Police Association offers a recipe for dead cops

Written By: - Date published: 12:35 pm, January 13th, 2013 - 122 comments
Categories: crime, police - Tags:

In December, a cop had his taser taken off him and fired at him. The Police Association said the solution is for cops to be armed. Judith Collins got it right, “if that was a gun [not a Taser] we’d probably be going to a funeral, actually, for a police officer”. On Friday, an armed cop had his gun taken off him. The Police Association’s answer: cops should pull their guns earlier.

I don’t know if the Police Association bosses just have some kind of Slater-eqsue violence fantasy fetish and that’s why they call for arming of cops at every opportunity, but the reality is it wouldn’t make them or anyone else safer. Handguns are designed for killing people. Put a tool for killing people into the hands of people who are interacting with members of the public, and more people will be killed. (incidentally, people who have guns in the house are twice as likely to be killed in a firearm homicide)

Regularly armed cops would mean more dead civilians, more dead offenders, and more dead cops. Why the hell would we want that?

122 comments on “Police Association offers a recipe for dead cops ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Draco T Bastard 1
    13 January 2013 at 12:39 pm

    It appears that the Police Association is calling for police to be able to use their guns because it would cause less harm:

    The policeman had brought his gun from his car as he thought the situation was threatening, but did not draw it.
    Police Association vice-president Stuart Mills said that if the officer had been able to use his firearm as the primary weapon, offenders would have been less likely to attack and the situation would have been resolved more quickly, and with less harm.

    Which has got to be the worst logic I’ve seen yet. The only thing that would have happened if the officer had drawn his gun would be that someone would have been shot and shooting someone isn’t causing less harm.

    • QoT 1.1
      13 January 2013 at 1:26 pm

      Clearly they edited the bit in his statement saying “with less harm to the ego of police officers.” If a few rowdy partiers have to die for cops to get the respect they deserve then so be it, apparently.

      Incidentally, I note that the officer in question was alone, against five other people. But the Police Association prefers to advocate for increased arming of officers rather than sufficient resourcing to allow all cops to patrol in pairs?

      • higherstandard 1.1.1
        13 January 2013 at 2:15 pm

        “A few rowdy partiers”

        “A police officer who was seriously assaulted by a group of men in Kawhia last night used pepper spray and a taser to try and subdue his attackers.

        The policeman had been set upon by at least five people, who were kicking him as he coiled up in pain on the Kawhia wharf.

        The group took his taser, his radio and his pistol and were only stopped when local firefighters and the public stepped in to intervene.”

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8169825/Police-officer-attacked-in-Kawhia

        I hope they all get five years minimum – feral scum.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          13 January 2013 at 2:44 pm

          And how does that relate to the idea that there be enough police officers so that they are in pairs all the time which would be more likely to prevent such incidents and cause less harm than the cops having drawn weapons?

          • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1
            13 January 2013 at 3:01 pm

            Yep.

            Not to mention what the weapons might be used for after the sole police officer is left on the ground.

            Nor to mention the fact that had an officer used their weapon in a perfectly legitimate self defense, it could well have been the officer’s word against those of four or five other people who swore they did nothing wrong and the officer was out of control. I know door-staff who have been in legal strife that way (and that was just for assault, not murder or serious injury).

            Yes, all we need to evaluate the situation is “feral scum” /sarc.

            • higherstandard 1.1.1.1.1.1
              13 January 2013 at 3:17 pm

              Well the fact that the local fire service and members of the public came to the aid of the officer who was attacked from behind and then repeatedly assaulted while on the ground would suggest that those attacking the officer were indeed “feral scum”.

              But of course one would not expect much more from the usual suspects on this site apart from sympathy for those committing the acts of violence as ‘they’re merely the victims of the governments economic policies’ /sarcasm x3

              • McFlock …
                13 January 2013 at 3:27 pm

                Yes. The officer was very lucky that some members of the public were prepared to assist him, what with him not having the assistance of other frontline police staff available and his weaponry not being of any help to him in that situation (indeed, it was a dangerous liability).

                Fortunately, the only issue we need to consider about this specific situation is whether or not the responsible parties qualify for the term “feral scum” /sarcasm x infinity.

                • NF0011 …
                  13 January 2013 at 7:36 pm

                  Why would 2 officers make a difference when going up against people that have no respect for the law and are happy to kick and punch someone curled up in a ball on the ground? Over the Christmas/New Years break we have seen pairs of cops attacked. In Dargaville I believe among other places So whats the answer then? 3 cops? 4 cops? Send the armed defenders and dog squads in for every routine police call out?

                  The problem is police are being sent in to deal with people that have no respect for anyone other than their own family and are willing to attempt to kill someone to protect that family member. Its easy to sit behind a computer and type answers like ‘should always have 2 cops’. Try going out with the cops into these situations and see what they have to deal with. Or have these people attack you and your family. Try being kicked and punched on the ground and see what sort of response you would like to help you. Who would want to join the police knowing that 5 people can kick you with the intent of killing you, 80 people are happy to sit back and watch and you have members of the public not willing to give you the support you need to do your job. Put yourself in the shoes of his family, a family whose husband and father almost didn’t come home that night.

                  Should there be a minimum of 2 cops per shift. Yes. Should the cops not have the right to defend themselves against people who wish them harm? Yes. Pepper Spray and a taser didn’t help. Had the officer the right to draw his gun (which he was carrying) before entering the situation, I’m sure this lovely gentleman and his family would have had a much claimer reaction to him.

                  • QoT …
                    13 January 2013 at 8:45 pm

                    Why would 2 officers make a difference when going up against people that have no respect for the law and are happy to kick and punch someone curled up in a ball on the ground?

                    Because it’s much harder to do that when the person you’re trying to kick and punch (a) isn’t as much of a target because they’re not on their own (b) has a partner who can draw their pepper spray or taser even if you’ve jumped their mate (c) has a partner who can radio for backup even though you’ve taken the first cop’s radio and taser and gun away.

                    Being confronted with two officers instead of one is simply a different psychological and practical situation.

                  • McFlock …
                    13 January 2013 at 9:04 pm

                    So more cops isn’t the answer, police should just attend “every routine police call out” with drawn firearms? Somehow I’m not sure that your solution would protect police or even the citizens who came to his aid.

                    edit: how about rather than having no other assistance than to wear his firearm, the officer could have called for back-up as soon as he recognised the situation as being dicey, and received it in a reasonable time?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    14 January 2013 at 12:07 am

                    Why would 2 officers make a difference when going up against people that have no respect for the law and are happy to kick and punch someone curled up in a ball on the ground?

                    You’re not thinking tactically, NF0011, you’re thinking emotionally.

                    Which makes the rest of your comment worse than ignorant, it’s dangerous.

                  • fustercluck …
                    14 January 2013 at 12:05 pm

                    Does the phrase “I got your back” resonate for you?

                    It is much harder to sucker punch a well trained pair than it is to sneak up on a cop with eyes on only one side of his head.

                    Additionally, a pair would have made a timely distress call more likely even if they were both swiftly engaged by ‘feral’ attackers.

                    Having grown up in the USA and having the pleasure of both being approached by cops with their hands on their weapons and even (once) having a cop point their handgun at me, I can assure you that a ‘gun first’ policy is not going to do anything to reduce violence against the public or the cops themselves. Sure, I was polite as hell and kept my hands visible, but all to often the criminals emulate the cops shoot first approach resulting in the avoidable carnage for which the USA is all too famous.

                  • McFlock …
                    13 January 2013 at 8:04 pm

                    Indeed. And in half of those incidents, at least one weapon was taken off the police officer and in one case someone tried to use the officer’s weapon against him. Luckily it wasn’t a point and click glock.

                    So the question remains: why is the police association demanding wider distribution of firearms, rather than more frontline officers to support each other responding to incidents? Any thoughts? Are they just gun-happy “ferals”?

                    • higherstandard …
                      13 January 2013 at 8:24 pm

                      I think you’ll find the police association would like both.

                      But keep going i’m sure you’ll get to the point of reduction to the point of absurdity demanding that the police carry no protection and that all such violent acts directed at the police, ambulance officers and the like is the governments fault.

                    • felixviper …
                      13 January 2013 at 8:30 pm

                      I’m sure you realise that you just did the absurd reduction there hs while building your preemptive strawman.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 January 2013 at 9:12 pm

                      The police association might want both, but somehow their gun solution seems to be the one that gets emphasised.

                      They might just have shit media management. Or O’Connor might have a gun fetish.

              • mike e vipe e …
                14 January 2013 at 7:26 pm

                Drunken bystaders watch as drunken drugged thugs take to cop Collins and her govt were going to get tough on gangs yeah right!
                Collins said that alcohol is the biggest single issue for police, using 50% of police time!
                National slap Alcohol sector with wet bus ticket!
                User pays I thought Nactional were a user pays Govt!
                Nactional continue to allow taxpayer to subsidize Alcohol abuse!

      • David H 1.1.2
        13 January 2013 at 7:26 pm

        And how long until a cop loses his drawn gun? And has it used against him, and other cops. Or even worse, an innocent member of the public.

        It’s bad enough that the cops get away with shooting innocent bystanders ( AK motorway)
        But how will they say sorry, because one of them LOST his gun. And an innocent is killed by it.

        And the Americans have proven that an armed cop is pretty useless, if the amount of shots fired, in relation to the offenders hit, is anything to go by. Because they get all Rambo, and just blaze away with scant regard for where their wild firing sends their bullets.

        Get them to patrol in Pairs And link ALL guns to Camera’s just like the Tasers.
        And leave the guns to those PROPERLY TRAINED in their use

        • McFlock 1.1.2.1
          13 January 2013 at 8:51 pm

          last I heard was that putting microelectrics into handguns wasn’t very reliable due to the recoil forces. Takes its toll after a while. Might change a bit soon, though.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.1
            14 January 2013 at 3:23 pm

            Yep, it does but those electronics are cheap to replace even today. Personally, I think that the police should have cameras mounted in their uniforms and on all the time – not just as part of the gun/taser regulations.

  2. kiwicommie 2
    13 January 2013 at 1:36 pm

    It is business as usual under National and the MSM Draco. They refuse to tell the true cause of this, which would likely be a direct result of National’s economic policies i.e. joblessness, poverty and hopelessness. If they were drunk, why were they drunk. If they attacked the police, they had to have a reason. Unless the case is picked up by the MSM, unfortunately we will never know.

  3. Brett Dale 3
    13 January 2013 at 3:47 pm

    They’re called the police, not cops.

    Show respect please.

  4. Frank 4
    13 January 2013 at 5:40 pm

    HOW TO AVOID BAD POLICING. (KAWHIA STYLE)

    1. WHEN OUT NUMBERED RETREAT.

    2.TRY NOT TO LOOK TOUGH BY STRAPPING A SIDE ARM ON, AND NOT BEING PREPARED TO USE IT.

    3. ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE FATHER BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO ARREST SON WHEN EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT YOU ARE PISSED AND PROBABLY WILL TAKE OFFENCE.

    4.DON’T BE A HERO.

    5.GET BACKUP (THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AIN’T IT).

    6.AS A SOLE CONSTABLE SOME COMMUNITY POLICING WOULD HAVE PAID OFF.

    7.REMEMBER SONNY, THAT YOU ARE A POLICEMAN, NOT A GANG MEMBER.

    8. AND. IT’S REALLY HARD TO ESCAPE FROM KAWHIA.

  5. Frank 5
    13 January 2013 at 5:49 pm

    What I am saying is if the copper went down there in mufti and spoke to them in a manner they could understand.
    Oi, gis ya kid. badass need to see judge.
    what ya done ya litel shit.
    took unts undies
    wot 4 ya purrthert.
    mom wont wash hers.

    Sorry he is still under arrest.

    take him.

  7. Rogue Trooper 7
    13 January 2013 at 6:38 pm

    There is an “arms escalation” You would be surprised how many ceilings serve as temporary armouries. (the “outsiders” will outbreed enforcement, regardless how the statistics are massaged; it’s game on)

    • RedLogix 7.1
      13 January 2013 at 7:02 pm

      There is an “arms escalation”

      That being the point here. Eventually you get people arguing for owning their own personal nukes to ‘defend’ their liberty from the evil state. Ok so that’s a bit OTT …. how about your own Abrams M1?

      • Rogue Trooper 7.1.1
        13 January 2013 at 7:06 pm

        I was a fan of the Tiger, yet our bridges are narrower than those of the Fatherland
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
        Panzerkampfwagen

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1
          13 January 2013 at 7:16 pm

          T-34 fan myself, not as powerful or as well built, but sure did the job.

          • RedLogix 7.1.1.1.1
            13 January 2013 at 7:32 pm

            I’ve actually seen up close a real live T-34 at the factory where they were built… another story.

          • Rogue Trooper 7.1.1.1.2
            13 January 2013 at 7:44 pm

            They Sure Did, however, that WW II footage of a moving Tiger under an SS commander taking out (6 or 8 Allied Tanks from memory, was pretty outstanding; I read and watched a lot SS history in me bad old days) still, the T-34 ended up being the bees knees in the Russian campaigns, and they just kept coming (apparently there suspension was an advantage).

          • exkiwiforces 7.1.1.1.3
            13 January 2013 at 7:49 pm

            CV, I’ll raise you my Coy of Tigers, Coy of Panzer 4’s and my Panzer-Grenadiers for your T34.

            Back to tropic, The New Zealand Police service need to go back to having 2 personal in the patrol cars esp for the remote areas sooner or later someone is going to get killed either a cop or a civillian. Having a single cop on duty in remote area is just asking for trouble and where I live at moment in OZ the remote area cop the have 3 cops at remote police stations to stop this sort of thing happening.

        • David H 7.1.1.2
          13 January 2013 at 7:44 pm

          Naaa the T34/85 was not a bad tank, and the Russians had way more than the German Tiger tanks, And not many Tigers had the 88 mm gun, as it was an Anti Aircraft gun and just had a very high muzzle velocity. and a flat trajectory and was devastating to pretty much anything at the time. But most tanks had the 75mm gun, and not the 88

    • QoT 8.1
      13 January 2013 at 8:53 pm

      The sole-charge policeman used pepper spray and a taser, but was hit from behind, knocked to the ground and repeatedly kicked by a group of around five people.

      Obviously arming cops with regular firearms is not the answer! They need guns that fire in all directions!

      Or … the officer could have had a partner to watch his back and ensure he wasn’t jumped from behind while dealing with the people in front of him.

      • felixviper 8.1.1
        13 January 2013 at 9:55 pm

        I think “guns that fire in all directions” are called “grenades”, and think cops should all carry them. The pins could be attached to their belts to stop people stealing them.

        And do away with firearms, tasers and sprays as it seems the cops just can’t be trusted to look after them.

        • McFlock 8.1.1.1
          13 January 2013 at 10:23 pm

          Actually, that last point goes right back to when they introduced collapsible batons. One of the justifications brought up was that some officers would leave the vehicle and forget to take their long baton – which while not nice to be hit with, also had some defensive uses beyond “nut the guy”.

          The telescopic baton really has only one use – the thwack.

        • QoT 8.1.1.2
          13 January 2013 at 11:29 pm

          I think the police need power armour. And machine pistols.

      • higherstandard 8.1.2
        14 January 2013 at 7:12 am

        Oh you’re making too much of a fuss QoT it was just some rowdy partiers.

        • QoT 8.1.2.1
          14 January 2013 at 7:46 pm

          I think you think you’re making some kind of hilariously clever point. Unfortunately you’re just continuing to dig yourself into an even deeper reductio ad absurdum hole/

  9. Rogue Trooper 9
    13 January 2013 at 7:55 pm

    This disturbing image found it’s way to me recently (that’s Fb market targeting for ya)
    http://inkslingerblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/602937_192858847524217_1235130692_n.jpg
    needless to say, I didn’t share it.

  10. paul andersen 10
    13 January 2013 at 9:19 pm

    I couldnt beleive that response,,, the officer should have drawn his gun,,,, they are taught never to draw their guns unless they are going to fire them,,, the police union spokesman can across more like an NRA spokesman

  11. MrSmith 11
    13 January 2013 at 10:14 pm

    The Pigs won’t be safe till they’re riding around in bulletproof Hummers with machine guns on the roof, well judging from the reaction by some here.

    Violence begets violence, wearing a gun says fuck with me and I might kill you, this isn’t the message we should be sending, we shouldn’t take the easy option with arming our police, because in the long run we will all lose.

  12. muzza 12
    14 January 2013 at 8:24 am

    I expect that carrying guns is a certainty, timeline being the variable. O’Connor (drunken disgrace that he is) and the PA, willfully backed by the media, are fueling the fires at every opportunity.

    Desired outcome = Armed cops, plus who knows what else on the street, and in the sky.

    Tactics required to achieve desired outcome = Becoming obvious!

  13. millsy 13
    15 January 2013 at 7:46 am

    Not really keen on having our police force behave like the SS, like what Brett Dale, Populuxe and higherstandard seem to want. They think the police should be able to shoot any person they like when they feel like it, and perhaps torture them as well.

    • higherstandard 13.1
      15 January 2013 at 8:00 am

      Dear Millsy

      Can you please provide a link to where I or any of the others you mention have said anything remotely like that which you have accused us of.

      • felixviper 13.1.1
        15 January 2013 at 10:01 am

        Brett does it pretty regularly. Ask him if he thinks coppers should a) obey the law or b) do whatever they have to do.

      • millsy 13.1.2
        15 January 2013 at 9:44 pm

        My point was that Judith Collins and Greg O’Connor (who BTW is the most effective union leader in the country) have previously blamed scrutiny of police conduct for a supposed rise in assaults on police. Personally I belive that it is a very dangerous assertion to make, as it signals a desire on both Collins and O’Connors part for our police forces to be devoid of any accountability or scrutiny whatsoever.

        And in case anyone wants to know, the worst intances of when police officers were attack, was in 1964 when 4 officers were shot dead in seperate incidents in Auckland and Wellington, and in 1941, when Stanley Graham went on his rampage. This was a time when the police were supposedly held in higher regard than they are now.

        • higherstandard 13.1.2.1
          16 January 2013 at 8:06 am

          Dear millsy

          The point you were trying to make bears no resemblance to your original smear.

          Can you please provide a link to where I or any of the others you mention have said anything remotely like that which you have accused us of.

    • Colonial Viper 13.2
      15 January 2013 at 12:22 pm

      and perhaps torture them as well.

      There might be innocent lives at stake in the next 24 hours which the tortured information from the suspect could save! /sarc

    • Populuxe1 13.3
      15 January 2013 at 1:12 pm

      I don’t recall saying the Police should have carte blanche to arrest, torture, maim and murder – all I said was that they do actually have to deal with some pretty horrific things, though never having had to comfort a rape victim, enter a murder scene, get shot or stabbed, or investigate a P lab, perhaps I shouldn’t say anything.

    • felixviper 14.1
      15 January 2013 at 9:58 am

      Oh dear. Reading between the lines there… “off duty”… “fishing”… “drinking at Kawhia wharf”…

      Bit weird that eyewitnesses and photos have a different recollection of events to the copper. Look forward to seeing the video.

      • higherstandard 14.1.1
        15 January 2013 at 10:10 am

        What is it exactly that you are reading between the lines ?

        • felixviper 14.1.1.1
          15 January 2013 at 12:30 pm

          It’s the bits where the dots are hs. You’re going to have to read between the lines of my reading between the lines if you give a shit.

          • higherstandard 14.1.1.1.1
            15 January 2013 at 12:38 pm

            Surely it’s better if you tell everyone what you’re reading between the lines in relation to the three items you’ve chosen to highlight ?

            It’s not as if any of those three things are out of the ordinary is it ?

            • felixviper 14.1.1.1.1.1
              15 January 2013 at 12:43 pm

              I wouldn’t presume to know whether those things are out of the ordinary or not hs.

              • higherstandard …
                15 January 2013 at 1:14 pm

                But surely you have with your ‘reading between the lines’

                Are you ever going to answer the original question or do you just want to continue to tr*ll ?

                • felixviper …
                  15 January 2013 at 1:26 pm

                  I don’t see where I’ve presumed to know the extent of the ordinariness or otherwise. Could you point out where I have?

                  And I’ve already answered your original question hs. In case you need it spelled out, the answer was ‘I’m not going to tell you, idiot.’

                  • higherstandard …
                    15 January 2013 at 2:01 pm

                    Aw come on share what you’re reading between the lines, are you afraid to make more of an idiot of yourself in between the incessant tr0lling and lying.

                    • felixviper …
                      15 January 2013 at 2:54 pm

                      Not following you there hs.

                    • higherstandard …
                      15 January 2013 at 4:04 pm

                      C’mon you can do better than that.

                      “Oh dear. Reading between the lines there… “off duty”… “fishing”… “drinking at Kawhia wharf”…”

                      Still waiting for what to read between the lines in relation to what those words in between the ” “s have got to do with the events at Kawhia where the policeman was set upon by feral scum.

                    • felixviper …
                      16 January 2013 at 9:34 am

                      I wrote that for the smart kids. Sorry dummy.

                      Still not following you re- lying and trooling.

                    • higherstandard …
                      16 January 2013 at 9:50 am

                      Well what would the “smart kids” read between the lines ?

                      Why so reticent to expand on your reading between the lines, surely you wouldn’t want to be misconstrued.

                      “Still not following you re- lying and trooling.”

                      Let me spell it out for you then – You are a lying trool.

                    • felixviper …
                      16 January 2013 at 9:58 am

                      Misconstrue away, not my concern.

  15. The Al1en 15
    15 January 2013 at 8:46 am

    Surely the only people we want to see go to work with a gun are soldiers and hunters.
    If arming the force is the only option to ensure it’s safety, then it signals a total fail from this government, and a top down fail in the cop chain.

    There are police I wouldn’t see issued a TV remote, let alone a lethal weapon.
    Have guns in cars, have armed squads in transit at all times or whatever, but if the police fed want to play cowboys, it’s only natural some will want to be better indians.

    • One Tāne Huna 15.1
      15 January 2013 at 12:59 pm

      Why would this be necessary, in the context of the marked downward trend in violent crime (especially homicides) since 1991?

      There are few circumstances where a “reasonable response” to an assault is to kill the attacker. Yes, that means that police staff will get beaten up from time to time, but that is better than drunk civilians being shot dead.

      That said, in a democracy, assault on police staff is an assault on society, a serious offence.

      OAB disclaimer. This comment contains a link to a deranged right wing web site and does not imply support for the views expressed therein.

  16. bad12 16
    15 January 2013 at 4:52 pm

    I think the both times i have listened to what the Police Commissioner had to say about what happened at the Kawhia wharf on RadioNZ National are about right,

    I can imagine Greg choking on His grog,(needs a stiff one to stop the after effects of all those drugs He didn’t take when He was undercover),BUT, the Commissioner seemed to be alluding to the fact that the particular plod in question had not made a correct risk assessment when deciding to arrest someone in the middle of a drinking crowd,

    He sure as hell didn’t, what the f**k was He doing all tooled up complete with glock where most of the crowd appears to have been the law abiding,

    What was His tactic, hands up now bro your under arrest and if you resist i will blow away a number of your rellies when double tap puts one or two into you and the rest miss,

    The Commissioner also pointed out that alcohol as it does in at least 70% of all crime figured in this little altercation as well, and, it was up to the Parliament to pass laws which stopped people from staggering round drinking piss in public places,

    The other side of the story of course is that the ‘suspect’ had already put up His hands and said ”fair cop” befor the plod in question gave it to Him with the Taser,

    At which point of course in a repeat of the recent Auckland incident where the officer gave a child a face full of Pepper-spray and Mum and the rest of the party tried to bash his head in with a brick the place went really f**king mad,

    Funny how guns and things seem to escalate the most simple of situations ae???…

    • bad12 16.1
      15 January 2013 at 11:06 pm

      As an afterthought to the above and alcohol, it makes me wonder if the plod in question hadn’t had a few tinnies with the mates while out fishing,

      i think that the Commissioner should consider whether or not His crew shouldn’t be given a blood test after such serious incidents to see if they were impaired by some substance or other…

  17. vto 17
    16 January 2013 at 8:16 am

    The Police Association should actually advocate not for pistols but instead semi-automatic submachine guns … if we follow their logic and their reasoning and their philosophy and their attitude and their bright ideas.

    This is exactly why we don’t let the police set the rules around policing.