Beginner's Guide to Police Harrassment


BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO POLICE HARASSMENT

Vol.46 No.8 | NZPA | Sat September 1st, 2012
A North Island police station received this question from a resident through the feedback section of a local Police website:

“I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?”

In response, a sergeant posted this reply:


First of all, let me tell you this ... it’s not easy. In the Palmerston North and rural area we average one cop for every 505 people. Only about 60 per cent of those cops are on general duty (or what you might refer to as “general patrols”) where we do most of our harassing.

The rest are in non-harassing units that do not allow them contact with the day to day innocents. At any given moment, only one-fifth of the 60 per cent of general patrols are on duty and available for harassing people while the rest are off duty. So, roughly, one cop is responsible for harassing about 6000 residents.

When you toss in the commercial business and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 15,000 or more people a day.

Now, your average eight-hour shift runs 28,800 seconds long. This gives a cop two-thirds of a second to harass a person, and then only another third of a second to drink a Massey iced coffee AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. To be honest, most cops are not up to the challenge day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilise some tools to help us narrow down those people we can realistically harass.

PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. “My neighbour is beating his wife” is a code phrase used often. This means we’ll come out and give somebody some special harassment. Another popular one is, “There’s a guy breaking into a house.” The harassment team is then put into action.

CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars with no insurance or drivers with no licences and the like. It’s lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, they are drunk, or have an outstanding warrant on file.

LAWS: When we don’t have phone or cars, and have nothing better to do, there are actually books that give us ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called “statutes”. These include the Crimes Act, Summary Offences Act, Land Transport Act and a whole bunch of others... They spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the law, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offences and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy trying to steal a car. Well, the book says that’s not allowed. That meant I had permission to harass this guy.

It is a really cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. We seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it. Why? Because, for the good citizens who pay the tab, we try to keep the streets safe for them, and they pay us to “harass” some people.

Next time you are in Palmerston North, give me the old “single finger wave”. That’s another one of those codes. It means, “You can harass me.” It’s one of our favourites.
 

It's sad that as humorous as he was trying to be, I got the feeling he still can't tell the difference between someone breaking the law and someone that's not breaking the law...yet both deserve to be "harassed".
 
Police Harassment

If any police jurisdiction had a citizen review board, problems would only happen once. Maybe not at all to start with. I have read about many problems that are similar around the country. Every police jurisdiction should have a citizen review board.

The citizen review board would review such cases and correct the problem. The citizen review board should have the power to correct any police problem.

A citizen review board should have three citizens and three policeman from the jurisdiction that it represents.

Most policeman will not testify against another police officer. If no policeman would serve on the citizen review board then it should be comprised of all citizens.

It breaks my heart every time I hear about how the Constitution of the United States gets violated. People who pledge to uphold the laws and the Constitution and then violate them.
 
Chen, I read it a couple of times and it seemed to me that all of the instances he cited were of actual crimes being committed. He went to great pains at the beginning to demonstrate that it really wasn't viable timewise to just "harass" people for no good reason.

Perhaps some of the laconic New Zealand wit got lost in the translation.

Cheers
Gregg

Sent from my 1911A1 .45 using double Tapatalk
 
Chen, I read it a couple of times and it seemed to me that all of the instances he cited were of actual crimes being committed. He went to great pains at the beginning to demonstrate that it really wasn't viable timewise to just "harass" people for no good reason.

Perhaps some of the laconic New Zealand wit got lost in the translation.

Cheers
Gregg

Sent from my 1911A1 .45 using double Tapatalk

I agree the majority of his examples seem to be based off criminal actions. But then he ends it with give me the finger and you will be harassed. That is not illegal, not a crime, and it is even protected by the Constitution (1A). That in no way says, "harass me." Makes you wonder what else that is legal, and even protected by the Constitution, he seems as a welcome to harass people.

If they didn't have the time to harass people, we wouldn't have so many youtube videos of it. Even if it began with baiting.

If also like to add, there is a difference from arresting or giving a citation, and harassing. If I speed and get caught, I deserve a citation, I do not deserve to be harassed. Simply write me a ticket and let me go, or arrest me. Anything more is unprofessional. There is also a fine line between arresting and brutality which should closely be observed.
 
I agree the majority of his examples seem to be based off criminal actions. But then he ends it with give me the finger and you will be harassed. That is not illegal, not a crime, and it is even protected by the Constitution (1A). That in no way says, "harass me." Makes you wonder what else that is legal, and even protected by the Constitution, he seems as a welcome to harass people.

If they didn't have the time to harass people, we wouldn't have so many youtube videos of it. Even if it began with baiting.

If also like to add, there is a difference from arresting or giving a citation, and harassing. If I speed and get caught, I deserve a citation, I do not deserve to be harassed. Simply write me a ticket and let me go, or arrest me. Anything more is unprofessional. There is also a fine line between arresting and brutality which should closely be observed.

Like I said, Chen, something may have got lost in the translation. It may have escaped your attention but the place names in the article are from my country, New Zealand, (also the clue I left you when I talked about "laconic New Zealand wit"). We don't have the same laws as in your country and in this country such a gesture can be construed as "disorderly conduct", or "obscene behaviour" (even saying the word "*******" in public can get you arrested". That being said it is unlikely going to get you a fine in court, but once you have drawn the attention of the cop by what is clearly an insulting gesture, there is nothing to stop him (or often her), taking a very close interest in the road-worthiness of the vehicle you may be driving, or anything else about you. I'm sure that lots of people break very minor laws all the time and even if what they arrest you for gets thrown out of court (or never gets there), it could still be very inconvenient for you.

I would say that most people that are disrespectful of the police have had some sort of run in with them at some point in their life. They may well be the sort of person that has something to hide, some weed under the seat etc. The general principle in this situation is the old proverb - "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I got stopped once in a normal checkpoint where police were checking for current licencing and warrants of fitness. I got delayed longer than most of the other road users and I'm sure it was because the cop noticed my radar detector and decided to make extra sure all my particulars were in order.

At the end of the day most people in New Zealand would find that what that cop wrote was very funny (as ericmt did). Possibly because we are a fairly small country and generally the relationship between public and cops has been fairly good.

Cheers
Gregg
 
I agree the majority of his examples seem to be based off criminal actions. But then he ends it with give me the finger and you will be harassed. That is not illegal, not a crime, and it is even protected by the Constitution (1A). That in no way says, "harass me." Makes you wonder what else that is legal, and even protected by the Constitution, he seems as a welcome to harass people.

If they didn't have the time to harass people, we wouldn't have so many youtube videos of it. Even if it began with baiting.

If also like to add, there is a difference from arresting or giving a citation, and harassing. If I speed and get caught, I deserve a citation, I do not deserve to be harassed. Simply write me a ticket and let me go, or arrest me. Anything more is unprofessional. There is also a fine line between arresting and brutality which should closely be observed.

Like I said, Chen, something may have got lost in the translation. It may have escaped your attention but the place names in the article are from my country, New Zealand, (also the clue I left you when I talked about "laconic New Zealand wit"). We don't have the same laws as in your country and in this country such a gesture can be construed as "disorderly conduct", or "obscene behaviour" (even saying the word "*******" in public can get you arrested". That being said it is unlikely going to get you a fine in court, but once you have drawn the attention of the cop by what is clearly an insulting gesture, there is nothing to stop him (or often her), taking a very close interest in the road-worthiness of the vehicle you may be driving, or anything else about you. I'm sure that lots of people break very minor laws all the time and even if what they arrest you for gets thrown out of court (or never gets there), it could still be very inconvenient for you.

I would say that most people that are disrespectful of the police have had some sort of run in with them at some point in their life. They may well be the sort of person that has something to hide, some weed under the seat etc. The general principle in this situation is the old proverb - "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I got stopped once in a normal checkpoint where police were checking for current licencing and warrants of fitness. I got delayed longer than most of the other road users and I'm sure it was because the cop noticed my radar detector and decided to make extra sure all my particulars were in order.

At the end of the day most people in New Zealand would find that what that cop wrote was very funny (as ericmt did). Possibly because we are a fairly small country and generally the relationship between public and cops has been fairly good.

Cheers
Gregg

Good point about it being New Zealand, sorry I missed it twice. That does change the point of view for this article quite a bit from my original understanding, and since I am not from and have not been to New Zealand (yet), I don't know your laws or "Constitutional" equivalent. Do you guys have some similar that protects your basic rights of free speech, from of religion, etc?

But, if what you said is true about police in your country (and if you guys are okay with it, more power to you), I'd say take warning Americans, we do not want that and need to stay on top of them.

Good day.
Chen
 
Good point about it being New Zealand, sorry I missed it twice. That does change the point of view for this article quite a bit from my original understanding, and since I am not from and have not been to New Zealand (yet), I don't know your laws or "Constitutional" equivalent. Do you guys have some similar that protects your basic rights of free speech, from of religion, etc?
Well it is complex but the following extract provides some basic information:
"There is no statute or positive rule of the common law recognising and protecting freedom of speech and expression in New Zealand. The principle is that anyone may say and publish what he chooses without prior licence or approval (film censorship affords an exception), but he is liable to be punished if he infringes the law. Freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, exists in this country simply because the exceptions to it are limited. It is less extensive than in the United States, where the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press tends to be more valued in cases where it conflicts with other principles, for instance, the right to a fair trial. Moreover, toleration of unpopular views in critical times is probably less than in England. Our civil liberties record in wartime is not admirable."

But, if what you said is true about police in your country (and if you guys are okay with it, more power to you), I'd say take warning Americans, we do not want that and need to stay on top of them.

Good day.
Chen

Well in the days that there was more respect for the police, it used to be that the local police officer might give a promising juvenile delinquent a boot up the bum and send him home. Whereupon the embarrassed parents might then impose further punishment (corporal or otherwise), then hopefully the juvenile in question might offend no more. In these days of political correctness everybody's child is perfect in their parents eyes and should any authority have issue with the little miscreants they will have to deal with the parents if they so much as scold little Johnny.

Generally speaking I'd say that there is a pretty much common sense approach by the police and the public toward each other. You should remember that the police in this country are not armed during normal policing duties and must deal with day-to-day policing using the strength of their personality.

It would seem though, that as society in general is becoming more violent, we may have to become more like the USA and start arming them. (Recently there was a case of a police officer making a traffic stop and the two thugs in the offending vehicle took to him with a machete and left him for dead. Fortunately he survived.)

Cheers
Gregg
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top