Cullen on Nat apologies

41 comments on “Cullen on Nat apologies ”

• Comments are now closed

1. monkey-boy 1

   27 August 2008 at 2:44 pm

   Excellent announcement from Annette King today Labour have decided in principle to arm our police with tazers!

   bzzzzzzzzzzt –

   ooh, sorry.
2. Steve Pierson 2

   27 August 2008 at 2:49 pm

   monkey, you’re obviously watching question time like i am.. therefore you should know it is the police commissioner who made the decision and he has written to MPs asking for their opinion: labour nzf, act, national all support it…
3. Phil 3

   27 August 2008 at 2:56 pm

   Good on Annette for having the Balls (metaphorically) to support the police on this.

   If you don’t want to be tasered, don’t break the law. It’s as simple as that Monkey.
4. Jeeves 4

   27 August 2008 at 2:57 pm

   “‘Stay on message’; not ‘tell the truth'”. Staying on message is not inconsistent with telling the truth, and you know it. Speaking of lying, I am pretty sure most people know when their motorcade is travelling at speeds that would cause an ordinary member of the public to lose their licence.

   On another note:

   If Labour pays UMR to ring me up and ask me how I feel about the statement that “John Key is not trustworthy” is that push polling? I’m not political expert, but it seems to me to be pretty close.
5. lukas 5

   27 August 2008 at 2:58 pm

   Phil… you serious?

   This was clearly a move to delay questions around WP.

   Love it from HC- “there is a conflict of evidence” What the crazy!!! someone is clearly lying
6. monkey-boy 6

   27 August 2008 at 3:02 pm

   Steve if that is the fantasy-world you choose to live in, great, don’t try to suck me into it too.
   Was it mere coincidence that on the day that Hide was going to repeat his questions of Peters after haveng been ejected from the house because Peters lied to the house about the questions being ‘sub-judicae’, King makes this announcement which will suppress further exposure of Peters, by closing off Question Time in favour of a general debate about Tazers?
   Given that Helen has had Owen Glenns letter which directly contradicts Peters since the 20th of this month, still will not do the right thing. Does Helen really need Peters for the ETS that much?
7. Steve Pierson 7

   27 August 2008 at 3:04 pm

   Phil. I support tazers as long as they are used only when more deadly meanswould previously have been needed to prevent harm to police or others.. remains to be seen whether that’s how it works in fact.

   If would be very careful with lines like “if you don’t want to be tazered don’t break the law” because a) the tazer isn’t a punishment b) the Police don’t always get it right c)that argument is an argument for giving unrestrained power to the Statef to do what it chooses to people, after all, it will only hurt the guilty
8. vto 8

   27 August 2008 at 3:07 pm

   Phil “If you don’t want to be tasered, don’t break the law. It’s as simple as that Monkey.”

   Not everyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of the police has broken the law. That is also very simple.

   also, following your silly logic, why not arm the police with uzis then?
9. Lew 9

   27 August 2008 at 3:19 pm

   Lukas: “”there is a conflict of evidence’ What the crazy!!! someone is clearly lying”

   Yes. A conflict of evidence means someone is lying. Possibly more than one person. Suppose there are three people possibly lying: Winston Peters, Owen Glenn and Brian Henry. Your options are as follows:

   1. Believe one person, selected at random. Instant, 33% chance of getting the right answer.

   2. Believe one person, based on their reputation. Instant, impossible to calculate chance of success but probably a little better than 33%.

   3. Believe more than one person under either of the preceding. Instant, impossible to calculate the chance of success.

   4. Wait for the Privileges Committee report and believe one or more people based on its recommendations. High likelihood of success, the only downside is that it’s not instant.

   So – how much justice are you prepared to sacrifice for expedience?

   L
10. monkey-boy 10

    27 August 2008 at 3:24 pm

    “So – how much justice are you prepared to sacrifice for expedience?”

    Ah – the kind that lets the police loose on perps and innocent victims to be tazered?

    Looks like the shoe fits.
11. George Darroch 11

    27 August 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Steve, putting the blame for this decision back on the police commissioner is just ridiculous. Annette King is squarely responsible.

    Oh, and I don’t care that Cullen, or Peters or anyone in this country is witty in their putdowns. If we’re going for wit, I’d rather have Clement, McKenzie and Waititi in the house…

    Bunch of clowns the lot of them.
12. Lew 12

    27 August 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Lee, you’re thread-jacking my respionse to a thread-jack. WTF?

    L
13. monkey-boy 13

    27 August 2008 at 3:35 pm

    sorry dude. I guess I just went feral for a minute.
    sorry.
14. Lew 14

    27 August 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Lee: Careful, you can get tazed for that.

    L
15. randal 15

    27 August 2008 at 4:50 pm

    whats the message?
    all they are doing is full on whingeing about getting a go.
    well the nats can go and get stuffed as far as I am concerned.
16. randal 16

    27 August 2008 at 7:48 pm

    capcha
    ‘make arguments’
    well make em
    dont fake em
    I can tell what comes out of some monkey machine and what comes out of a human mind
    see monkey man by the rolling stones
    let it bleed
    1969
    so far its all puerile tripe
    everybody waiting to get their hands on the cash cow
    your money
    well lets talk about something
    the future
    what do people really need and how do we get it
    how much of anything much do we need
    bit greeny
    rainforesty
    chainsaw massacre of 2008
    hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    gotta go
17. Brett Dale 17

    27 August 2008 at 8:37 pm

    You can’t beat Cullen for wit?????? Peters gives him a run for his money, and both men will be out of a job soon, perhaps they can do stand up together.
18. Rakaia George 18

    27 August 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Stand up? What as? Moral and Hardly?
19. monkey boy 19

    27 August 2008 at 9:08 pm

    oooh that’s a diss!
20. Savage 20

    27 August 2008 at 9:17 pm

    I think Winston is a dream-boat.
21. Lew 21

    27 August 2008 at 9:26 pm

    BD: “perhaps they can do stand up together.”

    Insult battle!

    In blue corner, the Rt. Hon. Winston Peters, former Treasurer, Minister of Foreign Affairs, patron of Fadgwick & Sons formal tailors, Honorary Life Member of Grey Power and raconteur-in-chief of NZ politics. His swaggering dismissiveness batters down all defences and renders opponents humiliated but hardly able to speak for laughing!

    In red corner, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, Eternal Deputy Prime Minister, scrooge of the Noughties, heir to Michael Joseph Savage, and a pom only when it suits him. Opponents find themselves speared on his dry wit and tied in knots by his conveniently simple logic, only to find themselves agreeing with him and having to argue the contrary out of spite!

    Battle start! Winner get Billy T Award!

    L
22. the sprout 22

    27 August 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Any thoughts on who in National would come even vaguely close to Cullen in terms of wit and intellect?
23. Kevyn miller 23

    28 August 2008 at 3:44 am

    Well, there are several that can match him on smarminess. Even though he’s not very witty at all, IMO, he still beats all the Nats. Rodney Hide is the only MP that strikes me as truly witty. Cullen is hardly the epitome of intellect. Leaving aside their respective ideological biases I think English can give as good as he gets in any debate with Cullen on fiscal matters.

    Somebody has given Clark and Cullen some excellent advice. Always respond to opponents as though you are a teacher correcting a student’s misunderstanding. It sounds very convincing even if it’s completely wrong or doesn’t even address the actual point that is being rebutted. Of course, to be effective all the time it does help if the opponents are are wrong on crucial points most of the time. Which does seem to be par for the course in New Zealand politics.
24. travellerev 24

    28 August 2008 at 7:31 am

    Ah the taser,

    The favourite torture instrument of the US pig.
    According to Amnesty International 300 people have been killed with this handy little gadget at the disposal of every cop in the USA.

    As for the “if you don’t want to get tasered don’t commit crimes brigade” watch this little video of a student getting tasered for asking John Kerry a question.

    This is also a goody

    And what about this one

    Yeah, tasers is a real good idea. The police here is just so honest and not at all violent or misogynist but than again perhaps in ten years we will have women coming forward telling us they have been raped by cops at taser point. Wouldn’t that be fun.

    300 people dead, people being tasered on campuses for asking questions or for protesting a speeding ticket, pregnant women. Giving police a weapon that “doesn’t” kill is giving a large group of small minded power freaks permission to torture and enforce through fear, not reason. Not the way we want to go folks, definitely not the way we want to go.
25. higherstandard 25

    28 August 2008 at 8:09 am

    Eve

    Nope the AI report does not say that 300 people have been killed with tasers.

    “While medical examiners have usually attributed the deaths to other factors, such as drug intoxication, some medical experts believe that shocks from taser-type weapons may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases where people are agitated or under the influence of drugs, or have underlying health problems.”

    “AI has collected data on more than 290 cases of individuals in the United States and Canada who since 2001 have died after being struck by police Tasers. 15 of these were in Canada, the rest in the United States. Our sources include media reports, information from families of the deceased, and police and autopsy reports. While in most cases medical examiners have attributed death to other factors, such as ?excited delirium? associated with cocaine intoxication, AI has identified at least 20 cases where coroners have found the Taser served as a causal or contributory factor in the death and other cases where the Taser was cited as a possible factor in autopsy reports. ”

    In my opinion far better tasers than handguns and it is a reasonable position to suggest that if one is doing nothing wrong there is no risk of getting tasered – the vast majority of police in NZ remain good, honest people despite the occasional low life that make it through into the police force.
26. RedLogix 26

    28 August 2008 at 8:54 am

    HS,

    The first time a video makes it to the net, showing an NZ cop repeatedly using a taser as an instrument of compliance or retribution, then the whole debate will erupt all over again as it did in Canada after their RCMP killed Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport.

    The problem is this. Tasers are NOT just non-lethal handguns.

    Guns are very likely to kill or maim, whereas tasers are much less likely to do so (although the risk is not as low as we have been told), and most cops are genuinely reluctant to use guns for a variety of perfectly good reasons. Killing someone on the job is a dammed traumatic thing to have to do, however cycnical one might be about the police and their motives.

