A step too far
October 19th, 2011 at 9:51 am by David FarrarDerek Cheng at NZ Herald reports:
The Police Association says a gun on every constable’s hip could have prevented high-profile shootings of officers, including the death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier in 2009.
Yes it may have, but I don’t think the prevalence of these sorts of incidents are at a high enough level (thankfully) that the benefits of arming all Police outweigh the negatives. Having arms in each police car is a sensible compromise in my opinion.
But what else does the Police Association want:
Mandatory vehicle impounding, licence suspension and possible imprisonment every time a driver flees police.
Absolutely.
Reserving the best radio spectrum for police to ensure the best data transmission, including the possibility of live CCTV feeds and mobile fingerprint terminals.
Depends. What is the quality difference between the best and second best? What impact on others would such a policy have? Worth looking into though.
Imposing non-contact conditions on remanded prisoners so they cannot intimidate potential witnesses.
No-brainer.
Empowering police to intervene early before disorder can escalate into violence.
Hmmn, I’d be a bit careful here. We don’t want pre-crimes.
October 19th, 2011 at 10:12 am
I can’t help but think giving police guns will sadly put them in more danger, not less. Firstly, you would start an arms race with violent criminals, if they knew they might be confronted by a gun carrying cop they would take the risk of carrying a gun themselves. Secondly there would be an increase in fatal shootings by police, which would cause the families and friends of those shot more likely to distrust or despise the police, and as much as possible effective policing requires the trust of the public. Thirdly, remember the machete attack from behind on that poor motorway cop?He might have been able to hold the bastard off with a gun, or it might have been taken from him and used on him. There is a reason prison guards never carry guns, people who thieve for a living are very good at slipping things out of people’s pockets.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 10:16 am
I see no problem with the police being armed at all times. The scaremongering from the left does not hold up to close scrutiny.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 10:22 am
“I don’t think the prevalence of these sorts of incidents are at a high enough level (thankfully) that the benefits of arming all Police outweigh the negatives.”
You’re very generous with the lives of our police officers David, do you actually have a number of them being murdered that you would see as being not something you can be thankful for?
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Murray – Very different societies of course, but the murder rate of cops in America is much higher than here, or Britain, who also have unarmed police. Its a terrible tragedy when police are killed but guns aren’t necessarily the best solution.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 10:35 am
“Empowering police to intervene early before disorder can escalate into violence.”
Police can make arrests for ‘breach of the peace’ and we have a law against ‘disorderly behaviour’. What more do they need?
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 10:40 am
The USA has challenges that we do not have in NZ, so any comparisons are of little use in deciding the issue of armed police here. For a start they have a virtually open border with Mexico, a violent craphole of a country filled with heavily armed cartels, and they have large black gangs, also heavily armed.
The problem in the US is multiculturalism and lax immigration, not the fact that the police there are armed.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 10:50 am
I’d be very careful indeed about arming our police with guns.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 10:51 am
I have long been a supporter of fully armed Police……….AWB…….You may recall a recent mass killer in Britain who roamed at large shooting everyone in sight without Police response because they had no access to arms. Expect a Policy change….MURRAY…Don’t kid yourself you only hear of the tip of the iceberg…Carrying a clearly visible holstered firearm would give greater confidence to both Police and the Law abiding Public. The crims already have access to arms, sure there would probably be more Police Shootings, more prolonged multifaceted enquiries which in turn would deter the Police from using their guns. I am reasonably certain there have been more people shot by Police in NZ in the past decade than in Australia and more NZ Police shot than Australian up until last year.
Vote:Having arms in locker in the cars is a massive step forward by the new Commissioner and will be useful for an immediate response to an armed incident but it wouldn’t have deterred the attacks on Constables Snee or Mellor.
October 19th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Constable Snee would have been alive if he had had a Glock on his hip, what an utter load of shit, the nutter came out of the bedroom with a self loading rifle loaded, cocked and ready to go.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Backster – We have an armed offenders squad, and they are very quick and good at their jobs. Arming beat cops will simply introduce more guns into the equation, more chance of shootings, more chance of innocent bystanders being hit.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 11:37 am
I believe the police already have the power – by a law passed under this last parliament – allowing them to remove someone from a situation before it escalates to violence. I recall being very uneasy about it. Everyone has heard stories of guys – its usually men – banged up on unsubstantiated accusations of violence from a current or ex partner. From memory what we passed gives this power only to someone of sargeant’s rank or above…
Vote:And for the first and perhaps last time, I agree with grumpyold whatever he is about the Len Snee tragedy…
October 19th, 2011 at 11:39 am
awb – the AOS are little help when a cop goes on a routine call and is faced with someone using a gun to either harm some one else or the cop himself is being threatened. Having to rush back to the car to get a weapon, possibly while being pursued or shot at, is a ridiculous situation to put a cop in. I would defy you or anyone else to open a coded lockbox while dodging an assailant. While the number of cops killed on duty is small here, the number shot at or who have had firearms presented at them is quite large. I seem to remember a figure of 19 wounded cops in the last five years or something like that but have no time to search the actual number out – will be there on google somewhere. I do know that in the year that Len Snee and Don Wilkinson were killed, four officers were shot and and wounded. The fact that most crims or nutters are bad shots is more likely the reason for our realtively low number of police deaths.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 11:49 am
awb says: “Firstly, you would start an arms race with violent criminals…..”
Actually, the start of the race (to use your terminology) was many years ago and the reality is that many, many criminals are now armed. Stats to this effect were published [linked] in the recent thread on the same topic.
The requirement now is to give the Police the tools to be able to defend themselves. Including Legislative support.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Well to those of you out there who are anti big government….
Remember that the cops *are* the government’s henchmen.
Further arming the cops effectively gives the government more brute muscle.
I’ve got no problem, however, with reasonable citizens owning firearms to protect their property.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Scott Chris,
in theory at least, there is no particular reason why law enforcement cannot be privatised.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Lee says:- “in theory at least, there is no particular reason why law enforcement cannot be privatised.”
I have no problem with that, but that is merely an efficiency issue. They would still be the government’s hired muscle. The private sector already has its own security service.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
No, sorry, you misunderstand, I meant that in theory there is no need for any state at all. Everything that state currently does, including police and defense, can be done privately, hence no need for the state at all.
David Friedman wrote a good book on how this could be achieved called the Machinery of Freedom.
http://voluntarykaraism.com/wp-content/uploads/Library/Friedman,%20David%20D/The%20Machinery%20of%20Freedom%20(1973).pdf
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Lee says:- “I meant that in theory there is no need for any state at all”
Yes there is. As social arbitrators.
Aside from anarchy, it doesn’t matter what form the authority is, be it elected or despotic, theocratic, monarchical or democratic.
It is still the government.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I think it matters a great deal. Not all forms of government are morally equivalent.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Lee says:- “I think it matters a great deal.”
Only from the point of view that the kind of government you advocate requires many more henchmen.
That is a function of not keeping people as happy as possible.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Actually the form of government/society I advocate would require a great deal less.
It is liberalism that requires a large police state, to deal with the fallout resulting from its belief that happiness, as opposed to virtues like restraint, self-reliance and personal responsibility, is what people need the most.
A moral people are a self-governing people.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
What about Greg’s call for “lighter punishments for police officers and greater legal protections such as automatic name suppression for those involved in fatal incidents on duty.”? We’re against that, right?
OTOH, it would give Whale a whole new crusade to martyr himself for …
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Why does Greg want to “Empower[] police to intervene early before disorder can escalate into violence.”? The answer is at page 10:
“… precursor behaviour may not itself clearly constitute criminality, or might be considered too low-level to justify prosecution. This is particularly the case following Supreme Court rulings in Brooker and Morse, which have raised the bar for public order offences (disorderly and/or offensive behaviour) such that the threshold now is effectively where violence or public disorder is being intentionally incited or clearly on the verge of breaking out.”
So rather than having to wait until someone’s actions have the consequence that “public disorder is … clearly on the verge of breaking out”, Greg wants the police to be able to step in and arrest people for behaving in ways that the police think might just possibly result in public disorder occurring. Things like playing a guitar on the footpath outside the house of one of their colleagues – which is what they arrested and charged Mr Brooker for.
Oh – and they’ll have guns on their hips while they are deciding what sorts of things mights just possibly result in public disorder. Because you never know when a guitar player might turn so nasty as to require a good shooting.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
This is a fairly standard condition of bail right now, and has been for years. I don’t know why the Police Association would feel the need to bring it up as a policy. There are exceptions, of course, where contact is necessary, but most of the time non-contact is both normal and accepted by the defendant.
When? For when they commit criminal offences ‘in the line of duty’? Shouldn’t that worry us, that the Police are saying they should be able to commit crimes and recieve lighter punishments than the normal citizen, but that in other situations the Police need greater protections? So if an officer commits perjury they should get a lesser sentence? Or if they beat someone up and are charged with assault (the latter part being a more common occurrance these days) that they should get a lesser sentence if they commited the crime whilst in uniform?
Could someone please explain why that is a good suggestion? Because I cannot see it.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I would like to see those stats, because it doesn’t tie in with my clientele. Most criminals remain unarmed while engaging in criminal conduct, in my experience. The gangs are an exception, obviously, but even then they don’t (from my information) arm themselves routinely.
Peter Hitchens had an interesting idea in his book ‘A history of crime’. Instead of arming the police, the traditional British legal position has been to allow the general population to be armed. His theory is that disarming the populace has in fact played into the hands of criminals.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
FE Smith says:- “Could someone please explain why that is a good suggestion? Because I cannot see it.”
Well, from a cops point of view, it might be nice to uphold the law without being constrained by it as well.
I’d rather like to have my cake and eat it too, wouldn’t you Smithy?
I find this equally troubling:
“Empowering police to intervene early before disorder can escalate into violence.”
I take it you have seen Steven Spielberg’s “Minority Report”
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Come on AG Brooker and Morse both deserved all that befell them. Brooker followed aPolicewoman to her home after she had finished Night Duty, hammered on her door and when she ordered him off the property set up a commotion on the footpath not to serenade her but obviously to ensure she got no sleep. The Supreme Court would have had a different point of view if she had done the same to ELIAS…As for the serial anarchist MORSE she set alight the N.Z. Flag at an Anzac Day commemoration. If that kind of behaviour is acceptable to you it isn’t to most of us and if the courts can’t be relied on to use commonsense, then Greg is quite right to state that his organisation want the Government to spell out for the benefit of these sheltered pontifical boffins what is offensive and disorderly and when it should be stopped. The average guy already knows.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Can’t argue with that sentiment, Scott!
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
FE Smith – I agree with you, one of the golden rules of being a professional criminal is that you never do something illegal while you’re doing something illegal (I realise how stupid it sounds, yes) It actually makes a lot of sense to not be armed, as if you get caught with a gun the legal shit will absolutely hit the fan, whereas if you get caught by a cop unarmed you will end up with a much lighter punishment.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
So we arm the police – the same people who currently use excessive force against citizens, be it pepper spray, tazers or good old general issue batons, boots and car doors. Then we expect them not to do the same with firearms?
At least the AOS is trained in the use of firearms and is a tightly controlled unit, with some degree of accountability (shoot someone by mistake though and unlike a citizen, no need for the police officer to go through the court process).
And then what, when guns aren’t enough to cow society? Next thing, O’Connor will be saying that the power to stop and search at random without cause and the right to enter any property or building at any time without warrant by police would have prevented constable so-and-so’s death at the hands of criminals. Of course, all law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about…
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
@backster,
Shock! Horror! The policewoman in question was aware a person was outside her house! Playing a guitar! Singing!
Outrage! Anger! A “serial anarchist” (are there “occasional anarchists” or “sometimes anarchists”?) set a flag alight! For a few seconds! Meaning some people got a bit upset! Before she got stopped!
Unless the Police can stomp all over this kind of clearly dangerous behaviour, next thing you know we’ll have people being able to say rude things to each other on the internet, being allowed to wear baggy jeans and pierced noses! I mean, where will it all end? How will “average guys” ever manage to survive in such a world?
(BTW – you realise disorderly/offensive behaviour is a summary offence, and so the “average guys” who decide what it means in any given situation are judges who all have been lawyers and earn $300k a year? Very “average”, indeed.)
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
They already have a form of this in the UK, so don’t be surprised if this comes here in the near future.
Which some people on Kiwiblog have agreed is a good idea!
Apparently we have forgotten that we are there to obey the Police, rather than the wrongly held concept that they are here to serve us.
This concept that the Police should be given protections and privileges that are not available to the general population goes against the principles that modern policing was founded upon.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Isn’t arming the cops a health and safety issue. If I fail to supply certain safety items to those employed on the farm and they are injured or killed while on the job my arse is in a sling. Example, I fail to supply a safety helmet for an employee riding an ATV, they tip it over and kill themselves OSH will come down on me like a ton of bricks. Another example . If a policeman is killed in the line of duty and if had they being armed, the possible result could have been a lot different, then where is the outrage from organizations like OSH. Isn’t the state obligated to protect their employees or do the laws of state only apply to the peasants?. If arming the police offers them greater safety on the job then where is OSH. Every chance OSH gets to ram a new requirement, when it comes to safety, they go for it. I would maintain arming the police would increase their safety, why are the rules different?
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Firearms on the hip aren’t required yet, they are pretty much available at all times now anyway and have been for many many years especially in rural stations.
If the hand wringers do not want general arming thats fine but the police need the support from the Judicary in that you never ever touch a cop, if you do you get pounded in Court. You don’t spit on him, you don’t push, you certainly don’t have a poke.
This used to be the case, assault on Police was seen as serious, just like breaching P.D once saw you off to jail.
Society can’t have it both ways, an un firearm wearing Constabulary and a society that allows its Constabulary to be spat on, hit and stabbed – with the assailants receiving no consequence sentences.
Lastly Greg O’Connor is a good bugger but a union man, unfortunately Len Snee could have been fully rigged in his AOS kit and he would still have died. Murray Stretch would still have died even though he was kicked to death he would not have shot an unarmed teenager even as he was dieing because you don’t generally exect to get kicked to death when you go to work
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“I would maintain arming the police would increase their safety, why are the rules different?”
(1) Not many instances of safety helmets being used to kill other people, are there?
(2) If ATVs responded to people wearing safety helmets by becoming even more liable to tip over on top of everyone (including people not actually riding them), that would be a good reason not to make people wear helmets, wouldn’t there?
(3) Arming police actually can create an OSH hazard – see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7069796.stm
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
eastbay
Do the police actually want to be “generally” armed. Your point about zero-tolerance strikes me as well made – another copper – a woman – belted the other day. If such assaults were treated as seriously as you suggest, do you think this would make a difference? It seems to me that wacking a cop these days is considered as normal as taking a dump. Or do you think matters have descended too far?
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
eastbay
I should have added that even partnering – no solo acts, esp in rural areas beyond prompt assistance, doesn’t address the point that you have raised which actually strikes me as more root cause.
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
My peers who are still in the police don’t see a need for general arming, they are not anti, just don’t see it as necessary.
Since 1987 when I first did a stint at a one man station until I left in 2004 and later when I was at one man stations or working alone or doubled at a rural station there was always a firearm available in the car, mainly because you could end up 100 kms from your station . Also needed for putting down stock as well.
Fatal incidents fortunately are rare and the randomness is shocking, Len Snee was such a case, he will have gone to do that warrant like that literally hundreds of times, but some guys wires short out and there is a tragedy, armed or not would make no difference.
Personally I think the association should be pushing for the zero tolerance on peoples behaviour towards the police. And that means don’t fucking touch ever, do and you go to jail, intoxication is no excuse. If you want to duke it out you pay a big price. The majority of violence towards the police is the general assault where carrying a firearm would not be of any assistance anyway
And to make it sound noble the police are there to represent society and if society is willing to allow it police to be spat and assaulted by every drunken little tart on a night out it says very little for our society
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“it says very little for our society”
I think that’s the point isn’t it?
Why do you think that O’Connor is pushing it, instead of the solution that I expect your former colleagues would want too?
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
He’s going for a lot to get something,which would be I’d imagine, the full time carrying of Tazers
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
thx
Vote:October 19th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
So, if this passes, will the police have to pass the requriements fora “B” pistol license? If not not, why not? Based on practical pistol disciplines like IPSC or NRA, it would involve practice shoots every month, say around 2-300 rounds each at least, in a variety of situations, right and left hand, different targets etc. Being a fit and proper person etc goes without saying.
At present I think the average cop gets 50 rounds per year. That is less than casual filling in time/ plinking for half an hour level. It explains why we can always tell when the cops have used the range – there are new holes in the roof.
Vote:October 20th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I’m all for giving cops in NZ guns as long as we can carry them ourselves. Works very well here in Texas. The only people who shoot each other are drug dealers, and nobody cares about them.
Vote:October 20th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
The problem with the ‘don’t touch the police and if you do its jail time’ is that it ignores the provocation of the police. That approach might be fine in a situation where the police officers were simply assaulted with no precursor but we’ve all heard of and if unlucky seen situations where police officers like to push the boundaries to get a reaction.
Vote: