All posts in the topic Police operations in Christchurch (Short link)
Summary
- There are 14 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by 'Just Blair' Anderson at 2007 May 24 16:21 UTC
A couple of things have come up locally in the last week or so regarding civil
rights when dealing with the police.
Firstly, one which you may have read in the papers: "Operation Hammer", an
eight-week sting which started Mon 16 April during which time police are
targeting burglary 'hot-spots' in Christchurch in order to stop & question
people about thefts, and request to search vehicles for stolen goods.
Lawyers have found potential here for abuse; unless there are reasonable
grounds to suspect a particular vehicle for being involved with a particular
burglary, there is no power for police to force a search of the vehicle of a
person not under arrest with the purpose of recovering stolen property. A guess
is not enough. Failing reasonable grounds, the person would have to consent to
a search (with silence taken as consent.)
However, what would happen if someone did not consent to a search? Would they
be allowed to go on their way? There are reasons why innocent people would not
want to be forced into having their vehicle searched, e.g. privacy and freedom
of movement.
A second thing which I've heard people talk about recently is the increased
police surveillance in the City Mall area, with anecdotes of young people being
harrassed by the police (e.g. arrested for swearing (!), held for a short time,
then released without any charged being laid).
I work in youth education, and often talk to young people about their rights
with the police. The problem is, although we have many rights, there is no real
avenue to redress our complaints when it comes to police intimidation.
The Police Complaints Authority is a shambles. For example, the first step for
most complaints is for the complainant to go back to the police station and
meet with the police officer! This apparently is so the complainant can get an
explanation for what happened, but really - if you're complaining about being
intimidated, is this really a useful solution?
With many written complaints to the PCA taking so long that people have moved
house before their complaint is resolved, this isn't the best way to deal with
abuses people experience. People who work at the PCA agree that things need to
change some to allow the organisation to use their teeth.
So until then, what have we been experiencing in Christchurch when it comes to
police? Positive/negative experiences? And what about stories from youth?
Marissa, All,
The loss and shock resulting from the recent tragedy in Edgeware are acute for
many in Christchurch. I am one of the many parents of teenagers who still have
knots in our stomachs.
Councillor Helen Broughton is suggesting a community taskforce to review bylaws
in relation to parties that spill out onto the street. In hindsight it seems
that earlier intervention from the police might have benefitted, if not saved
the lives of young people. Are greater powers to disperse large parties what is
required here? It's tempting to say "of course". But what would the costs be of
increasing those powers? As Marissa points out, some young folks already
experience police intervention that they perceive to be unjustified. We know
that controls to minimise risks can go too far.
I wonder what young people, and others in this forum think about this?
I think I am with Marissa and probably teens on this. Such a random event
as a young man deciding to ram a group of partygoers with his car could not
have been foreseen, hardly even by the perpetrator himself. Rushing to a
populist reaction such as 'reviewing bylaws' reminds me of the loud jostling
of politicians to support the rather silly dog-microchipping Bill when the
little girl in Auckland was bitten by one. (No disrespect to Ms Broughton).
On the other hand the police might support themselves getting
increased coercive powers over groups, but I believe that them being a bit
slow to intervene earlier at the party can not be blamed on a lack of
laws.
Paula.
On 5/15/07, Dan Randow, Forum Manager, Canterbury Public Issues Forum <
Hi,
I am a young person living in Christchurch and I agree that reviewing bylaws is
not the best way to be looking at this. The fact is youth are going to go to
parties, get drunk and unfortunately may find themselves in dangerous
situations. It is this last bit that we really need to be addressing. How can
we allow youth to be youth while minimising the potential for danger?
Reviewing bylaws is not going to do this, and it does have the potential for
negative effects by forcing youth into dangerous situations in attempts aviod
tougher policing of parties.
Amelia
No offense, Amelia, but what do you think the police reaction would have
been if it had been a party of 500 non-youths, i.e., people older than,
say, 20 ? Or, perhaps, 500 people wearing gang patches ? And when you
say that we need to "allow youth to be youth", what exactly does that
mean ? What is it that an 18 year old should be allowed to get away with
that I (a 42 year old) shouldn't ?
To trot out a tired old saying that was once used to justify lowering
the legal drinking age, an 18 year old can drive, vote, kill another
person in a war, so that would make them what - a child or an adult ?
Amelia, when you say you are a "young person", do you consider yourself
a child or an adult ? From the point of view of prosecution of a violent
crime, there is no third "youth" category - you are a minor, or you are
not.
Perhaps we, as a society, need to grow up and acknowledge that the
transition from childhood to adulthood doesn't happen over a period of
10 years ...
Cheers, Andrew.
I think it's worth remembering that this tragedy was caused by one angry
youth and his car, not by anyone else who attended the ill-fated party.
While I agree that the party was out of control and should have been
dispersed earlier, if we end up banning youth parties because of one
youth then I feel that we have lost perspective and have truly become a
society ruled by fear.
However, I also believe that when the tenants who lived in the house
rang the police because they were worried about the amount of univited
guests that had arrived and refused to leave, the police should have
been straight around to disperse the party rather than waiting and
assessing what the danger level was. The tenants and neighbours were
scared and that should really have been enough for the police to act.
I feel that part of the reason that parties like this happen is that
there is no youth venue in central Christchurch with the 'cool' factor
that kids can go to. There are plenty of church run ones, but to be
frank, they just don't cut the mustard. The majority of bars, clubs etc
are innaccessable to youth under 18. The level of communication that is
possible now means that youth can be instantly aware of anything that is
happening in Chch so it is more likely than it used to be to get large
unexpected gatherings and if you are bored you'll go to whatever is
happening.
I actually feel that the youth of today (in the most part) are far more
responsible than in previous generations, but the few bad apples have
much more opportunity to cause real damage.
Hi Miles,
Well said ! A few extra comments below:
Miles Dalton wrote:
> While I agree that the party was out of control and should have been
> dispersed earlier, if we end up banning youth parties because of one
> youth then I feel that we have lost perspective and have truly become a
> society ruled by fear.
I completely agree. Also, to treat this as a "youth" issue is to obscure
the real issue. The people involved were adults and the situation should
have been handled as if it was any other gathering of, shall we say,
excitable adults.
> However, I also believe that when the tenants who lived in the house
> rang the police because they were worried about the amount of univited
> guests that had arrived and refused to leave, the police should have
> been straight around to disperse the party rather than waiting and
> assessing what the danger level was. The tenants and neighbours were
> scared and that should really have been enough for the police to act.
Has there been an official comment from the police on why the party
wasn't broken up ? I'm sure they had a good reason, and I suspect it was
lack of resources to handle such a large problem. However, I'd suggest
that it would have been worth diverting resources from elsewhere in the
city to deal with it, since probably many of the troublemakers from
other parts of the city were there anyway :-)
Perhaps the police should advertise the possibility that, should you
desire to hold a large party, the team from Operation Hammer may be one
of the uninvited guests.
Cheers, Andrew.
Bill has started another topic that is related to this one so have a look at
that as well but I'll stay on this one.
Couldn't agree more with Miles about the venue issue. I posted a topic about
that a while back and I think that the refusal of the local bodies to support
Creation was not only a poor move but indicative of the attitude in this city.
Mr Moore and his wife no doubt are concerned and want to contribute now but a
MUCH better contribution could have been made months ago when they let Creation
fold. It is almost hopeless having meetings now after the fact - meetings to do
what - rend our tunics and gnash our teeth. there was practical thing we could
have done months ago.
Local bosies have a responsibilkity to be proactive, energetic and hands on
this issue. They provide endless services for our elderly (as they should) and
our business community (as they should) but I think their efforts in the youth
sector are pitiful.
By now they should have established a decent multipurpose venue for youngsters
in town (No - the dickheads won't go there but 16 year old party goers will if
it is attractive enough. They should have also worked with the bus companies to
identify ways to prevent the mass busing of kids to grown up parties in the
suburbs. Two little things could have made a difference.
It seems to me that this horrible tragedy wasn't the result of out of control
teenagers. It was simply the result of a bunch of kids being somewhere they
shouldn't. When Creation was under threat it's board made the point that it was
actually cost effective to keep kids off the streets. So another sector that
could stop it's moaning and get off their arses is the business sector. They
get a free road through the mall to get access to their new hotel; a free
redevelopment of their business frontage and they they still moan about a bunch
of harmless kids (citizens in a public place) hanging around after school.
And that's the attitude to our youngsters in this town. "Neither seen nor
heard"
Dear All
I have followed conversations with interest and unfortunately until now have
been too busy, as my work in the tourism industry is seasonal and has only
just quietened down recently.
I agree with Ron.
Adults need to pay closer attention
to teenagers needs before disaster strikes.
The lack of support for Creation as a venue which worked for young people
reminds me of similar attitude the Christchurch City Council had to the
Bobs' Your Uncle Artists Quarter at the beautiful old historic fire station
in Gloucester Street. This was an industrious, self supporting, varietal
alternative artists quarter in a Heritage Building - giving it purpose and
life, with it's own cafe and entertainment evenings.
The CCC in thier greedy wisdom decided to sell it off for some type of
cheaper ? inner city housing.
The old heritage fire station was demolished a few years ago..
They assured the artists and supporters that they the CCC would recreate
this concept elsewhere!
Where or when we do not know. It has not happened yet.
What they, the CCC did not get, and while they are wringing their hands at
the town hall, I doubt if they will get it right with the Boy Racers either,
is that they have not really understood the needs of the community.
They think they can create more laws and legislate their way out of the "Boy
Racer' issue. They want to clobber them with more harsh and
penalising laws. No one talks about sitting down and communicating with
these young people to find out what their needs are and then in partnership
work out solutions.
I also agree that even if you take their cars off them, young ones will
always find riskier ways of proving themselves, as I think this is
what it is partly all about.
Imposing more laws, curbing our right to freedom of movement and at
the same time giving police more powers of search, detention and siezure; is
a violent knee jerk and draconion reaction to the age old problem of
'passage of right' for our teens.
Therefore to wind up to the first point, about taking away safe places like
the Creation Venue when it is just cranking up - cutting things off, give no
continuim, which I think not only our teens, but our society needs, to feel
grounding, belonging and stability.
The more creative outlets we have for channelling or guiding
youth energy, the less need they have to go out and find their own proving
ground in such dramatic ways. There will also be less need for police
resources. Why are the jails so full? Are we creating more criminals by
creating more laws?
We ignore communicating with youth about their needs at our peril.
Irinka Britnell.
Just to let you know that I will be speaking the Gary Moore on Mornings on
Plains FM96.9 at 8.20ish tomorrow morning.
I'll be asking what came out of the meeting at the Town Hall this week and also
about some of the suggestions about the "boy racer issue" that have come from
the mayoral forum .
I've been up front about my opinions on this forum and Gary is aware of those
so it should be an interesting, constructive conversation.
Mike and Irinka Britnell wrote:
> The more creative outlets we have for channelling or guiding
> youth energy, the less need they have to go out and find their own proving
> ground in such dramatic ways. There will also be less need for police
> resources. Why are the jails so full? Are we creating more criminals by
> creating more laws?
I can't help wondering if, say, tribal societies in other parts or times
of the world have / had these sorts of problems. My perception is that,
in those other societies, you were a child until you became a man or
woman, at which point you assumed the role of a man or woman in that
society. Usually, that point coincided with your sexual maturity. I
guess those peoples would say "If you can make babies, then you get all
the rights and responsibilities of an adult". Probably resource
limitations were behind this - once you were old enough to contribute,
you contributed as fully as any adult because they simply didn't have
the luxury of carrying passengers. In our society of abundant resources,
we have the luxury of allowing people a "youth" phase (as well as a
"retirement" phase) where they have the capabilities of adults and yet
no real responsibilities. Add a liberal dose of hormones (natural or
man-made ;-) and the potential for problems increases significantly.
So, what's the solution ? Maybe if our youth problems *are* a symptom of
"affluenza", then channeling more of our abundant resources into outlets
for youthful exuberance might be a good idea. I suspect most people will
think it's a good idea as long as someone else pays for it.
How about, from the age of 13-18, you are required to participate in a
range of a community services ? It would be a way to channel youthful
energy into something useful, give them a feeling of responsibility,
even provide them with social contact. Other countries have mandatory
military service, why not a "Coming of Age" work scheme for our youth ?
Granted, it would probably run at a net loss (as I think most work
schemes do) but the intangible benefits would surely outweigh the
financial costs.
> We ignore communicating with youth about their needs at our peril.
> Irinka Britnell.
I completely agree. Have there been any surveys of what youth want in
Christchurch ? The thing to be careful about will be distinguishing
between what they *want* and what they *need* - perhaps we need a
parallel survey to find out what older adults think that younger adults
*need* rather than *want* ...
Cheers, Andrew.
In the interview with Gary Moore this morning http://plainsfm.org.nz/Podcasts/programmes (go to "Mornings" programme) he suggested that the demise of our local Youth Forum had been in hindsight a mistake. I couldn't agree more and I wonder if such organisations can go some way to address the issies you bring up Amelia and Andrew. My experience of a Youth Forum was in Dunedin. That group of young people (with a young coordinator employed by the City Council) were incredibly active -a forum for discussion,a point of contact for "youth opions" about issues; organising outlets for young people's creativity and a place for them to be and feel heard. One thing they did was organise an annual Youth Week that was incredibly succesful and vibrant. And it wasn't captured by the Council's marketing and events departments - it was run by and for young people and reflected that sector of our community. And they did all the work (with some guidance). Where this ties in with your comments, Andrew, is that my impression of the whole thing was of young people coming to together and recognising their strengths and issues and seriously looking for ways to improve the community in which they lived. I didn't hear a lot of "want" I heard them saying "this is what we can do if we are given the resources and the support. And the resoureces were minimal.
Further to my current hobby horse about CCC support of youth initiatives: This is interesting when you compare it to current efforts: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/publications/youthstrategy/youthStrategy.pdf re its youth strategy
Party Politics.
Folk are right to note the disconnect of the media and civic response and
reality. Edgware was an autocide by road-rage. A momentary fit of madness. I
suspect the same script could just as easily occurred at Sunday Soccer.
However, that is not to say we don't have a 'youth problem' and an opportunity
for much needed dialog.
The solution will be found in 'no decision about us, without us' and honouring
of youth, they are 'our kids' this is about.
I have a teen 'in the slot'. I resent the implications of this 'we must value
our youth and set boundaries' as it reeks of agenda, absent policy. Exceptional
events make poor rules.
I don't think much of the sycophantic wailing from Safer Communities and Civic
Leaders alike. They have failed to acknowledge this is occurring on their watch
or acknowledge 'any' evidence that they might just be part of the problem.
"We're listening, we're open to suggestions" would make a story for Fair Go.
It follows that if one asserts one has the power to fix something... equally,
one must objectively accept non-performance when measured against outcomes.
There's a systems failure.
Come voting time, this matter must be fully canvased. Garry (and Pam) have
constructively and steadfastly avoided the implications of flawed drug policy
yet CCC arbitrates alcohol and tobacco issues. What's wrong with this picture?
How does a community that doesn't trust its youth 'empower parents'. The double
standards are an impediment to health promotion. We are treating adults like
children and expecting kids to behave like adults.
The Town Hall meeting was anecdotaly entertaining... like Fred Dagg on tupping,
and about as useful.
Look at the set and setting.
Sandi Manderson's community policing had Officers randomly, absent any evidence
of (illicit) drug consumption, prevail upon youths in the CBD. The date.. May
5, the same day 200 cities around the world participated in drawing communities
attentions to the inequity and injustices 'targeting youth'.
The only city 'a bit embarrassed by this, the twelfth global MayDay/JayDay'
other than Christchurch was Moscow. Both cities policed (some would argue,
intimidated') its citizens attending an otherwise peaceful event. Both cities
had said "not in our square". I guess there must have been a complaint.
In NZ a registered political party 'that represents' youth is avoided, yet if
proportional voting was a reality two MP's would be sitting in the house and we
certainly wouldn't have a multi-party accord [upon which access to the treasury
of this nation is determined] that includes "thou shalt not talk about cannabis
in this term of parliament".
And we wonder why youth gave the Police 'bottle' on May the Fifth.
TXT is real a political anathema to the establishment. [I thought we wanted our
kids to communicate.] LNG M8 CNTU - B MPWRD
*Coincidences like May5 test my atheism.
Police Operations said of themselves recently, wrongly i contest, that they are
'the coercive arm of the state'.
They can only functionaly exist with the assent of those they have a duty to
protect.
And that requires some introspection, self examination and change.