The criminals are already armed - it's time for Police to catch up
Over little more than a week last month, two more incidents brought the police arming debate back into sharp focus.
Two unarmed officers were shot and wounded in Christchurch on 13 July, and a police dog killed.
On 18 July in New Lynn, armed police shot and wounded an offender after he presented a firearm at them. On both occasions, Tasers failed to subdue the offender.
These incidents give lie to the line that “if Police arm, then the criminals will arm.”
The fact is, the sorts of criminals who might use guns are already armed. They are not armed to protect themselves against Police.
They are either incidentally armed (e.g. family violence offenders who happen to have a gun in the house); or they arm to threaten and coerce victims (as in the case of aggravated robbery); or they have armed to protect themselves against other criminals.
Armed incidents like aggravated robberies and family violence calls are, essentially, the classic armed offender scenarios.
Police are well-equipped and drilled to deal with those through the Armed Offenders Squad model.
We generally know, from the moment we receive a 111, call what we are dealing with.
Armed police can immediately be dispatched and the incident can be dealt with in a controlled way.
What’s changed in my 35 years as a police officer – and especially the last few years – is the number of criminals who are arming against other criminals.
Protecting ‘P’ profits
Over the same time, we have seen enormous growth in criminal wealth driven by methamphetamine. It’s no coincidence.
Even low-level dealers are now frequently picked up with tens of thousands of dollars in cash as well as methamphetamine or precursors worth thousands more.
Drug dealers are vulnerable to rip-offs. Associates, suppliers, and customers are also potential double-crossers.
The incentives are high, and we all know that when it comes to drugs and money, there is no such thing as ‘honour among thieves’.
Add in the extreme paranoia, delusion, irrationality and tendency to violence associated with P use, and you have a powder keg. Dealers are arming as a result.
This sea change has spilled over right across the underworld. Cannabis dealers – many of whom deal or use P as well anyway – are being targeted for rip-offs and stand-overs.
Nine police have been shot in less than two years. With only one exception (the AOS response to Shayne Sime in Christchurch), the incidents – including the murders of Senior Constable Len Snee and Sergeant Don Wilkinson – were all (allegedly) drug related.
In all those cases, unarmed police were suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with armed and dangerous offenders while carrying out relatively routine, everyday Police duties.
They were unable to defend themselves. Two of our colleagues were killed; six survived solely by good fortune that bullets missed vital organs and blood vessels by mere millimetres.
Incidents not aberrations
If these four incidents were aberrations, the status quo in Police armed capability might be acceptable. They are not.
The increase in shootings matches the fact that more and more dangerous offenders are now carrying weapons.
Searches during routine traffic stops or warrants at addresses are now routinely turning up not only P or cannabis, but also firearms.
A recent incident in Auckland even saw police stumble across a pistol-toting P dealer in a downtown pub.
Most of these incidents don’t get much media attention, because – thankfully – most offenders still have enough common sense to realise shooting at police is only going to make matters worse.
As the number of offenders with guns is going up, more of them are using those guns – against each other, and against police, when we are unlucky enough to get in the way.
When that has happened recently, many commentators – including this country’s leaders – have reacted by saying “it wouldn’t have made any difference if the officers were armed.”
With due respect to those leaders, it is simply not possible to draw that conclusion.
Of course being armed is not a magical shield against bullets but it has an enormous impact on the dynamics of the situation and the mind-set of all those involved.
Changing mind-set
Policies, which put the firearms in the vehicle, would affect the decision-making of attending officers even before they exit the car – the added security of a sidearm is warranted.
Being armed also affects the way offenders behave. But not, as The New Zealand Herald editorial of 16 July 2010 claims, by making them “more willing to use their weapons.”
We only need to look as far as Australia for the evidence. There, every police officer carries a gun.
Yet, they hardly ever have to use them. I’ll never be convinced that the incident in Napier would have unfolded in the same way, had Jan Molenaar known he was facing not one, but several overtly armed police officers who could, and likely would return fire.
The dynamic of being armed, or having firearms readily available, could equally have had a significant impact on the other incidents.
Ultimately, nobody knows if it would have changed the outcome because none of the police involved was armed.
They did not have the chance to find out.
Len Holmwood, the neighbour who saved the lives of Grant Diver and Bruce Miller in Napier, by grabbing Molenaar’s gun, has been closer to the reality of the debate than most other civilians.
He told The Dominion Post (15 July 2010) “the outcome would have been different if the officers had been armed…at least they would have been able to defend themselves.”
As Mr Holmwood went on to say, these are cowardly attacks. Offenders have shot at police knowing they are unarmed.
Few offenders would stand in a room full of armed police and produce a firearm – and if they did, the threat could be quickly neutralised, minimising the casualties.
The incident in New Lynn recently is clear proof of that.
For decades, we’ve all been proud to live in a country where police didn’t have to carry guns. The hard reality is things have changed.
None of us can be proud to live in a country where police get shot on a regular basis, with no means to defend themselves.
The status quo is no longer an option. The minimum we now need is to entrust every field sergeant to be armed on a permanent basis and have firearms readily accessible, in every patrol vehicle, for all other frontline police.
Not an arms race
Some commentators have claimed that giving police better access to firearms would just spark an arms race with criminals.
This makes a good media sound bite but it bears no relation to reality.
The criminals who will arm are already armed. At the moment, they are dictating the terms.
Tasers are an excellent tool to deal with violent offenders, who may be spontaneously armed with knives or blunt instruments, but they are not sufficient to deal with offenders armed with firearms.
Trying to get within Taser range of an offender holding a shotgun, perhaps one who has just shot your partner, would be sheer folly.
Nothing short of a firearm gives an effective defensive option in that scenario. It’s just not credible to claim giving officers this option will cause lower-level offenders – burglars, car thieves and Saturday-night drunks – to rush out and buy guns just in case police disturb them at their work. It’s not an arms race – it’s common sense.
Every officer’s nightmare
If more officers have the option to defend themselves against the sorts of incidents we have seen recently, it is likely more offenders will get shot. We need, as a country, to face the likelihood of that outcome.
That doesn’t mean police will become willing to shoot at the slightest provocation.
It is every officer’s nightmare to have to shoot somebody. No other split second decision by anybody, anywhere, is subject to so much scrutiny and second-guessing.
Any officer who pulls the trigger knows he/she will be exposed to multiple inquiries including a homicide investigation and potential prosecution.
This can go on for years and have a huge impact, both personally and professionally, on the officer concerned.
Better firearms availability would not change that. The offenders who might be shot are those who are posing a lethal threat – who leave a police officer with the absolute belief shooting is their only option.
Preventing an armed offender from killing someone else is the objective. Yes, from time to time that will mean shooting them.
I would rather see somebody, who is threatening the life of a member of the public or a police officer, shot, than see the murder of another police officer or member of the public.
