Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

@Savage1 I agree with you and respect you guys for wanting to be armed 24/7, it seems as of lately there is a lot about this in the media about arming the police because of the supposable increase in firearm threats & criminals arming themselves more.

But this is also where you lose a little of my support...

You say you need to be armed for moments like this? ^^^ That's fine but why can't we (civilians) defend ourselves? This is where I agree with @MassiveAttack for concealed carry, under strict reasoning & perhaps extensive training with B endorsement that is.

Because right now if there was ever a 'bump in the night' I have to fumble around with my baseball bat and deal to the threat. The perpetrator could be armed with nothing, the same as me, a knife or a "high-powered" firearm to which then my life & my families lives could come to an end. I wouldn't be able to get to my guns and the police would not be able to get to my house in time sadly.

I can see these discussions painting obscure & doubtful opinions on others but in short, if you believe in being armed for legitimate threats in today's society then so do I.

Sadly no you can't use your baseball bat, that would be excessive use of force. After asking a police woman what I should do next time I get robbed.. she basicly said if I have something and he doesn't then thats excessive force, you have to go out there, see what he's got, then go back inside to get something equal. Hopefully he waits for you.
And before you think oh I will just let the dog out! Nup, also excessive use of force.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Why the fuck would you pull a gun on a guy with a bat?
This is the issue I have....

If you were cornered by a guy with a baseball bat, or being chased down the street by someone with a bat wouldn't you? Or would you go hand to hand and risk getting your skull caved in? Pepper spray didn't work (quite common especially with mental people), has a thick jacket or probes miss on TASER.

I'm guessing you've never had a guy seriously trying to hurt you before.

Originally Posted by Savage1

If you were cornered by a guy with a baseball bat, or being chased down the street by someone with a bat wouldn't you? Or would you go hand to hand and risk getting your skull caved in? Pepper spray didn't work (quite common especially with mental people), has a thick jacket or probes miss on TASER.

I'm guessing you've never had a guy seriously trying to hurt you before.

Like I said, unless you're out of options it's excessive.
I just don't want to see our police force turning into the US police force where they pull their gun out on anyone and everyone who doesn't "comply".

Originally Posted by Savage1

If you were cornered by a guy with a baseball bat, or being chased down the street by someone with a bat wouldn't you? Or would you go hand to hand and risk getting your skull caved in? Pepper spray didn't work (quite common especially with mental people), has a thick jacket or probes miss on TASER.

I'm guessing you've never had a guy seriously trying to hurt you before.

Steven Anderson in Waitara being a good example. Rep league player armed with bat and/or golf club while off his nut on drugs. No way I would want to try stop a fit gut with a bat with a taser at under 5 meters, that is a distance that can be closed VERY quickly

Originally Posted by Tommy

Steven Anderson in Waitara being a good example. Rep league player armed with bat and/or golf club while off his nut on drugs. No way I would want to try stop a fit gut with a bat with a taser at under 5 meters, that is a distance that can be closed VERY quickly

Agreed, tricky situation, but the fact the cop was put into that situation by himself was questionable in the first place wasn't it?

Not to mention he had his gun on him, so clearly the current plan works.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Agreed, tricky situation, but the fact the cop was put into that situation by himself was questionable in the first place wasn't it?

Not to mention he had his gun on him, so clearly the current plan works.

In that event, the cop returned to the Police station (they didn't have them in the cars then) and got a Glock from there and then went back to where Steven Wallace was and confronted him.
Prior to him shooting Wallace, he was attacking a Police car that a female cop was in. That's why he was shot. That's what I recall anyway.

I think the family is still trying to have the cop charged.

Steven Anderson was the guy who killed his family and spent time in a mental hospital and was released this year.

Originally Posted by jim160

In that event, the cop returned to the Police station (they didn't have them in the cars then) and got a Glock from there and then went back to where Steven Wallace was and confronted him.
Prior to him shooting Wallace, he was attacking a Police car that a female cop was in. That's why he was shot. That's what I recall anyway.

I think the family is still trying to have the cop charged.

Steven Anderson was the guy who killed his family and spent time in a mental hospital and was released this year.

In that case with the current plans the female cop could have shot him herself. They also could have had a go at tasering him now days.

Originally Posted by Jexla

In that case with the current plans the female cop could have shot him herself. They also could have had a go at tasering him now days.

And if the taser fails, which it probably would, then they are dead with one strike to the head.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Agreed, tricky situation, but the fact the cop was put into that situation by himself was questionable in the first place wasn't it?

Not to mention he had his gun on him, so clearly the current plan works.

No it isn't working

Fourth cop bashed this month | NZNews | 3 News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Napier_shootings

Update on Police dog handler's gunpoint rescue of partner | New Zealand Police

Plenty more and not to mention the incident today.

Originally Posted by jim160

In that event, the cop returned to the Police station (they didn't have them in the cars then) and got a Glock from there and then went back to where Steven Wallace was and confronted him.
Prior to him shooting Wallace, he was attacking a Police car that a female cop was in. That's why he was shot. That's what I recall anyway.

I think the family is still trying to have the cop charged.

Steven Anderson was the guy who killed his family and spent time in a mental hospital and was released this year.

Yep wrong Steven. I believe there were three police that night, and the female was basically locked in the car.

It's ironic that his family are pushing for Mr Abbott to be convicted, seeing as they called police in the first place due to his behaviour

Whilst I can see your point here Savage, I feel like I can agree to some arming of the police under more circumstances, but not all.
Here's a quote:
"Also on Boxing Day a Hamilton policeman was attacked by two teenagers armed with a machete and a knife when he went to a house at Pukete, north of Hamilton, after reports of people fighting with weapons."

People fighting with weapons might be a good idea to turn up with more than one cop and more than one taser, maybe even a gun or 2.
Why not? We already know there's weapons involved.

Also in the case of the Napier shootings, it was a drug house warrant for someone who never renewed their firearms licence in the 90's when the licencing was changed and was also in the TF and was fired from the railways. (Yes, the railways)
I don't think I could object to police executing search warrants especially drug ones, armed.

As for the cop who had his car stolen, I'm not so sure a glock on his hip would have helped him at all, I think it would have in fact meant he would have been worse off.

My issue is with routine arming where people will have a gun pulled on them for not "complying" or any reason the police officer pleases.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Yep wrong Steven. I believe there were three police that night, and the female was basically locked in the car.

It's ironic that his family are pushing for Mr Abbott to be convicted, seeing as they called police in the first place due to his behaviour

Yeah, I can understand the shooting, but it's not like you call the police expecting them to shoot your son.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Whilst I can see your point here Savage, I feel like I can agree to some arming of the police under more circumstances, but not all.
Here's a quote:
"Also on Boxing Day a Hamilton policeman was attacked by two teenagers armed with a machete and a knife when he went to a house at Pukete, north of Hamilton, after reports of people fighting with weapons."

People fighting with weapons might be a good idea to turn up with more than one cop and more than one taser, maybe even a gun or 2.
Why not? We already know there's weapons involved.

There aren't always numbers, or firearms, available. Police deal with very fluid and unpredictable situations with no intel, something I'm guessing you have never experienced. Previously you said a baseball bat doesn't justify a firearm, so do we need to confirm what weapons are involved first before arming up?

Also in the case of the Napier shootings, it was a drug house warrant for someone who never renewed their firearms licence in the 90's when the licencing was changed and was also in the TF and was fired from the railways. (Yes, the railways)
I don't think I could object to police executing search warrants especially drug ones, armed.

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20, I bet they didn't know all of that information when they approached the address, if they were armed it would have been a better outcome.

As for the cop who had his car stolen, I'm not so sure a glock on his hip would have helped him at all, I think it would have in fact meant he would have been worse off.

How could it not help?! He had his car and dog taken off him at gunpoint because he didn't have the time to access his firearm! Or is that acceptable to you?

My issue is with routine arming where people will have a gun pulled on them for not "complying" or any reason the police officer pleases.

That's a different issue which isn't a problem in NZ, otherwise it would already be happening with TASER and batons

I think frontline cops should be taking a gun off for certain situations, not putting them on for certain situations.

It still seems a bit odd that the police like to proudly quote statistics to say how well they've been doing at reducing violent crime, and then turn around and say they need be armed all the time because its so much more dangerous and violent than it used to be.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

It still seems a bit odd that the police like to proudly quote statistics to say how well they've been doing at reducing violent crime, and then turn around and say they need be armed all the time because its so much more dangerous and violent than it used to be.

Police proudly quote the statistics.

It's the Police Association that is pushing for Police to be armed. The Police Association is like a union and is not part of the Police.