Total recorded assaults on Police - New Zealand Police Association

New Zealand Police AssociationWrite it here! Letters to the Editor are welcome.Signed letters are preferred, but in all cases the writer’s name and address must be supplied. Names will be published unless there is a goodreason for anonymity. The editor reserves the right to edit, abridge or decline letters without explanation. Email to: editor@policeassn.org.nz orwrite it to the Editor at PO Box 12344, Wellington. Letters under 400 words are preferred.17 years in the Army butnot suitable for policing?I have read the last two issues of Police Newsand have seen a couple of replies to my letterregarding being refused entry to the NZ Policedue to my work in a “war zone”.I would like to clarify a couple of things. Iserved in the NZ Army for 17 years and hada number of deployments around the world.Although I was in Iraq, I was not in themilitary, I was a private contractor for a largecompany that was contracted to a division ofthe US State Department, charged with settingup and overseeing the new Iraqi legal system,police stations and prisons. I was requiredto undergo a psychological assessmentquestionnaire prior to being employed.We were not allowed to and did not take partin any direct military actions and only carriedweapons for personal defence and for thedefence of those we where protecting. If wefired our weapons an internal investigationwas completed and then passed to the US StateDepartment for review.In the nearly four years I spent in Iraq, Ifired my weapon twice. I had to answermany questions, and present many pagesof information about my activities and myemployer had to do the same.I was refused acceptance to the NZ Policebecause in their words I “presented a risk”.I believe they were referring to my mentalhealth, although no interviews or psychiatricevaluations were ever done, and there is noevidence of any mental illness.All interviews with recruiters were positive,and recommended me for further training.No reference to any other “stressful events” inmy life were requested, even though I havebeen first on the scene of a head-on doublefatality. This would surely be an event I wouldbe more likely to have to contend with as apolice officer.I believe I have used all avenues of redressand will never be a police officer in NewZealand. All the experience I have will now bedirected elsewhere as I search for employment.I also know of one former Special TacticsGroup (STG) member who was refused theopportunity to rejoin the Police because ofsimilar circumstances.I wish to thank those that wrote in support andhope that you will never need the experiencethat is being lost due to this policy in thisincreasingly violent and stressful society.Karl Robertson(Taupo)‘Sour grapes’ policy aroundmilitary service wranklesI was interested to read Gavin Scott-Petersen’sletter in Police News about the exclusion policyof ex-police officers who resigned to serveoverseas in war zones. I am aware of at leastsix ex-members who have been excluded bythis policy.When I joined the Police in the 1970s, therewere still a number of ex-WW II veteransworking in the job. Their experience was anexceptional asset in policing. As a servingPolice member of 35 years, having served intwo armies and as a frontline infantry soldierin Vietnam, the skills and experience I broughtwith me, I am sure, were also an asset to thePolice. During my years with the ArmedOffenders Squad (AOS) and Anti-TerroristSquads (ATS) I recall other ex-militarymembers who also served in those squadswith distinction - Graham Perry ex-Navy, andNiwa Kawha ex- Army being two that cometo mind.I’ve asked various managers about the policybut none of them can actually clarify it forme. It appears to be a ‘sour grapes policy’ onthe part of Human Resources, indicative ofthe attitude that because these ex-membersresigned, they cannot rejoin. I understand thatwhen these ex-members reapplied they had toundergo a psychological test to determine theirfitness. Yet, they still remain unacceptable tothe department.Some of these ex-members served in thesewar zones so that their families could becomemortgage free, which is commendable. Otherex-members can recall the debt burdens wehad during our careers.I find Police HR’s reasoning absolutelyappalling. I would be interested to hear fromMr Annan what the ‘issue’ is.Given this policy, are all those who servedin the military or as civilian contractors orwho served via the Police, including theCommissioner who recently visited thedeployment sites, ‘psychologically impaired’?The Commissioner actually met some of theseex-police officers who provided his personalsecurity.A response on behalf of all those who served,as to why these additional hurdles have beenapplied, from the Association and HR wouldbe appreciated.Roi McCabe(Mangawhai)The Association’s policy is that people,regardless of previous occupation, shouldbe selected for the Police on merit. Havingsaid that, no doubt there would be manyex-serviceman who would be interested tolearn that NZ Police views their serviceto their country in a negative light whenit comes to their possible employment aspolice officers. - EditorHow many more plaques inbronze will need to be added?Twenty-five years I’ve served – sevenCommissioners in that time - and how manypolice officers killed?It is often said that it will take many more ofour cops to be killed in the line of duty beforea Commissioner will eventually declare policeofficers will be generally armed.The cost to make this eventual change willbe significant. Training will have to increaseand, so too, the costs of outfitting us with theweapons and associated gear. I fear that thesecosts are the real reason that the Governmentand the Police Executive have not made thegeneral arming decision yet, despite the leveland frequency of danger in our workplace.When that day comes, there will no doubt bean increase in the shooting stats. I hope this isnot the reason for delaying the deployment ofArmed Response Vehicles for the metro areas.I value the lives of cops and the innocent,above the offenders.The Staff Safety Tactics Training (SSTT) budgetfor the change to a tiered system of traininghas not increased - it should cost more - ifwe are to regard the current firearms trainingregime as a basis on which to expand the firstresponder training. Inadequate training andout of date policies could have terrible results.Training with police firearms and having thosefirearms at hand operationally are “hand inglove” issues. It is pointless to train to fire goodrounds quickly - when the actual situation hasthe police firearm out of reach i.e locked in theApril 201081