Hard News: Travelling Gravely
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
My assumption was that the cops need more toys.
It is probably easier for them to get toys than recruits at the momentThat's a disturbingly cynical view. Cops who feel under-equipped leave the job. If they don't believe that they're being given the tools to do the work moderately safely and effectively, why would they stay? High turnover militates against effective recruiting, lowers the effectiveness of the force due to higher numbers of inexperienced officers, and makes it a treadmill just recruiting to keep up with the numbers who are leaving.
Even though I oppose Tasers (I'd rather they shot someone who's a direct threat to their lives, because at least they're under no illusions as to the potential danger of their actions) I understand why police officers want to have them. It's nothing to do with "toys" and everything to do with making sure the people in blue shirts have the tools that they feel are required.
More officers would be useful, but when you're facing down someone who's got a machete, or a softball bat, under-equipped recruits aren't going to be of much use to you - unless you're planning on using them as an expendable distraction while the experienced officers go in and club the bugger from behind? -
Yeah a bit, but the first victory of that rather unpleasant man O'Connor is for us to start to believe his call for more.
Police rifles shoot straight, as do their pistols & I would be happier for a dog to be sent in to subdue the armed dangerous & mentally ill, even if that means the dog dies. I am a specieist.
They have enough toys to do the job.
Will a Tazer really be better, I do think so. But by giving a child a toy, they see that they are loved & valued.
Recruiting might be a bit easier once Richards et al are a distant memory. -
whoops "I do NOT think so"
-
even if that means the dog dies
Police dogs don't just materialise fully trained. It takes years. They're a finite resource, and treating them as utterly expendable displays an alarming lack of understanding. For one thing, their handlers get attached to them. The bond between dog and handler is very close, even though they're working dogs, and the loss of their partner affects the handler a lot. Plenty of media reports about attacks on police dogs bear that out.
Also, not all cops are suited to being deltas. They don't like dogs, or they don't want to work with them, or any of a whole raft of things. Any cop can be trained to be at least passingly effective with pepper spray, or another weapon, but the same is not true of dogs. You can't just go into the station armoury and issue yourself a dog, they're not commodities that can be bought.
It's all very well to say that dogs are less important than people, but dogs have very severe limitations. Their availability is extremely restricted, the lead-time on replacements is measured in years (the police dog that died earlier this month, his handler had already started working on training a replacement dog because it takes so long), and because they're living creatures it is much harder for humans to view them as just an expendable asset. The handlers raise them, feed them, care for them, and work with them every day. You can sit in your chair and say "They should just use them and throw them away," but it's not your pet that you're discussing. -
A S,
I'd rather they shot someone who's a direct threat to their lives, because at least they're under no illusions as to the potential danger of their actions
IIRC, a similar sentiment was (incorrectly) attributed to something I said in another thread, and you were seemed to have a distinctly different point of view there. Has something changed your mind, or have I misread what you are saying?
On the issue of tazers, I would much prefer that if I am seen as a threat, that I get tasered, where there is a limited chance of me dying, rather than being shot with a hollow-point police issue round (there is no international convention about using "humane" bullets when shooting civilians) where there is a much greater chance of a catastrophic wound and me dying.
I would be happy for tasers to be introduced, IF, AND ONLY IF, the taser was classed as a firearm and each use by the police was treated as a shooting and was investigated by the IPCA, and decisons to prosecute police were made by an independent authority.
By way of explanation of my reasoning for this, I'm 6'4 and weigh in at over 110kg, and am of a somewhat "swarthy" complexion. I'm aware that on meeting people, many find me threatening, largely due to my size, and I don't want anyone over-estimating my threat to them and making a wrong, and for me likely to be fatal, decision.
the great majority of mankind is little other than self-interested and petty, but, that's what we have to work with.
Careful, you don't want to end up as cynical as me...
-
I'd urge people to read the Chief Constables submission - I found the section that basically said we'd been conned into a "war on drugs" by a bunch of US prohibitionist wingnuts to be particularly resonant - so many of our apparently strange domestic policy is driven by the need to pander to international interests...
-
Umm...not meaning to be rude...but is it just me? I can not find the thread related to the final Wide Area News columns and the disscussion of the critic aritcle and the merits of the Listener.
Did it vanish or am I just completely blind or need to go back further?
-
*blush* wishing could delete comments sorry i'm blind...discussion of advertising blahblah...buried treasure blahblah...resigns listener column...
-
Matthew
I'm not interested in an arms race with the police bidding for increased powers & weapons. Better and more of what they have, in the way of dogs could be a start.
I would be keen on more dogs, and am aware of the limitations but that may be an area for more $ to bge directed to.Definately dogs sould be used to avoid the loss of human life, but what do you mean by this " because they're living creatures it is much harder for humans to view them as just an expendable asset"?
Are you putting a dogs life about a humans?A S
Agreed Tazers should be classed as a fire arm, but still don't see the need if a few more dogs are out & about.Slarty
The War on Drugs is real, because we have already conducted it against China & won.
Poms pumping Opium into China crippled the entire society to the point the great unwashed & Yanks could just walking and demand anything & get it. -
Paul - think of it as a hair extention.
One thread tied to the first but maybe this ones a different coulor & not quite a match to the first.
-
The War on Drugs is real, because we have already conducted it against China & won.
:) Exactly - and we scored a new name for a City from it!
There's an interesting economic aspect to how the drug<->tea trade operated in the 19thC... the state (emperor and all the corrupt layers beneath him) implemented extraordinarily tight controls on what could be traded (only silver).
This artificially created a situation where it was fairly obvious if you'd traded some tea for, say, a pile of textbooks.
So it you had to find something with a massive value, easily transported etc. And lo and behold, the East India Company comes up with something.
The thing that makes me chuckle is it was all driven by massive demand for another demonic stimulant.
Isn't it amazing how we still persist time after time with thinking that our moral views are better than those of others...
-
The War on Drugs is real, because we have already conducted it against China & won.
Well not quite. That was a war with or of drugs, using drugs as a weapon. War on drugs is more like "Wow Man, this is killing me or someone, far out and groovy"
-
IIRC, a similar sentiment was (incorrectly) attributed to something I said in another thread, and you were seemed to have a distinctly different point of view there. Has something changed your mind, or have I misread what you are saying?
If you can point to me something contrary, please do. I've never been in favour of Tasers, because of the potential for abuse. Not once have I spoken in favour of them being used here, I've always favoured the use of known-lethal force if a situation calls for it, instead of the false sense of security that comes with the "less-than-lethal" tag.
Your suggestion that discharge of Tasers be treated the same as discharge of firearms would probably be adequate to get me on-side on their use. As it stands, though, they're just something else that can be misused with a fairly high degree of impunity.
Shep, according to the Police website there are around 110 general duties dog teams around the country, attached to 21 dog sections. If they started tomorrow and tripled the number of dogs (which is completely impossible for any number of reasons, not least of which is getting the puppies), in about two years' time we'd have about one dog for every 30 staff (approx 10k police). Those dogs would require expensive care and on-going training. The same sums would probably be sufficient to have a Taser available for issue to every officer on duty (which doesn't appear to be the current plan).
You do the math. Dogs are expensive, on an on-going basis. Their up-front costs are higher, too. They have a long lead-in time to availability, and are limited to taking down one person at a time.
Whereas these "toys", that aren't being sought because they might be good for recruiting purposes, are cheaper to buy, cheaper to keep around, and can be used on several suspects in very quick succession. They don't require years of training to be functional, there aren't concerns about whether or not they can play nicely together, and their operators don't get attached to them and have to take time off if they get "injured" or "killed" in the line of duty.As for the values placed on the respective lives, of course the life of a dog is of less import than that of a person. But that doesn't mean that the police will willingly throw them away just because some people dislike pepper spray or Tasers. They're an expensive asset whose loss has a very detrimental effect on their handlers.
-
They have a long lead-in time to availability, and are limited to taking down one person at a time.
You could also say this about Tasers too, subjectively of course.
AFAIK Tasers are also a single shot weapon, unless you are talking about the XREP which is one of the reasons the Police are asking for "looser" control over their firearms.
Then there is the political bargaining angle, from the police point of view, that you ask for a mountain when all you really want is a molehill. -
They have a long lead-in time to availability, and are limited to taking down one person at a time.
You could also say this about Tasers too, subjectively of course.Each cartridge is good for a single shot, yes. But the reload process appears to be little more involved than changing a pistol magazine, so in a matter of seconds a Taser is good to go again. Their lead-in time is days, assuming they can be air-freighted over. Weeks if not. Still dramatically shorter than any useful canine resource.
I wouldn't call the ARVs '"looser" control', either. Rules-of-engagement shouldn't change, and firearms are out on the streets right now, as they are at any given minute of any day. Assuming the UK model is followed, and that article mentions that we have ex-UK cops with ARV experience which suggests that that's what we'll base on, they won't be mobile armouries with which to equip otherwise-unarmed officers. It'll be two or three officers with additional training (probably existing AOS), and sufficient weapons on-board to arm themselves. At the moment sergeants' cars carry multiple firearms because they're the arsenal from which other officers draw at a scene. ARVs are meant to be self-contained. They have pistols and MP5s for each crew member, nothing for other cops. Here it'll probably be pistols and Bushmasters, maybe a shotgun.
The ARVs are a good idea, provided that their SOPs don't allow them to be drafted into any kind of operation that would increase their response times (such as pre-planned raids, and certainly not proactive policing). "Trojan" patrols, as the Met calls them, are mobile with a priority assignment of responding to armed incidents. They run with a driver, communicator and navigator. If we do the same thing, that's immediately three well-trained officers per car who will be a matter of minutes away from any emerging situation. At present the AOS can take an hour or more to get anyway, given their need to go to wherever their central base is to get kitted up.
-
I think you missed my point completely. The hand held Taser is a one shot device, until it is reloaded and charged.
The XREP is a cartridge that can be fired from ANY 12 bore shotgun, including pump action guns.
To allow greater use of shotguns the Police need a "looser" set of protocols.
As for SOP's, ARV's, AOS's. I think you're begging the question, as it were, let me put it this way. In terms of shotguns, vis a vis Policemen qua Policemen, they would like to use shotguns more often but they do not fit current parameters in view of procedures ditto policy guidelines and structures consummate with contemporary laws and regulations, QED.
;-) -
Matthew:
I accept all of what you say & care about the welfare of dogs too. I just think if we are to invest in the police, Dogs are the way to go. They do the job and are yet to kill anyone (to my knowledge).
If tazers are one shot - you're f*&ked if you miss.
No other weapon has this limitation. I didn't realise it was so limited in its use.
Pepper Spray - multi use & two are carried at a time (I think)
Pistols 15rds (?) mags - shot guns 8rds (?)
Baton - unlimited
Dogs - 5-10yrs -
The hand held Taser is a one shot device, until it is reloaded and charged.
Charged? Reloading is sufficient, from what I've just read. It's possible to shock a suspect multiple times once the weapon has been fired, so clearly there's sufficient charge for more than one shot. According to this page reloading takes "less than a second", so that's pretty good. However, if you need to fire more than twice and you're out of cartridges you've got problems.
I didn't realise the XREP was simply a charged slug. Only just read that link. Very cool. Adding those to the table-of-equipment doesn't need a loosening of weapons SOPs (that's Standard Operating Procedures), it just needs them to be allowed. What's looser about that?
ARVs==Armed Response Vehicles. An acronym that I've used in another thread, because I cannot think of a better term for what's proposed.
AOS==Armed Offenders Squad. That one, I assumed, was just known.
I was discussing the ARV concept because you just posted a link to that article without being explicit about just what in it was of interest. My bad.Shep, in terms of bang for buck (har har), dogs aren't that flash for the reasons outlined above. To get the same availability and flexibility would require ridiculous levels of expenditure, pretty much requiring one dog for every patrol car. The figures I've found on the 'net indicate at least $3k/year, conservatively, for food, training expenses, and veterinary care. A Taser is in the $500 range, the cartridges run to about $70 each, retail, it seems. I'm sure the NZ Police would get a much better price. Pepper spray will be far cheaper (and I've only ever seen a single canister on an officer's belt).
I don't disagree with you that dogs are useful, but it would have to be one extremely interesting parallel universe before they'd be any kind of viable replacement for what police officers can carry on their belts. -
I have to say, though, Matthew, that people are generally afraid of those big police dogs. I have no knowledge of tasers or guns, but I have seen police dogs in action. And they seem to be very, very effective.
-
I have no knowledge of tasers or guns, but I have seen police dogs in action. And they seem to be very, very effective.
Oh, unquestionably. I'm not disputing their effectiveness as currently utilised, simply the practicality of trying to use them as an all-situations replacement for pepper spray, Tasers (when (as I believe they inevitably will be) they're approved), and firearms.
There are a multitude of documented cases where simply drawing a Taser has resulted in offender compliance, including during their trial here. For every instance of their discharge, there's at least instance of a miscreant doing as they're told when a Taser is only pointed at them. "Don't tase me, bro!"As for firearms, if nothing else Stephen Wallace got what was coming to him because he didn't comply with the orders of a man with a gun. Most people obey someone who's pointing a firearm at them.
-
Matthew - bullets are cheaper still & they already have the guns, simply callous calculations. If you are going to do that (& I hope you don't), what of the loss to society of a tax payer, and the loss of productivity to the wider society through there death.
Wallace is the guy who would have benifited from Police having Dogs.
He was simply mentaly ill and died as a result.
If an act looks "Mad" then the guy running a muck probably is, so this level of violence & weapons will be largely used on the mentally ill.
Once helped and rehabilitated, he (& others) would be a valued member of society, we are short of any number of labourers in NZ & he looked fit and strong. -
The veneer of civilisation is pretty thin.
Sorry for the gratuitous erudition :), but has __The Decline of the West__ gotten the nod for the Oprah Book Club, and I didn't notice?
-
I am firmly against extending police powers and surveillance but totally in favour of spending large sums on more cops on the beat.
I think we can have CCTV footage without heading down a bad 'surveillance state'. CCTV footage is not the magic bullet to dealing with crime in urban areas, and often it's only useful after the event, but if someone assaulted/robbed/raped etc etc, and was caught on footage, I'd hope that the police would use it to the fullest to catch them. 'More police' can't be everywhere, even if we doubled the number out at any one time.
Therefore as scary as they may be I'ld like more dogs on the beat than a more heavily armed force.
Dogs and other tools/weapons are not at all equivalent. The role for which a police officer can/will use a taser/firearm is almost entirely different to the role for which a dog will be used.
Dogs are commonly used to track and bring down an offender. Very occasionally they will engage an armed offender, but normally by accident (ie, they didn't know the offender was armed). If an offender is holed up and armed with firearms, it's an AOS job, not a dog's role to deal with them. Sending a dog in will just result it being shot, and put a dog team on stand-down for over a year a new one can be trained.
A taser should be used at short notice to subdue an offender who is resisting arrest violently, or is a danger to the officer or someone else. Most likely in that situation the dog is going to be in the car anyway. Police can't bring dogs into umpteen situations just on the off-chance that it develops into one with violence involved.
The crossover where a dog could be a replacement for a taser or firearm is very small.
'More dogs' is a very limited answer. Think of all the limitations of more officers having a dog.
1. The dogs cannot work is areas with lots of people. They get confused about what they are doing. Lots of people are also scared of dogs, you couldn't run one down Cuba Mall on a Friday evening, you'd cause chaos.
2. The dogs cannot work with other dogs very well. If two pairs of police officers tried to work together, and both pairs had a dog, they'd conflict and might get distracted by each other.
3. Police dogs have problems with non-police dogs. If a police officer brings his dog to my front door, my dogs are going to go crazy just because there's a dog visiting them. Some other dogs will attack a police dog however.
4. The vehicles dog units use are specially set up for the dog, and that limits their use for more general roles.
5. Dogs require constant attention and focus from their handler. The handler couldn't do other things - talk to witnesses/victims, collect evidence - if they have a dog on lead. It restricts the many things that the officers need to do, which is why it's a specialised job.
6. Dogs can't enter buildings.
7. Running a dog is very specialised and takes specific training and commitment from the officer. Apart from anything else, you have to put your partner into very dangerous situations sometimes. It's a volunteer job, not something that should be forced on an officer, as it requires commitment at home as well as at work. Police dogs often retire to live with their handler until their death, and some handlers leave the dog unit when their dog retires.
8. Training a dog every 10 years, and keeping it healthy, fed, and happy until it dies is tremendously expensive.
Basically there are very limited times where dogs have a role in the police force, but it's a role for which they're very useful for.
A dog team can only be called in for specific tasks, the rest of the time the dog sits in the boot of the car and the officer is on general duties. If there were incidents where a dog was required and none was available, then there would be an argument for having more, but they're not at all a replacement for firearms or other weapons.
-
Seems dogs are used for armed offenders - 3 days ago in Melbourne
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23894019-5005961,00.html
I put it to you Kyle that even if someones position is known sending a dog in would be very effective in subduing them.
A dog with a muzzle I suspect might still be effective as a gentle reminder in crowd control situations.
The key point I ask you to consider is that they have not killed anyone in NZ.
-
simply callous calculations
Unfortunately, that's how budgets work. It's impossible to afford everything, or even a large subset thereof unless "everything" is "not actually very much". It's a very significant issue for emergency services, since they're funded out of taxation (even in the US), and thus have only limited available funds. Their bang-for-buck requirements are pretty high, especially when what's being weighed up is something with quite high ongoing costs vs something with relatively light ongoing costs. All the more so when the high ongoing costs are coupled with a significantly higher up-front cost.
The Fire Service would love to have no appliance more than five years old, but simply cannot afford it. The modernisation project underway at present is still only rotating fairly-new (8ish years) appliances out of busy career stations into quieter career stations, and the moderately-old (10-15 years) appliances out of quieter career stations into volunteer stations to replace appliances that are quite often older than some of the people riding them. The Police deal with much cheaper capital items (a basic pumping appliance runs to $500k, one with rescue gear to $700k, and something with a ladder or aerial boom can't be had for under a mil), but that doesn't mean they've got bottomless pits of money to spend. Everything must be worth its cost, on an objective basis, and avoiding something that has a very low statistical likelihood of occurring had better be extremely cheap to implement. Dogs aren't, but their alternatives are.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.