Monday, May 27, 2019

Maybe not the only one concerned?

Stuff ran two recent  items that raised concerns on the operational fitness for  the Police personal so widely armed in response to the Mosque Killings, two  months ago.

The first from an area commander lamenting his responsibility in arming all his command as ordered when he knew there were some who had not had sufficient current skill training.

The second from a lower rank, serving cop who also had reservations about the skills of some who were armed precipitously, regardless of established fitness with weapons such as the Glock and Bushmaster.

Both items mentioned lack of training time and funding for range time and ammunition, with an added problem of police being seconded away from the opportunity for scheduled range training.

I am well outside the loop current with police firearms skill updates, but based on my more recent time with fire service as a volly,  if red flags appeared on current training status (most on an annual basis),  access to a truck being manned for a callout was automatically denied, as it should be.

I am reasonably certain that some of those toting weapons could have been a greater danger than a safety factor, should active deployment using the weapons have become needed.


Noel said...

The Veteran said...

Noel ... I read those reports and I don't think they have too much relevance to what happened in and post ChCh.

The comments by the police's own own are disturbing at best and more. We don't need rambo cops on the street. Clearly the Police were out of their depth with their response although, to be fair, I don't think they had planned on anything approaching the scale of the massacre.

Certainly lessons to be leaned.

Noel said...

We don't need rambo cops on the street.

Crimes Act Section 32 from memory.

Noel said...

Sorry should have added the ROE's don't change regardless of the proficiency.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... not sure what s.32 of the Crimes Act which is the authority for constables to arrest has anything to do with 'rambo cops'.

Noel said...

Found it.
(1) Members must always be aware of their personal responsibilities in the use of firearms. Under Section 62 of the Crimes Act 1961 a member is criminally liable for any excess force used. An overriding requirement in law is that minimum force must be applied to effect the purpose. Where practical Police should not use a firearm unless it can be done without endangering other persons.

(2) Police members shall not use a firearm except in the following circumstances:

(a) to DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS (Section 48 Crimes Act 1961) if they fear death or grievous bodily harm to themselves or others, and they cannot reasonably protect themselves, or others, in a less violent manner;

(b) to ARREST an offender (Section 39 Crimes Act 1961) if they believe on reasonable grounds that the offender poses a threat or death or grievous bodily harm in resisting his or her arrest

Appears anti Rambo to me?

gravedodger said...

A couple of observations Noel:
Halatau Naitoko,

The second incident alleges 20 shots for four cattle escaped fro Auckland Abbatoir, That would be around four times what a marksman might wish for as a series of kills of surrounded trapped animals.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... the point is that inadequately trained police totting firearms is a recipe for disaster ... and its their own saying that. Much akin to the National Service recruit on a firing range at Burnham turning and pointing a loaded Sterling SMG that had jammed at me and asking what he should do now. One of my Sergeant instructors promptly did to him what he would probably be court-martialed for in todays army.

Gerald said...

Tom Hunter said...

There are similar concerns with the Police in the USA, where you would think 200 years of carrying guns, plus the whole ethos of firearms in America, would have bred a greater familiarity with them and a desire to learn to use them well.

Almost every US cop show and movie has the cops at the training range regularly blasting off hundreds of rounds of ammo at targets. But the truth is that most cops fire off a few rounds for qualification and then re-certification (often only demanded twice a year). There's training on gun safety and the like, which is all good, but not a lot on marksmanship, let alone tactical situations, where the thinking is that the SWAT teams do that.

In any case the image of US cops regularly pulling their gun and shooting is another myth. Statistically a rather large number of officers will go through their career without even aiming a gun at a bad guy, let alone shooting them.

So it's no surprise that there is a regular set of stories out of the USA of officers firing dozens of rounds at suspects before wounding or killing them, but also wounding and sometimes killing bystanders.

I doubt the NZ Police would be much different and possibly even worse, since it's just not our culture in either the wider population or in the Force itself.

Noel said...

Lack of live firing vs simulator really the issue?

Gerald said...

National MP Judith Collins has undertaken both live firing training and video simulator exercises in her former role as police minister. She said the video simulators offer more life-like scenarios.

Tom Hunter said...

That would be former Police Minister Judith Collins who revealed, during the submissions on new firearms laws, that she didn't know that under existing laws you needed a gun licence to purchase ammo.