This is the shooting in Bryndwr in Christchurch overnight on Wednesday, which left a woman dead and a man critically injured.
As always happens, the armchair experts haven’t been slow in coming forward. For example, demanding to know why the police couldn’t have shot the woman in the leg, rather than taking her life.
But unless we have been in the position of a dealing with something like that —a situation where the woman had been in danger but then threatened police with a knife— we can't really criticise the police.
And can you imagine how the officer who fired those shots is feeling today?
But what I am asking is whether or not this tragedy has had any impact on my attitude towards the arming of our police.
And I can honestly say that my attitude hasn’t changed. Despite the tragic outcome, I still think our police need to be armed – in fact, more so than they are already.
You might remember the survey by the Police Association which found that 69% of police officers wanted to be armed on a regular basis. That’s more than two-thirds of our cops who said they reckon they need guns to keep themselves safe on the job.
Over the years, some people have said that arming every police officer would do more harm than good.
Here are a couple of examples: Poto Williams, when she was Police Minister, said that arming officers would “change the community’s relationship with the police”. Which I thought at the time was a load of nonsense.
And I still do, because the relationship has already changed and it’s putting the lives of our cops at risk everyday. Which is why more than two-thirds of them said in that survey that they want to be armed more regularly.
The late Chester Borrows —who was a former National MP and a former cop— was another one anti-guns for cops. I remember him saying that a general arming of the police would see more officers being shot and more civilians being shot. His view was more guns, more deaths.
But how I’ve always seen it, is that it’s very weird we have a workplace health and safety system in New Zealand that is hellbent on keeping workers safe at work by making sure they’re sitting at their desk in the right position, but we’re more than happy for police officers not to be kept as safe at work as they could or should be.
Which is why over recent years, I’ve come to think that police officers should be able to carry a pistol at all times.
And, despite the tragic events in Christchurch the other night, I still feel that way.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
But unless we have been in the position of a dealing with something like that —a situation where the woman had been in danger but then threatened police with a knife— we can't really criticise the police.
And can you imagine how the officer who fired those shots is feeling today?
But what I am asking is whether or not this tragedy has had any impact on my attitude towards the arming of our police.
And I can honestly say that my attitude hasn’t changed. Despite the tragic outcome, I still think our police need to be armed – in fact, more so than they are already.
You might remember the survey by the Police Association which found that 69% of police officers wanted to be armed on a regular basis. That’s more than two-thirds of our cops who said they reckon they need guns to keep themselves safe on the job.
Over the years, some people have said that arming every police officer would do more harm than good.
Here are a couple of examples: Poto Williams, when she was Police Minister, said that arming officers would “change the community’s relationship with the police”. Which I thought at the time was a load of nonsense.
And I still do, because the relationship has already changed and it’s putting the lives of our cops at risk everyday. Which is why more than two-thirds of them said in that survey that they want to be armed more regularly.
The late Chester Borrows —who was a former National MP and a former cop— was another one anti-guns for cops. I remember him saying that a general arming of the police would see more officers being shot and more civilians being shot. His view was more guns, more deaths.
But how I’ve always seen it, is that it’s very weird we have a workplace health and safety system in New Zealand that is hellbent on keeping workers safe at work by making sure they’re sitting at their desk in the right position, but we’re more than happy for police officers not to be kept as safe at work as they could or should be.
Which is why over recent years, I’ve come to think that police officers should be able to carry a pistol at all times.
And, despite the tragic events in Christchurch the other night, I still feel that way.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
Perhaps the NZ Police need bodycams like the US Police so people can see what actually happened.
England & Wales police fatal shooting of members of the public for 2024. Out of a population of roughly 69 million?
Three.
How can that be? They must be trained better.
The last thing we need is more cops routinely carrying a pistol. They have guns available at all times. Looks like they need more training on when to use them.
Interesting comment/opine. This Country, New Zealand, has a history of Police taking firearms "from the locker" to use in circumstances where the "perpetrator' has been deemed to -
- " be armed, possibly dangerous, as well as being a danger to those immediately around 'them' and to any general public in the location of the incident".
The 'shooting' of an armed person, who fails to respond to Police requests - is usually shot - in most cases fatality.
We have also had, when said incidents occur, the "rise" of the pearl clutcher's - who make a "public" hue & cry over the incident.
Examples would be -
- Napier, the shooting of a Police Officer on the doorstep of the house, the "perp' was located in
- the shooting in Waitara, Taranaki.
- Palmerston North, when the "perpetrator" shot dead a Police Officer (Male) whilst executing an Official duty, his colleague was shot at & injured whilst moving away from the scene.
This event like others of recent times resulted in the Armed Offenders team being "turned out".
It has always been a question of "do we, or don't we" when it comes to armed Police - and you will find with the incident in Christchurch, that "the pearl clutcher's" have already taken to social media to "condemn" said incident.
Lucky for NZ, we do not have the American Police approach to dealing with " the armed & dangerous " - in such incidents I have always wondered if the "perp" actually had time to count the rounds of ammo " going over their heads, or striking any surface area around them?
It's do obvious that the softer the police are with the malcontents, the harder these people push the boundaries of acceptable civilization.
IMHO, the lack of the use of fire arms by police leads to more capitulation to violent offenders, and let's face it most of them would qualify under a Labour Govt to be controlling NZ.
Fight fire with fire.
Post a Comment