National ‘bereft of compassion’

36 comments on “National ‘bereft of compassion’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Benodic 1

   16 June 2008 at 5:00 pm

   Burn.
2. Chris S 2

   16 June 2008 at 5:01 pm

   Yeah – reminds me of that garbage that Sheehan was pulling. For which there was a huge outpouring of disgusting filth from the frothers on the right.

   When I read the original story about how they would be laying a complaint against the police it surprised me… It totally goes against the way that they’ve handled this tragedy . It doesn’t surprise me to see another politician trying to ride in on the back of someones misery.
3. andy 3

   16 June 2008 at 5:04 pm

   Poor form Mr Bakshi.

   Must say Mr Hawkins has not been media shy either, his politicking must have come with actual help and compassion?

   somewhat on topic: I think the NZ police don’t need special armed patrols. Cops on the beat, actually walking the mean streets will prevent more crime and up the risk of capture. I think cops on the beat would reduce lots of petty gateway crime (tagging) that gives young men the idea that they are untouchable.
4. Felix 4

   16 June 2008 at 5:46 pm

   andy, I totally agree about not arming the police.

   We never should have let them play with tazers, it’s only encouraged them.
5. Felix 5

   16 June 2008 at 5:53 pm

   Actually I can’t help wondering if this is a p.r. move to make tazers look more “friendly” by comparison…
6. andy 6

   16 June 2008 at 6:00 pm

   Felix

   Tazers, I would have them. BUT, they need a little video recorder that records from laser ‘paint’ (arming) to firing or disarming. This must evidence be subject to an independent board of enquiry with every taze.

   Armed police would not have saved Mr Singh from being shot, and am terrified that they may have shot innocent customers if they went in cocked, locked and ready to rock.

   NZ police need dash mounted video for everyone’s protection.

   It is amazing to watch ‘police ten-7’ and ‘motorway patrol’ to see how the police react when on camera. From personal experience it is 100% difference to when not on camera.

   Imagine Mr Carters story with video evidence!
7. Felix 7

   16 June 2008 at 6:29 pm

   I found it quite distasteful of the police to say that arming them could have saved Mr Singh.

   Apart from it being blatant bullshit – we only need to look at other countries’ experiences to know that – it was disgraceful of them to try to gain political capital from the Singh family’s tradgedy.

   Couldn’t agree more about the on-camera behaviour.
8. T-Rex 8

   16 June 2008 at 7:07 pm

   Felix – it is not blatant bullshit. It is the truth.

   The delay in paramedics getting to Singh was because they were stopped at the police cordon because the regular beat cops were not equipped to make sure it was safe for them to proceed. They were waiting for the armed offenders guys to make sure it was clear.

   If they’d already had weapons, they wouldn’t have necessarily had to wait, paramedics could have got their sooner, chance of life saved would be higher.

   Andy – if it was effective and convenient I’d have no problem with video on the tasers, but an independent board of inquiry every time?!? Are you f*cking kidding? Why for them and not pepper spray? Or everytime they put someone in handcuffs?

   As for police 10-7, all it does is remind me just how ridiculously hard whiners are on cops considering they cr*p they have to put up day in and day out. There was an article in the weekend herald you’d do well to read, I can’t be bothered finding the link.

   I’ve known and worked alongside cops on several occasions, and the vast majority of them have made me proud of our police force.
9. higherstandard 9

   16 June 2008 at 7:15 pm

   Andy and Felix

   Just interested why are you so against the police being armed ?
10. Quoth the Raven 10

    16 June 2008 at 7:20 pm

    When the idea of armed patrols leaves Ron Mark “scratching his head” and saying that it is “hard to accept” then it really is going too far. It is simply a ridiculous idea that even hardliners like Ron Mark can’t accept. I have trouble understanding how anyone could think this is a good idea.
11. andy 11

    16 June 2008 at 7:48 pm

    HS

    They are already armed at night in Auckland, well Sargent’s and D’s have a Glock in the Boot. That didn’t work for Mr Singh. Guns only work in force in a stand off, any other time useless.

    I have no problem with AOS, they are well trained. The problem with under resourced and under trained police with guns = Steven Wallace. It seems contentious how deadly force was used in that case.

    I think the police need better training, 19 weeks is not enough. It takes 3 years to become a bloody sparky. Our expectations are too low, and we allow the police to meet them.

    Andy – if it was effective and convenient I’d have no problem with video on the tasers, but an independent board of inquiry every time?!? Are you f*cking kidding? Why for them and not pepper spray? Or everytime they put someone in handcuffs?

    1. They can kill, tend to be used more on the mentally ill, the police have other weapons in the arsenal (batons, dogs, guns, pepper spray, sheer numbers), it removes the need to negotiate and de-escalate a situation.

    2. Pepper spray was a massive mistake, it is used to make up for the change in force height and weight requirements. See above in regards negotiation..

    3. I too have met fantastic police, and credit where credit is due.

    4. Louise Nichols, the bad side of police and the policing culture. How do you eradicate one without destroying the other? Make the system open to scrutiny. There are thousands of people who have been treated poorly by police for a myriad of reasons and we are ready to give them (police) absolute power without boundaries, shudders.
12. vto 12

    16 June 2008 at 7:50 pm

    More guns just means more chance of people getting killed.

    N O !

    I’ve never understood the US ‘right to bear arms’. Why not just let people keep their own tanks, sub-machine guns, rpg’s, mini-nuclear devices… I mean, where do you limit it?

    Heading off thread, but if there were no guns around there would no mass murders (well, a hell of a lot less).

    The whole issue is so bloody simple I don’t even know why it’s been raised. Who raised it?
13. randal 13

    16 June 2008 at 7:51 pm

    judge dredd on this one…get the perps…take em out!
14. randal 14

    16 June 2008 at 7:57 pm

    actually what really annoyed me here was the indian man on teev who said that according to his culture mrs singh could not marry again?
15. alex 15

    16 June 2008 at 8:15 pm

    randal, I thought the fact Natjev Singh died tragically was more annoying.
16. Felix 16

    16 June 2008 at 8:20 pm

    hs: The question is what reason do you have for arming them?

    I’ve seen nothing convincing in the least.

    T-rex: Of course every use of pepper spray should be able to be independently scrutinized. It was never supposed to be used often enough for that to be an issue. Now it’s used routinely, and even on suspects who are already in custody.

    Are you saying you want them using tazers so often that it would be a problem to keep track of every incident? Jesus what kind of world do you want to live in?

    Remember how the police were only ever going to use spray as a last resort? In extreme situations? Just like they’re saying about tazers and guns?

    The police have routinely and systematically abused every power we’ve ever given them – they should have a very heavy burden of proof to meet whenever they want more (which in case you haven’t noticed is all the time).

    If the police have tazers, more kiwis will die at the hands of the police. If they have 24 hr armed patrols, more kiwis will be shot and killed.

    Armed policing doesn’t save lives, nowhere in the world can this be seen to be the case. It does nothing to prevent crimes being committed.

    As for “my mates are cops and they’re great blah blah” I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. Most of us have probably had both positive and negative experiences with the police – that has nothing to do with checking power and excercising caution. Unless you’re happy for the police to just make up their own rules as they go.
17. vto 17

    16 June 2008 at 8:20 pm

    BTW, in my wee rant just a bit above I have of course made the assumption that with the arming of the police comes a greater arming of the crim. And hence everyone else. No reports or ‘experts’ by the way of evidence, just a gut instinct.

    2c. goodnight.
18. randal 18

    16 June 2008 at 8:23 pm

    alex…good for you
19. dad4justice 19

    16 June 2008 at 8:49 pm

    The police always have the Anton killing machine.
    RIP Stephen B.
20. Psycho Milt 20

    16 June 2008 at 9:02 pm

    The question is what reason do you have for arming them?

