Dom Post on armed police
December 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am by David FarrarThe DP editorial:
The shooting of 28-year-old Constable Jeremy Snow, predictably, has led to renewed calls for the police to be routinely armed. Those calls should be resisted. …
Many, notably Police Association president Greg O’Connor, believe those events mean that it is time to give police easier access to firearms.
I think the DP is simplifying the issue. I ended up discussing this with Greg O’Connor on The Panel, and Greg is not calling for all officers on patrol to be armed. What he did advocate is that generally all police cars should have arms in their boots, so they can be accessed quickly if needed.
Sadly there is probably nothing that could have stopped Constable Snow from being shot. The scum who did it opened fire with no warning.
However his two colleagues had to go in unarmed, to tend to his wounds. They saved his life. If they had access to arms in their car, they would have been safer in doing so.
Of course more access to firearms, means more training is needed.
There are other steps that should be tried before the question of routinely arming police is considered. The Taser, which is still being introduced, has the potential to provide police with a non-fatal alternative to firearms. Mr Broad has also talked of armed response vehicles with small teams of specially trained officers permanently on standby, but able to carry out routine frontline duties until they are needed.
The taser is a good choice if the offender is not armed with a gun themselves. But it is suicidal to go against an offender with a gun with a taser.
The concept of armed response vehicles on standby is laudable, but there are times when the five to ten minutes it will take to get there, will be too long.
Related posts:
- Greens want Police to shoot people dead
- Guns into police cars
- Police shootings
- Police and Traffic and Guns
December 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Cue screaming from lefty wankers such as Brian Edwards, Russell Brown, Comrade Bradford and Comrade Trotter who think that scum have more rights than our Police.
Just how many cops need to be shot before we wake up?, just how many more need to be killed before the vermin from the left acknowledge that asking our police to deal with these low life armed with pepper spray and a truncheon is idiotic?
Issue the lot of them with pistols, and back them to the hilt whenever they do us all a favour and kill one of these low life.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Oh here we go again.
Tha major bleat from the looney left at times like these is that if the Police arm themselves, then so will the criminals. Newsflash – the criminals are already armed.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I completely agree with the Dom Post on this. Bushmasters in the boot is not the answer.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
The Police flagged away having all guns registered as too difficult. Isn’t time that decision was reversed – what kind of country can’t even keep a register of all guns sold????
December 29th, 2009 at 11:00 am
According to the policemen I talk to (i.e. front line staff not the PR dept.) very few police cars out there do not have firearms aboard.
That being said I suspect had those brave (at last a genuine use of that word) young men who rescued their mate would have also ended up as statistics had they been armed.
Young men (and most front line policemen are young) tend to have a gung-ho attitude when their personal safety is involved.
You’ve probably figured by now that I’m against arming ALL policemen, preferring a specially trained group for fire-fights and only training and arming beat-type personnel when they go to limited resource post in rural areas.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Bloody oath big bruv, most of the population is armed to the teeth why can’t the police be. But there are some police that probably would be safer without a firearm, for their own sakes. Take the incident where the police fired about 17 shots at a dog and not one hit it, bloody hell. I have on occasions shot with police, their shooting skills are like most that don’t normally shoot, in other words they have to practice, a lot. I’m not sure how many rounds police are now allowed to shoot a month but it wasn’t a lot. To retain skill one must practice but this of course costs money, money is not seen as a priority for guns and bullets that just go bang, arms and ammo aren’t cheap especially if you have to train thousands and maintain a standard. I would say the cost is the real reason police aren’t armed.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am
To late Anthony, the horse has bolted. Besides there are that many weapons now in circulation that registering guns sold will do nothing what so ever, they will just be sold and brought on the black market. And of course Anthony only the law abiding will register anyway so why bother. I know I won’t be, it would be the last thing I would ever consider doing. I have a deep mistrust of government, registration equals disarmament.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Where exactly did these lefty wankers state that the police have less rights than the scum? Can you quote them?
And where is National rushing to arm the police? Ah, sorry, you forgot to mention them in your list of lefty wankers.
Just how exactly would have a side arm helped this case? The police officer was shot from an ambush with no warning. Even if his colleagues would have had side arms, they would not have been able to help.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:29 am
eszett (39) Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 11:21 am
..waddle back to the strandard idiot…
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
How many police deaths would have been most likely prevented if the police were carrying firearms at the ready?
Would having all police armed be likely to increase or decrease police shootings and deaths? I mean researched backed opinions, not just gung ho opinions.
Firearms training is very difficult, straight shooting and safe handling can be learned, but nothing compares to operating firearms with adrenalin pumping. I have only shot in relatively safe situations ie animals are obviously unarmed, but I can imagine that being at risk as a possible target raises the uncertainties substantially. We hope that the police don’t get too much on the job experience, so training will remain problemetic.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
And yes there are at least two policemen in this country whose targets would still be alive and well had they not had guns and abused their use. This same scenario has just played out in Queensland with an essentially deranged person with a knife no less being shot and killed when a tazer would have rendered him harmless as would have happened of the two in this country had they backed off instead of being a big gunho. Just today another person has been shot in the leg over there.
