More cops being attacked

In my previous post I talked about citizens defending themselves, and while I was away in the bush there was yet another case of our Police are being attacked with weapons.

Two police officers ran for their lives when a routine callout resulted in a man allegedly chasing them with a metre-long samurai sword.

The officers were responding to reports of a man lying naked and drunk on the front lawn of an Otara property.

The incident comes after four separate attacks on New Zealand police officers this month – two involving machetes.

Police Commissioner Howard Broad suggested the machete assaults could be copycat attacks.

Two things are abundantly clear.

Firstly that criminals think that it is now a valid response to interest in them from the constabulary is for them to attack them with sharp, lethal instruments. The liberal panty-waists like Simon Power and his ilk will of course think the solution is for them to pass a law banning sharp weapons and making it illegal to attack Police. They ignore the fact that criminals don’t follow laws and in some respects we already have those laws in place. Banning sharp weapons will further dis-arm the general, law-abiding population, allowing criminals to have even more control over them. The answer is actually to arm our Police and stop pretending wer are living in the crime free fantasy land that inhabits Simon Power‘s and other panty-waists minds.

The second thing that we need to understand here is that if criminals are quite prepared to attack Police officers then they of course are completely willing to similarly attack a largely unarmed population without out fear of retribution or injury. Ordinary citizens are left to call on the Police for protection when it is abundantly clear that the Police are ill-equipped to defend even themselves.

The hard questions need to be asked and politicians need to step up or get out of the way.

Of course what is not mentioned is the underlying cause of all this mayhem. I bet dollars to a knob of goat-sh*t that methamphetamine abuse is the common link in all of these attacks. With long-term use the ability to reason and rationalise is destroyed…that is why you get these nutters going psycho on the Police with weapons…they have lost the ability to reason. They also know that mostly the Police are not equipped to deal with such attacks. Arming the Police would firstly protect the officers, and secondly provide a necessarily scary deterrent to shock even the most P-addled criminal into thinking twice about taking a knife to a gunfight.

The pinko panty-waists will now say that criminals will simply carry guns. Newflash…they already are…and guess what? They don’t have licences and aren’t vetted and sure as hell don’t keep their weapons safely locked away. All that only happens with law abiding citizens.

  • crabby

    Spot on WO. Glocks on the hip of every cop apart and the .223 bushmaster and\or SPAS-12 with less lethal rounds such as beanbags, capsicum balls, rubber slugs

  • crabby

    * in the boot!

  • jimmie

    Interesting that they had a Taser in the boot but couldn’t access it as there wasn’t time.

    I’ve been in those situations – and there is barely enough time to draw an appointment off ya hip let alone fossock around in ya car boot or glove box for a Taser or glock.

    If they had had it ready they could have deployed it and hopefully the prick would have a got a decent whack for his troubles.

    • bobbydelorot

      I’d agree Jimmie, unfortunately it appears that was one of the tradeoffs in getting the taser approved in the first place past the ludicrous liberal lobby. It seems ridiculous having to ask for permission *prior* to attending an incident based on the info given to comms by informants who are often anything but reliable. It was always the innocuous sounding jobs like this one, real run of the mill stuff, that would often end up being the most serious and dangerous.

  • http://n/a nasska

    At least the police, if not carrying guns, at least have access to weaponry or can call for armed back up. Additionally they choose to work under such conditions as, to the best of my knowledge, we still don’t have press gangs to recruit police officers.

    They have my sympathy but the public’s right to self protection is paramount. No organised society should have it’s citizens cowered in fear by P fried nutters.

  • robf

    It should not just be about the Police everybody should have the right to defend themselves by whatever means they feel comfortable with.
    Unless of course you can put a Police Officer on every street corner, yeah right.
    With drugs being the problem that they are for society, and the violence, and general arming of drug dealers. Why was drug offenses not included in the 3 strikes law, could it possibly be that it would make the 3 strikes law to effective.
    What about the source only about 6 factories in the world manufacture the precursor for P, yet they can’t be adequately monitored. What about more troops on the ground per square foot in Afghanistan than anywhere else in the world and the Heroin crop goes from strength to strength.
    How serious are we really.

  • animalmother

    Indeed. For all their bleating about needing to be armed to deal with the threats they face, they pretty smartly wheeled the Otahuhu gun shop owner off for a grilling at the cop shop when he quite reasonably put a couple of slugs in the puku of the machete clown.

    When the idea of police was first cooked up, in 19th century England, the plan I believe, was that they were subject to the same laws as everyone else, ie every citizen was expected to uphold the law, only difference being that the constabulary were paid to do it full-time. No crap about the police being allowed to shoot dangerous nutbags, but citizens having to eat stiff shit if a crackhead decides to pay a midnight visit. If it’s good enough for them to say it’s too dangerous to be unarmed, then it’s too dangerous for everybody to be unarmed.

    • http://n/a nasska

      Agree about the origins of the police. Everything I’ve read on the subject indicates that their intended function was to gather evidence & present it to the court. Probably someone had the bright idea that broadening their duties could result in a bureaucracy, a hierarchy & power over the populace for the chosen few.

      • animalmother

        Nah, politicans are way too decent to ever do that sort of thing, surely.

  • bobbydelorot

    Man some of you guys live in some naive little sheltered worlds where your fears are dicatated by newspaper headlines rather than reality. Although if you are indeed posting from Cromptom rather than your comfortable little middle class suburbs here in N.Z then I do apologize.

    If you can actually back up your middle aged chest beating bravado about how you are going to go all dirty harry on unarmed burglars I’d be very surprised. Or that either of you have even had any encounters with any criminals at all for that matter.

    • animalmother

      Now you are going out of your way to be a cock-knocker. Every creature on Earth, except lefties seem to accept a right to self-defence. It’s a damn long way from stating that right to, as you say cracking on we’re all Dirty Harry.

      Maybe WO should think about introducing basic comprehension tests for prospective posters on here, to prevent befuddled fellows like you embarrassing yourself.

  • bobbydelorot

    Really, so if you ran a poll on national voters it would come out overwhelming in favour of arming the general public, carte blanche access to firearms and open carry laws?

    It has nothing to do with political ideology as I am far from liberal, but it has everything to do with reality and if we lived in Capetown or the Bronx I would be right behind a push for arming the populace. But we don’t, we live in a country with one of the lowest firearm murder rates in the world, I’d prefer it stayed that way rather than turning into one of the forementioned countries.