    How about this one? We could end up with a situation where some poor fuck bleeds to death on the floor of his shop because unarmed Police officers aren’t game to risk taking on an armed loony with their bare hands. Hypothetical scenario of course, but just suppose…
21. killinginthenameof 21

    16 June 2008 at 9:33 pm

    How about this one? We could end up with a situation where some poor fuck bleeds to death on the floor of his shop because unarmed Police officers aren’t game to risk taking on an armed loony with their bare hands. Hypothetical scenario of course, but just suppose

    Problems like this coudl be solved for much less money with a governemnt advertising campaign, requesting that armed robbers please target white store owners in Remuera instead of brown store owners in Manurewa.
22. RedLogix 22

    16 June 2008 at 9:49 pm

    I have two close friends, both of whom have served 20 plus years with the Police. Both have recently and independently commented along the lines that the main problem with the force lies with a relatively small group of very senior officers who are making ALL the important decisions, driving the organisation from the top down.

    At this most senior level the response to intense public criticism arising from a few bad officers and some bad mistakes has led to them ‘circling the wagons’ and trying to drive the organisation with reams of rules and protocols, devaluing officers experience and gradually whittling away individual’s professional discretion. The inevitable result has of course been more dumb mistakes.

    This seige mentality was of course exactly the wrong response. Only by re-engaging the wider public and pushing decision-making down to the lowest practical level will the Police regain the trust and confidence of New Zealanders.
23. Felix 23

    16 June 2008 at 10:34 pm

    Psycho Milt:

    You’re doing, of course, exactly as the police have done – using a one-off event for political mileage by pretending it’s anything more than what it is: a terrible and pointless killing.

    It’s a nightmare scenario for sure, and not one that any cop would want to be dropped in but it’s not something that’s happening all the time and it’s not something that warrants drastic measures in response – especially when the measures called for are demonstrably ineffective and dangerous to the public (unless of course you can show a pattern of events where someone has died and link them to the police being unarmed, but I can’t recall one).

    Two patterns that are immediately apparent are:

    1. That arming the police the world over does nothing to reduce crime.
    2. That the NZ police have proven time and time again that they can’t be trusted to use weapons responsibly.

    Many more people will be killed if the police are carrying guns – that’s the lesson from around the world. This tragedy doesn’t justify following that disastrous path.
24. jbc 24

    17 June 2008 at 1:24 am

    So Mr Singh believes Mr Bakshi has put politics ahead of compassion for one of his constituents. Big deal, and hardly a unique case across members of ALL parties.

    Does anyone really know what Mr Bakshi’s feelings are towards the victims family? Maybe he’s a shallow politician, maybe not. But FFS, unless you think that all political party members are mindless drones speaking on behalf of their leader (perhaps true for some parties) I fail to see how you can extrapolate this to “National ‘bereft of compassion'”

    😉

    Felix, while I don’t trust all NZ police to carry guns I don’t think you can map other countries’ experiences with crime direct to NZ either. Some have done well where others have failed. Crime (and enforcement) is a complex problem which doesn’t see to fit any bullet-point rule set. (I’ve spent 7 years in a country where even the rent-a-cops are armed and nobody ever gets shot. Crime rate is 20% that of NZ).
25. Psycho Milt 25

    17 June 2008 at 7:34 am

    …arming the police the world over does nothing to reduce crime.

    Irrelevant. It’s about improving the Police response to committed crime, not reducing the crime rate.

    …the NZ police have proven time and time again that they can’t be trusted to use weapons responsibly.

    Then improve their training. I don’t trust anybody to use a gun properly – in most cases though, I’m not asking them to take on armed criminals on my behalf. It seems a bit much to expect people to respond to a shooting on my behalf, then require that they do it unarmed. You might be entirely comfortable with that, but I’m not.
26. dad4justice 26

    17 June 2008 at 7:41 am

    The amount of unlawful discharges within police is shocking.Guns and morons is a deadly cocktail.
27. all_your_base 27

    17 June 2008 at 9:20 am

    With their only compassionate conservative gone, looks like they’re back to just being conservatives.
28. expat 28

    17 June 2008 at 9:23 am

    Thats a low blow ayb, even for you guys.

    I suppose with Dover gone from Labour there will be less clean up bills from the James Cook?

