News :: [none]
Police Produce Misleading Statements on Tasers
#media_7238;left# A Campaign Against The Taser.com report of police statements about the proposed taser stun gun trial in September shows “a woeful mix of misleading statements and unsupported assurances.”
Campaign Against The Taser.com has completed a comparison between police public statements and their internal policies regarding taser use.
“A clear pattern emerges from our comparison,” says Campaign Against The Taser.com spokesperson Marie Dyhrberg, barrister. “The Campaign Against The Taser.com’s report shows that internal police documents are frank about how the taser will be used while the public comments are intentionally misleading.”
[Campaign Against The Taser | Scoop video: "Pressure mounts on MPs over Taser"]
Taser - MR re police spin - 27 June 2006.doc (40 k)

(Police statement comparisons attached)
A Campaign Against The Taser.com report of police statements about the proposed taser stun gun trial in September shows “a woeful mix of misleading statements and unsupported assurances.”
Campaign Against The Taser.com has completed a comparison between police public statements and their internal policies regarding taser use. (This is attached below)
“A clear pattern emerges from our comparison,” says Campaign Against The Taser.com spokesperson Marie Dyhrberg, barrister. “The Campaign Against The Taser.com’s report shows that internal police documents are frank about how the taser will be used while the public comments are intentionally misleading.”
Ms Dyhrberg said it appeared that statements were designed to disarm public concern rather than provide accurate, honest information.
“Targeting the public with misleading spin is unacceptable and irresponsible,” said Ms Dyhrberg.
“The taser has been trialled elsewhere and found to be lethal. More than 180 people have now died in North America as a result of being tasered including 5 people just this month. We don’t want such a dangerous weapon introduced here on the back of a carefully orchestrated campaign of misleading information from the police,” she said.
Campaign Against The Taser.com has sent the comparison to the Minister of Police and we are seeking the opportunity to meet with her in the next month.
ENDS
Marie Dyhrberg
CATT Spokesperson
Barrister
P.O Box 47867 Ponsonby
Auckland New Zealand
Tel: +64 9 360 4550 [ ]
Fax: +64 9 360 8434
maried@mariedyhrberg.co.nz
www.mariedyhrberg.co.nz
Comments
Re: Police Produce Misleading Statements on Tasers
The Propellant looks like the size of the ink refill cartridge you might use in your printer, but these cartridges have long wires, nearly 20 yards, attached to them with long menacing looking barbed needles on the other..
They are called Tasers and once they sink into your skin – the officer presses the trigger and sends 50,000 volts of electric charge into your nervous system.
The darts stay in the person thanks to the barbed end much like a fish hook. The person that is shot by these needles is completely immobilized.
Sean couldn’t stand by and let 5 police officers grapple with his Step mother, Hazel Hill who was now on the ground struggling to avoid being hurt.
This was how Thursday April 20th started out for the First Nations people en-camped on the barren grounds of the Douglas Creek Development.
The night before, police has reassured Clyde Powless from the Haudenosaunee nation, no police action would be taken as long as talks were going on, that a warning would be given before any mass arrests would start, and no police would storm the camp site during night.
None of those words meant anything then, as the First Nations People have experienced generation after generation. The white man’s word was not to be trusted.
When the OPP did storm into the Camp up in Caledonia, the ratio was at least five officers for each person, most of whom were asleep during the 4:30 take down.
By the time Hazel Hill managed to return to the camp site and call me on her cell phone, dawn had just broken. Her call to me was short and expectedly frantic. Then there was nothing.
I could not get an answer when I dialed back. I didn’t know it was because she was being pinned to the ground under the weight of five OPP officers, and her son was being tasered.
First I called Dick Hill, Hazels’ husband at his home and told him about Hazel’s call. Then I quickly started calling all the media people I could think of to say that the camp standoff in Caledonia was being raided.
Some of the main stream press had been camped out in their vans for weeks before this raid, waiting for a moment like this one. Others had to be "coaxed" to make the drive into Caledonia.
One CBC television reporter was on her cell phone to me mapping out in her head what she assumed was happening. She concluded, like most of the press had concluded, that the natives had been arrested and cleared off the site.
She was wrong. As I watched live coverage being broadcast from the Global/CH11 mobile van, I saw something you rarely expect to see in a native land standoff.
The phone calls were working. Numbers of First Nations people were streaming into the campsite carrying flags. Calmly and peacefully they walked into the camp grounds and turned the police around, walked them out of the camp and down Argyle St. heading North.
It was a beautiful thing to see. I had forgotten I was still on the phone with the CBC reporter who kept saying "the Police had moved all the Indians off the site" into my ear. "No" I kept repeating, "the Indians are slowly and quietly pushing the Police off the site."
This was obviously not what most reporters expect to hear. In all of the past land claims issues natives have not managed to peacefully repel the police – after a major raid.
This was history I was watching and now describing to the reporter in a mobile van rushing to the location. All different members of First Nations people were banding and standing together and gracefully taking back their land.
I remember feeling a sense of respect and pride watching this act of grace and commitment, when only a hour before I was fearing the worse would happen, like the Ipperwash stand off – or OKA.
The CBC reporter was surprised as well and it took me a few repeats of the live news cast I was watching to convince her that something wonderful was happening.
By the time I had called as many press people as I could think of, and get myself up to the site it was just past 9 am. The press were everywhere, like a swarm of bees.
The first person I sought out was writer from the local Teckawan Six Nations news paper. I wanted to find Hazel Hill and see if she was all right. We were allowed across the new barrier now sitting across Hwy. #6 or locally known as plank road, escorted by the Techawan reporter, to a truck with the back hatch dropped down.
There surrounded by a mass of press sat Hazel, calmly and with grace, telling again and again what had just happened.
Satisfied, the press drifted off to find someone else to swarm. I stayed to do my own interview with Hazel and then some young girls came over with their hands full of tangled wire.
They carefully laid out the taser cartridges – the mess of wire - and the huge barbed needles on the black carpet of the trucks dropped door gate and from nowhere the press flocked back like seagulls pushing and shoving to get shots of the vicious looking stun gun bullets.
It has been three weeks now since the day the OPP rushed in, which led to the road being barricaded. I have yet to see a published picture of the taser weapon used to shoot Hazel’s son in the back, in order to prevent him from coming to her aid.
The only media that shows the true amount of police force used that day is the independent media. They have no corporate agenda, except to show to the world what the Natives were really facing.
That’s why the road is blocked. No other reason – except to protect themselves from further violence.
Later that same day I wandered around the development and watched moms on their front yards sunbathing, while their little girls played in front of the police vans.
So many vans – at least 12 from my count, and I wondered how many of them were hiding automatic weapons behind the heavily smoked windows.
auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/2073
Re: Police Produce Misleading Statements on Tasers
Inquiries and Reports – Australia
Zero Tolerance Policing: Implications for Indigenous People
ATSIC,
Canberra,
January 1999
'Zero tolerance policing' (ZTP) has become a feature of discussions on appropriate police strategies in Australia in recent years. Australian politicians and police from a number of jurisdictions have visited New York to observe the impact of this style of policing on the city's crime rate. Advocates of STP appear to have neglected the likely impact of this strategy on Indigenous people. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody made recommendations aimed at reducing contact between Indigenous people and the police. ZTP however, has the potential to increase Indigenous incarceration rates and on a more general level, to produce a negative effect on Aboriginal/police relations.
In late 1998, ATSIC commissioned Chris Cunneen of Sydney University's Institute of Criminology to write a report on the implications of zero tolerance policing for Indigenous people. The following Executive Summary is drawn from that report.[1]
Zero tolerance policing relies on the belief that a strong law enforcement approach to minor crime (in particular public order offences) will prevent more serious crime from occurring and will ultimately lead to falling crime rates.
Zero tolerance policing is a strategy directly aimed at increasing arrest rates for minor offences such as public drunkenness, offensive language and behaviour, loitering and other similar offences.
New York is the most ‘famous’ example of the introduction of zero tolerance policing. Australian politicians and police from New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territory have been exposed to the New York example, and it is often cited as the model on which any changes in Australia would be based.
There is widespread criticism of zero tolerance policing from criminologists, lawyers and police administrators both in the USA and in Europe. Some have argued that zero tolerance policing is nothing more than an old fashioned punitive approach to law and order, which emphasises the traditional preoccupations of over-policing of poor and marginal social groups. In summary the main arguments against zero tolerance policing are as follows.
There is a lack of evidence of any direct causal link between zero tolerance policing and declining crime figures. In some United States jurisdictions the same reduction in levels of crime are being achieved through other policing strategies. The pressure placed on local commanders to show ongoing reductions in crime has lead to concern about falsification of crime statistics.
Zero tolerance policing is resource intensive. It requires either increased police numbers or the allocation of existing resources away from other areas of enforcement. Thus zero tolerance policing strategies are seen as invariably short-term and expensive.
Zero tolerance policing emphasises offences in public places – street offences. It is apparently not concerned with other and potentially more major areas of violence such as domestic violence, or other facets of property crime such as fraud. The notion of ‘quality of life’ is itself defined to only include a narrow section of ‘public’ life. Corporate crime and environmental crime, for example, have large-scale effects on ‘quality of life’. Crimes, which occur in the private sphere (such as domestic violence), are not seen as ‘quality of life’ issues at all.
Zero tolerance policing represents a return to the pro-active policing strategies (common in Britain prior to the inner city riots of the early 1980s, and common in parts of Australia during the 1980s and early 1990s, particularly with the use of tactical response police).
Zero tolerance policing may increase the level of public disorder because it is pro-active. It contradicts the results of major inquiries into public disorder such as the Scarman inquiry in the UK, which stressed policing based on community consent, trust and participation. It will also worsen relations between particular communities and police.
Zero tolerance policing undermines principles of community policing including commitments to crime prevention, problem-solving and closer community partnerships. In this sense, zero tolerance policing is antithetical to policing by consent – the supposed hallmark of policing in a democracy. Policing priorities are defined external to the community.
Zero tolerance policing strategies have been consistently implicated with violations of civil and political rights.
By targeting street offences, zero tolerance policing is aimed at essentially the poor and the homeless. Racial and ethnic minorities are also concentrated in these groups. Zero tolerance policing will lead to greater discrimination – either directly through the targeting of minorities or indirectly through their greater presence among those arrested.
Zero tolerance policing will lead to far greater levels of criminalisation. In particular, minority groups, which already have large proportions of their male population with criminal records, will see even greater degrees of criminalisation. This will further compound social and economic marginalisation.
Zero tolerance policing will bring about an increase in complaints about police misconduct and brutality particularly from minority groups.
Zero tolerance policing will require greater court resources to deal with increased arrests; it will impact eventually on the prison population (through greater criminalisation, increased fine defaulters and sentences of imprisonment).
Zero tolerance policing rests on a spurious assumption that the law is neutral and can be enforced in all situations – that complete enforcement is a possibility. However, public order and the actions which constitute disorder are broadly defined and open to constant interpretation and discretionary decisions by police. By pretending that zero tolerance is possible, the more important question of who gets arrested is obscured.
Zero tolerance policing, were it to be adopted along the lines developed in New York, is likely to have the following impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:
Increased Criminalisation
Nationally, nearly one in three Indigenous people placed in police custody are there because of intoxication in public, irrespective of whether it is a criminal offence or not. Zero tolerance policing will make any reduction in this number difficult to achieve and will likely lead to an increase in police custody for public drunkenness.
Nationally, nearly half of all people placed in police custody for public order offences (excluding public drunkenness) are Indigenous. The focus of zero tolerance policing on increasing arrests for public order offences will have a dramatic and discriminatory effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The increase in the number of Indigenous people arrested and held in custody will cause an increase in the number of Indigenous deaths in police custody.
The increase in the number of Indigenous people arrested will flow through the criminal justice system with increases in court appearances, fine defaults, imprisonment and deaths in prison custody.
The increased criminalisation of Indigenous people will further exacerbate their social and economic marginalisation.
The international experience strongly suggests zero tolerance policing leads to an increase in the incidence of police misconduct, including violence and a corresponding rise in complaints against police. This is likely to result in a serious deterioration of Aboriginal - police relations.
Zero tolerance policing undermines successful Indigenous community responses which provide alternatives to arrest, custody and criminalisation. It is contrary to national strategies reflected in the commitment to Aboriginal Justice Plans.
Breaching the Royal Commission Recommendations
Zero tolerance policing is contrary to recommendations of the Royal Commission which advocate the following:
Indigenous self-determination (recommendation 188);
community policing (recommendations 88, 214, 215 and 220);
arrest as last resort (recommendations 87);
non-arrest for trivial offences (recommendation 86);
alternatives to arrest for juveniles (recommendations 62, 239-242); and
diversion from police custody for pubic drunkenness (recommendations 79-85).
Failure to Comply with International Standards
Zero tolerance policing is potentially in conflict with sections of the following human rights standards:
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and
the Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.
Zero tolerance policing also conflicts with several principles set out in the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Northern Territory
One of the main proponents of zero tolerance policing has been the Northern Territory Chief Minister.
Zero tolerance policing will have a direct impact on Aboriginal people in the Territory. In 1996, 72 per cent of all adult court appearances for public order offences involved Aboriginal people. It is inevitable that there will be significant increases in Aboriginal people before the courts as a result of zero tolerance policing. The likely impact, if public drunkenness were recriminalised in the Northern Territory, is evident when it is considered that at present 90 per cent of people placed in police ‘protective custody’ for public drunkenness are Indigenous people.
Aboriginal people already comprise 81 per cent of people sentenced to imprisonment in the Northern Territory. Zero tolerance policing will clearly have a discriminatory impact, further exacerbating Indigenous over-representation in the prison system.
www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/1999/35.html
流行の先端
ビジネスチャンス
簡単在宅バイト
期間限定イベント案内
エッチ度を気軽に診断
Re: Police Produce Misleading Statements on Tasers
仕事帰りに彼氏のお家へ
急募逆援助交際会員
Re: Police Produce Misleading Statements on Tasers
秘められたモテ度を暴く
Re: Police Produce Misleading Statements on Tasers
rolex watch
replica watches
rolex watches
online watchs
replica watches rolex
mens watch