Cops Killing People with Taser Guns

Daphon mentioned this topic on Midweek Mayhem and I thought it would make a good topic for discussion.

Taser guns were introduced with the intention of providing police with a more effective method of rendering an individual powerless in comparison to capsicum spray and a less lethal force than a sidearm.

However in recent months there have been a number of “incidents” involving the use of taser guns by police and in particular, reports in the media that they are being used innappropriately – where the individual does not pose a significant threat to warrant the use of a taser gun, and more recently the death of an individual who has allegedly been stunned 28 times by a police office weilding a taser gun in Queensland earlier this month.

According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald Queensland Police say data downloaded from the Taser used on a 39-year-old Antonio Galeano in Brandon, near Townsville, showed it operated on 28 separate cycles at the incident on June 12.

In a statement, Queensland Police said they were analysing the Taser to determine how many of those 28 cycles involved Galeano.

Deputy Police Commissioner Ian Stewart said it was unclear if the man had been shot that many times.

“We are yet to understand exactly what those activations were – whether they were being fired or whether it was … placed against an object or person,” Mr Stewart told ABC Radio.

He said one cycle lasted up to five seconds but there was no standard on how many times it should be triggered.

“There is no specific guideline that restricts the number of times the trigger can be pulled,” Mr Stewart told ABC Radio.

However, a criminal justice expert said one shot was enough to disable someone.

Criminologist and RMIT Professor Julian Bondy says the incident raises questions over why Tasers are so powerful.

We don’t issue frontline police with firearms with a thousand bullets, we don’t issue them with capsicum spray the size of fire extinguishers,” he said.

“Every other weapon they have is limited in its capacity but this one is out of proportion.”

Queensland Police Union acting president Ian Leavers said he was baffled by the data.

“At first it was believed the man was tasered three times, now this figure that’s come out is baffling,” he said.

A coroner is presently investigating the death. However this case does raise a number of questions. If, criminal expert Professor Julian Bondy maintains that one shot is sufficient to disable someone, then why did the officer concerned fire three times?

If it does turn out that the taser was fired 28 times then we really ought to question the intellect of the sorts of people who are allowed to carry these lethal weapons.

They were supposed to be an alternative to lethal force, but it looks like they’re just an additional lethal weapon.

Advertisements

PPCA PULLS A FAST ONE

Guest Post by Ross Sharp

Christie Eliezer reports from TheMusic.com for June 16th …

“In the wake of its win over nightclubs, the record companies’ licensing arm the PPCA is now targeting cafes and restaurants. PPCA chief executive Stephen Peach says that they’ve been paying too little for music.

Under its proposals, a 120-seat place would now pay $19,344 instead of $125. Cafes could face a rise of $5860 from $124 — a rise of 4729%.

The proposed review of costs will work on a new formula based on how many “sessions” (breakfast, lunch, dinner) they were open, how many people could sit in the venue and the average price of a main meal. The eateries say this could destroy them. The Australian Hotels Association has asked the Small Business Commission and Australian Competition And Consumer Commission to investigate such potential hikes. The Restaurant and Catering Industry Association is asking its members through its site http://www.rcq.org.au to protest to the PPCA. Others say they’ll switch to classical music … or no music.”

I have been working in the copyright and royalty field for approximately 30 years now, and one of the rewards of the jobs I’ve held over that time has been remitting royalties to copyright owners and creators for the use of their work. That is, the ACTUAL use of their work, from sales, reproduction and secondary rights under statutory licences.

But PPCA’s naked grab for cash, for money for nothing, is little more than a shell game, a con, a sleight of hand. It is, to put it bluntly, sheer bullsh*t, and it gives the copyright industry, the legitimate copyright industry, a bad name. It soils us all.

For, unlike other copyright agencies such as APRA (The Australasian Performing Rights Association, representing composers), CAL (Copyright Agency Limited, representing authors), Viscopy (visual artists) and Screenrights (film & television producers), PPCA’s licences are issued not on the basis of actual usage of a thing, but on the assumption of usage. Their annual distribution of royalties to recording artists and record companies (split 50/50 between the two) is based, not on the music that has actually been broadcast in a public place such as restaurant or a café, but on radio and television broadcast logs that they source from APRA.