    [Tane: Just a note, you seem to be getting caught in our spam filter. I’m not sure why this is happening.]
    [lprent: I can’t see why either. It is something from the spam plugin and outside our system.]
29. Felix 29

    17 June 2008 at 9:57 am

    jbc: You’re right, it’s complex and you can’t map it exactly but you can look at the performance of the nz police when they do have weapons in their hands. And it’s not a great record.

    Psycho Milt: That’s the job of the AOS. If they need more properly trained members and better resources to do their job better then they should get them. They’re a specialized force and need the appropriate means to deal with extreme situations.

    That’s not the same as militarizing the entire police force which would indicate a fundamental shift in the relationship between the police and the public, and one tragic death is not worth that.

    Because it is just one, isn’t it? Or is there an epidemic of these “unarmed police costs civilian life” incidents that I’m not aware of?
30. Psycho Milt 30

    17 June 2008 at 10:57 am

    …one tragic death is not worth that.

    I doubt the Singh family shares your assessment. Would you care to put a figure on how many lives it is worth, then? I can’t say I place a huge amount of value on having cops who lack the equipment or training to secure an armed robbery crime scene, so it’s worth bugger-all to me.

    Once we tally up the rhetorical scores, the bottom line remains: I wouldn’t be willing to turn out for an armed robbery if I was expected to do it unarmed, so how can I demand somebody else do it?
31. T-rex 31

    17 June 2008 at 11:12 am

    Felix – what’s your solution to the issue of criminals going armed and police not? In bullet point.

    1) “Police need more training, 19 weeks is not enough”. Please, PLEASE, do some research before you say crap like that. From the police website –

    Once you have finished training at the Royal New Zealand Police College there is a period of two years where you will be required to work as a probationary constable for two years. Once you have completed this requirement, you are able to branch off into a specialised area.

    19 weeks is barely the end of the baby steps program. After that there’s two years of consolidation before you can even start to specialise.

    2) They can kill, tend to be used more on the mentally ill, the police have other weapons in the arsenal (batons, dogs, guns, pepper spray, sheer numbers), it removes the need to negotiate and de-escalate a situation.
    It doesn’t “remove the need”, if you look at police SOP’s you’re not going to see “taze the guy” as the first step. Good training is important – all of the deaths I’ve seen even tenuously attributed to tasers are the result of truly stupid application by the person using it.

    3) Pepper spray was a massive mistake, it is used to make up for the change in force height and weight requirements. See above in regards negotiation. Damn, think about what you’re saying. Your clear implication is that we didn’t need pepper spray as long as cops were so big for brute strength to work. Instead, we can now have a far more diverse police force which will, if anything, improve the effectiveness of negotiation. Also, I’ve never heard of someone suffering a severe head injury after being pepper sprayed.

    4) Felix – The police have routinely and systematically abused every power we’ve ever given them – they should have a very heavy burden of proof to meet whenever they want more (which in case you haven’t noticed is all the time).
    God you’re full of sh*t. What the hell are you basing this on?
    The police website says they have more than 7,500 police officers. Most of those will have pepper spray, and access to firearms. So, going by reported incidents, there are a vast number of police NOT pepperspraying and shooting indiscriminately.
    You’re sounding like a crazy zealot.

    Sure – keep an eye on your police force – but also have some bloody faith in them.
32. T-rex 32

    17 June 2008 at 11:20 am

    Felix – Below is the law regarding police access to firearms, AS IT ALREADY EXISTS. Please note the absence of regular news stories about the police shooting someone.

    —

    F060 – Carrying of Firearms by Police

    (1) The New Zealand Police is generally an unarmed service. It is recognised however that firearms need to be available quickly, easily and safely. The principle of minimum personal carriage and minimum visibility of firearms and related equipment is to be applied at all times.

    (2) Firearms are not to be carried on the person as a matter of general practice, but may be carried in authorised police vehicles to ensure they are available if needed.

    (3) District Commanders may authorise the carriage of police approved firearms in police vehicles, as necessary to ensure members have ready access to firearms should the circumstances dictate. NCO patrols, first response units, CIB patrols, dog patrols, and single crewed patrols are examples where such authorisation should be considered.

    (4) Police vehicles used to carry police firearms on a regular basis are to be fitted with firearm security cabinets. Such cabinets are to be of a type approved by the National Manager : Operations. This does not apply to vehicles used by members of an Armed Offender Squad or the Special Tactics Group.

    (5) The need for security of firearms and cabinet keys cannot be too highly stressed and to this end District Commanders shall consider the fitting of an alarm to those vehicles used to carry firearms on a regular basis. In any case District Commanders shall issue directions as to the security of such firearms and cabinet keys. Such directions shall include:

    (i) strict control procedures to ensure that police firearms stored in cabinets and cabinet keys are secure at all times;

    (ii) the appointment of a Commissioned Officer or Senior Sergeant to be responsible for ensuring that district orders and general instructions are being complied with and to carry out spot inspections in addition to routine checks by supervisors.

    (6) Members may carry police issue firearms on the person when there is clear and specific evidence that a risk of encountering any of the circumstances referred to in General Instruction F61 exists. Carriage is to be authorised by a District Commissioned Officer or NCO or Police Communications Centre Commissioned Officer or NCO when practical to do so. If an authorising officer is not available members may exercise their own discretion, but shall advise their supervisor at the first reasonable opportunity.

    (7) Commissioned Officers and NCOs may carry police issue firearms on their person in the circumstances outlined in (6) above without reference to higher authority. The nearest Police Communication Centre Commissioned or Non Commissioned Officer must be advised.

    (8) Members may also carry police issue firearms on their person when:

    (a) performing airport policing duties at any airport that has been ‘security designated’ under the Civil Aviation Act 1990;

    (b) performing duty as a member of the Diplomatic Protection Squad and authorised by the Commissioned Officer in Charge of that Squad;

    (c) performing duty as a member of an Armed Offenders Squad or the Special Tactics Group;

    (d) performing duty as described in General Instruction F63;

    (e) pursuant to a written operation instruction authorised by a Commissioned Officer;

    (f) authorised by a District Commander.

    (9) A member who may be required to be armed shall not consume alcohol within a reasonable time before commencing duty, or during any period of duty. This includes periods while on standby.

    ENDS
33. Quoth the Raven 33

    17 June 2008 at 1:38 pm

    jbc
    I’ve spent 7 years in a country where even the rent-a-cops are armed and nobody ever gets shot. Crime rate is 20% that of NZ

    What country was that?
34. Draco TB 34

    17 June 2008 at 4:24 pm

    NZ police need dash mounted video for everyone’s protection.

    They do but maybe not in every car. IMO, all cars (yes, that includes private vehicles as well) should have audio/video recording devices fitted similar to an aircrafts blackbox.

    How about this one? We could end up with a situation where some poor fuck bleeds to death on the floor of his shop because unarmed Police officers aren’t game to risk taking on an armed loony with their bare hands.

    I’d say a one off situation but it’s obvious that such a situation will re-occur at some point in the future. The point is that we still need to question what happened before we go round giving all the police guns.

    1.) Was the correct police unit sent to secure the area when an armed robbery was reported? The answer to this seems to be ‘no’ as the police sent had no way to secure the area.

    2.) Were the actions of the police, once they got to the address, appropriate? The answer is, again, no. They cordoned off the area and didn’t let anyone in but they didn’t get anyone out either. There were enough people in there going from the shop to the police and back to indicate that it was safe.

    This is just what I’ve picked up from reading the news and think it would be better if there was an actual inquiry so that decisions are made on real information rather than guesses.
35. Lew 35

    17 June 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Draco TB: “IMO, all cars (yes, that includes private vehicles as well) should have audio/video recording devices fitted similar to an aircrafts blackbox.”

    I’ll take my safety without surveillance, thanks.

    L
36. Swampy 36

    19 June 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Next paragraph
    :”The Sikh Council took the view that there was only so much government and police could do in combating the malaise of young persons indulging in anti-social behaviour.”

    Guess Labour won’t be taking that view, will they?

    And Mr K S is a member of the Sikh community himself, isn’t he.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS