it’s better to be tasered than shot, spear headed giving the police tazers. And we ought to have expected from that a dozen odd uses in a year in lieu of a handful of shootings (we ought expect more use than shootings I think). What we got, IIRC, was about 90 uses of it. Clearly in practice tasers are resorted to more often than just replacing the dire resort of shooting people.

    That concerns me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. nasska (11,097 comments) says:

    RF

    In ACC levy tables for 2009-2010, the proposed rates for nurses in community and residential services were ($1.10) & ($0.52) for hospitals…..higher than police ($0.50). So ACC thinks that policing is a safer occupation than hospital, community or residential services nursing.

    Forestry was $3.08, fishing $3.56, meat processing $3.95.

    I realise that these figures are four years old but they should give some perspective of the actual position, rather than the Police Assn version of the risks involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    What’s your party’s policy on gangs Red? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have a party and you don’t have any solutions, just ridiculous over-boiled rhetoric on here.

    Say “it doesn’t matter” to the terrified women I saw on several video clips fleeing the scene as the scum spilled each other’s blood outside the WINZ office. Those women – and their kids – can now go about their lawful business with much less chance of being confronted with that. And frankly, I don’t give a rat’s about the philosophical niceties of the imperfect solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Unity (482 comments) says:

    I totally agree with David re banning gang patches. They are intimidating and we all know gangs are right into criminal behaviour, they are violent and totally intolerant by and large of other gangs. Their ‘basic rights/liberties’ shouldn’t come into it. We should do whatever is necessary to dilute their intimidation.

    I also strongly feel they should persevere with raising the drinking age back to 20. Goodness me, the Government has absolutely no problem doing what they want to do in spite of overwhelming referenda wanting the opposite so they should grow some backbone and just put it back. They should never have lowered it in the first place. They would be doing many young people a great favour in allowing their brains another couple of years to develop before they ruin them completely by binge drinking before they are properly wired. Did anyone see Nigel Latta last week re the effects of alcohol on young brains? That should confirm it all for those who had no idea, but I’ve long known it was harmful for the young.

    I also agree with arming the Police with at least tasers but firearms wouldn’t go amiss. They get into some very dangerous situations and having firearms locked in their cars and not to immediate hand, is a no brainer. Also, fleeing drivers need penalties to deter them from this.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wiseowl (859 comments) says:

    GPT.
    Well why have the age at 18.?
    Why have any age at all?

    Just because the pollies have voted on this issue three times doesn’t mean they have it right.

    Maybe the Police Association can explain why they want it back up to 20 so we can understand there reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. marcw (242 comments) says:

    Jacinda Adhern on ZB this morning – in response to “Would you support having cops armed?” Her answer, “I think it would be good to have a discussion about that!!!” So as usual, a non answer, and of course Smalley, trained and skilled as she is, never pressed for an actual answer to her question. No bias there, apparently what happened 5 years ago is more important.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    “And frankly, I don’t give a rat’s about the philosophical niceties of the imperfect solution.”

    And that’s why your methods will not result in any kind of real and long term solution. You, along with all the other Progressives, have helped build a society without any moral direction and the behaviour you observe is a result of this.

    You cannot ask the Police to control an amoral society. Its just not possible.

    (BTW, liberals and progs schooled in the public education system should note the difference in meaning between “amoral” and “immoral”.)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    marcw: At least she didn’t say having a “conversation” about it would be a good idea! Does this new language usage get up anyone else’s nose as badly as it does mine?

    sorry, off topic..couldn’t resist…

    Red: do you have any idea what “empty rhetoric” is? How’s the party membership coming along? Double figures yet?

    But seriously now, do you really believe I am a “Prog”? Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. jackinabox (781 comments) says:

    “I spent a day in Wanganui being briefed by the Police and the local MP (Chester “all they need is love” Borrows) in order to advise the ACT caucus on whether we should vote for that Bill. Some of the video footage I saw – and what the Police told me – left me in no doubt that banning the fucking accursed patches was a good idea – in fact a no brainer.”

    Inspector Duncan McLeod and former cop Chester Borrows, dishonest dissemblers both.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RF (1,365 comments) says:

    naaska. 11.11am.

    Very interesting stats.

    I agree forestry, fishing & meat processing are dangerous occupations however when things get tough they can piss off and go home etc…. May be the public should call them instead of the Police when Mobsters are kicking in their doors.

    Police unfortunately are the poor mugs that have to go in to pick up the pieces after the above come to grief.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    “seriously now, do you really believe I am a “Prog”? Really?”

    Just that you buy into and promote on here so many ideas that are plainly progressive in origin. In particular ideas that always have as their basis the expansion of government power and increased regulation at the expense of fundamental liberties. You are therefore Progressive. Is that too hard? Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    Nasska, you should STFU. The high risk factors associated with the occupations you have highlighted are because navel gazing narcissistic dimwits like you have made drug use much more prevalent than it ever was.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    Jack: I know nothing about McLeod – but seem to remember he was the cop in charge that day – and regular readers will know what I think of Borrows…But I didn’t just speak to McLeod, I spoke to a number of cops…it wasn’t a “structured” visit where I was shown only what they wanted me to see…For example, after the first video of a sickening fight outside the WINZ office I asked if it was a one off…they smiled and produced a heap of DVD’s and asked how many I wanted to see… When Borrows took me on a tiki tour of the various areas controlled by scum #1 and scum#2 I saw a couple of cop cars…I asked to speak to them, and we did….I am pretty sure I got the genuine oil from the Wanganui cops…

    Red: You keep right on defending the “fundamental liberties” of gang members…I’ll keep on working out here in the confused environment that is the real world, in which there are a few very definite lines, but much that requires pragmatism rather than theories.

    And you keep avoiding questions about Your Party…why is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RF (1,365 comments) says:

    Fentex 11.09am

    I would be interested to discover how you would deal with an individual who is intent on killing or causing harm to anyone they come across. A good example would be David Gray in Aramoana who killed 13.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. UrbanNeocolonialist (267 comments) says:

    Tasers are not risk free, they occasionally kill people. It is also disturbing to see them in use amongst the admittedly awful US police as a torture weapon used frequently with little justification.

    I think on balance I would not be against them being widely deployed, but with an independent reviewer that assesses each use and financially penalises the officer to discourage their abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. stephieboy (2,652 comments) says:

    I think tougher fines for those who try to evade a police chase is only a partial solution. Many don’t bother and we see a great many been pulled over on TV cop programs who have a huge list of unpaid fines.
    The answer is to confiscate their vehicles and have them crushed especially when lives are endangered ( which is most often the case ) along with mandatory imprisonment .

    PS Redbaiter and I do regard myself as one of your much maligned progs
    No desire to go back to your mediaeval ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    Uban: I am glad you recognise that comparisons between our Police and the thousands of different Police forces in the US are meaningless. In short we have one police force with – supposedly – one set of rules and one code of conduct…in the US there are thousands…from the liberal in SF who are happy to let gay boys fiddle with each other on the street, to rural forces in Mississippi where some patrolmen would have trouble spelling “homosexual”

    Are you aware that the tasers used here are video models; that when the thing is turned on – and I mean turned on so it is capable of firing – a video starts to run? That pretty much eliminates the scenario which occurred a few years ago in Christchurch where a cop shot a man he said was running at him with a crowbar, and at least one witness said the guy was unarmed.

    In fact someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot remember ANY dispute about the circumstances in which tasers have been fired since they started using that type. No, I must be wrong…there must have been some?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fentex (917 comments) says:

    I would be interested to discover how you would deal with an individual who is intent on killing or causing harm to anyone they come across. A good example would be David Gray in Aramoana who killed 13.

    You posit a non-sequitor in the apparent belief my concern about tasers is that police wouldn’t use firearms where they’re obviously required.

    That is no part of my concern which is tasers encourage the use of force where firearms haven’t. The point isn’t that police would be hesitant to react forcefully where needed but that they may be encouraged to act forcefully where they shouldn’t – the opposite of your question.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Jack5 (5,007 comments) says:

    Redbaiter posted at 11.06 of Wanganui’s gang patch ban:

    It is a breach of fundamental liberties

    Gangs of thugs (they never seem to be alone) intimidating people in playgrounds and shopping centres are also breaching people’s fundamental liberties, Reddy.

    Re jackinabox (11.41 post). I knew this thread would ruin your morning, jackinabox.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Fentex (917 comments) says:

    In fact someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot remember ANY dispute about the circumstances in which tasers have been fired since they started using that type. No, I must be wrong…there must have been some?

    I don’t recall any reports of serious misuse to date. And it was wise to employ tasers in a configuration able to help monitor their use. As with the 3 Strikes law and I hope proposed Charter Schools New Zealand has managed to employ concepts that have serious flaws elsewhere within legislation better designed to obtain the benefits without disaster here.

    We only do that because we’ve turned critical eyes to these things and employed them with thought towards experiences elsewhere and demonstrations of abuses and failures.

    The differences between countries, cultures and jurisdictions are not accidents. They are shaped by choices and actions, and that we benefit from past care is not a reason to forgo continuing caution and critical evaluations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    “Gangs of thugs (they never seem to be alone) intimidating people in playgrounds and shopping centres are also breaching people’s fundamental liberties, Reddy.”

    Jack- I repeat. Asking the Police to correct the mistakes of a socially liberal and misguided amoral society is a major mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    Fentex: Yes indeed…I do believe we can be quite good at looking at overseas experiments and improving on them – ‘ three strikes’ is probably a classic example… but then often we also seem hell bent on repeating other countries’ mistakes…”boot camps” for example – it doesn’t seem to matter what you call them or how you fiddle with the “curriculum”, they just turn out fitter criminals…although I saw a segment on Discovery the other day about one such programme in Louisiana which seemed to be quite effective..can’t remember what the recidivism rate was, but it was quite low…but missing the crucially important time period, without which recidivism rates are largely meaningless…any programme can have a recidivism rate of 10%….if you only look at the 30 days after inmates are released…it’s the recidivism rate over time that is important…

    Red: “correcting the mistakes of …an amoral society” is NOT the function of the Police…it is maintaining the peace, and deterring, and if necessary arresting, law breakers..

    How many members does your party have now?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (9,769 comments) says:

    Jack- I repeat. Asking the Police to correct the mistakes of a socially liberal and misguided amoral society is a major mistake.

    :lol: LOL – We have criminal gangs because of gay marriage, the DPB, abortion and legalised prostitution. Righto…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. laworder (288 comments) says:

    Redbaiter wrote

    It is a breach of fundamental liberties and its supporters are in the long term more dangerous to society than the gangs.

    This is odd. Every time I have seen this argument trotted out on other forums and on here, it has been by liberal progressive “commie scum” – Greens Party supporters in the main. It is a mainstay I have often seen used not only against things proposed by myself, but by others (sometimes against proposals that I have disagreed with but for unrelated reasons)

    For the record, I am in favour of all four Police Association proposals, although realistically I doubt the drinking age one will fly now

    Regards
    Peter J

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RF (1,365 comments) says:

    Fentex. 12.14pm. I understand your concerns but unfortunately out on the street it is not black & white and sometimes you fly by the seat of your pants. Some members of the Police are not perfect and poor decisions will be made concerning violent situations.

    The basic goal is to do a fair days work and go home to your family. Unfortunately one of David Gray’s victims was a Police Sgt I knew and he was doing his job. He never went home.

    I believe the NZ Police do a good job with the lack of resources they work with.

    Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    Peter J: Welcome back…Yes, I had also noticed the irony that Red’s views seem often to strangely mimic those of the “commie scum” he detests so much

    Perhaps he really IS in a home for the perpetually bewildered??!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    “Every time I have seen this argument trotted out on other forums and on here, it has been by liberal progressive “commie scum””

    Peter, you know I am a long time supporter of your efforts but I am bound to say that remedies that do not hack at the root of the problem will not work.

    Increasing the powers of police and writing ever more restrictive legislation is not the answer.

    The answer lies within ourselves and our own standards and what we pass on to our children.

    The real problem with our society, and why it is so crime ridden is that parents besotted with the progressive message have abdicated their role as parents and conceded it to the state. (Not all of course, but far too many).

    The only real solution to crime is to restore a civil society that has as its cornerstone the patriarchal family unit.

    Highly unfashionable I know, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

    And its not a Progressive view. Its a Conservative view.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Albert_Ross (270 comments) says:

    Mr Garrett, it’s already illegal to start a fight in a public place. It’s already illegal to intimidate. Clearly, these laws aren’t being obeyed.

    Why then do you think that a law banning the wearing of gang patches is any more likely to be obeyed? If the actual problem is that people are fighting each other and intimidating bystanders, why not enforce the laws against those activities?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. jackinabox (781 comments) says:

    “I am pretty sure I got the genuine oil from the Wanganui cops…”

    All I ever got from the Wanganui cops were lies and obstructions, without exception whenever I contacted them they made matters much worse for me, I don’t bother with them anymore, if I have a law and order problem I deal with it myself. Fuck the cops forever!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    Albert: I don’t “think” anything…the FACT is that the gang patch law IS largely being obeyed…and the reason is very simple: If they are found wearing one in a prohibited area it is confiscated…and that, under their childish primary school-boy code, is an abomination…they are supposed to defend the patch to the death…which of course is not so easy when those taking it are members of the biggest gang in the country…the one with the courts to back them up..

    I don’t wish to be rude, but do you know anything about gang culture in New Zealand? a fairly recent book by Jarrod Gilbert would be a good place to start your reading…

    Red: How many members in the party now? Does it feel just a little strange that you are the only one who can discern the shining path to utopia, and the rest are either “Progs” or just don’t “get it”?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. OneTrack (2,970 comments) says:

    If the hard left get in the cops will be so busy doing internal inquiries and witch hunts not getting these will be the least me their worries.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. 2boyz (258 comments) says:

    I’d love to know the ones they really wanted but were to afraid to ask for…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    “: How many members in the party now? Does it feel just a little strange that you are the only one who can discern the shining path to utopia,”

    You know Mr. Garret these silly little asides do so much damage to my opinion of you. When you were an MP I wrote hundreds of words on this very blog defending you from your enemies. Look back if you like. You’ll see them. However since you’ve started writing here you seem to want to persist in convincing me that your some lame progressive stooge without much idea about anything. It really does sadden me.

    If its any comfort, I still think to myself that you can’t really be as bad as you read.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Dear god people you do not think this through do you.
    Remember that policeman shot dead in Napier, think a holstered pistol would have saved him against some mad bastard with a semi auto rifle ?
    Going to arm ALL the police with rifles so we can also have our own Ferguson ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    Red: Thank you so much for your historic support…

    But how many do you have in your party? Surely that is a reasonable question when you think that 90% of the rest of us here are on the wrong path? Why do you keep avoiding the question?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Jack5 (5,007 comments) says:

    Re Grumpy 1.41: it wouldn’t save them all, but it might save a few, and deter even more criminals or disturbed people who might want to have a crack at them.

    I wonder whether a policeman on duty alone coming against a rifleman, and without time to get the rifle out of the patrol car boot, would prefer to have just a baton and a taser, or a pistol on his belt, too?

    However, Grumpy, it would be interesting to know whether more police are shot per capita in Australia than in NZ.

    You’ll notice the police carry pistols at international airports, and they haven’t shot any passengers yet.

    Here’s a gun enthusiast talking on Yahoo Answers about the range of Glock pistol:

    Depends what your definition of effective range is.
    The limits fall on the shooter and the close range sights, not the gun.
    The shot is still deadly at several hundred yards.
    25 yards is about the max range for accurately drawing and engaging quickly for self defense.
    With some skill, I’d say about 50 yards is a reasonable max on the stock sights without aids, but I’ve seen unmodified Glocks fired out to 100 yards with only the aid of a benchrest, and most of the time hit the target.
    Add a scope and 200 yards would be fairly easy.
    Source:
    Glock owner
    Target pistol shooter (with my 1911, not my Glock)
    Reload my own target rounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    grumpy: I am not in favour of routine arming of the police…there are far too many examples of untrained or inadequately trained cops blazing away and not hitting their target… remember the 14 shots or whatever it was fired at a dangerous dog, and NONE hit the target??

    But put your question the opposite way: how many armed losers do you think would advance on police if they were routinely armed?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    The new, improved and re-medicated redbaiter is quite right about the long haul solution however, that solution does nothing to address the here and now. The problem that we are confronted with is a product of inter-generational decline. There are three generations of lost causes who have no regard at all for society in general: grandparents, parents and parents in waiting. They don’t operate by our rules and we need something more than a ban on patches to address the damage they cause; not least of which, to their own progeny.

    But I’m surprised that of the people on this blog who are prepared to defend the rights of all of us to wear whatever we like, none of them are prepared to defend the rights of law-abiding people to walk down the street without being intimidated and menaced or otherwise threatened.

    The answer to this issue is not going to be found in absolutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. flipper (3,941 comments) says:

    Heh..DG and others.

