Greg O'Connor: Police need guns as criminals take up arms

A policeman guards the Nikau St, New Lynn, address where an armed man was shot by officers after a police Taser failed to disable him. Other recent incidents have heightened calls for officers to be armed. Photo / Natalie Slade

Over little more than a week, two more incidents have brought the police arming debate into sharp focus.

Two unarmed officers were shot and wounded in Christchurch last Tuesday and a police dog was killed. On Sunday in New Lynn, armed police shot and wounded an offender after he presented a firearm at them. On both occasions, Tasers failed.

These incidents give the lie to the line that "if police arm then the criminals will arm". The sorts of criminals who might use guns are already armed and they are not armed to protect themselves against police.

Armed incidents such as aggravated robberies and family violence calls are, essentially, the classic armed offender scenarios. Police are well-equipped and drilled to deal with those through the armed offenders squad model.

We generally know from the moment we receive a 111 call what we are dealing with; an armed response can be sent immediately and the incident can be dealt with in a controlled way.

What's changed in my 35 years as a police officer - and especially the past few years - is the number of criminals who are arming against other criminals.

Over the same time we have seen enormous growth in criminal wealth driven by methamphetamine. It's no coincidence. Even low-level dealers are now frequently picking up with tens of thousands of dollars in cash as well as valuable methamphetamine or precursors.

Drug dealers are vulnerable to rip-offs. Associates, suppliers and customers are also potential double-crossers. The incentives are high and there is no such thing as "honour among thieves".

Add in the extreme paranoia, delusion, irrationality and tendency to violence associated with P use and you have a powder keg. Dealers are arming as a result.

This seachange has spilled over right across the underworld. Cannabis dealers are also being targeted for rip-offs and stand-overs.

Nine police have been shot in less than two years. With only one exception, the incidents - including the murders of Len Snee and Don Wilkinson - were all allegedly drug-related.

In all those cases, unarmed police were suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with armed and dangerous offenders while carrying out relatively routine, everyday police duties. Two were killed; six survived solely by good fortune.

If these four incidents were aberrations, the status quo in police armed capability might be acceptable. But they are not.

The increase in shootings matches the fact that more and more dangerous offenders are now carrying weapons. Searches during routine traffic stops or house warrants are now routinely turning up not only P or cannabis, but also a firearm.

A recent incident in Auckland even saw police stumble across a pistol-toting P dealer in a downtown pub.

Most of these incidents don't get much media attention because most offenders still have enough common sense to realise shooting at police is only going to make matters worse. But as the number of offenders with guns increases more of them are using those guns.

When police have been unlucky enough to get in the way recently, commentators have reacted by saying "it wouldn't have made any difference if the officers were armed".

It is simply not possible to draw that conclusion. Being armed is not a magical shield against bullets but it has an enormous impact on the situation.

I will never be convinced that the incident in Napier would have unfolded in the same way had Jan Molenaar known he was facing not one but several overtly armed police officers who could, and likely would, return fire.

Ultimately nobody knows if it would have changed the outcome because none of the police involved was armed. None of them had the chance to find out.

Len Holmwood, the neighbour who saved the lives of two police officers in Napier by grabbing Molenaar's gun, has been closer to the reality of the debate than most.

He told the Dominion Post (July 15) "the outcome would have been different if the officers had been armed ... at least they would have been able to defend themselves".

Meanwhile, the Herald editorial of July 16 claims - without any evidence - that arming police "would also result in criminals being more willing to use their weapons".

Offenders do behave differently when they know police are armed - but not in the way the Herald seems to believe.

We only need to look as far as Australia, where every police officer carries a gun, yet they hardly ever have to use them.

As Mr Holmwood says, these are cowardly attacks. Offenders have shot at police knowing they are unarmed.

Few offenders would stand in a room full of armed police and produce a firearm - and if they did, the threat could be quickly neutralised, minimising the casualties.

The incident in New Lynn over the weekend is clear proof of that.

For decades we've all been proud to live in a country where police didn't have to carry guns. But the reality is things have changed.

None of us can be proud to live in a country where police get shot on a regular basis with no means to defend themselves.

The status quo is no longer an option. The minimum we now need is to entrust every field sergeant to be permanently armed and have firearms readily accessible in every patrol vehicle for all other frontline police.

* Greg O'Connor is the president of the NZ Police Association.