The insufferable arrogance of the New South Wales police

B

Bruce in West Oz

New member
Police union pans capsicum plan

14sep04

THE NSW Government should drop plans for transit officers to use capsicum gel to subdue violent offenders on trains, the police union said today.

NSW Transport Minister Michael Costa yesterday said he had asked RailCorp chief executive Vince Graham to consider giving the capsicum gel to hundreds of transit officers.

The gel would be deployed as a foam because as a spray it could contaminate the air conditioning system on trains.

NSW Police Association vice-president Scott Weber said police officers were the only professionals that the community could trust to use such a dangerous substance.

"Our members are trained, not just in the use of capsicum spray, but also more generally in dealing with people to minimise the need to use weapons like these," he said.

Mr Weber said police have levels of accountability for every action they take to ensure that their powers and equipment are used responsibly.

"Our concern is that capsicum spray is not a toy and no-one other than police should be permitted to use it," he said.

"Policing is a job for professionals, not to be confused with the security functions of transit officers (and) this proposal steps way over that line."
Click to expand...

This is absolutely typical of their attitude towards self-defence in general, and even more so to using any weapon (firearm included) for self-defence.

Transit police deals with yobbos, drunks, gangs, whatever, often late at night. They are the only form of protection for passengers, including single females and the elderly. The police are where? Oh, silly me, manning radar guns, hoping to catch a few more motorists travelling 3 km/h over the limit on a deserted freeway. (If there's any NSWelshmen on this board, they can confirm or deny the reports we get here that NSW police will only allow a 2 km/h leeway before charging a motorist with speeding.)


:barf:
 
Yet another sad step in the wrong direction for our friends in Oz. :( I feel for you, Bruce.

Unfortunately, Australia has become an evolving (devolving?) example of what a slippery slope gun control is.
 
Wow. I had not realized the attitude had grown that bad.

Pepper spray only to be used by LEOs? What is an attacked Citizen supposed to do to defend themselves? Pray?

Is it as bad as in England, where if you defend yourself at all, you are likely to be charged with a crime?
 
Pepper spray only to be used by LEOs? What is an attacked Citizen supposed to do to defend themselves? Pray?

Is it as bad as in England, where if you defend yourself at all, you are likely to be charged with a crime?
Click to expand...
Mmmm ... well, each state is a law unto itself, and since I'm in Western Australia (WA) I'm most conversant with our laws.

You can defend yourself using "reasonable force". (Which is, more or less, "like for like".) For example, if an unarmed assailant breaks into your home, you can't shoot him, nor stab him, nor even thump him with a nine-iron -- that would be using excessive force and you would be charged. Additionally, what is "reasonable" is judged in the courtroom, in a calm, rational way -- and doesn't take into account the fact that your pulse at the time of the offence was 140, your blood pressure 180/90 and your system flooded with adrenaline. So, what seemed eminently reasonable to you at the time may be deemed "excessive" in a courtroom. Certainly, the police prosecutor (sort of our version of a DA) will try to make it appear that way.

The other Catch 22 is that you can use a weapon to defend yourself, but you can't carry a weapon in anticipation of needing it. Even carrying a pocket knife is, strictly speaking, forbidden, and police can stop and search you if they think you're carrying an "offensive weapon". (No, they don't need a warrant, just a "belief" that you might be carrying. They don't need any excuse to search your car, nor do they need a warrant -- but that's another story.) Here in WA, although carrying pepper spray is illegal, police have said they will turn a "blind eye" to women carrying in places where they "could" be in danger; e.g. those on night shifts etc. This, of course, means they can, at any time, choose to prosecute -- a "blind eye' has no force in law.

If you shoot someone here in protection of yourself or your family (you can't do it just to protect your possessions), the police will charge you and prosecute you -- they do NOT determine whether or not charges are to be laid. Your innocence or guilt is left up to a court. (They're like that -- fall asleep while driving and have an accident -- even if no-one else is involved -- and you'll be charged with either reckless or dangerous driving and be fined and have demerit points deducted from your driver's licence. Put your foot down too vigorously and spin the wheels, and your motor vehicle can be impounded for 48 hours, you'll be fined, lose points, and have to pay the towing and storage fees. Second time -- 3 months. Third time -- car is forfeited, sold (the state keeps the money), you're fined and your driver's licence cancelled. Anyway, I digress.)

In some states, after the police case, even if you're found innocent, the perp (or his family) can start a civil suit against you for "damages". No matter what the outcome, this is going to hurt your wallet big-time. Other states have passed legislation to prevent this.

Self-defence -- our official police advice is "run away, don't fight back, you will only escalate the violence".
 
That's sad and sickening to read.

It seems like a complete inversion. As though it would be better, from a risks vs rewards standpoint, to be the instigator of violence and crime than the victim. After all, if the victim turns the tables on you, it's rather literal.

I've always thought of the Australians as possessing the same sort of rugged individuality that helped shaped the US. It's sad to see many turn their backs on it. It seems we suffer from the same malady here in California.
 
I've always thought of the Australians as possessing the same sort of rugged individuality that helped shaped the US.
Click to expand...

Sadly, once, perhaps … but that's now a thing of the past. We are, I believe, the most urbanised country in the world. That is, the overwhelming majority of our population lives in the cities, isolated from the country, from reality, from individuality, from firearms, and even, thanks to social engineering, from a lot of our history. We are governed by political correctness and fear of offending anyone -- except white, middle class, middle-age males, especially gunowners, who are fair game for anyone.

You'll still find the sort of individual you speak of, but mainly in the country. They're the ones who told the government to take an flying leap and simply refused to hand in their guns after the "stealback" of 1996. :D
 
Thanks for the replies to my questions.

Yes, it appears that Australia has become "inverted", where the criminals hav all the rights, and the victims have none.

Must be a great place to be a criminal. I really can't believe that the governing bodies don't see that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top