    (start rant mode)
    Firearms are available when needed. But there is evidence that there is already OTT usage – see recent pix of police with semi/auto combat type rifles standing around a cold murder scene ,when there was no threat. That is just one example, but I have seen many more. The worst OTT was the Uruwera raid. Given the silly Police mind-set at the time, I am surprised they didn’t hire an Army APC. And remember the many absurd OTT AOF call outs because a kid has a pop gun. The precautionary principle , they say. I say it is bullshit bravado. They already have too many opportunities for cowboy-like activity without making it 24x7x365.

    There is a need to remember that the Police are there to enforce laws passed by our Parliament – not to advocate for law changes. They already have far too much operational discretion (the Minister is responsible, but cannot direct).

    They are also supposed to enforce Orders from our Courts, but it seems that they pick and choose on those. When the Molesworth Street Cowboys deal with that unsavoury mess in the BoP, I would be prepared to listen. Until then Tasers, under tight control, with automatic Court appearances for OTT usage, is as far as we should go. Period.

    If the police Trade Union does not like it, they can tell their members to look for another job – like in the Army.

    There we are…rant mode off :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    DPF: Don’t know why this didnt occur to me in the first place…you say the state you should “not dictate what you can wear in public”… The law doesn’t dictate what you can wear in public..what the gang patch Act does is say what you CANNOT wear in public…In other words, the law says you can wear just about anything you like..EXCEPT a badge whose very presence is likely to cause violence and which does, in itself, intimidate.

    I very much doubt you would support the “rights” of some clown to wear a “Death to All Muslims” or “Paedophilia Rocks” T shirt?

    THAT is the correct analogy, not some mythical whiskey drinkers club whose emblem supposedly resembles a gang patch.

    flipper: I largely agree with you…particularly regarding the “mess in the Bay of Plenty” what an absolute disgrace it is that they walked away from that “because there might be trouble”…Former Çommissioners like Gideon Tait would be turning in their graves…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. SGA (982 comments) says:

    @David Garrett
    Here’s a concrete example – see what you think
    http://motorbikewriter.com/has-ulysses-club-become-irrelevant-to-motorcycle-riders/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RF (1,365 comments) says:

    DG.. 1.53pm. Only a fool takes a baton to a gun fight and thats the position for 90% of our Police.

    I believe that the Police should armed AFTER a complete revision of firearms training and have regular practice – not once a year. Unfortunately this will not happen until there is at least another Police death.

    In many overseas agencies recruits carry their all appointments virtually all the time when they are being trained. A number of them issue the recruits with orange / blue coloured plastic side arms of the same weight. The idea is to get the recruits used to carrying them.

    The NZ Police College has vastly improved firearms training in recent years and the recruits who graduate now are far better trained that say a cop with 5 to 10 years service.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    SGA: You make a very good point…however on my skim read of the link you have posted it seems that the Ulysses Club itself is not particularly bothered by the Queensland law…I quite agree it would be very very annoying to be “checked” constantly because your club badge bore more than a passing resemblance to a gang patch…However..

    Now that I am no longer an ACT MP I can say that the philosophy of utilitarianism – rather than libertarianism – makes more sense to me. There are many examples where totally law abiding people are inconvenienced because of the greater good…I find it very irritating for example to have to stop for WOF checks when I (almost always) have a current warrant…but I accept the cops are doing God’s work in trying to remove unsafe vehicles from the road…one can think of many similar examples…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (8,273 comments) says:

    But I’m surprised that of the people on this blog who are prepared to defend the rights of all of us to wear whatever we like, none of them are prepared to defend the rights of law-abiding people to walk down the street without being intimidated and menaced or otherwise threatened.

    Wow- Singapore.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    We lerrvvv Singapore.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Gulag1917 (851 comments) says:

    Lot of dangerous psychos in society so the tasers are justified. Lowering the drinking age to 18 was no doubt a ploy to get votes Free association of intimidating gang members – no patches reduces their pride and therefore effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. flipper (3,941 comments) says:

    SGA (920 comments) says:

    August 20th, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    @David Garrett
    Here’s a concrete example – see what you think
    ******

    A very interesting link. It has happened in NZ, mainly to Harley Davidson club owners, but also gang members (tough shit in their case).
    And I know of one instance where Police in Auckland twice stopped a clean shaven, conservatively dressed, but properly outfitted fellow, who had his wife for a pillion. Both stoppages were only four or five Kms apart.

    The rider was testing his new Harley – a birthday present from his wife.

    Unfortunately for police they picked the wrong man. At the time he had a net wealth of about $600 million (he now lives in the UK, and it was not Douglas Myers) so solicitors were brought in and malfeasance suits prepared. A very senior Police officer presented himself at the solicitors offices, and in the presence of three legal counsel, issued a formal apology to the man and his wife.

    But that simply illustrates how an individual with resources can push back against cowboys – and win.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (7,246 comments) says:

    They just go to a color or a specific piece of clothing footwear hairstyle or etc.
    Five big smelly fellas intent on causing trouble are still going to be intimidating unless you are Chuck Norris.
    Making a no patch rule just attacking the badge not the problem.
    No associating with the criminal gang orders enforced with vigor. . more spent on both encouraging education and skill up take in prison more spent on rehabilitate once reintroduced to winder society. stiffer sentencing to that fail to rehabilitate. Recidivist offending to result in reasonably harsh and unfriendly environment for a proportion of the term. Longer term No parole for recidivist offending zero tolerance for graffiti and minor property crime . legalize pot.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    grief!!

    You were on a roll! Did you think you could just sneak that “legalise pot” bit in at the end without anyone noticing? :P

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Albert_Ross (270 comments) says:

    Mr Garrett, OK so they get their patches taken off them. Is that really so bad that it deters them from wearing them in the first place, or replacing them and wearing them again?

    And if the police are so easily able to enforce and secure compliance with this law, why can’t they enforce and secure compliance with the law against the real problem, ie violent and/or intimidating behaviour?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. David Garrett (6,948 comments) says:

    Albert: again, without wishing to be rude, you show ur lack of knowledge about the gang code…to the scum, the patch is a sacred thing…if itais lost -however it is lost – you don’t just ask the quartermaster for anothet one…ur expected to take it back, any way u can…at the cost of ur life if necessary. ..but if the cops take it it is desttroyed…and the scum is no longer a member…that is why sezing of the patch is so much more effective than a fine or prison…they never pay fines and prison is doddle…losing the patch is a catastrophe

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. laworder (288 comments) says:

    I do see where Redbaiter is coming from – what he proposes is sound and will largely work – long term – very long term

    And that is the crucial bit. As thedavincimode points out, we also need short term solutions as well, such as three strikes, more prisons, and a gang patch law amongst others. Otherwise we will never be able to create the environment in which the long term solutions Reddy proposes will take root.

    There is another aspect to this, which David Garrett touched on when he made reference to gangs members and the like – “What ordinary citizens don’t understand is that these are resoundingly NOT PLU.” That is they are NOT People Like Us. Largely they are psychopaths usually combined with other attributes (extreme addiction, extreme paraphilias such as paedophilia, sadism etc). This mad/bad/evil minority which makes up some 1-2% of the population has always been with us, but they have been able to thrive as a result social changes of the last half century which has allowed these traits fuller expression. The causes are a mixture of biology and environment.

    The Fundamental Liberties (AKA human rights) that red referred to in his inital post are valid, but should not be applied to this group, at least not in full. The problem is of course identifying those that fall into this group efficiently and effectively with an absolute minimum of false positives. This is also a challenge for other components of government, such as the health and welfare systems

    Regards
    Peter J

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Dexter (285 comments) says:

    see recent pix of police with semi/auto combat type rifles standing around a cold murder scene ,when there was no threat

    Flipper I hope you are not referring to the Connor Morris murder scene, where there had been a multitude of threats to burn the place down and shoot the ‘alleged’ offender.

    If so, maybe you would prefer in your naive little wonderland, that the Police stood around with flowers instead and tried to hug armed gang members. Or better yet you join up and lead the revolution yourself….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Mr_Blobby (163 comments) says:

    1. Gang patches yes and No, it may just make them less visible. But then they are scum.
    2. Been done and gone NO. If people are old enough to fight and die for their country they are old enough to drink.
    3. This one I will concentrate on. Yes. What we need is a felony evasion law. If you flee from the Police and you have committed an offense then it should be a mandatory 2 year jail sentence.
    4. Tasers NO. If you arm the Police you have to also arm the Public, otherwise we will end up with a para military not a civilian Police force. Look at whats happening in the US. The militarization of the Police will not end well and open the doors for abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.