No policeman’s job is easy but there can be no reason why they should be the arbiters of life when better methods exist.
No one would fault the way Molenar was handled but that is different from some loopy loose canon especially if their only weapon is a knife or a hammer.
Snow was ambushed in the dark and had the other two been carrying guns would it been better or worse? The possibility exists that a gun battle with much greater casualties may have played out. Did they put their lights on or was the shooter left guessing at maybe one of his lot having a go? Something we don’t know yet.
Vote:We need more details before we can judge.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Viking2, I’m trying to think of the situations you’re referring to, but if you mean Steven Wallace, then I’m calling bullshit. Wallace would still be alive if he put the golf club down. It’s a relatively simple concept – don’t threaten someone with a weapon. Don’t threaten an armed cop, don’t advance towards him carrying the weapon in an aggressive manner. Put the weapon down when you’re told to. Don’t leave the cop in a situation where he either shoots you, or lets you smack him in the head with a weapon.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Viking, what two lives are you saying would be alive had the police not shot them?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
MT_Tinman:
Well said. When people talk about armed police they seem to have a mental image of some TV show type calm, gnarled old cop with decades of experience and an unflappable attitude. Something like “Dixon of Dock Green” but with a Glock.
In fact the police on the front line tend to be immature, impressed with their own importance and see themselves not as Dixon but as John McClane. Give them a gun with which to live out that fantasy and you’re asking for trouble.
Specialist units are the answer. Staff them with officers who have been in the police for a minimum number of years (i.e. a lot) and who have passed rigorous external psychological evaluation.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Rex Widerstrom
I think more people imagine armed police to be gun ho trigger happy fools rather than calm professional officers. The reality is, if we were to arm our police, they would only be armed by having a gun locked away in the boot of a car, and would only be allowed to take it out in extreme cases, in which case an in depth report will have to be filed which will be heavily scrutanised.
The fact is, I can drive around with my rifle locked away in the car providing I have my firearms license, yet police cannot. That seems just stupid.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Eventually all officers will be armed – just a matter of time.
It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Police should wear and use a visable sidearm. If a crim sees a cop wearing a gun, he will think first maybe.
Vote:I have no problem with the Police being armed, they will not shoot me, because I will never be in a confrontal situation with them.
All you soft cocks can rave as much as you like. When it comes to rehabilitation, you will of course take the slimeballs into you own homes won’t you?
December 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
A man arrested in connection with the shooting of an Auckland police officer has been given bail after appearing in Auckland District Court today.
…only in NZ….what a joke..and so it goes on…
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I think they are not far off the right balance now. Things aren’t too bad, but it is worth trying to improve a bit. A bit easier availability of firearms to the police and a bit better training should be enough. A major shift in policies and practice would be very risky, it is as likely to result in unintended consequences that would be difficult to undo.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
What is much more important is to allow the general public to be armed – to bear arms (as in America), in order to potentially protect themselves.
Calls to arm the Police is simply a red herring designed to muddy the waters regarding the much greater issue.
So some constable gets shot – these things happen (and part of me thinks the more dead PC Plods the better) – but I think future shootings of Police would dramatically fall if the general public possessed weapons in vast numbers.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
December 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
So some constable gets shot – these things happen (and part of me thinks the more dead PC Plods the better
…what a foul thing to say…who’s the first person you would call if you arrived home and found your wife/Mother raped and beaten to an inch of her life…yes good ole’ PC Plod…idiot..
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I agree, idiotic thing to say.
<blockquoteWhat is much more important is to allow the general public to be armed – to bear arms (as in America), in order to potentially protect themselves.
And I disagree with this. I don’t think there are many if any cases if any where the general public being armed would have prevented deaths. And if the general public were armed there would likely be more deaths through accidents and misuse.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Perhaps the knowledge that the policeman who the perpetrator was using as target practice had a partner with a pump action shotgun nearby might concentrate the mind and stop the individual in question from doing it in the first place.
Then again maybe not and the shotgun in question may have had to be deployed – which would save the courts a lot of time and relieve pressure on the prison system.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
kino flo.
Vote:One of the tasks police have is to keep people safe no matter their state of mind. Choosing to put an end to that state with a bullet is not justifiable when despite the damage to property the police can walk away to a safe distance and wait. Now its easy to be wise after the fact but both in the case of Wallace and the fellow in Christchurch last year that should have been the reaction but in both cases the wrong choice was made. Made because the natural reaction is to fight not flight by the person on the spot. An almost natural reaction except these guys are supposedly trained to do things calmly and not react to their adrenaline. In both cases there was no danger to others immediate and no firearms were involved except by the policemen concerned.
Despite the Establishment finding they did no wrong it would be clear to anyone who thought about the consequences that allowing all policemen to go to trouble with the thought that ultimately they can just shoot at someone whne they so thought it necessary would be an appalling outcome.
In both cases a tazer would have stopped a lot of grief but backing off till assistance arrived would have done the same.
The use of guns by the NZ police is widespread. Every day the armed offenders squad is out somewhere. Yesterday they were called to a fellow acting the same way as the chap in Christchurch. So the run round with guns at the ready to knock over someone who was off his nut and waving a knife. Somewhat overreaction and after seeing some of them in action during the terror raid and hearing their just following orders mantra its a fearful state.
The problem for O’Connor is that like anyone in a mud pool the mud all looks the same. One rule fits all and we are all criminals just waiting to be caught.
Sound familiar, well it is, shades of the smacking bill and our John’s I’ll see you right if the police want to prosecute you for breaking our law.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
It’s nuts to think the police could dish out summary justice on the spot fairly and correctly, all the time, even if you supported capital punishment.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Viking2 – The police’s job is to protect the public and uphold the law, this required stephen wallce to be stopped. And when it comes down to it, I would happily shoot a burlar if they were running from my house with my possessions in hand. I and many people believe that my right to life without thievery, vandalism of my property or violence overrides the right of a criminal to continue their theft, violence or vandalism, even if it means ending that criminals life.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
@ Anthony – You betray your naivety when you call for all guns to be registered. Criminals do not obey laws, do not (should not) have firearms licences, and as such the only purpose it would serve is to waste taxpayers money administering it and piss off law-abiding firearms owners in the process. GUN REGISTRATION DOES NOT WORK, BECAUSE CRIMINALS WOULD TAKE NO NOTICE OF IT!
I’m in favour of all patrol cars containing appropriately secured firearms, ready to be used when needed. Training needs to increase too. I also think people have placed too much emphasis here on the cops being able to protect themselves – sure, that is a big consideration, but as a member of the public I would expect an immediate response commensurate to the threat. That is, if a home invasion is in progress with an armed intruder, I want armed cops there yesterday to confront them.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Charliebrown; that member of the public is all of us even in our unstable moments. Even when drunk as skunks. Its what they are paid to do. Protect life and limb.
Vote:And yes there are situations that require the use of guns and yes you are allowed to protect yourself and others in a bad situation but you had better have a good reason if you are going to use a firearm with lethal effect.
If you want or society to denigrate further to third world status then allowing the indiscriminate use of firearms will do that. Its descends to those with the biggest number of guns wins.
We had the Maori Wars with that problem and had to call in the British Army to stop them annihilating one another and dam look at the results.
Do you want to start that again?
December 29th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Viking2, you forget that not long before Stephen wallace was shot a constable by the name of Murray Stretch was murdered in the line of duty, not by a gun, a knife or baseball bat, but by a boot to the head. This is why police are given access to a gun when violent situations like what stephen wallace was causing occurr.
We have free and pretty open access to guns already, its only the police that don’t. Yes, and you better have good reason to use a firearm to lethal effect, and protecting ones freedom to live without violence and theft is a pretty dam good reason.
And tell me this, how did the British Army stop the maori wars? Did they ask each side to stop fighting or they would get a growling?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I recently resat my firearms license and one of the questions was, “would you use your weapon in self defense?”. It will come as no suprise to you all that the correct anwer is NO. Seems kind of ironic that if a cop sat the same test he would fail.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Pete George
A bloody lefty calls for status quo on law and order – well knock me dead with a feather.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:25 am
It’s possible therefore that events could be staged to support a political opinion, much like science…
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 7:47 am
That includes their own life and limb.
To everyone who says “Stephen Wallace was only armed with a golf club” – would you let me have one free shot at your head with one? I very much doubt it.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am
A bloody burty gets it wrong. I (clearly) didn’t call for the status quo. Attempted improvements – yes. Lurching towards a gun state – no – especially seeing some of the reactionary extremes suggested here.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
OTGO
Interesting that the answer was NO.
What’s the purpose of a handgun then?
Vote:By that logic all Handguns should be banned as should all fully automatic Guns.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
A friend of mine is related to a civilian firearms instructor who teaches the cops at a local range. The instructor has serious reservations about the attitude of many of the cops he is asked to train. “Gung – ho” ? More like “bloody idiots”. He is never more nervous than when he has the cops at the range. My friend quotes the instructor as saying some of the cops are the LAST people who should be given a firearm as they are more likely to kill the innocent, including their colleagues, than the bad guys. There seems to be no selection process just a “time spent” and “place of duty” requirement rather than maturity, aptitude and common sense. I would like to hear from anyone with first hand experience if possible.
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I thought the purpose of a handgun was to kill people.
Vote:There is no other use for it other than pretending to kill target people.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
That’s really sad Hawk.
Vote:We took my practices seriously but then getting shot at does clear the mind a bit.
Our biggest problem like here was money from the ministry (very limited).
We were fortunate in that I cultivated a great relationship with the district firearms guy (he was a good guy and keen) and as reservists most of our people were business people or professionals so could afford to buy ammo (range owner got it at cost for us).
We shot weekly (braai after) and the owner of the range allowed us to bring in vehicles and stuff to make scenarios.
We even paid for PF who came along as they were piss poor paid.