Posts by johnno
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Last Friday, the police used armed general duties officers to place checkpoints around Miramar Pennisula while they looked for an escaped prisoner. I was at a couple of different roadblocks (Nevay Rd, Akaroa Dr, Darlington, Waka Sts), and the police were stopping vehicles and looking inside them. AOS officers were used on the prison grounds, but there was also a car-load floating around Miramar, and they made an armed search of a property on Darlington Road (nothing found). There were AOS officers in a helicopter that was used to search the area.
Photographs were taken at a police operation in Christchurch at Hasketts Road last year. Every driver and registration was snapped as they went throught the roadblock.
It is a reasonably common event for armed members of the AOS to operate checkpoints and search vehicles. They also regularly action search warrants when they suspect there might be an aggressive response. For example, the AOS used tear gas and distraction devices on May 31 when carrying out search warrants in Mt Eden, South Head, and Patumahoe.
-
Well, I don't think I leaked privileged information, but maybe you can put me right. And maybe, you just might have to accept that, because of my job, I do know a little more than you on this issue. Trust whoever you want, believe whatever you want - there's plenty of evidence of that on these pages.
-
Michael, I had a long reply ready to go, but I think it best to leave it be given that I went into the closed court a bit later on.
In regard to criticism of some of the tactics employed by the police, I would note that from what I have seen and read of what happened that day (from media and first hand reports, not from court proceedings), there was not a single action undertaken by the police that would differ from what I have seen them do on numerous ocassions, even as recently as last Friday in Mirimar. Armed roadblocks? Check. Detaining suspects at gunpoint? Check. Searching all vehicles leaving a cordon by armed police? Check. Photographing occupants of vehicles? Check. Searching suspects at gunpont? Check. That's just what they do, and have been doing for a good number of years. Perhaps we haven't been paying much attention.
-
I would agree with you, Sara, apart from one thing. My colleague saw some of the police video evidence during a bail application, and came out saying the accused were in real trouble (he actually said 'they're fucked", but you get the point.) And if you come from this position, the whole house of cards starts to come down, and the police actions start to look justified.
-
Thats a hypothetical question. Lets not forget, some of the people arrested where serious documentary film makers. They may well have alternative explanations, to what the prosecution offers.
I would have expected a documentary maker to have a camera or microphone in their hands, rather than wearing balaclavas and carrying a firearm, but I'm a little old-fashioned in that respect. It seems the only video recording going on was hidden surveillance stuff from the cops.
-
__Ah. So video referees have wider application than just sport...__
Heh. I was thinking : yet again TV3 gets the best pictures ...
Bollocks. TV3's vision came from an indymedia guy with a handicam. Their shooters actually missed it. The TVNZ track was much more revealing, and got some great stuff of how intimidating and provocative the protesters were. As someone who shoots for a living, its fair to say that TVNZ kicked butt that day. In fact, they also bet TV3 for the better vision of the hunt for the escaped prisoner in Wellington as well. In both instances, TV3 had to rely on amcam to get them out of jail.
-
"Highly provocative" seems to be a bit of an understatement. Those guys were desperately looking for a fight.
Re. the raids - i think we will find that a handful of those arrested will be guilty of some small arms offences. But I suspect that a good majority are guilty of a lot more. What were the police to do when they have video evidence of the accused conducting what can only be described as paramilitary training? Put this together with recorded conversations, and amunition and firearms found in their possession, and there is little doubt in my mind that the hippies in Wellington were up to things that would astound their fellow activists.
-
Michael, as a cameraman and someone who has talked to Cam about the stuff he got on Abel Smith street, I can set your mind at rest (I hope). Looking at the raw vision, it's quite clear that the cops tolerated the camera for a little bit, but as soon as Cam got close to the house and could actually see over the fence and shoot the door being broken down, the cops told him quite firmly to fuck off - which is kinda standard. That's why the rest of the stuff is from across the road. You might notice that a gentleman in civilian clothing goes to some lengths to hide his face as he walks into the house. Presumably, he works in a spookier part of the police. Cam got some wonderful stuff, but be assured, the cops NEVER tip off an operation of this type to the media. At best, we are merely tolerated, at worst, we're a mouthy obstacle that potentially puts their operation in jeopardy.
A successful visual media organisation will go to quite large lengths to get good pictures. For the camera operator, its a bit of a lottery in these circumstances. One day you might get great pictures, and a bit of a growl from the cops. Other days, you'll get arrested, as happened to another TV3 cameraman during an anti-bypass demonstation nearby to Abel Smith street.
-
The photographing of people at various events and roadblocks is not new. The police regularly record people at demonstrations. Last year the Christchurch police ran a large anti-boyracer operation at Hasketts Road. They photographed every vehicle they stopped (about 100) at the checkpoint, along with the driver. I'm not entirely sure, but I presume there is no compulsion to allowing the police to photograph you.
The suppresion of all aspects of the bail hearing in Wellington was done in front of the accused, their lawyers, the media, police, the crown prosecutor, and the judge. The informant (the Police) made submissions to the judge regarding the need for continued bail. The defendants (through their lawyers) had the opportunity to offer counter arguements. The judge made his decision to deny bail. While all reasons were suppressed, the judge did make his judgement in front of the assembled media (who were also privy to all submissions) in the knowledge that his judgement will eventually be made public, and if the media detected anything that had the slightest whiff of injustice, he would be exposed accordingly. The defendants' lawyers also had the right of appeal of the judge's decisions, and to my knowledge, they haven't as yet.
-
There has never been a day since TV3 started broadcasting that their early evening news bulletin has had more viewers than TV One.