What are the Solutions to our growing Crime Problem?

Kia Ora,

Yesterday I got myself involved in the debate on talkback over arming of the police. Didn't really get my point across, but some of the points coming across from the host were very good, but only part of the equation.

The first good point Danny (Danny Watson newstalkzb) was making was part of the issue is hitting the small nuisance crime.
That is where again the 0900 Suspicious concept is aimed. But he is right that that is where you stop the crime going to another level further up the chain.

Only issue is lack of resources. It is not uncommon to ring police comms to be told there are no units available or if it is Suspicious been put through the third degree.

As I said in an earlier post we even got that when it was suspected an armed robbery was about to go down. Ex Police officer on site was sure it was about to happen if not then, then at end of nights events. Five hours later nothing so recalled as the event finished. Still nothing.

So Danny has a great point, but it needs some action from government for it to happen. In the short term it will cost money, but long term it will save money when you take into account the flow on effect of crime.

His next point was that the Judges have to get hard on crime. Too often the sentences handed down are nothing but a slap with a wet bus ticket & are ignored anyway.

I was told recently that many boy racers are paying their fines by Cheque which they make out for $5 more than the fine, hence the Ministry of Justice can not cash. So a loop hole has been found.

Judges are bound though by the requirement to be giving sentences in line with others given for similar crime.

One Judge I was aware of was being so hard in his sentences, they were all getting overturned. Then when he let a young person off with a lesser sentence instead of the preventitive detention he wanted to give, he was criticized when the young person went on to murder.

People are questioning why the government recently set a minimum sentence for attacks on the like of police. Well until Judges collectively raise the bar on punishments, a standard has to be set.

Danny's other point over the arming of police & where we disagreed was by just arming every officer won't stop the crime.

That part I agree, but it will stop arguments which then esculate. Overseas very few people argue with security & even less argue with armed police. In NZ virtually every person will argue with a police officer.

I am not in favour of general arming as if someone doesn't want to carry a weapon, it is no good forcing them as you would not be able to rely on them to pull the trigger when required. If they don't have one then you know before hand.

In fact the police could use that as part of their tactics. Unarmed officers do the talking first, leaving the armed officer to stand off a little in case the situation does esculate. It satisfies The ROE's (Rules of Engagement) as it allows a step up, but ready to act if it changes quickly.

It also means resources are focussed where they will be used.

Another point he made was been armed wouldn't help in a riot situation. True, but then obviously he never did Internal Security Training when part of the Terroritorial Army as main riot squad does leave their weapons behind or sling them, but you do deploy counter snipers.

Think that is over the top! The amount of shots you now hear, in particular at night here in Christchurch, is just mind blowing.

People go "oh it is only back firing" but back firing doesn't have three bangs in quick succession, they don't have a crack & thump as we called it in the military. It also doesn't have a ricoshet or leave little holes in windows.

Most of these are just randomly fired out of moving vehicles windows, so there is not much you or the police can do unless you have a registration number.

More recently the boy racers have shown they are not above using an air rifle at least against police & the modern air rifle can kill.

http://www.foxhoundsecurity.co.nz