Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

Originally Posted by Jexla

It never was.

My cop and ex-cop mates would agree with you on that, I've heard some pretty hair-raising stories from them about policing in the 'bad old days' of the 80s and 90s.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Thats not true. My wife is a social worker in a rural area so her job involves going out to the middle of nowhere (often with no cellphone reception) visiting people who come from the poorer section of our socieity. The bloke who went in insane and shot up the Ashburton Winz office last year had made up a list of people he was going to kell and my wife's boss was on the list. Luckerly for her he didn't get very far down the list on his insane murder day.

So she encounters threats on a daily basis and unlike police officers she doesn't have a radio, pepper spray, training or backup. Legally she isn't even allowed pepper spray.

If this was the states I would buy her a glock and send her on a training course to teach her how to use it. It wouldn't prevent all situations but at least it's something.

If you look at safty statistics the police generally do far worse than civilians. There has only been one injury at a civilian rifle range but there have been many at police ranges. Your average police officer spends less time being trained than I did to become a IT guy and has less firearms handling experiance than the average hunter bloke. Most average hunter blokes are scary unsafe people who I wouldn't want to stand in front of while they were holding a gun...

When was the last time your wife was deployed to a domestic/disorder/warrant at such addresses? Slightest hint of trouble who do they call? Police. I've passed no end of fire fighters/paramedics/social workers to enter addresses because they're unwilling to do so, it's not their job and I think no less of them holding back.

Your wife may face "threats" if that is what you want to call that sector of society, but she faces them in the social worker role, not in a Police role where you are, more often than not, there against their wishes and are likely to deny them of their freedom. Policing is confrontational at the physical level, hardly comparable to social working.

Like I said earlier, I'm neutral when it comes to carrying weapons for defence, I just don't know whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

In regards to range safety, where are the statistics? I haven't looked into it but the only injuries I can recall is a broken leg and a stroke whilst on the range, never heard of a GSW but I could be wrong. The training they do is different to what the average civilian does on a range, vehicle stops, transitions etc.

Im with Savage on this .we deal with the same thing having to confont aggression and unpredictability+++++and at times deny peoples freedom by secluding them.
Never faced a firearm but hot drinks hot food ,shit piss vomit snot or combinations of all have been offered at close range sometimes bloody effectively, usually accompanied by extreme obscenities etc etc etc
Seen at least two hostage situations,resolved by extremely quick nursing staff reaction.
.had to drop a guy who was beating the livng shit out of one of my nursing colleagues -weapons -bare hands certain techniques and team work.
even the cops and prison officers are aghast at what we do when they would have at least some protective gear.
you guys overlook one essential factor -the need to utilise a firearm is formulated by an inbuilt bloody computer -your brain-none of which are alike ok.
put any group people in a high risk situation and ask if they'd deploy a weapon knowing full well also if it is used the sequeale is likely to be just as traumatic.
now try all this in less than 30seconds-its 50/50 wether youd ever get the same result.
Risk assessment is the name of the game and until youre actually trained and using it youre only entitled to generalised opinion.
Massive -your wife -old chap I trained as a duly authorised officer -a highly trained nurse again called by anyone to assess and if neccesary arrange placement of a person under the mental health act .we are trained both to utilise whanau and police if required.If your wife is allowed to go about her tasks as you describe without essentiaL PROTECTIVE BACKUP-THEN SHE NEEDS TO BE ASKING SOME BLOODY HARD QUESTIONS! especially in todays crazy fucked up social climate.
As for the ashburton gent -I served him breakfast lunch and tea via"roomservice and in the dining room as he tried to convince us .alas no go horatio!

Originally Posted by Savage1

Like I said earlier, I'm neutral when it comes to carrying weapons for defence, I just don't know whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

Carrying weapons for defense is exactly what you're advocating, just for a select group of people only.

Originally Posted by Jexla

You missed every point I made Savage.

Yes of course there are not always numbers available but if numbers are limited why not take holstered firearms and tasers?
Firearms not available? Stop talking shit, we know firearms ARE available (in every vehicle in fact).
I said pulling a gun on someone with a baseball bat when you have other options is insane. At no point did I say NOR imply that having a holstered firearm is not acceptable. Stop reading what you want out of what I say.

You're right I bet they didn't know all of that information when they approached the address, which raises more questions, why not? Why would you not do a background check on someone who's house you have a warrant for for drugs?
Maybe there needs to be a process change when it comes to executing warrants, it's for your safety remember?

How could it not help? As I already explained, instead of having his car taken from him, he would have been riddled with bullets instead then lost his car. Also he got his dog out. Stop making more shit up.

It is NOT a different issue that isn't a problem in NZ, batons don't have the same effect as a gun to suspects and tasers record everything every time they're unholstered and a report has to be made, wouldn't be the same with a firearm.

I suspect you would benefit significantly from some time spent with cops out facing what they do on a daily basis. Be interesting to see how your statements change once you've been on the receiving end...

Just out of interest, can you tell us what percentage of the tasers currently deployed have this "recording" facility ?

Originally Posted by Banana

Carrying weapons for defense is exactly what you're advocating, just for a select group of people only.

Absolutely, but the select group of people has been through no end of vetting, trained in the use of firearms, law surrounding firearms and have had their decision making tested under pressure. This select group is the group that is called to go into dangerous situations and deal with some of the most dangerous people on a regular basis, at a moments notice and on the offenders territory. This group is also under constant scrutiny and are readily hung out to dry when they do wrong.

Select group, absolutely, general public, don't know.

Originally Posted by Savage1

When was the last time your wife was deployed to a domestic/disorder/warrant at such addresses? Slightest hint of trouble who do they call? Police. I've passed no end of fire fighters/paramedics/social workers to enter addresses because they're unwilling to do so, it's not their job and I think no less of them holding back.

Your wife may face "threats" if that is what you want to call that sector of society, but she faces them in the social worker role, not in a Police role where you are, more often than not, there against their wishes and are likely to deny them of their freedom. Policing is confrontational at the physical level, hardly comparable to social working.

Like I said earlier, I'm neutral when it comes to carrying weapons for defence, I just don't know whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

In regards to range safety, where are the statistics? I haven't looked into it but the only injuries I can recall is a broken leg and a stroke whilst on the range, never heard of a GSW but I could be wrong. The training they do is different to what the average civilian does on a range, vehicle stops, transitions etc.

So basically what you are saying is that while she might face risks they are not that bad and she doesn't need a gun. Given that people she works with were on a hit list of a bloke who actually went on a murderious rampage I respectfully disagree.

You can't say you are neutral on self defence (for non police) and they say you don't know if the risks outweigh the benefits. Those two statements contradict.

I don't have any stats but you are forgetting the accidental discharge in the old Chch central police station. My info came from the instructor when I did the RO certification course. Civilian rifle ranges used to have a perfect safty record but there was an injury at a pistol range in recent years. As that was discussed the police officers in attendance said that there have been many injuries\incidents at police ranges so thats where I got my info from.

Originally Posted by Banana

Carrying weapons for defense is exactly what you're advocating, just for a select group of people only.

And that select group of people have risks associated with them carring them. Personally I am not convinved that those risks outweigh any increased benefit.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Absolutely, but the select group of people has been through no end of vetting, trained in the use of firearms, law surrounding firearms and have had their decision making tested under pressure. This select group is the group that is called to go into dangerous situations and deal with some of the most dangerous people on a regular basis, at a moments notice and on the offenders territory. This group is also under constant scrutiny and are readily hung out to dry when they do wrong.

Select group, absolutely, general public, don't know.

Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe. Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe. Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.

Heaven forbid this comes in. There's enough dickheads shooting each other in the bush let alone allowing them to carry pistols wherever they like for 'defence'. Defence against what?

I've read this discussion with interest.

My view, for what it is worth, is that our police have sufficient access to firearms at present and I don't want them to always be carrying a firearm.

In my view if all officers carry then this will lead to an escalation (in reaction) from those who confront police. If you expect police to be armed then you're going to be armed if/when you confront them.

If police reach for a firearm before pepper spray or taser then there will be more 3rd party casualties, accidental shootings, ricochets etc will happen.

I don't want our police officers hurt in the line of duty, but I don't believe further arming is an answer.
If it is the answer then the wrong question is being asked.

Yup, the right question to ask is why aren't parent's instilling better morals, manners and ethics in their kids anymore.

I'm sure it can't just be the smacking law change but it seems a lot worse than when I was young and I'm still shy of 30.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

So basically what you are saying is that while she might face risks they are not that bad and she doesn't need a gun. Given that people she works with were on a hit list of a bloke who actually went on a murderious rampage I respectfully disagree.

You can't say you are neutral on self defence (for non police) and they say you don't know if the risks outweigh the benefits. Those two statements contradict.

I don't have any stats but you are forgetting the accidental discharge in the old Chch central police station. My info came from the instructor when I did the RO certification course. Civilian rifle ranges used to have a perfect safty record but there was an injury at a pistol range in recent years. As that was discussed the police officers in attendance said that there have been many injuries\incidents at police ranges so thats where I got my info from.

The WINZ incident was committed by a lone person with mental health issues, it's a one off or extremely rare, not a daily occurrence. Who got called in to deal with that guy? Police.

Because I don't know is exactly why I'm neutral, there is no contradiction in that statement.

You stated "if you look at the safety statistics", now you're saying you don't know the statistics, that gives me great confidence in what you post.

I wasn't forgetting anything, I never heard of the CHCH incident, are you saying there has never been an accidental discharge on a civilian range? I talk to a lot of cops and don't hear of many injuries and incidents.

What advocates of general arming of the police have no experience with, is the change in the nature and the manner in which you then have to deal with the general public. The personal space issues increase, methodologies for crowd interaction change, responses to the public are affected.

Some of what we see in the USA is a direct result of carrying a firearm, as opposed to not carrying a firearm here... criminals will also arm themselves more frequently and in general it is highly debatable that the police will suffer less issues with armed criminals as a result of being individually armed. Certainly having the means to protect yourself and others is desirable in that context as a policeman, but overall? It may be worse.

I finished policing in 1990, because of 2 things the impending amalgamation with the Ministry of Transport, and the at the time likely and possible arming of the police. This issue is not new and the issues arising from it, are not either.

The figures from back in my time was that around 75% of police deaths by firearm (in the US) were caused by their own weapon or their partner's weapon. Friendly fire, loss of weapon etc... this is why they stand 20m away and shoot people that are walking away from them in the US.

You have to be at least 5m away with your firearm drawn to get the guy with the knife before he gets you. As a policeman I didn't want to interact with people with a 5m space and I like guns. Well that and not becoming a parasitic traffic cop as well....

Going to full time arming is a more significant choice than most understand, and its not reversible...

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe. Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.

A FAL holder goes through as much vetting as a Police Applicant?! Care to quote your sources?
Trained in the law? S39,40,41,48 and 62 of the Crimes Act?
Trained in the use of a firearm? Don't remember that being a requirement to getting a FAL
Decision making tested under pressure? When? Where? What kind of scenarios?
Called to go into dangerous situations? Really?! Is there a blanket phone number for the nearest FAL holder?
Constant Scruitiny? I don't think so, not unless they do something to draw attention to themselves.

FAL holders do not hold the same attributes.

Like I said, concealed carry for the public is a separate issue.