So do we need to arm the New Zealand Police?

Kia Ora,

After yesterday's shooting of a police dog & two police officers debate has erupted again about arming the New Zealand Police force.

It is certainly dangerous enough out there to justify arming the NZ police & parts of the NZ security industry.

There are a lot of myths based around our police been armed. I have just heard a high ranking police officer say NZ police have never been armed full time.

Not exactly true.

As the NZ police maybe not but prior to being known as that they were called the armed constabulary.

It is the same with the security industry. It was armed until 1974 when the current act was put in place. In 1974 it might of seemed overkill having armed security, but these days to not have some armed in certain areas of the industry is shear bloody mindiness.



As I have said in a previous blog there are several issues to consider when looking at arming the police.

First is the training & resources required. To be accurate with say a pistol, requires a huge amount of training (a former British SAS member quoted at us in Iraq that to be confident with a pistol it needs to be drawn 6000 times in training to make it natural) but you can look at other weapons systems that will require initial in depth training, but less on going.

The officer I seen armed on the night I was beaten up had his pistol, that with his body armour on, could not of been drawn in a confident manner in a hurry. It was all about looks.



In NZ it all comes back to money.

If you have watched the 'Bill' you will have heard them refer to SO19 which talking to members of British Police are known as ARV's (Armed Response Vehicle's)which contain groups of permanently armed police officers. As opposed to the Keystone cops situation you get at present where the AOS (Armed Offenders Squad) are doing normal police duties until required.

That to me is best option for NZ, along with stepped up training for those officers who want to have access to firearms.

Of course that is another issue. Whilst the NZ Police Association argues for arming of police, not all their members think they should be.

It is actually quite a large number of police think they should remain unarmed. Percentages quoted today have ranged from 40-50%.



Having people with firearms that do not wish to use them is an issue. Solution is to not train these people at all in firearms use unless they later wish to change. It would free up training resources & time for those that are prepared to.

There should be no stigma to that choice as not everyone can face using a firearm. Even those with the training can have trouble pulling the trigger!

Said it before & will say it again & it has been said by many others with much more experience than me.

When you are fired at, it is quite easy to return fire. Just identify your target & fire. For a soldier your training kicks in & as soon as rounds are coming your way, you start looking to identify where they are coming from to return fire.



Where it gets harder is when you are in a situation like the police, the British in Northern Ireland or us working private security in Iraq & you have to in each situation go through the ROE's(Rules of Engagement or OFOF-orders for opening fire).

The military train in the BHL(Battle Handling Lessons) followed by BHE's(Battle Handling Exercise's) to ensure each person understands their legal obligations.



For example a person shoots your mate then turns & runs. Can you shoot them?

No or not unless they turnback towards you with weapon pointing(or starting too) back towards you. Then your life or those of those whom it is your duty to protect come under threat.

It is also not as easy to pull that trigger when you have to go through that thought process.

Not everyone can do it.

http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz