Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I would have thought being "Bound over to keep the peace" would be more appropriate and already an option.
But that would require a judge, and evidence - in short, for the police to do actual work. Instead, they'd rather impose punishment without trial.
-
Consider, before you starting jumping up and down and demanding that the police be held accountable, how rare police shootings are in this country
I know how rare they are. And I want them to stay that way.
Beyond that, "I don't do it very often, therefore you should ignore it" is not an excuse the police would accept from anyone. I do not see why we should accept it from them. Those who enforce the law must be seen to be accountable to it.
-
Damn, looks like I was caught between versions there...
-
Are you tryingto come up with inappropriately offensive comparisons for this incident?
No, I'm pointing out the inevitable consequences of a feeling of unaccountability: systematic abuse of power and apparent criminal behaviour.
If you'd prefer, I can quote Acton instead. But Rickards is a more concrete and timely reminder.
-
We really do need to get this country beyond the belief that the Police police themselves. They don't, any longer. The Independent Police Conduct Authority is, in name and in law, independent of the Police.
Name and law is window-dressing; what matters is practice. And there its not so good. Up until a few years ago, the (not-yet-independent) PCA got the police to do its investigations. This had the predictable result: "nothing to see here, move along". Now at least they have the budget and authority to employ their own investigators, and I hope like hell they'll be using one in ths case. Because as we've learned from the Louise Nicholas saga, the police have in the past had great problems policing themselves, and certainly shouldn't be trusted to do so if it can be avoided.
-
The other consideration, and one of which the prosecutors will be very aware, is that if they put this officer up for manslaughter they will do nothing good whatsoever for the general safety of the NZ public. It was bad enough with the private prosecution of Abbott, but to be prosecuted by the Crown would really make every officer faced with a lethal force situation think, potentially for far too long, very hard about the possibility that they'll end up in jail.
Good. I want them to. better that than a police force which feels itself legally unaccountable for its actions. That way lies Clint Rickards...
-
Was that a Godwin?
Hardly. Merely a legal observation, pointing at the most powerful and far-reaching precedent.
-
I/S is demanding a prosecution of the officer who fired, but if he was acting on an express order, who's culpable?
I believe that question was answered rather decisively at Nuremberg.
But we should certainly look at the procedures and orders given as well.
-
Perhaps you can think of additional reasons to be cheerful ...
No more Guantanamo?
-
Rather than changing the law, use the provisions and use them hard. Revoke liquor licences permanently on a second offence. Suspend for a week on a first offence. Levy maximum fines on everyone who's found breaching the law.
But that would cost the liquor industry money, and therefore be bad For Growth. Not to mention the Nat's annual donations...