I wonder how many Police officers know how to clear a blocked fuel line in their cars.
Printable View
Honestly I'm not entirely sure, but I am sure others will have some great ideas.
I think our biggest issue is the criminalization of weed.
Look at the last bunch of times police have been shot at and a large portion of them have been weed related search warrants.
No one should be shot over a god damn plant.
I feel inclined to suggest being armed for drug related search warrants, but I fear people may unnecessarily be shot.
It really is a tricky thing to answer, there's no perfect way unless it was decriminalized.
As for the guy shooting at the cops after the car chase, I don't have an answer to it either.
But I don't feel that being armed 100% of the time is the answer either unfortunately.
Kids already have easy access to to the stuff and the cops aren't doing this. Places that have decriminalized the stuff haven't found it to negatively affect attendance etc-in fact places that have opened up legal ways to buy it(different thing to decriminalizing) have found it makes it harder for young people to get it as it becomes like beer etc.
Removing the income from crims, increasing the average age of first use, removing the most likely source of exposure to harder drug, removing a barrier to seeking treatment for those with issues, increased tax take. All these things sound like good outcomes to me, not saying I think pot is good at all but that the prohibition model has failed.
I have been told that one of the things standing in the way of law change is the lack of practical tests to show if people are currently high v were high last night. Having had to fire several people for drug use I can see the importance of the distinction
Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?
What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed?
Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?
Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.
Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.
Drug convictions should result in automatic and immediate lose of any firearms licence held.
He's a worry all right. Another right wing redneck reactionary grabbing as much media attention as possible to promote his ambition to become a politician. So he wants to become a "representative of the people" in some electorate. Christ help us all. If he thinks he's representing me he's dead wrong. "And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do." Unions push an agenda in accordance with the voting of the membership. O'Connor is pushing his own agenda. He's a quorum of one. He's also not very bright, I think. I'm not saying he's a dumb cnut, but he's close to it. And he's certainly got a few of the media talking heads fooled.
You obviously have little understanding of how the Police Association are structured or how their democratic processes work.
https://www.policeassn.org.nz/
A union president described at being a "right wing redneck reactionary"?
All the union officials I've ever been involved with have been the very opposite of right wing.
Are you sure you're not confusing 'red neck' with the 'red flag'? They sung that at the last union meeting I went to.
The people's flag is deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts' blood dyed to every fold
Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath it's folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here
That is quite possibly the most retarded statement I have ever read on these forums and there has been a few. Just sit back read it then read it again, love to hear you stance on medicinal marijuana usage? Ever broke the speed limit? If you have better turn yourself in.
Well they're shooting bystanders with bushmasters anyway, at a shitload less than 40 metres (Northwestern Motorway) so what the fuck are you on about, systolic? If you're trying to say the cops give a fuck about bystanders, I haven't yet seen much evidence of it. They crash chase cars into civilians, shoot bystanders and I think "training", for a lot of them consists of too much Hawaii 50. Your bias is obvious, but that's okay - we're all entitled to have an opinion - it's just tidier if at least it has some logic.I arrived in Melbourne in 1981 and approached a cop on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Sts and asked for directions to a suburb. He put his hand on his revolver and said "Buy a fukn map". We know that being a fuckwit and an arsehole is way up there in the Victoria Police job description, lbut I was a bit disppointed by his crap attitude. It comes down to the attitude instilled at the police colleges and in the stations. There was a female member of the dog club I was secretary of, who went off to become a WPC. She was acually instructed that nobody was a friend unless they were a police officer. Her whole attitude had changed from being a warm, friendly enthusiastic young woman to being a total cnut. And she always had her piece in her handbag, even at club days, because she was instructed that even when she was off-duty, she was never off duty. And she used to brag about all this shit. I have a cousin in London. He and his wife are both cops, and a really nice couple of people. They both said they'd hate to be armed fulltime, but also hated not to be, because there was no knowing when some radical arsehole might go apeshit with a knife or a gun. I have sympathy for both sides of the argument and like most in this forum can see the pros and the cons. But unlike O'Connor and systolic, I think the police are adequately armed for most situations as is. Okay, if some shit-for-brains comes charging out of the bushes swinging an axe or something, you're in deep poo, but you'd still be in the same amount even with a Glock on your belt. And chances are, said Glock would end up in the very wrong hands. And Savage, kudos to you that you kept possession of your weapon in "scuffles" - but what if you hadn't? Wonder what your position would be now on the subject? Are you able to be objective enough to consider that? This whole argument has just about been done to death. O'Connor is starting to sound like a spluttering lunatic - or a stuck record, and he and his pet so-called "journalists" would be boring if they weren't so fucking dangerous to our freedoms and rights and privileges. By the way, @kotuku once wrote a very well-informed post on the subject of firearms ownership in dear old confused NZ. My stand is that we haven't yet degenerated quite as much as the USA or frigging Aussie, and haven't yet reached a point where we need our police force to carry sidearms at all times. But arm them and see how long it takes for them to have to start using them. And see how long it takes for at least some of them to start becoming as arrogant and pig-igorant as that prick of a Victorian cop I mentioned. Today's rant over.
1- no extra for benifits because the unmotovated ones are already smoking pot and on them-even sickness benifits for drug adiction.
2-why would there be extra costs? people are already doing the drugs? lets fund the care better but taxing the drugs
4- I doubt it would reduce unless a test like the one Jexla mentons was intraduced at drink driving stops. I doubt there would be an increase as well.
4- rehab programs sound like a fantastic idea, for all drugs-even legit ones, but forcing people into them has a very low sucsess rate. lets get some extra funding from taxing the drugs.
5-I want to agree with you on this,I really do as if I have to pass drug tests to work then I dont like those who live on the tax I pay geting to do what ever they want,BUT cuting bennifits off often leads to crime and therefore a higher cost to the country. very open to other ways of dealing with drug taking bludgers
6- dont any convictions already lead to loss of licences? if not,why not?
I should explain this better.
right now everyone buys pot from crims, most crims sell to anyone regardless of age. make it a legit product and it becomes sold by reglulatd companies who mostly obay laws like miname age of buyer. this would make it harder for younger people to get than it curently is.
reading comprehenshion matters, im talking about if pot became legal then the ability to tell would be important. as it curently stands I have just fired people for failing the test, couldent do that if it was a legit thing for them to have done as long as they wernt under the influance at work
for the record I think pot is bad, but prohabishion is not working and I care more about harm minamisation than punishing people who would rather a joint that a beer-esp when beer and the like is hardly harmless
1) Stop using plural, one bystander was shot and killed by one member of the Police with one bushmaster (one copped some fragments but wasn't directly shot). Don't get me wrong, it was a monumental fuk up. You don't like all FAL holders being labeled by the actions of one bad egg so how about extending the same logic to the Police.
2) To say there is no evidence to show cops have no care for bystanders is BS and actually borderline offensive, why do you think they join the job? Would they really risk their own safety if they don't care about bystanders?
3) I'm pretty sure you have no idea what Police training consists of, there is zero 'Hawaii 50'. If you disagree then quote some examples or find some way of backing up your stupid claims.
4) We're all entitled to our own opinions, however if our opinions are poorly based then expect them to be challenged and/or dismissed. I suggest you apply some logic to some of your own biased comments.
5) Sorry about you experiences with the Australian Police, however I believe the NZ Police doesn't have that kind of attitude as a widespread problem, there is the odd idiot but in my experience they are reasonably far between and strongly disliked by other Police Officers.
6) I fully understand and agree with your friends from London.
7) I understand Systolics point of view and agree with some of it, I can't be bothered going back and reading them in detail.
8) Adequately armed for most situations doesn't cut it, which was shown by all of the cops that have had their cars stolen at gunpoint, been shot at, being shot, attacked with machetes etc. I don't like the idea of people in armchairs telling me when I should or shouldn't carry a gun when they aren't the ones going into the same situations and putting themselves at risk.
9) In the Police you pick your scuffles, and you only pick ones you are going to win. Weapon retention isn't hard. Cops having their own TASERs, pepperspray used against them is almost unheard of.
10) Sorry for the numbering
11) I think it should be the individual choice of the officer, providing they have been shown to be competent in handling the firearm and their decision making has been tested under pressure.
Don't care if you didn't read. Probably a bit tricky with one eye anyway. And in reply to your comment about unions - I've been a union delegate, my father was president of a union and my grandfather was on the executive of several unions and a delegate to the Trades Council and a communist. I grew up with it all. And of all the union meetings I've been to I have not once heard anyone singing the Red Banner.A union president is not necessarily a communist. As for O'Connor, you seem to hold him in high regard, and that's your right and fine by me, if it matters. But I don't like him or anything he professes to stand for, and that's my right, and I don't care whether it matters to you or not. As our beloved leader, John Key says, I'm comfortable with that. But I don't tell you how you should think and you certainly aren't going to tell me how I shoudl think. So it looks like we'll just have to accept that we are different people with differing views and agree to disagree. Take care out there.
Keneff, if you want people to read anything you say please try using paragraphs
Otherwise, rant at will
Well I have read all pages in this thread and it seems after page 5 it was hijacked and became a pissing contest among a few individuals.
Over and out.
[QUOTE=Tahr;518475]That's an interesting and rich back ground.
It's always interesting to know what sort of background informs people's views and opinions. I came from the other side of the table, but have become more liberal as I've got older.[/QUOTE
Thanks for your comments, Tahr. It's funny though we're from different sides of the table, and I find I've become LESS liberal as I've aged - not quite a redneck yet, but getting there, Unions have contributed hugely to societal improvements, but have become fairly gummy tigers, which in some ways is good and in others, not so great. I can remember as a child, sitting on my grandparents' table with adults sitting around talking over a beer, no doubt conspiring to overthrow some government. My grandfather did time in Mt Eden for printing and distributing "seditious literature". My grandmother was his typist. They, along with my parents were deeply involved in the '51 lockout of the Aucklnd Watersiders, along with Jock Barnes. Not sure whether it was before or after the lockout, but they had a big falling-out with Jock, I think over doctrine. Jim Knox and Bill Andersen were close family friends. Rob Muldoon detested my father and my grandfather, and nobody in the family feels diminished by that. They're all dead now, anyway, so it doesn't matter any more. I was born in Freeman's Bay, which was the heart of working class Auckland until the government tore it down to destroy the unity and cohesion that used to exist. Auckland has always been an "immigrant city" and the dispersion of the hard-core unionists combined with the ethnic diversity and differing needs and interests all combined to make it easier for the government to control a fairly free-thinking, liberal and stubborn populace that lost its leadership. And so the "social experiment" trundled on. I still have some memories of those days. Nobody was ever alone in trouble in those days. people helped each other, supported each other. And it was mainly the unions that made it happen. The support networking was incredible, compared to today. Now, you're lucky if you get to know your next-door neighbour. Then, all of us kids were in and out of each other's homes, and the parents always knew where everyone was.I remember the ice man delivering ice for the "icebox.No fridges, then The coal man lived a couple of doors down the street. Both big, strong, tough men. No pedophile would have survived. It's said it takes a village to raise a child. That was Freeman's Bay in those days'. I miss it.
I understand the reasoning and can see where you're coming from, but I disagree - I think we'd just see the same situation we do with alcohol where those old enough to buy it supply it to their younger friends (who share it with friends younger again, and so on).
It is very similar to the argument some people made when lowering the drinking age that making alcohol legal for 18-21 year olds would cause them to drink in safer legitimate environments and avoid some of the riskier associated behaviour. Of course it just moved the riskier drinking-associated behaviour to the next age group down, who probably found it much easier to get 18 year olds to supply them than 21 year olds.
It is a tricky one though, because as you say there is the issue of taxing legal sales vs illegal etc, and the question of whether legalising will increase use and make the harm done more widespread. What I've read of the results so far in the states seems to suggest that it has little effect on the relatively rich occasional users who were largely responsible for pushing legalisation through, but a significant increase in addiction and poverty rates among the urban poor.
Even more off topic than normal now! :ORLY:
And then proceeds to start a new thread:
http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...14/#post518527
Are a you trying to be a windup merchant?
Not at all
This thread along with any other that jexla ans systolic,and others, get involved with tend to stray far from the point and become contests of who has the biggest cock.
sorry but this sort of shit is best left for the pub.
I do respect the fact that people have strong opinions about issues but i feel keeping to at least the point (context) of the thread in question is important.
Threads go of topic, a nature of the Internet.
As long as things stay polite(and more polite than this one has would be nice) then what's the harm?
The exchange of ideas and viewpoints benefits us all, and forums are well forums.
You say it should be kept to the pub, personally I don't get what the difference is-personally I know everyone I have engaged with in this thread other than gravelben and he is someone who's posts I read with interest on any subject
I know a few police personnel, and I feel better knowing people such as these are out there doing a difficult task. I appreciate this. As for the above points, out of the 11, I agree with 8 of them, and the remaining three I do not know enough about to form a legitimate opinion. I dont agree with most of the people I work with that much, so I believe that this says a lot about the calibre of our police here in NZ.
As for people being "5 oh" on our policy's, I will use an example that someone alluded to in the media and its foreseeable consequences.
After a police chase the other day a member of the public said " Its too dangerous for police to chase criminals past schools. They need to call it off as it is too dangerous...." If, that was to happen, will the result be safer school areas? Hell NO!!! It says loud and clear to every crim that you will get away if you speed past a school, and next thing every crim will INTENTIONALLY speed past a school knowing the cops wont follow. I pray that no one gets hurt, but I am also of the belief that chases should NOT be called off. If they get caught when they run, then the stupid ones will still run, but the remainder will not as they know it will only make things worse.....Some will get hurt in the process, as some always will, but in the long run, less will chance to flee if the consequences include THEIR death or injury....
There were a few needless, antagonistic comments but by and large an interesting read really and some good points. Also some horrific ones, but oh well, you can't have freedom without disagreement I spose.
Discussing pro's and con's, is fine, but analysing and critiquing what they "could have" done when you are not there at the time when they make these decisions is far less so. We trust the govt to train these people to be able to be able to make these decisions under pressure and in situations we would never ourselves to intentionally become involved in so for us to second guess what they decide after analysing the situation as they are trained to do is akin to a child giving parenting advice to their parents. At the end of the day, that cop is out there doing a job that no one should ever have to do, so personally, I dont think people who do not have the full story and all the information can come up with an acceptable critique...And the only people who really know all the details are the ones who were there making those decisions at the time.