THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1980. The armed policeman

Press, 25 August 1980, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1980. The armed policeman

An incident last month in which a policeman fired on a stolen car being driven by a teen-ager has again raised the general question: should the police carry arms? The circumstances of the incident are disquieting, but it would be unfortunate if the incident were used to justify the imposition of inflexible restrictions on the carrying of arms by the police. A stricter adherence to the restrictions already in force is all that the incident seems to call for. The common sense view is that the police should use firearms if lives are in danger, but only if lives are in danger and only if the use of firearms is the only way to avert the danger. The official policy of the force on the use of firearms embodies this principle. If policemen use firearms in other circumstances they should be subject to reprimand at least. This would appear to be required by the circumstances of last month’s incident The apprehension of car thieves simply does not-justify the use of firearms, especially if the behaviour of those thieves becomes dangerously reckless . as a result of police actions.

It is worth noting in passing that gang trouble is generally no more a justification for the use of weapons by the police than car conversion. This point would not be appropriate in this context had a police officer not mentioned gang violence as a reason for allowing the policeman who fired at the car to carry a firearm. The police force as a whole has recognised that fear of police firearms will not significantly curb gang violence and is sensibly pursuing other courses of action in endeavouring to cope with this particular problem.

A case could be made that if the circumstances justify a policeman using a firearm, they justify calling out the armed offenders squad. It is not difficult, however, to imagine circumstances in which the use of a firearm would be appropriate but in which it would not be possible - to call out a special squad. But if policemen who are not members of such a squad are to be allowed to carry firearms, it should be clearly understood that this will occur only in unusual or exceptional circumstances. New Zealand has avoided an armed constabulary for the sound reason

that if criminals know the police are armed, the criminals will be more likely themselves to carry and use arms. At the moment the presumption is still that the police are not armed. The most alarming aspect of the recent incident is that this presumption appears no longer to be entirely valid. It would be most unwise to allow a situation to develop in which people breaking the' law are not sure whether policemen are armed. If there is the least uncertainty on this score, criminals are likely to begin carrying arms, just to be on the safe side themselves. This unwanted escalation will neither discourage violent offending nor safeguard the police. Indeed, there would be more violent crimes and greater risk to policemen if this happened. The police should, therefore, maintain the present policy that district commanders can permit designated staff to carry firearms in appropriate circumstances, but at the same time provide assurances that such permission will be granted so sparingly that the presumption will remain that the police are not carrying firearms. District commanders should grant such permission only when they feel it is necessary to convince anyone tempted to use firearms themselves in the commission of a crime that the police will be able to respond rapidly in kind, without having to wait for a special squad to be assembled and issued with firearms.

This is a difficult path to tread. The Christchurch police appear to have strayed off it by creating an impression that some policemen are now readier with the trigger than is necessary. The police should not brush aside legitimate concern provoked by the incident but provide assurances that the exercise of discretion about the carrying of arms within the force will not negate the sound official policies governing the use of firearms by the police. An effort should be made to dispel any impression that. the carrying of firearms is a widespread practice, but not at the cost of administrative inflexibility which could mean that policemen are without arms readily to hand on those very rare occasions when they are needed and can be used in accord with the existing written policy on the use of firearms.