On arming the Police

Armed NZ Police make an arrest - photo from www.stuff.co.nz

Watching Detective Inspector Mark Benefield show a strong emotional response -twice- while making press statements regarding the Carmen Thomas murder enquiry I was struck with how far we are from our stereotyped model of detection; from the cold calculation machine that was Sherlock Holmes, through the “just the facts ma’am” of Joe Friday, and the cool science discipline of CSI.  Justice is supposed to be blind, with decisions made only on the facts: not the beliefs, prejudices, and emotions of the participants.  We have expected our police to conduct their enquiries in the same manner - to ensure that there is no bias.

This may seem to be an insignificant detail, but it came at the same time as the Police Minister announced that police would have more routine access to firearms while on duty – assuring us that “law abiding citizens will have nothing to fear”.  Unless of course they find themselves at the wrong time and in the wrong place, confronted by an Officer responding with heightened emotions instead of analytically.  The Ministers argument only holds water if Police Officers never make mistakes, but to be human is to be fallible, and to be emotionally engaged only increases that potential.

I am neither arguing for or against the arming of police.  I do however have an issue with how the argument and policy have developed.  Only in July last year there was an announcement  that training in firearms would be reduced within certain groups of Officers, largely because of costs.  It looks like these Officers will now be armed – and are less well prepared for it than they were a year ago.  Unstated was whether the training will be returned, and if so where the previously unaffordable concomitant costs will be met from.

The Police Association at the time referred to the fact that criminals were already armed to protect their property and against other criminals, and that police were often “collateral damage” , i.e. outside of the engagements such as warrant execution where there is already discretion about whether to carry firearms, the assaults on police which would require the use of weapons is unpredictable and opportunistic.  In that case would having the weapons stored in the car help?  We haven’t seen any analysis of how many of the Police Officers killed on duty would have been saved by a weapon in their car, and outside of foot pursuits or traffic stops where the officer proceeds with weapon drawn what they hope can be achieved.  It looks very much like the plan is to “baby step” our way towards fully armed police, using single incidents where each current policy fails as a catalyst to move public opinion and political will further down the path.

There is a danger that once a tool is introduced the carefully worded purpose will fall by the operational wayside.  Only in May 2009 The Minister said;

"I would much rather have the police able to be armed with Tasers than firearms."

It would seem they now have their cake having eaten it as well.