- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, June 12, 2014

David Carruthers exonerates NZ Police as he is paid to

NZ Govt appointed 'Independent' Police Conduct Authority chairman, Sir David Carruthers, has been a busy chap.  So many malevolent and brutal policemen to keep slapping on the hand with a wet travel chit, where does one find the time? The cops have already told him to fuck off even on that - claiming it's double-jeopardy to have another bullshit round of internal discipline for the little thug. Why isn't the cop who lost his cool because he had to work a shift on Christmas Day and took it all out on a motorist in his own front yard with every torture device at his disposal... why isn't that thug cop getting charged?  Carruthers said it was unlawful... so prosecute him.  Oh that's right there is no-one to do that except the NZ Police who are also the criminals in these cases.  
NZ Herald:  On December 25, 2011 Mr Smillie was signalled by police to pull over as he was travelling along Arawa Rd in Whakatane. Despite the officer activating the patrol car's lights and siren Mr Smillie failed to stop and instead accelerated before turning into his property at high speed.
The officer followed Mr Smillie onto his property and advised him that he was under arrest for failing to stop and that he was required to undertake a breath screening test.
Mr Smillie actively resisted the officer's attempts to subdue him and after being warned that OC (pepper) spray would be used if he kept failing to comply, the officer drew his OC spray and used it against Mr Smillie.
Why was he being pulled over?  There's so much they won't say and why they won't report it.  The judges must have accepted some time ago in a series of steps in logic and tolerance that a constable may stop a motorist without any reason and make them perform things to satisfy them they are not unlawful and therefore may chase people who are not suspicious and arrest people who question their lawful authority.

From what I can work out the motorist/householder was never guilty of anything other than wondering why he was being persecuted.  He remonstrated with the cop and then the cop attacked him.  Now we have the IPCA saying that using chemical spray in people's faces is OK if there is 'resistance'.  They are lowering the threshold each time.  The original justification and only legitimate justification is using it is to prevent immediate harm.  And that immediate harm does not include the usual physical apprehension of an arrest initiated by the police officer themselves, let alone a policeman attacking someone, and it is not to induce compliance.  It certainly won't 'calm down' anyone - it is to cause them immediate acute debilitating pain which is the opposite of calming .  Use as a compliance measure is just simply torture.  They are torturing someone until they will do as they are told by the torturer. Carruthers thinks its basically kosher - both chemical weapons and electric shocks (so long as they don't last too long, say 10 secs or more depending).  This is Carruthers' position.  It is untenable for the IPCA chair to try to mitigate human rights abuses as he does. Torture is about 10 years imprisonment isn't it?
NZ Herald:
Despite the use of the spray Mr Smillie failed to calm down and the officer subsequently struck Mr Smillie with a police baton and pushed him against the fence in an effort to apply handcuffs. Following this Mr Smillie fell to the ground.
The officer then retrieved his Taser from his police vehicle and warned Mr Smillie he would be Tasered if he continued to refuse arrest. Taser Cam footage showed that the officer then released the Taser for 13 seconds before attempting to handcuff Mr Smillie. The officer then picked up the Taser and discharged it a second time before handcuffing Mr Smillie and returning to his police car.
"The Authority finds that the deployment of the Taser on two occasions amounted to an excessive use of force and was contrary to the law," Sir David said.
"This was aggravated by the fact that on the first occasion the Taser was used for an extended period of time of 13 seconds.
"The first use of the Taser was not in self-defence, as claimed by the officer and given there were other options open to the officer short of using the Taser, the Authority considers Mr Smillie's arrest could have been effected less forcefully after waiting for the arrival of other police officers."
Following the incident Mr Smillie was charged with assaulting police, possession of an offensive weapon, refusing to accompany and failing to stop. On 19 July 2012, at the Whakatane District Court, police withdrew the charges of assault and possession of an offensive weapon and Mr Smillie pleaded guilty to the charges of refusing to comply and failing to stop.


The other IPCA whitewash exoneration of police brutality is even more extraordinary due the plain ill-will involved. Long story short: Carruthers says that after you've shot them in the chest through the spine so they are a paraplegic (and they're splayed on the ground swearing mad shit at you as they would) if they don't roll over and do exactly what you say you can then kick them really hard in the face to stun them - that's OK. Shoot them, kick them in the head, put them in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives and no harm done. It's all legal. Cowardly behaviour. Revolting stuff.


At 13/6/14 3:39 am, Blogger Unknown said...

Wicked 1 Tim, thanks for your support. Not too impressed about bout your "little thug" reference to myself (I'm not very big but I'd like to think I'm not one's average thug %>)
It certainly seems time to whomp up the heat under the Natzis' ass!
All th best,
Mark Smillie

At 19/6/14 4:45 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

Mark: thanks for your comment. My reference to the thug and the little thug are about the cop - not you!

Other comment: Sorry - deleted someone's comment accidentally - please repost.


Post a comment

<< Home