Unlike the aforementioned agencies, PPCA do not and never have had the ability or the resources to actually survey what type of music retailers and businesses play in their establishments. And, if you were a small business or retailer who played music for public consumption, for the benefit of your clientele, you would have far, far better things to do with your days than fill out some f*cking form listing the titles of songs and names of artists whose compact discs you just happened to take for spin on any given day.

Why would you bother? Realising this, the PPCA simply assume that you are playing music that comes under the protection of their licences and hit you with a bill, and then distribute the licence fees they collect to artists whose music you’d probably no sooner play in your business than you’d hammer nails into your genitals for fun. Like Slim Dusty, or Normie Rowe, or Frank Ifield for example (Frank’s a lovely guy, by the way – I had occasion to speak with him often when I worked in the music industry).

These individuals receive radio airplay. You will not be hearing their tunes any time soon in some stylish café or upmarket restaurant.

And the PPCA smugly assume that, simply because you have the capacity to seat 120 people in your venue that, at each and every sitting, 120 people will be there. I don’t know about anyone else, but I have rarely, if ever, gone into a restaurant or café at any time and found every table taken. And, if you are talking about a high-end establishment for which you may be paying about a hundred bucks for a feed, you damn well don’t want your ears assaulted by whatever crap the waiter or the sous-chef picked up for ten bucks from J&B the other week. You’re there for the food, and the owners and the head chefs know that.

And, if you were running a 120 seat restaurant, would you rather spend 19 grand a year on an apprentice chef or a re-fit or hand it over to these corporate copyright criminals so that they can pay it to a record company and an artist whose music you’ve never played and never will?

The solution to this is simple.

Do not play any music that falls under the protection of a PPCA licence.

The United States is one country whose recordings don’t. France is another. And China.*

However, the PPCA sneakily state on their website that …

In order to determine whether a particular sound recording is protected or not the following information will be required:

– who “made” the recording, and if it was a record company, their place of incorporation;

– the place where the track was recorded (i.e. the location of the recording studio);

– the release date of the track, the country of first release and if released in Australia, the date of first release here; and

– the names of everyone who performed on the recordings and their citizenship or residency at the date the recording was made.

As if anyone in their right mind would bother. This is how the PPCA manage, and have managed for so long, to con so many small (and large) businesses to hand over fistfuls of cash for f*ck all.

Don’t fall for it.

To resist the PPCA scam, any and all small business owners who may play music should cease and desist immediately and not renew their licence until this rubbish organisation comes to its senses.

Any and all small business owners should contact their industry associations to lobby, and lobby furiously against these proposals. Contact your local Federal Member of Parliament. Email the Federal Attorney-General.

I have always been, and will always be, an enthusiastic advocate for the right of musicians, composers, visual artists, film-makers, actors and authors to be appropriately remunerated for the use of their work, for their talents and their contributions to our society and our culture. It’s a damnably difficult way to make a living at the best of times and, more often than not, it’s more a case of “right place, right time” than any actual talent that will see these individuals earn a sustainable income.

But I see no legitimate reason whatsoever to pay these individuals or (especially) their corporate representatives a bucketload of cash if their work is not actually being used in any substantial manner by anyone.

It is also interesting to note, by the way, that the CEO and the Manager of PPCA (Stephen Peach and Lynne Small), an (allegedly) non-profit association, are also the CEO and General Manager of … ARIA, the Australian Recording Industry Association, who represent the interests of Universal, Warner Bros, Sony and EMI among others.

Which horse is dragging which cart, do you think?

Also, in the interests of full disclosure, I was employed by ARIA/PPCA for 10 years.

*The countries whose recordings do fall under PPCA licences are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Holy See, Honduras, Iceland, India, Ireland, India, Ireland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuala.