POLICE Am PUBLIC Friction That Need Not, Or Should Not, Occur

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31211, 8 November 1966, Page 25

POLICE Am PUBLIC Friction That Need Not, Or Should Not, Occur

(By Our Police Reporter)

One of the trickiest problems confronting the police is judging properly the weight to be given to a complaint which comes, literally, out of the night.

About 8 o’clock one evening last winter a Christchurch man telephoned the central police station on the 111 emergency circuit. He said that shots had been fired into his house, gave his name and address, and hung up in what seemed to be a hurry.

The senior-sergeant on watch launched the inquiry by radio-telephone: “Senior-sergeant to all patrol cars in the city area—we have a complaint of shots being fired into a house in street, number . Any car in the vicinity proceed there immediately. Over.”

“659 to Senior. Am at street. Will be at address in two minutes.”

“Roger, 659. Now, be careful. You should come into the station to get a revolver first. It could be serious. Over.” “I’ll have a recce first, Senior. Any further information?”

“It appears as though the shots were fired through windows. They came from the south side of the house; so enter the street from the north end and do not go past the complainant’s house. Two other cars will be there within three minutes.” “Wilco, Senior.” “Keep in communication, 659. Keep the driver in the car. Let me know immediately if any more shots are fired. You should be armed, just in case.” “Roger, Senior. In the street now. Will take care.” The patrol discovered that the shots were from an air pistol. A young man was showing the pistol to his girl friend. He had placed a can on a boundary fence and the shots fired at it had gone through the lavatory window of the neighbouring house when the complainant was in the lavatory. There were relieved chuckles in the central police station when the facts were known.

Senseless Hoaxes The police, of course, must take every complaint at its face value and take all precautions. Much time and work are devoted to complaints which turn out to be founded on trivial or minor happenings. Hoax calls are especially senseless because they divert police—often a large number of police—from useful and, perhaps, urgent work. Generally speaking, Christchurch citizens are welldisposed towards the police and co-operative. Police and public accept a fair amount of give and take on both sides; most policemen make allowances for stresses and strains in the behaviour of persons when the police are called in. Most citizens are reasonably fair in their reactions, even though, on many occasions, some of the persons involved resent the fact that the police have been called.

The co-operation of the Christchurch public when the police seek help in serious offences, particularly those involving injury to a person, is excellent. When the police are searching for escaped prisoners, offenders who have raped a child or a girl, offenders who have committed a serious assault in the commission of a crime, then the community’s revulsion is expressed by a real desire to assist the police in bringing the offenders before the Court. Street Troubles One danger spot is the constant trouble between the police and a few groups of teen-agers who gather on the street, particularly in Cathedral square. Friction has been increased by exaggerated reports. The use of the term “riot,” in its lay sense, is an example of this exaggeration. No disorder remotely approaching the proportions of a riot has occurred in Christchurch since the ugly disturb-

ances in the tramway strike of 1931. The police are frequently just as prone to exaggerate the size and importance of incidents in which young persons are arrested for obstructing the footpath, for disorderly behaviour and, consequently, obstructing and resisting the police. [ The prime fault in this kind of friction lies with a small proportion of young persons —from university students to youths who avoid work—who set out on a premeditated campaign of “cop-baiting.” Some weeks ago I interviewed a long-haired young man. He wore a black leather jacket with golden epaulettes, and black jack-boots decorated with swastikas. He rode a powerful motor-cycle and belonged to the “FN 99” gang. Another member of this gang was involved that evening in a collision w'ith a car in Cathedral square. Police inquiries showed that the motorist was at fault.

“Cop-Baiting” The youth I spoke to was aged 19, a clean and quite agreeable lad. He said he did not know what “FN 99” stood for. “ ... It is just a gang—a crowd to belong to. We have motor-cycles, and girls and that,” he said. “I wear the swastikas to bug the police. Nothing else bugs the police like swastikas. I don’t know why. It bugs them. So that is why we wear them. They don’t mean anything to us, except they bug the police. “We like cop-baiting,” he added. “We don’t want to break the law, but we like to go as far as we can. It bugs the cops. I suppose it is a risky game, but it gives us kicks. We don’t do it much, only when the cops get stirred up or a Magistrate says something unfair about jokers on motor-bikes.” The youth did not say he wanted publicity, but he asked what newspaper I worked for and if anything would be in the paper. He told other youths and girls at the scene that there was a reporter present. Several were keen to be interviewed.

Another night, about 20 youths on motor-cycles congregated outside a cafe in Manchester street. As many girls were with them. The police were called, arrived in force, and two traffic officers also came to the scene. Fifty other spectators swiftly assembled to “watch the fun.” The motor-cycle gang saw a newspaper photographer and called out that they want their picture taken. They wanted to know “What paper will it be in?” The photographer did not oblige. The motor-cyclists and girls dispersed after some backchat and an assortment of insolent remarks and postures directed at the police. Disturbing Symptom On this occasion there was no trouble. Some of the youths might have been charged with disorderly or offensive behaviour but the police wisely used more discretion than authority.

The police often make too much of “incidents in the Square.” Most policemen on the beat are young and relatively inexperienced. They are too inclined to be looking for “trouble.” A disturbing symptom of an aggressive reaction to trouble-makers and “cop-baiters” is summed up in a phrase often used by uniform and C. 1.8. men: “Might see a bit of knuckle tonight.” By paying too much notice to extrovert youngsters and by going out to the slightest disturbance with the idea of making an arrest, policemen

are likely to pay too much attention to harmless exhibitionism. And of course, they are giving satisfaction to gangs, groups or layabouts with nothing better to do than challenge or provoke authority and imagine they are “living dangerously.” The police know that in a crowd of 200 only 20 or fewer are trouble-makers. Time and again this minority comprises the same persons. Sometimes policemen call out from a patrol car to youths in cars, on the footpath and on motor-cycles in a corner of the Square where there is no parking. They are not doing their job as well as the policeman who gets out of the patrol car and quietly, good-humouredly but firmly advises loiterers to keep the area clear.

“Cop-baiting,” especially by persons with a previous record and known to the police to be not working, is irritating. Only 10 years ago, such a person might be taken up a lane, told not to be stupid and given a kick in the pants for his pains by a policeman. Nowadays, a youth or his parents would probably lay a complaint of assault; nowadays, too, the policeman has to record every event on paper and may be disciplined for not making a report.

Summary justice administered in a reasonable manner is probably still a sound way of dealing with many young louts. If the Police Department charged a constable against whom a complaint was laid for this treatment it might well find that the court would dismiss such a charge. Nevertheless, Ignoring stupid, even mildly offensive or disorderly behaviour by young persons out to “bug” the policeman and to be the centre of attraction would lessen the friction and put such incidents in their proper perspective. Sooner or later offenders would tire of the game or break the law unequivocally and then be dealt with effectively.

Citizens may be impatient of loutish behaviour and expect police action. They do not want police action to stimulate this behaviour when the police cannot effectively repress it.