Arming Police & Security in NZ.

Kia Ora,

Well since my last blog there has being a development in this area. The NZ Police Association has renewed its push for NZ Police to be armed.

Having access to firearms is something in todays society is a must, but there are other issues.

As Simon pointed out in his comment several blogs back they need the training to be able to use them correctly & that in general NZ police do not get at present. They also need the mindset to use them possibly with deadly force. That mindset is just not there in the NZ Police Force at present.

Then there is when they would be able to get that required extra training. There is just not the numbers in the NZ Police to allow that to happen.

In the latest incident where the officers where set upon it was suggested they should of had a Taser to which the police have replied that pepper spray was best option.

The situation of a large group would see pepper spray as best option in first instance. A taser could only stop one person at a time. Firearms might persuade people to co operate but as with any weapon it can be double edged if the group are able to get hold of them.

So if the police are looking at them shouldn't some of the security industry also have weapons?

I have said it before. I wouldn't arm 99% of the current security industry with a ball point pen let alone a firearm (to which one police officer replied "I wouldn't arm 75% of the NZ Police Force").


If the Police see from a health & safety issue to wear bodyarmour then all security should be also wearing it as we are often confronting the same issues & usually alone.

Therefore if the Police are now considering arming themsleves then so should security.

It is not well known in NZ that whilst the Police have being unarmed since about the end of the 1800's, private security was armed until 1974 in NZ in a very low key fashion. There is no reason for that to start again & in fact a proper Risk Assessment  would show that weapons should already be carried in many situations.

So what would that require on behalf of the security industry?
First a change in mindset. As is stands currently the industry just 'Plays' at it.

Going hand in hand with that is training & good training at that, not the general mickey mouse stuff we get in the guise of NZQA at present.

For example earlier this week I was in a public building where a guard was lounging against a wall watching those using the facilities. First thing you would of noticed was he was wearing a fluro jacket in breach of Health & Safety.

Next thing was the smell of smoke from a fire  started coming in the door. So what does our guard do, but walk away.

Security is actually Safety & Security & in this case it was likely a cigarette dropped in rubbish bin outside door, therefore guards area of responsibility, & you could see the smoke building out of it. So it was up to me to report it to reception, which then resulted in the cleaners in responding with buckets of water.

Then & only then did our hero guard return to lounge against the same wall. In the meantime one of the area guards, from another company, had come in to check out the smell of smoke.

Now as expected it is a common incident here, but the reactions of the guard shows a few things.

First he hasn't being properly trained.

Second the venue & in particular the security have no procedures for this issue.

Third he was lazy & incompetent as even without procedures he should of had his own & it should not include just walking off.

So with guards like that I wouldn't want him armed. If he is going to be lazy or not bothered in this incident what is he going to be like when he has to use a firearm.

From a legal point of view whether soldier, police officer or private security when using firearms you need to not only know the Rules of Engagement(ROE's), but understand how they work in practise.

The military achieve this through BHL's/BHE's. Private security would have to do the same. That means using military instructors more as the majority of the current crop of instructors have little idea of true security but would struggle with the instructing required.

Another consideration is the weapons to be used.

With a pistol or revolver you only achieve the competency seen in the movies with hundreds of hours of practise. They are not that accurate especially when a person is your target not cardboard cut outs.

The Private industry will not have the budget for training that government agencies have (& in NZ they virtually could call themselves private companies for the amount allocated to use of firing live rounds. The army being the agency that uses them the most), so will need a weapon that needs minimum training & greater accuracy.

Therefore it is dangerous enough out there for Police to be pushing for firearms then the security industry needs to look at it too. But it needs to those with sufficient training.

A two day course is not enough. Even a two week course could be well short of the mark.

Where as a two hour refresher for ex military(teeth arms/special forces in particular) people is more than enough usually to switch them back on to the use of firearms.

Then you have to add in the training to understand ROE's, which again there is less of a requirement for ex military as they inherently understand them having trained & used them before.

So Police permanently armed? There is a good case for it, it is just the training required & the increase in numbers. But there is an equally good case for arming a small number of the private security industry.