    The other major police weapon is the baton. The problem with this is that is leaves bruises, injuries and persistent evidence but used properly usually does not kill. The police are far less reluctant to use batons for this reason, but unfortunately it can require the officer to get close to offenders with knives or baseball bats.

    Most people have been sold the idea that tasers are just a non-lethal version of a hand-gun. Indeed if the police only ever used them in situations where they would have used a gun instead, then tasers would be far less problematic. The controversy arises when they are used as a ‘non-evidence leaving’ substitute for a baton or situations where the use of a gun would never have been justified, to obtain compliance from a non-violent person, or retribution for things like verbal abuse.

    And in overseas jurisdictions this misuse of tasers appears to happen far more often than I am comfortable with.
27. travellerev 27

    28 August 2008 at 9:02 am

    HS

    Yawn

    Thanks RL
28. travellerev 28

    28 August 2008 at 9:12 am

    By the way HS,

    NIST now says that a small office fire can collapse a massively fortified skyscraper 47 floors high and build to withstand a nuclear blast. LOL. All in 6.5 seconds flat into it’s own footprint. Laughing even louder.

    Just to get you all fired up again. Dork.
29. higherstandard 29

    28 August 2008 at 9:33 am

    Thanks Dear
30. travellerev 30

    28 August 2008 at 9:52 am

    HS,

    God your thick, dream on in your safe little white middle class suburb.
31. higherstandard 31

    28 August 2008 at 9:53 am

    I will dearie
32. Phil 32

    28 August 2008 at 10:12 am

    HS points out just how wrong Trav’s claim with Tasers is… Trav comes back with a line about 9-11.

    Normal service here at TheStandard. Tune in tomorrow when we’ll here all about the magic car.
33. Felix 33

    28 August 2008 at 10:13 am

    Red Logic is absolutely correct.

    Tasers used instead of guns = good.
    Tasers used instead of batons, wits, patience = bad.

    (anyone who thinks they’ll only be used in the first scenario is very, very naive.)

    Also, does anyone think this is not a stepping stone to fully arming the police? Because if it is, then any argument of “better tasers than guns” is nonsense at best if not duplicitous.
34. travellerev 34

    28 August 2008 at 10:45 am

    Phil,

    I take it that like HS you don’t bother to check the links?
    Unlike many Standard readers I might add.

    Nah, I didn’t think so. Another one of the “Don’t confuse me with facts ,my mind’s made up” dummies, and yes the Honda civic now does 730 km per tank rather than 430 km. We save lots a $$$. LOL.

    Felix,

    Hear, hear.
35. lukas 35

    28 August 2008 at 11:04 am

    Amazing…. you forgot to mention JK’s holiday home in Hawaii Trav
36. Felix 36

    28 August 2008 at 11:25 am

    Play the ball, lukas. It’s just above your head there, just out of reach.
37. travellerev 37

    28 August 2008 at 12:11 pm

    LOL
38. Phil 38

    28 August 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Felix/RedL

    I’m all for arming Police with handguns IF AND ONLY IF the quality of the training provided to police is drastically improved. The present policy seems to be one of “bums on seats”, with various parties claiming “we’ll put one/two/three thousand more police on the streets” without considering the quality of those new recruits.

    I wouldn’t give a gun, or a taser, to a monkey… but a well trained officer isn’t the same thing.
39. Felix 39

    28 August 2008 at 2:36 pm

    No-one has shown a need for the police to carry handguns or tasers.

    What is your rationale for the police being armed?
40. travellerev 40

    28 August 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Not only is arming police dangerous for us it is also dangerous for the policemen themselves. If the police is armed you can bet your bottom dollar that goons will arm themselves more too. And this will lead to more gun control so people who like to hunt will be treated with more suspicion and before you know it we have a country resembling the US.

    Civil society begins with the will to be Civil and if the police is the representative of us, the civil minded people they should not be armed with the same arms as the thugs they fear. If there is a situation in which there is a reasonable expectation of violence there is a special task force that is trained to deal with these situations.

    The police is a civil servant there to help victims of and record and investigate crimes.

    More guns whether on thugs or police will inevitable lead to more guns and killing.

    Tasers in the US are more an more used as a means of subduing citizens and not helping police catch more criminals. In fact more and more police officers are beginning to see the general public as a whole as the enemy. A dangerous situation.
41. Phil 41

    28 August 2008 at 7:21 pm

    “No-one has shown a need for the police to carry handguns or tasers”

    What would be your measurement for determining that need?
    How about; having police holding back medics from saving a dying victim, because they cannot assess and secure the crime scene due to a lack of equipment to deal with possible offenders.

    “If the police is armed you can bet your bottom dollar that goons will arm themselves more too.”

    I suspect that the shooting I alluded to above is a good example of the fact that the goons are already armed. Offering more firepower to the police would be starting to catch-up.

    “If there is a situation in which there is a reasonable expectation of violence there is a special task force that is trained to deal with these situations.”

    The special task force – the AOS – is small, and concentrated in the major cities. Deployment is slow, and often used as a glorified cleaning crew after ‘the horse has bolted’. Serious crime is not something that stands around waiting for a police response.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS